THE PROBLEM OF THE RUPEE - Page 371

356 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

each nation,* to protect their silver currency and particularly the small change, should disrupt the monetary harmony prevailing among them all, they were compelled to meet in a convention, dated November 20, 1865, which required the parties, since collectively called the Latin Union, to lower, in the order to maintain them in circulation, the silver pieces of 2 francs, 1 franc,

50 centimes, and 20 centimes from a standard of [900]

1000 [ fine ] to [835]

1000 [ and to make them subsidiary coins.† It is true that] the Government of India also came in for trouble as a result of this disturbance in the relative value of gold and silver, but that trouble was due to its own silly act.‡ The currency law of 1835 had not closed the Mints to the free coinage of gold, probably because the seignorage on the coinage of gold was a source of revenue which the Government did not like to forego. But as gold was not legal tender, no gold was brought to the Mint for coinage, and the Government revenue from seignorage fell off. To avoid this loss of revenue, the Government began to take steps to encourage the coinage of gold. In the first place, it reduced the seignorage§ in 1837 from 2 per cent, to 1 per cent. But even this measure was not sufficient to induce people to bring gold to the Mint, and consequently the revenue from seignorage failed to increase. As a further step in the same direction, the Government issued a Proclamation on January 13, 1841, authorizing the officers in charge of public treasuries to receive the gold coins at the rate of 1 gold mohur equal to 15 silver rupees. For some time no gold was received, as at the rate prescribed by the Proclamation gold was undervalued.¶ But the Australian and Californian gold discoveries altered the situation entirely. The gold mohur, which was undervalued at

† For more particulars of the Latin Union, cf. Laughlin, op. cit, pp. 146-9.

‡Cf. H. of C Return, East Indian (Coinage) 254 of 1860.

§ Ibid. p. 8.

Ibid, p. 10.