FINANCE
A word must be said here about the manner of expressing these figures. The use of a sterling unit appears convenient at first sight, and certainly does not involve any inaccuracy prior to the appreciation of gold in the nineteenth century. Thus, speaking of revenues or expenditures in bimetallic eras, it is arithmetically a matter of indifference whether sums be expressed in silver taels[1] or in the latter's then unvarying gold equivalent. But after the demonetisation of silver and its consequent débâcle, which took place in the second half of the nineteenth century, the choice of an unit demands closer consideration. Gold has, of course, Such have been the the advantage of stability. fluctuations in the sterling value of silver that the tael has fallen from nearly eight shillings to less than three shillings, and a revenue of twenty million taels, which in 1800 represented eight millions sterling, now represents only three millions. Nevertheless to reduce all Chinese figures to a gold basis would be misleading, unless it could be shown that the prices of commodities in terms of silver had risen in China pari passu with the fall in the white metal's gold price. That has not been the case, however. China having always been a silver monometallic country, the silver price of labour, which is the true foundation of such calculations, has not appreciated proportionately to the silver price of gold. Indeed, China's virtual insensibility to the economic phenomena.
93
