DE PARIEU, Vice President of the Conference to Clavery , Secretary of the Conference, June 19, 1867

International Monetary Conference.–Second sitting.

Mr. de Parieu presiding. The sitting opened at ten o’clock. Present, the commissioners who attended at the first meeting, with exception of his excellency Djemil Pacha and Mr. Vrolik, the latter being indisposed. M. Feer Herzog, member of the Swiss national council, takes his place among the delegates. The president informed the conference of a. communication from the ambassador of the Sublinfe Porte, who, not being able to attend the sitting, has designated Colonel Essad Bey, military attaché of the embassy, to attend the discussions of the conference until the arrival of Mihran-Bey-Duz, member of the grand council of justice and director of the mint at Constantinople, special delegate of the Ottoman government. Colonel Essad Bey was admitted to participate in the labors of the commission.

The minutes of the first sitting being read and adopted, the president addressed the delegates as follows:

“Gentlemen, you heard at your last sitting the words by which the Marquis de Moustier, minister for foreign affairs, president of this conference, expressed to you, with all the authority of his high position, his thanks and the desires of the French government for the success of the labors which you are willing to enter upon with us in search of the proper means of development of a monetary unification, happily undertaken in 1865, with the sympathetic concurrence of M. Drouyn de Lhuys. You have been pleased to charge me with the preparation of a detailed programme for your labors, with the collaboration of six members of your conference, representing the more considerable states in the diverse groups among which the fundamental monetary systems of the world are distributed. It was incumbent on us to set to work, regretting to be deprived of the assistance of so many eminent men who could not be placed on the sub-committee, but whose precious co-operation will not fail us here.

“The ‘questionnaire’ (interrogatories) which we prepared for you yesterday, gentlemen, has been distributed to you, and I ask permission to present to you a few brief remarks on the spirit in which it has been drawn up, and on the nature of the questions which may in some sort arrange themselves side by side with those which it includes.

“The monetary systems in use among various nations certainly bear traces of accidental varieties traceable to chance and the former isolation of nations, but it is incontestable that some of these varieties are not altogether fortuitous, but have relation to the economic condition of the countries in which they have been carried into practice.

“In this condition, monetary unifications, long desired, can be realized in our days only in the proportion in which these economic conditions can be approximated, and under which the monetary systems are less widely distant from what I would wish to call their point of maturity. To discern, on the one side, what relates to the circumstances which affect the economic history of nations, and on the other that which is fundamental in monetary science, is now our mam endeavor; for if individuals and nations separate on what may rest on arbitrary will or caprice, they easily come together on a true and calm consideration of their situations.

“Notwithstanding this conviction, we have not been willing that all the doctrinal and scholastic questions which pertain to monetary science, a science still imperfect, should be textually laid down in the programme of your labors. They may present themselves incidentally, and, to a certain extent, are tacitly included. The questions we have the honor to submit to you all have a practical character, which we hope will meet your approval, as circumscribing difficulties and perhaps avoiding some idle problems. Allow me, in consideration of the number and the delicacy of the questions which, notwithstanding our reserve, it has been our duty to lay before you, to briefly invoke in advance your patient co-operation.

“The task assigned tous is difficult as the minister for foreign affairs so judiciously remarked, but in my opinion it is powerfully commended to our efforts.

“The Roman empire had imposed on the ancient world monetary unification. We are assured that in the thirteenth century the religious and commercial ascendency of Italy made the golden florin current throughout all Christendom. Since that time the accidents of war have occasionally extended the range of certain monetary systems. An age which, like ours, has already affected so much for the approximation of nations by the community of the material means of intercommunication, and of certain legislative institutions guaranteeing mutual interests, from the suppression of the droit d’aubaine down to international conventions for the execution of judgments and the extradition of parties, charged with crime; from postal, telegraphic, and revenue conventions down to such às protect literary property; an age, the index of which, adopting the expression of one of the members of this conference at a former meeting, is the increasing recognition of the solidarity of the interests of all nations; an age which also honors and encourages the genius of peace, should it not require the peaceful discussion of the means of discharging, by the establishment of monetary unification, its debt to civilization? Permit me then, gentlemen, to count upon your indulgent aid, as you are assured of my devotion and my impartiality in pursuing this great task. If it is not for us to accomplish it immediately, I doubt not we are called on to prepare what will be useful in the future ”

After this address, which was received with marks of unanimous assent, the “questionnaire,” (or interrogatories,) prepared by the sub-committee in the following terms, was read to the conference:

Questionnaire.

1. By what means is it most easy to realize monetary unification; whether by the creation of a system altogether new, independent of existing systems—and in such case what should be the basis of such system—or by the mutual co-ordination of existing systems, taking into account the scientific advantages of certain types, and the number of the populations which already have adopted them? In this case, what monetary system should be principally taken into consideration, reserving the changes of which it might be susceptible for making it perfect?

2 Is there a possibility of establishing at this time identities or partial coincidences of monetary types on a wide scale, on the basis and with the condition, of the adoption of the silver standard exclusively?

3. Is there, on the contrary, a possibility of attaining this result on the basis and with the condition of the gold standard exclusively?

4. What of the like result in proceeding on the basis and with the condition of the adoption of the double standard, with the establishment of an identity of relations in all countries between the value of gold and the value of silver?

5. In case of a negative on the three preceding questions, would it be possible and beneficial to establish identities or partial coincidences of monetary types on an extended scale on the basis, of silver coins, leaving each state at liberty to simultaneously regulate the standard of gold?

6. Would it be more possible and more beneficial to establish identities or partial coincidences of gold coins, leaving each state to regulate the standard of silver?

7. On the hypothesis of the affirmative solution of one of the two preceding questions, and following the distinctions which that alternative imports, would the advantage of internationality which coins of the metal taken as the common standard would require, be a sumcieut guarantee for their being kept in circulation in each state, or would it be necessary beyond that to stipulate, either for a certain limit in the relation between the value of gold and that of silver, or for the case where the international coins would run the risk of being completely expelled from circulation in some of the contracting states?

8. Is it necessary to the success of monetary unification to constitute at this time a unity everywhere identical for metallic composition, weight, and denomination; and in that case, upon what basis?

9. Would it be of advantage, in case gold should be adopted ás the international metal, that the types of that money, determined by the monetary convention of the 3d of December, 1865, to promote unification, and consequent reciprocity, should be completed by new types; for example, by coins of 15 francs and of 25 francs? In this case what should be their dimensions?

10. Would there be an advantage, under certain hypotheses—for example, in case of the affirmative on questions three or six—to regulate by common obligations certain points relating to silver coins or base coin, either in regard to their composition and standard or their limits of admission in payments, or to the quota of issue of each?

11. Is it practicable to define precisely the means of control which could be established for securing exactness in the striking of the common types of international money?

12. Aside from immediate practical possibilities, the object of the preceding questions, could any ulterior solutions be attained by doctrinal decisions, and on grounds of principle, with a view to increase in the future the approximations already effected in the past two years in Europe, or that could be immediately realized in this monetary matter?

The president calls for discussions of the totality of the questionnaire. No one claiming the floor, the draught of the questionnaire was adopted, and the investigation of the first question was commenced.

Mr. Mees declared that if he could admit the immediate realization of the unification of coinage, he would give the preference to the first of the two alternatives. In this case, in effect, the creation of a new system, avoiding all national susceptibilities, would seem to him the best way to attain the end. But it does not seem possible to him that complete uniformity can be speedily obtained, and therefore he considers the second alternative as being alone of a nature to produce actual practical results.

The Count d’Avila did not hesitate, either, to place himself on the second alternative* If the different states found themselves obliged, by the establishment of a system altogether novel, to change simultaneously their monetary regulations, the difficulties of the attempt would be multiplied in such manner that they would become insurmountable. la respect to the existing systems which should especially be taken under consideration, the Count d’Avila indicated the convention of December 23, 1865. The points then essential for solution, and for the adoption of which the delegate from Portugal was ready to vote, were, 1st, one standard only; 2d, the gold standard; 3d, reduction of the pound sterling to 25 francs; 4th, reduction of the American dollar to five francs; 5th, the adoption of the gold coin of five francs as the monetary unit.

On these bases an agreement would be easy between France, England, and the United States, and would sooner or later rally also the other countries. It would only be necessary that there should be identity of weight and of standard between the pieces—that the fineness of the English coin should be brought from ¹¹/12 to ⁹/10. The last named standard tends more and more to prevail as to gold; it has been adopted by Spain for coin of this metal and for the silver dollar, which is the basis of the Spanish system, but the coinage of which has ceased since the standard of other silver coinage has been lowered to 810. In Portugal, where, as in England, coin was made ¹¹/12 fine, and where the mintage at this standard has been very restricted, the Count d’Avila thought the government would doubtless consent to a recoinage, the cost of which would be covered by the lowering of the standard.

What was more essential in the view of the delegate from Portugal was, that an agreement should take place between England, France, and the United States. This example would have a decisive effect. In any event, if the commissioners from the different countries would indicate at this time in a summary manner, as he has himself done, their views on the project of arrangement, the Count d’Avila thought nothing could be more adapted to hasten, as well as to elucidate, the progress of the discussion.

Mr. Fort amps could have wished that the question of standard was first established. It is an initiative point which it is convenient to settle at once, in order to base the deliberations on foundations as prerise as possible.

Mr. Herbet remarked, that by reason even of the importance of this last question, there would be inconveniences in bringing it at once under discussion. It would be of advantage if delegates from the same state could come preliminarily to an understanding among themselves, and ask, if needful, instructions from their governments. The absence of the Spanish delegate, who is shortly looked for, is so much the more to be regretted, because Mr. José Polo would bring a large experience to bear on these subjects; at present, therefore, it might be well to confine ourselves to an exchange of general views on this point.

M. de Parieu explained that the first question had been framed in such manner as to embrace an order of ideas much more extensive than the question of standard. The alternatives therein presented are not pure hypotheses: the establishment of a new system having for unity the gram of gold; the generalization of the system having for basis the standard of silver, which, according to the Brussels committee, whose views have been communicated to the conference, should be five francs; unification by means of approximation between the systems in operation: all these doctrines have been supported in the newspapers or in special publications.

Baron de Hock shared in the opinion of Count d’Avila on the impossibility of bringing about the acceptance of an entirely new system, and completely breaking up inveterate habits. In Germany we find in respect to this matter a striking example: there was a wish to introduce in the German states a coin which was not correspondent with any existing types. Although it was the most rational, and accorded perfectly with the metric system, it could not find its way into calculations. The gold crown only passed from the mint into the melting-pots of the goldsmiths. It is, as expressed in the second sentence of the first question, by the mutual co-ordination of existing legislation, by taking into account the scientific advantages of certain types and the number of populations which have adopted them, that a solution may be found. Among the systems actually in vigor, which is the one which would serve most advantageously as the basis of this approximation?

It would be, said the commissioner from Austria, the convention of 23d December, 1865, provided it were to undergo certain modifications, and the new agreement should rest upon the principle of the gold standard exclusively. This metal, which has spread in such considerable amounts through the European market during the last 20 years, would be the most convenient agent for a universal monetary circulation.

M. Feer Herzog agreed with Baron de Hock on the fitness of adopting the second alternative proposed in the questions.

There is in France a school, important because of the scientific authority of its adepts, which admits no other monetary unity than metric unity in round numbers; and proposes to take for unit a weight of five grams of gold of 9-10ths fineness.

This theoretic solution would be wanting in one essential quality, that of practicability; at the time we have arrived at, we cannot invent a monetary unit which is not in relation with any type actually existing.

The franc itself has been compelled not to depart too far from the livre tournois in order to make itself acceptable, and, as the Baron de Hock has reminded us, the gold crown, containing 10 grams of fine gold and weighing little more than 11 grams, has not been able to get into circulation in Germany because it is not adapted to the florin of Austria, nor the florin of Bavaria, nor the thaler of Prussia. By the very force of things it is a foreign coin, the napoleon, which represents beyond all others the monetary circulation of gold in Germany.

In a word, added M. Feer Hekzog, when the unification of monetary systems is discussed, it is, above all, necessary to inquire whether existing legislations do not present the elements of equation and of approximation. We must take into account the habitudes long ago formed of the great monetary reservoirs already created.

Without doubt, the metric system, in its application to weights and measures, satisfies by its admirable co-ordinations the necessities of practical character, as well as the exigencies of theory; but to desire to impose it, coextensively, in all its rigor, in matters of coin, would be to encounter obstacles which mere considerations of practical utility would not have removed.

In the opinion of M. Feer Herzog, the system of the monetary convention of December 23, 1865, would best assist the equations of the English sovereign and the American dollar, and it would be sufficient to add some improvements, especially in what concerns the standard. Seventeen years ago the question was much discussed in Switzerland, and that country, which then had to choose between the diverse systems in application in the neighboring states, has only had to congratulate herself on having given the preference to that which is actually in force in the confederation.

M. Jacobi adopted in full the order of ideas developed by M. Feer Herzog. He would have been glad that a relation should exist between coins and the systems of weights and measures, but, in the double view of science and practice, he saw no necessity for establishing such relations to the prejudice of other more important interests. He could not, therefore, regard as serious the reproach cast on the gold coin of France, as having widened the breach in the French metric system, the integrity of which he acknowledged, and in favor of which he had categorically expressed himself on another occasion. The creation of an entirely new coinage was so much the less opportune that he would not let the occasion pass without noticing the agreement, perhaps accidental, but in fact almost complete, which exists between the intrinsic value of the principal French coins and those of Russia, which he represents in this assembly. Thus, the silver rouble coincides very nearly with four francs, the difference not being greater than the limit of the tolerance. In the same way the demi-imperial has a value only 15 kopeks higher than the 20-frane gold piece.

M. Hermann, replying to a remark of M. de Hock, observed that if the gold crown has not kept in circulation it has been because it was not legal coin, and was not received in the public banks.

M. Stas would prefer the establishment of an entirely new monetary system, and that the conference assume as its mission to settle principles and not expedients in practice. To follow the latter course would be to leave traces in snow, not to engrave footprints in rock. The one would not create anything durable; on the contrary, it would prepare difficulties; for the future monetary unification will only be reached by first laying down an immovable basis, and in that M. Stas, contrary to the views of M. Feer Herzog, declared himself the partisan of the opinion of the economists, in the scientific point of view as well as in its application. The creation of a system based on a unit of gold of 5 or 10 grams would offer the immense advantage of having it more readily accepted by all nations, às it would avoid all national susceptibility. Doubtless the adoption of the new unit would require the general reminting of all coinage, but this recoin age would bring with it a definitive system sanctioned by science.

The system of equations among the coins of different countries, in accordance with those of the convention of 1865, would also bring about the necessity of recoinage for the countries not parties to that convention. But would this recoinage have the needed immutability? M. Stas did not think so, and added that in this respect he spoke disinterestedly, considering his position as a representative of one of the governments cosigners of the act of 1865; but he looked at the question from the stand-point of the interests of England and the United States. From England is asked the equation of the pound sterliog with 25 francs. This coin of 25 francs, of itself, will offer certainly some advantages, but what inconveniences will not its divisions produce? The half would be 12 francs 50 centimes, a number already fractional, and therefore inconvenient, and this inconvenience will only increase with successive subdivisions. As for the United States, the difference between the dollar and the five-franc piece renders the equation particularly difficult.

M. Stas added that, in his view, there does not really exist pieces of 20 francs, of 10 francs, of 5 francs, seeing that no piece of 20 francs, for example, is exactly the one hundred and fifty-fifth part of a kilogram. Mathematically speaking, the kilogram cannot be divided into 155 equal portions. With stronger reason, it cannot be, in the order of material facts. That would not be with a metric unity of gold; and it is only by manufacturing from all coins a new monetary system that we can reasonably hope to arrive at the establishment of a common measure in the values of various countries.

The President asked M. Stas if he speaks in the name of the Belgian government, or if this is his own personal opinion only.

M. Fortamps declared that the opinion expressed by M. Stas is shared by the ministers of finance of Befgium, but the Belgian government would not refuse to acquiesce in other propositions which should be adopted by the conference.

M. Meinecke thought it of prime necessity to adopt as the base of the new system a system already recognized and reduced to practice. He did not pretend to ask the sympathies of the conference in favor of the Prussian monetary system, for he thinks that the standard of gold in the countries which have adopted it canno{be replaced by the standard of silver in force in Prussia only. Prussia, then, must renounce its standard if she wished to rally under a general monetary union. However, Prussia is content with the silver standard; the monetary circulation of which it is the basis is excellent, and there is no urgent reason for introducing there a change so considerable as that which would result from the change of this standard. On the other hand, the difficulty of adopting the gold standard is much greater for Prussia than for any other country. Nevertheless, without having the thought of modifying at this time its monetary system, the Prussian government would not fail to take thè matter into consideration if the labors of the conference should aim at establishing a basis for a general monetary arrangement. She would, study with cafe the best means to connect her with it, and when resolutions in this respect shall have been adopted, she would communicate them to her northern confederates, whose concurrence is indispensable, and also to the states of south Germany, her cosigners of the treaty of 1857. M. Meinecke adds that with this reservation he would take part in the discussion, and would give his vote.

M. Feer Herzog, replying to the remarks of M. Stas, said that the metric system would not probably claim scrupulous respect for its smallest parts? The metre, which is the basis, has not, practically, that sure scientific quantity of length which constitutes its definition. The terrestrial spheroid, according to one of the dimensions on which the metre is calculated, presents irregularities, and there could therefore not be found in the metre itself that mathematical perfection which M. Stas seeks for. Nevertheless, the metric system offers great advantages, especially in the co-ordination of the different magnitudes which it includes, and which facilitate calculations.

It is certain that neither the 20-franc piece nor the 5-franc piece represent a fixed round number of grams, and in this point of view it would not be possible to give of them in grams a mathematical definition. But there is nothing to hinder the definition of the napoleon by indicating the round number (155) which a kilogram includes, or rather that it should be defined by the fractionary number of grams which represent its weight, neglecting the decimals beyond the thousandths decimals which practically are of no importance and have only an interest purely scientific. It is not indispensable to the goodness of coin that it should be metrically proportioned.

It has been said it would be necessary to remint the English sovereign. That is a point for discussion. There is between the sovereign and the 25-franc piece a minimum difference of 20 centimes only. But this difference is very little beyond the limit of the tolerance; the reminting of the sovereigns would therefore not be of absolute obligation, and it would be possible to keep in circulation the pieces now in use, provided only that the new ones should be coined with the minimum of reduction indicated. M. Feer Herzog adds that as for the objection raised by M. Stas in respect of thè United States, he can reply, that according to a letter from Senator Sherman, which had been communicated to him by Mr. Ruggles, member of the conference, opinions are pronounced in America for lowering the dollar value. That country is, therefore, ready, and the objection of M. Stas falls of itself.

In what regards the division of the sovereign, in case the value of that coin should be brought to 25 francs, it would not be necessary to have coins of 12 francs 50 cents. The pound sterling would theoretically become to France a multiple of a new monetary unit which would be two francs 50 cents, a unit of which it would be the decuple, and consequently there would be no occasion to apprehend the numerous decimals which would follow the successive subdivision of the sovereign of 25 francs, as there would be on the hypothesis of the creation of coins of 12 francs 50 cents and of b’ francs 25 cents.

The Baron de Hock observed to M. Feer Herzog that the metre is a unit, not merely scientific but also real; witness the metre kept at the department of justice; the monetary unit might be kept in the, same way. He was, besides, of the same opinion with M: Feer Herzog in relation to the division of the pound sterling, and added, that in Austria it is the intention to make coins of 25 francs. These coins will bear the name of 10 florins, and as for their subdivisions, the monetary commission at Vienna, presided over by Baron de Hock, has deeided against a coin of 12 francs. 50 cents, and preferred that of 10 francs, or four florins. There is nothing to prevent England from doing likewise. The objection of M. Stas, therefore, has not all the weight that he supposed it to have.

M. Broch was of opinion that monetary unification must be effected, not only in view of the convenience of travellers, but above all for the sake of commerce it would be proper to have an understanding in respect to the subdivisionary coins as well as of gold coin in the interest of the laboring classes. It is essential that the coinage should everywhere offer subdivisions as equivalent as possible, so that the laborer who often has need of a fractional coin may not be the sufferer from variations which might exist in the diverse monetary systems respecting small change, and may be enabled to estimate correctly the real cost of his limited purchases. It is therefore for identities on the whole monetary scale that M. Broch reserved his approval, and not for simple partial coincidences between gold coin.

He declared himself, moreover, for the system previously recognized by the convention of 1865, and thought the tie which connects the gold coinage and the metric system (155 napoleons to the kilogram) was sufficient, without there being need to create a hew system, as M. Stas wishes to do. But it was to be remarked that the standard only of silver is in force in Sweden and Norway, and that, moreover, the commerce of those united kingdoms being principally with Germany, especially Hamburg, their adhesion to a monetary union would of necessity be subordinated to the preliminary adhesion of northern Germany.

The President, without contradicting the tendencies of M. Broch, must observe that they presuppose a preliminary reminting of all the gold and silver coinings actually in circulation in the states which would take part in the monetary union, while by a system of equations the reminting would not bear upon the fractional coins, but only on the large pieces, a distinction which M. Stas has not taken into account.

Mr. Graham, through Mr. Rivers Wilson, replying to the assertion of M. Feer Herzog that sovereigns actually in circulation might be kept so because of the trifling difference which would separate them from the new 25-franc coins, said that, if it be true that the 20 centimes of difference are almost comprised within the limits of the tolerance, it is not the less true that the English government would make it a point of honor not to avail itself of these limits. There would, therefore, be serious inconvenience in leaving in circulation sovereigns of 25 francs 20 cents. In case of a new emission of sovereigns reduced to 25 francs, it* would follow that the people, accustomed to divide by 20, would call for the piece of 20 francs; thence the necessity for a second recoinage, and, in such case, the abandonment of the sovereign. The immediate adoption of the French system would be preferable.

M. Feer Herzog remarked, that if the sovereign be reduced to 25 francs, and be divided, we obtain the double of the present shilling and not the franc. He added, that this double shilling exists in fact because it is the English florin, and consequently the reduction of the sovereign would not lead to its abandonment.

Mr. Ruggles said it would be as impossible to abolish the expression of the dollar in the United States as that of the sovereign in England, but that both might be retained in reducing their intrinsic values. For the sovereign it would be a reduction of only 20 centimes,; for the dollar, on the other hand, the reduction would be 3½ per cent, on its value. The United States were ready to make this sacrifice in view of monetary unification; such was the opinion of the American people, and after the next winter a general reminting of coin however considerable, might commence. But this reminting must be made now or never, for if we examine the gold coinages of the great commercial nations we find them rapidly increasing. If this progression should continue, the time would come when the reminting of the coinage of the United States would become practically impossible in view of the enormous cost of recoinage which would then be necessary. The United States from 1793 to 1849 actually coined but $85,000,000 in gold; in 1850 and 1851, $94,000,000; from 1851 to 1866, $665,000,000. During this last period of 15 years France has coined about $955,000,000 in gold, and England $450,000,000. We thus see that two milliards of dollars in gold, or more than 10 milliards of francs, have been thrown into the money market since the discovery of the mines of Australia and California. This considerable mass of coin is increasing daily. It is certainly possible that in the United States, in the 15 years which are to follow, the coinage of gold may reach the amount of five (5) milliards of francs. In view of such a future the American government would prefer to reduce its monetary unit at once. For that purpose it needs only the passage of a law briefly declaring that “the weight of the gold dollar shall be hereafter 1g 612m 90, in place of 1g 670^m.” Those few words would serve to change the whole monetary system of the United States. But the United States, in thus consenting to recoin its gold now in circulation, would expect that France, on her side, will consent to coin gold pieces of 25 francs, in which case monetary unification would at once assume a practical form.

The President expressed to Mr. Ruggles the satisfaction with which the conference had listened to sentiments so favorable to monetary unification as those he had uttered in the name of the United States; adding that, in regard to the wish expressed for the creation of a 25-franc piece in France, this wish had already found its place in the questionnaire, and would be thereafter discussed.

M. Herbet laid before the conference a communication which had been made to him personally by Mr. Graham, relative to the coin of Canada, about which there would be a question of recoinage on the basis of the convention of 1865. This was an important communication, and it would be of advantage if Mr. Graham would repeat it to the conference, which could take action upon it.

Mr. Graham replied that nothing had been decided upon in this respect, but as there was an identity of coin between Canada and the United States, if the latter should approximate to the French monetary system, Canada would, of necessity, follow the example.

M. Mees said that he could only consider the first question in a theoretic point of view, and that his vote could not bind his government, seeing that Holland would not, at least at present, be able to conform to any monetary system whatever while surrounded by three monetary systems so different as those which are based upon the franc, the thaler, and the sovereign.

The Count d’Alila, resuming the question of the reminting of the. English coin, discussed in succession by M. Stas, Feer Herzog. and Mr. Graham, expressed the opinion that if the pound sterling were reduced to 25 francs, the reminting of the English sovereigns, far from being an expense to the treasury, would probably be profitable to it, as the new sovereign would be inferior in fineness to the old. In fact, by reducing the fineness from – H to $, there would.be a gain of more than 60 milligrams of pure gold for each sovereign Besides, the adoption of the pound sterling for 25 francs would be sufficient, because naturally the subdivisions of the one coin and the other would correspond with each other; for example, there would be natural equations between five francs and four shillings, 50 francs and two pounds sterling, &c.

No one asking to speak, the president proposed to take the vote on the first question, pointing out at the same time the necessity for agreeing preliminarily on the manner of voting, individually or by states.

M.Herbet remarked that, in conformity with the precedents, the vote could only be taken by states; the Freneh government, in fact, on inviting foreign governments to take part in an international monetary conference, left them at full liberty as to the number of delegates who should represent them. If the vote were per capita, some states would cast more votes, because their delegates might be more numerous. That is a consequence which could not be admitted. Without having precisely the character of a diplomatic assemblage, the present conference is, however, composed of members who have been furnished with preliminary instructions by their governments, and who should, in consequence, yield their individual opinions, so as to bring forward only those of the states they may represent, and it pertains to the first of the delegates of each state to utter its vote.

The mode of voting laid down by M. Herbet being accepted by the conference, the president put to vote the first paragraph of the first question:

“Is it more easy to realize monetary unification by the creation of an entirely new system, independent of existing systems, and in this case what should be the basis of this system?”

The conference decided unanimously in the negative.

The president then put to vote the first part of the second paragraph of the same question:

“Is it, on the contrary, more easy to realize monetary unification by mutual co-ordination of existing systems, taking into account the scientific advantages of certain types, and of the numbers of the populations which have already adopted them?”

The conference unanimously responded, yes.

The second part of the same paragraph thus framed was then put to vote:

“In this case what monetary system should be principally taken into consideration, reserving improvements of which it might be susceptible?”

Upon a suggestion from M. Fortamps, it was understood that the vote to be given did not determine the question of standard. The conference expressed itself unanimously in favor of the system of the monetary convention of 1865, annexed to this procès verbal. Messrs. de Hermann and Baron de Soden stated that all their votes were given subject to reserve in respect of anterior engagements of their respective states.

M. DE Parieu stated that, in effect, the German states finding themselves mutually bound by the treaty of 1857, their reciprocal engagements do not permit them to act in severalty, except as far as Austria is concerned, which has quite recently freed herself from the engagement.

The examination of the second question was remitted to the next meeting, which was fixed for to-morrow at 2 o’clock.

The sitting was closed at half-past twelve.