Inclosure 5 in No. 3.
STATEMENT of Sums paid into the Commissariat Treasury Chest from the Postmaster at Hong Kong, from January 1 to December 31, 1857.
May
June
July
August
Date.
Dollars.
Sterling.
Total.
£
S.
d.
£
January
338 0 0
S d. 338 0 0
February
192 15 0
192 15 ▸
March
122
44 0 0
69 8 4
April
38 а 7
38 0 7
230 5 0
230 5 0
434 0 0
434 0
0
300 7 7
300 7
7
0
297 2 0
348 19 0
347 11
8
347 11
8
369 3 0
369 3 0
372 0 0
122
3,312 3 10
372 0 0
3,337 12
2
£25 8s. 4d.
September
October
November ..
December
Totals
In sterling
Commissariat, China, Canton, March 24, 1858.
(Signed)
22 24
1994
297
348 19
W. TYRONE POWER, Deputy Commissary-General.
Inclosure 6 in No 3.
STATEMENT of Sums paid into the Commissariat Treasury Chest by the Military Storekeeper, from January 1 to December 31, 1857.
Date.
00
co
Total.
564 17 7
67 10 0
217 18 6
Dollars.
Sterling.
January
$ 1,234
£
5. d.
£ 5. d.
24 19 2
282 0 10
February
430
402 2 4
491 14 0
March
781
402 3
5
April
320
0 16 8
May
217 18
6
June.
500
21 0 9
125 4 1
July
2,031
44 0 4
467 2 10
August
351
37 0 5
110 2 11
September
1,119
0 1 7
233 4 1
October
637
90 16 8
223 10 10
November
974
78 13 1
281 II 5
Totals
8,377
1,319 12 11
3.004 17 1
In sterling
£ 1,745 4s. 2d.
Commissariat, China, Canton, March 24, 1858.
(Signed)
W. TYRONE POWER, Deputy Commissary-General.
$
7
No. 4.
Memorandum by Mr. Arbuthnot.
SIR CHARLES TREVELYAN has, in his paper dated the 8th June last, brought under the notice of the Government, in a striking point of view, the heavy charge to which the public has been subjected in raising funds for the Treasury Chest at Hong Kong. As the measure of the loss incurred is the difference between the rate at which the dollar is issued for pay and salaries, according to the terms of the Proclamation of 1844, and the cost of procuring that coin at the current rate of exchange, he has, not unnaturally, attributed the inconvenience to the effect of that Proclamation, and sought a remedy in an alteration of its provisions. I am afraid, however, that a more extended consi- deration of the monetary condition of China will, at least, raise a doubt regarding the propriety of this conclusion, or the efficacy of the proposed remedy. It may indeed, be found that the Proclamation of 1844 has tended to aggravate the inconvenience complained of, but a doubt may arise whether this effect has not been owing to inherent defects in the system established, and whether, conse- quently, in seeking palliatives by an adaptation of the same system to altered circumstances, the remedy may not prove to be worse than the disease.
I am far from presuming to think that the opinions which I have formed on this very complicated question are beyond dispute; but I shall best discharge the duty which has been imposed upon me, if I state candidly the reasons which have led me to found on admitted facts conclusions opposed to those contained in Sir Charles Trevelyan's Memorandum.
It is observed that the settlement of the currency of Hong Kong in 1844 was one of a series of operations upon the currency of the British Colonies which began in 1838. These operations commenced in the West Indies, and 1 think that much light will be thrown on the subject if we can ascertain the reasons why the system, which obtained complete success in that quarter of the globe, has been productive only of confusion in China. The principles which govern metallic currency are of universal application. It may be assumed as an axiom that no regulation which contravenes those principles can have permanent success; and in case a system, which has been proved by experience to work efficiently in one country, fails in its operation in another, we may surely predicate, not that the theory on which the system is founded is at fault, but that some material condition has been overlooked, which prevents its effectual application.
Into the West Indies, as into other American Colonies, the British settlers carried with them originally the form of money accounts of the mother- country; but as the supply of coins for circulation was obtained from the Spanish provinces, it became necessary to adapt them to the system of account in use, by rating each for currency according to its supposed value expressed in the terms of British money. The errors to which this necessity gave rise, and the causes of them, have been so clearly and accurately described in Mr. Pennington's work on the currency of the British Colonies,* that it is unnecessary to enter here into particulars. It is sufficient to observe that in each Colony different rates were assigned to the coins of Spain and South America. Arbitrary valua- tions were adopted without regard to any principle, and the confusion applied not only to the silver coins but to the gold coins in circulation. Hence the pound currency represented in no Colony the value of the pound sterling, and in each Colony a different value. The confusion arising from local legisla- In tion was further complicated by the proceedings of the Home Government. the West Indies the doubloon was generally overvalued relatively to the dollar, and gold became, therefore, practically the standard of value in those Colonies. The Order in Council of 1825, however, referred only to the silver coinage, and A higher rate was thus declared 4s. 4d. sterling to be equal to the dollar. assigned to that coin than its intrinsic contents of precious metal justified,
✦ I wish here to remark, that most of the information which I have obtained on questions relating me by to currency, was originally derived from facts and observations obligingly furnished to Mr. Pennington. Further inquiry and experience has only served to satisfy nie of the soundness of the principles and the great accuracy which characterise his writings on this intricate science. It gives me confidence in the opinions which I have expressed, to learn, on communication with Mr. Pen- nington, that he concurs in my conclusions ou the subject.
105
į
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.