'tantamount to an enhancement of the purchasing value of the coinage in the country of its currency. It immediately augments the value of the coinage as expressed in its exchange value for bullion, unless the weight of pure metal in the coinage be simultaneously reduced to the same extent as the amount of the seigniorage. The following may serve as a test example, and avoid the necessity for the use of fractions:—"What would be the effect of a seigniorage of 1 per cent, in a country where it is imposed for the first time?" It would be this: that whilst the pieces of current coin before the imposition of the seigniorage were exactly worth their weight in uncoined bullion of the same intrinsic fineness, they would, after its imposition, be worth 1 per cent, more than their weight in bullion of the like standard.'—Mr. Hendriks' Evidence, Royal Commission on International Coinage, p. 142.

The sovereign, thus diminished in weight, would still possess exactly the same purchasing power—within the limits of the country—as it previously had. Beyond those limits, as shown by the practice of the French mint authorities, it would still retain its value. It would not be, as the present sovereign now is, undervalued in consequence of the mint charges of other nations.

An objection may be, and has already been, made to the alteration—that such a change would be unfair to all those creditors who had made contracts in the old coin, and would be repaid in the new. This objection is sufficiently disposed of by the fact that, as mentioned before, the purchasing power of the new coin will be equal to that of the old.

If any doubt existed, a further security might be given under all circumstances, by adopting the plan recommended by Colonel Smith, the late Master of the Calcutta Mint. His proposal is, 'that the new sovereign shall be changeable for gold bullion at the present price.' This would cause the value of the new coin to remain equal with that of the present coin, exactly as the value of the existing silver coinage is maintained. The present shilling, even when of full weight, is by no means worth its weight in the metal of which it is made. The pound troy of standard silver is, and has been in England, since 1817, coined into sixty-six shillings. The value of the shilling, thus debased, is maintained at the proper level by the coin being limited, as a legal tender, to 42s. by tale. The result is obvious. Silver of the value of something like 18s. does service for 20s. What is more, this has been the case for years, and no one has ever been injured by it. And the same effect would surely follow if Colonel Smith's plan were carried out. If the holder of 100 sovereigns were to desire to convert them into gold, he would take them to the Bank of England, who would give, as now, a certain quantity of bar gold of standard fineness, at £3 17s. 101/2d. per oz. The sovereign would, to a certain extent, become a 'token' coin; that is to say, each sovereign would, as the shilling is now, be worth something less than the stamped value. But it would, within the limits of the convention, that is, within the limits of the civilized world, be current exactly to the extent of its nominal value; and any one desiring to employ it beyond the limits of the Convention would be placed in exactly the position in which he is now, by simply taking his gold coins to the Bank of England and exchanging them for bar gold. A further advantage would arise from this diminution in weight of the sovereign. As the sovereign is worth a fraction over ten rupees in India, it follows that the internationalization of the English sovereign, and the reducing it by about twopence, to make it equal with twenty-five francs or five dollars, would immediately rectify the present difference between the British sovereign and the 10-rupee piece; and the rupee, the British florin, and the Australian florin would, in the international scheme of coinage, ultimately become absolutely identical, so far at least as gold coinage is concerned.[4]

Any alteration of coin in so backward a country as India would have to be introduced with great caution; but the advantage of assimilating the currency to that of this country cannot be doubted. There are great disadvantages in allowing coins, nearly identical in value, to circulate together; and if the 'sovereign' remains at the present value, what Mr. Jevons anticipates may not be unlikely to happen.

'It is only necessary for the Continental nations and the United States to issue, as is already proposed, a piece of twenty-five francs in order to supplant the sovereign; for, as the new coin would have the value of a well-worn sovereign, it would soon be accepted equally with the sovereign in all foreign countries and our colonies, if not at home. At the same time, the difference of value being about 2d. in the pound, would ensure the melting of all new sovereigns in preference. Thus, however many sovereigns are coined, we should never succeed in dislodging the 25-franc piece from circulation. More even than at present our British Mints would perform the labours of the Danaïdes, ever pouring forth new and beautiful coin, at once to disappear into the bullion dealer's crucible. The sovereign would be an evanescent coin, constantly liable to be recoined with the permanent impress of a foreign mint. Common sense, as well as invariable experience, tells us that we must be worsted in this contest of the heavier and the lighter coin.'—Professor Jevons' Paper in the Journal of the Statistical Society, vol. xxxi., p. 429.

The extent of the populations employing the 20-franc piece as their principal gold coin, has already been mentioned. Some persons may say, 'It is true these nations more than double in number the persons whose basis of accounts is the pound sterling; but still there may be more "sovereigns" in existence than 20-franc pieces.' Now, it is by no means as easy to enumerate the coins in a country as to make a census of the inhabitants. You may count the dwellers in the poorest hovel. But you cannot count the coins hidden under the hearth, or in the end of the stocking. It is, however, by no means clear that the amount of British gold coin in existence is as much as that circulated by several other nations. Sovereigns, so far from preponderating, appear to be in an absolute minority. At the Paris Conference of 1867, the amounts of the gold coinage of Great Britain, France, and the United States were stated as follows:—

France, from 1793 to 1866, of the
value of 		£262,444,160
Great Britain, 1816 to 1866187,068,290
United States, 1792 to 1866169,107,318[5]

It is, of course, impossible to state with certainty what proportion of coins struck at any mint at any time remain in existence afterwards. Some coins are called in, some are lost, others find their way to the melting-pot: it is impossible to say how many continue to circulate. One thing, however, is certain, that whatever casualties of this nature any coins are exposed to, British coins feel to the fullest extent. The rapidity of circulation in Great Britain tends to great deterioration from wear and tear. The absence of seigniorage causes our coinage to be relatively undervalued in proportion to other gold coins.[6] Even supposing British coins to remain current as long as those of other nations, they are certainly less numerous. They are probably far less frequently hoarded. The coinage returns from 1851 to 1866 inclusive show the relative proportions even more clearly than the earlier statements. Our Mint was less fertile during that time, than either the Mints of France or the United States.

years 1851 to 1866.
Great Britain struck in gold coins£91,000,000
The United States131,600,000
France197,400,000
420,000,000