Chapter 13 Century Silver Price Changes

Phase one The average price of a quarter of wheat in England, in 1350, and some years before it, was probably estimated at not less than four ounces of Dow-weight silver, which equals about twenty shillings of the present sterling.After that, it seems to have gradually dropped to two ounces, which is about ten shillings in today's British currency.The price of this quarter of ten shillings seems to us to be the price of wheat estimated at the beginning of the sixteenth century, and up to 1570 to be so much. In 1305, the twenty-fifth year of Edward III, the so-called labor laws were enacted.In the preamble of this statute, the tyranny of domestic helpers is greatly criticized, saying that they should not require employers to increase wages.Therefore, this statute stipulates that all servants and laborers shall be satisfied thereafter with the wages and rations usually received by Edward III in the twentieth year and the four years before that (the word ration at that time included both clothing and food), so Their ration of wheat, anywhere, is calculated at tenpence a bushel, and this ration is delivered in wheat or in money, at the discretion of the employer.Tenpence a bushel was the very common price of wheat in the twenty-fifth year of Edward III, as it required a special council to compel the servants to accept it in lieu of the usual rations, and this price was also considered to be the lowest in the previous ten years. That is, the low price of the sixteenth year of Edward III, referred to in the statute.But in the sixteenth year of Edward III, ten pence contained about half an ounce of Dowweight silver, which was about half a crown in the current British currency.Four ounces of dowweight silver, corresponding to six shillings and eightpence of the money of that time, and to twenty light rings of today's money, must have then been regarded as the common price of eight bushels to the quarter of wheat.

Concerning what was supposed to be the ordinary price of corn at the time, this statute certainly furnishes a far better proof than the prices of certain years recorded by historians and other writers, who place emphasis upon unusually high or unusually low prices. Therefore, it is not easy to judge the ordinary price at that time.We have other reasons, besides, to believe that the common price of wheat, in the first part of the fourteenth century, and some years before it, was not less than four ounces the quarter, and that the prices of every other corn were to be determined accordingly. In 1309, the vice abbot of St. Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury, Laffer.have to.When Bonn took office, there was a big feast.About this feast, William.Thorn recorded the food list and the prices of many foods.Counting the consumption at that time, the first was fifty-three quarters of wheat, priced at nineteen pounds, that is, six shillings and two pence per quarter, equivalent to about twenty-one shillings and two pence in today's currency; Quarter, the price is seventeen pounds and ten shillings, that is, six shillings per quarter, about eighteen shillings in today's currency; the third is twenty quarters of wheat, priced at four pounds, that is, four shillings per quarter, about Twelve shillings in today's currency.The price of malt and oats appears on this occasion to be above their usual comparison with wheat.

These prices are recorded neither because they were unusually high nor because they were unusually cheap, but are only accidental records of the actual prices of the great quantities of grain consumed during this great feast. In the fifty-first year of Henry III, that is, 1262, the ancient decree called the statute of bread and ale was restored.Henry III said in the preface that this decree was made by his ancestor, the King of England at that time.It can be inferred from this that this decree was at least made by Henry II or it was actually made during the Norman Conquest.This statute fixes the price of bread according to the price of wheat at that time, from one shilling to twenty shillings a quarter.It may, however, be supposed that such statutes must equally take account of prices above or below the ordinary price, so that, on this supposition, ten shillings, which contained six ounces of dowweight silver, and were equivalent to thirty shillings in the present money, were When this statute was enacted, it must have been regarded as the ordinary price of a quarter of wheat, and it was still regarded as the ordinary price till the fifty-first year of Henry III.We shall not, therefore, be very mistaken in assuming that the common price was not less than one-third of the highest legal price of bread, or, in other words, not less than six shillings and eightpence of the currency of the time, containing four ounces of Dowweight silver.

From these facts, therefore, we have good reason to conclude that the average or common price of the quarter of wheat, during the middle of the fourteenth century, and for a considerable period before it, probably did not come below four ounces of silver on Dowweight. From about the middle of the fourteenth century to the beginning of the sixteenth century, what is considered to be the moderate price of wheat, or the common or average price of wheat, seems to have gradually decreased to half this price, and finally to about equal to two Dowweights of silver. An ounce, about ten shillings in today's currency.Until 1570, it was estimated to be so much.

In the Housekeeping Records of Henry, Fifth Earl of Northabran in 1512, there are two different calculations for the price of wheat: first, one quarter is calculated at six shillings and eight pence; Especially only five shillings and eight pence.In 1512, six shillings and eightpence contained only two ounces of Dowweight silver, about ten shillings in today's money. Judging from many decrees, during the more than two hundred years from the twenty-fifth year of Edward III to the early days of Elizabeth's reign, six shillings and eightpence have always been considered the common or average price of wheat, that is, the so-called not high and not too high. However, the quantity of silver contained in this nominal sum was constantly decreasing during this period, owing to some reforms in the silver coin.The increase in the price of silver, however, more than compensates for the decrease in the content of silver.Therefore, in the eyes of the legislative authority, the reduction of the nominal amount of silver is not worth noting.

In 1436 the legislature stipulated that if the price of wheat fell as low as six shillings and eightpence the quarter, it could be exported without a license.In 1463, it was also stipulated that the importation of wheat was prohibited if the price of wheat did not exceed six shillings and eightpence per quarter.The legislature considered that it would be no inconvenience to allow wheat to be exported when the price was very low, but that it would be prudent to allow it to be imported when it was high.Therefore, six shillings and eightpence containing as much silver as thirteen shillings and fourpence in today's money (which contained a third less silver than that contained in the same nominal amount in the time of Edward III), was the The so-called neither high nor low wheat prices.

The decrees of the first and second years of King Philip and Queen Mary, 1554, and the decrees of the first year of Queen Elizabeth, 1558, also stipulated that when the price of a hunter of wheat exceeded six When the shilling is eight pence, its exportation is prohibited.Six shillings and eightpence then contained no more silver than twopence more in the present order of the same name.It was soon found, however, that to leave corn unrestricted until the price was so low would amount to a permanent prohibition of wheat.Therefore, in the fifth year of Elizabeth, that is, 1562, it was stipulated that if the price of wheat did not exceed ten shillings per hunt, it could be exported at any time at the designated port.The ten shillings then contained almost the same amount of silver as the present sum of the same name.Therefore, the price of six shillings and eightpence was considered to be the so-called moderate price of wheat at that time, which was roughly in line with the price estimated in the above-mentioned Earl Henry's housekeeping records.

The case is similar in France, where the average price of corn was much lower during the close of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries than it was during the previous two centuries.Dupre.have to.So says St. Maur, and the gentle writers of the treatise on corn policy.During the same period the price of corn has probably likewise declined in the greater part of Europe. The increase in the relative value of silver and corn may have been entirely due to a continuation of the supply while the demand increased with improvement and cultivation; The silver mines, being nearly exhausted, have greatly increased their expense; partly, perhaps, from the former, and partly from the latter.At the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century, the political situation in most European countries was more stable than in previous centuries.This increased security naturally increases the development and improvement of industry, and the demand for precious metals, and all other ornaments and luxuries, naturally increases with wealth.As the annual produce increases, a greater number of coins are required for the circulation of this annual produce.As the number of rich people increased, more silver vessels and other silver ornaments were required.Moreover, it is natural to think that the greater part of the silver mines which at that time supplied the European market with silver, were probably exhausted, and therefore more expensive to extract, since most of these mines were worked from the time of ancient Rome.

Most of the writers who have dealt with the prices of commodities in the past regard the price of commodities as having been in the market since the time of the Norman conquests, or even since the time of JuliaFrom the time of Caesar's invasion until the discovery of the mines in America, the value of silver continued to decrease.This opinion arose, I think, partly from their observations of corn and other native produce of the land, and partly from the popular saying that the amount of silver in all nations naturally increases with wealth, and partly The value naturally falls as the quantity of silver increases.

In watching the prices of corn three things seem to lead them astray: First, in ancient times almost all land rents were paid in kind, that is, in definite quantities of corn, poultry, livestock, etc.Sometimes, however, the landlord stipulates that, as regards the annual rent, he is at liberty to require payment in kind from his tenants, or in a definite amount of money instead of kind.The price at which a certain amount of currency is paid in kind is called an exchange price in Scotland.Because in this case, the right to choose what to buy and what to pay is always in the hands of the landlord. Therefore, for the safety of the tenants, the conversion price should be set lower than the average market price, not higher than the average market price. .Therefore, the conversion price in many places is slightly more than half of the average market price.In the greater part of Scotland, this calculation is still practiced for poultry, and in some places for livestock.It would probably still be the case with corn, had it not been for the abolition of the conversion method by the introduction of the public price system.The so-called public price of grain is the price assessed by the average price of various types of grains of different qualities based on the judgment made by the grain price committee and the actual market price in each state every year.In this system, when converting grain rents, the public prices of the year are used instead of any pricing; therefore, tenants are fully protected, and landlords feel much more convenient.But writers who have collected the prices of corn in previous years have often mistook the so-called converted prices in Scotland for actual market prices.Fleetwood once admitted that he had made such a mistake.However, since he was writing for a specific purpose, he had used this conversion price fifteen times before he dared to admit the error.The converted price then was eight shillings a quarter of wheat.In the first year of his studies, 1423, this amount contained the same amount of silver as the sixteen shillings of the present coin, but in the last year of his studies, 1562, it contained The amount of silver contained is the same as the amount of silver contained in the amount of the same name today.

Secondly, Certain ancient statutes concerning fixed prices, sometimes scribbled down by lazy clerks, sometimes scribbled down by legislative authorities, thus bewildered the above-mentioned writers. The former statutes of fixed prices always first fixed the price of bread and ale when the price of wheat and barley was at a minimum, and then fixed the price of bread and ale when these two corns exceeded this minimum price.The scribes of those statutes, however, often think that it is sufficient to copy the first three or four minimum prices prescribed, and that they save their labor by this, and I think they consider this sufficient to show that the higher prices should be What ratio increases. For example, in Henry III's 51st Bread and Ale Public Price Act, the price of bread is regulated according to the different price of one quarter of wheat in the current currency from one shilling to twenty shillings.But, before Laverher engraved the compendium, none of the copies upon which the compendium was based fetched a price above twelve shillings.It is therefore natural for some writers, who have been deceived by this imperfect copy, to regard the common price of six shillings the quarter, which is approximately equal to eighteen shillings in present money, as the general or average price of wheat at that time. Again, the Punishment Chair and Pillory Acts, enacted about the same time, provided for the adjustment of the price of ale for every sixpence increase in the price of barley from two shillings to four shillings a quarter.These four shillings, however, are not regarded as the highest price barley ever attained at that time, but are merely given as examples, to show that the higher or lower price should be increased or decreased in this proportion.This can be the last words of this puja: Et sic deinceps crescetur veldiminueturper sex denarios.I can tell.Although the words are imprecise, their meaning is clear enough.That is to say, that the price of ale should rise or fall with every sixpence in the price of barley.The legislature seems to have been as negligent in enacting this statute as the copyist of the above-mentioned statute. An ancient copy of the Old Law of Scotland, containing the law of fixed prices, in which the price of bread is adjusted for all the different prices of wheat, which range from ten pence to three shillings per bole, Scotland︱Boll yoy English half quarter.At the time when this statute is supposed to have been enacted, three pence in Scotland amounted to about nine shillings in the present sterling.From this Rudeman seems to conclude that three shillings was the highest price of wheat at that time, and tenpence, one shilling, and at most two shillings, the common price.But, upon consulting the manuscripts, it is evident that those prices are given only as examples of the proper comparison between wheat and bread.The decree concluded by saying: reliqua judicabis secundum prascriptahabendorspectum ad Pretium bladi.The rest must be judged by the price of corn mentioned above. Thirdly, wheat was sometimes sold at extremely low prices in ancient times, which also confuses the writers mentioned above. They think that the lowest price of wheat at that time was much lower than that of later generations. , will also be much lower than the offspring.But on the other hand, they may find that the highest price of wheat in ancient times was much higher than in posterity, just as its lowest price was much lower than in modern times.In 1270, for example, Fleetwood mentions two prices for a quarter of wheat: the first is fourteen pounds sixteen shillings in the current currency, which is equivalent to fourteen pounds eight shillings in the current currency; the other is sixteen pounds in the current currency. Pound eight shillings, nineteen pounds four shillings.Such exorbitant prices would not have been seen in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth centuries.Though the price of corn is liable to vary at all periods, it is still more violent in a disturbed and disorderly society.In such a society, commerce and communication are interrupted, so that the prosperity of one part of the country cannot relieve the poverty of another part of the country.From the middle of the twelfth century to the end of the fifteenth century, in England, under the royal power of the Plantarginians, one district might be rich, while another, not very far away, might be ruined by seasonal disasters or by the invasion of neighboring nobles. crops, and famine; and the former could not help the latter if the dominion of a rival nobleman intervened between the two districts.However, in the second half of the fifteenth century and the sixteenth century, under the strong rule of the Tudor dynasty, no nobleman was strong enough to dare to disturb the social order. The reader will find at the end of this chapter the prices of wheat collected by Fleetwood from 1202 to 1597 inclusive, which he converted into present money, and According to the chronological order, it is divided into one period every twelve years, and it is divided into seven periods in total.At the end of each period, the average price over the twelve years of that period is recorded.For such a long period, Fleetwood could only collect prices for eighty years, so that the last period was still four years away.I therefore added the prices for 1598, 1599, 1600 and 1601 from the records of Eton College.What I have added is only four years.From these figures, the reader can only see that from the beginning of the thirteenth century to the middle of the sixteenth century, the average price of every twelve years has been gradually falling, and at the end of the sixteenth century, it has gradually risen again.The prices collected by Fleetwood seem chiefly to be conspicuously over- or under-prices, so that I cannot assert that any good conclusions can be drawn from them.But these prices, if they prove anything, are what I am going to show.However, Fleetwood himself, like most other writers, seems to believe that the price of silver was constantly falling during this period because of the increasing abundance of silver production.The grain prices he collected did not agree with this opinion, but with Dubrey.St.More's view is exactly the same as the one I have endeavored to explain.Fleetwood and St.These two writers, Moore, seem to be tirelessly and sincerely collecting all kinds of prices in the past.It is somewhat strange that, though their opinions were so different, the facts gathered by them should agree so much, at least as regards the price of corn. The most informed writers, however, have inferred the great value of silver in ancient times, not so much from the low price of corn, as from that of many other native produce of the land.Corn, it is said, is a manufactured article, and in savage times it was much more expensive than most other commodities.By the greater part of commodities, I think, I mean unmanufactured goods of that kind, such as poultry, livestock, and game.Such articles, no doubt, were much cheaper than corn, in times of poverty and barbarism.But this lowness is not the result of the high price of silver, but of the low value of these commodities.This is not because silver bought or represented a greater quantity of labor in those days than it did in rich and progressive times, but because in those days such commodities bought or represented a much smaller quantity of labor.Silver must be cheaper in Spanish America than in Europe, that is, cheaper in the country where it is produced than in the country where it is imported, because of the cost of freight and insurance, and long distances by land and water.But Uroa tells us that not so long ago, in the Argentine capital, one cow out of four hundred cost as little as twenty-one-pence and a half.In the Chilean capital, Byron tells us, a good horse costs sixteen shillings a pound.In countries where the soil is fertile, and the great part of the country completely uncultivated, poultry, cattle, and game are not difficult to obtain by a very small amount of labour, so that they can buy a very limited amount of labour.The fact that these commodities can be sold there only at cheap money prices does not prove that the real value of silver there is high, only that the real value of these commodities there is very low. The true measure of silver, and of all other commodities, is not any one commodity or class of commodities, but labour.We should always keep this in mind. In countries where the land is almost barren or sparsely populated, the natural production of poultry, cattle, and game of all kinds is frequently much greater than the inhabitants are required to consume.In this state, supply usually exceeds demand.In different states of society, and in different stages of improvement, these commodities represent, or equal to, very different quantities of labour. In every state of society, and in every stage of improvement, corn is the product of human labor.But the average produce of every kind of labour, in the main, always corresponds to its average consumption, that is to say, the average supply, to the average demand.Moreover, at any stage of improvement, to produce the same quantity of corn in the same soil and climate requires, on the average, almost the same amount of labor, or almost the same cost, because, in the improvement of cultivation, From the continual increase in the productiveness of labor under all states, more or less counteracted by the continual increase in the price of cattle, the chief implements of agriculture, we may be assured that, in all states of society and in all stages of improvement, an equal quantity of corn, An equal amount of other native produce of land can more closely represent or exchange an equal amount of labour.That is why we have said before that corn is a more correct measure of value than any other one or commodity in the different stages of wealth and improvement.We, therefore, can more correctly judge the true value of silver at the various stages mentioned above, by comparing corn with silver than with any other commodity or commodity. Corn, moreover, or other vegetable food, which is the general taste of the people, constitutes, in every civilized country, the principal part of the means of subsistence of the laborer.As a result of the extension of agriculture, the lands of all countries produced much more food, both vegetable and animal, while the laborers everywhere took for their chief subsistence the cheapest and most plentiful food suitable to health.Except in the most prosperous countries, or where the wages of labour are very dear, the meat of domestic animals constitutes but a very small part of the means of subsistence of the laborer, and poultry a still smaller part, and game no part at all.In France, and even in Scotland, where the wages of labor are a little higher than in France, the laboring poor seldom taste meat except on festive occasions or other special occasions.The money-price of labour, therefore, depends very little on the average money-price of butcher's meat, or other native produce of the land, and a great deal upon the average money-price of corn, the principal means of subsistence of the labourer.The real value, therefore, of gold and silver, that is to say, the real quantity of labor which it can buy or command, depends in a very small degree upon the quantity of cattle-meat, or any other native produce of the land, which it can command, and in a very great degree Depends on the amount of corn that gold and silver can buy. However, the above-mentioned careless observation would not perhaps have led astray so many clever writers, had they not been influenced at the same time by the common observation that, as the amount of silver in nations naturally increases with wealth, the amount of silver The value of the item decreases with the increase of the amount of silver.However, this view is groundless. The increase in the quantity of precious metals in any one country is due to two causes: first, the increase in the output of the mines which supply them; and secondly, the increase in the wealth of the people, that is, the increase in the annual produce of labour.The former cause is undoubtedly connected with the diminishing value of the precious metals, but the latter has nothing to do with their diminishing value. With the discovery of more fertile mines, a greater quantity of precious metals will be brought to the market, and if the same quantity of the necessaries and conveniencies of life for which a greater quantity of precious metals are exchanged, the same quantity of commodities will be exchanged for the same quantity of commodities. It must be less than before.An increase, therefore, in the quantity of precious metals in any country, if it arises from an increase in the output of the mines, must necessarily reduce their value. Conversely, as the wealth of a country increases, that is, as the annual produce of its labor increases, the circulation of this greater quantity of commodities requires a greater quantity of currency.And the people have a larger quantity of goods to exchange for gold and silver vessels, and if they can afford gold and silver vessels, they will naturally buy more and more gold and silver vessels.Their currency increased from necessity, their gold and silver vessels from vanity and pomp, and fine statues, pictures, and other luxuries and curiosities of every kind, might also increase from the same cause.But as sculptors and painters cannot be less paid in prosperity and prosperity than in poverty and depression, so gold and silver cannot be cheaper in prosperity and prosperity than in poverty and depression. If the accidental discovery of new and more fertile mines does not lower the price of gold and silver, then, as the price of gold and silver in all countries naturally rises with the increase of the wealth of each country, the price of gold and silver in rich countries will naturally be higher than in poor countries, whatever the state of the mines. Country prices are high.Gold and silver, like every other commodity, seek the market for the best price, and the country which can afford the best price for all commodities is generally the country which can pay the best price for gold and silver.It must be remembered that the price paid for all goods is in the last analysis nothing less than labour.In countries where labor is all equally well remunerated, the money price of labor is in proportion to the money price of the means of subsistence of the labourer.Gold and silver, however, naturally exchange for more means of subsistence in a rich country than in a poor country; .If these two countries were separated by a great distance, the difference would be great, for gold and silver, though naturally flowed from a bad market to a good one, were so great a distance that it was difficult to transport them in great quantities, so that the price of gold and silver in both countries was nearly equal to a level.If the two countries are very near, the above-mentioned difference is small, sometimes even invisible, because of the ease of transportation.China is much richer than any country in Europe, and the prices of the means of subsistence differ greatly between China and Europe.The price of rice in China is much cheaper than the price of wheat everywhere in Europe.Anglicized Scotland is much richer, but the difference in the price of wheat between the two countries is much less, though somewhat noticeable.Wheat from Scotland generally seems to cost much less in quantity, but certainly higher in quality, than in England.Scotland receives a large supply from England almost every year.The price of any article is generally higher in the importing country than in the exporting one.English wheat, therefore, must fetch a higher price in Scotland than in England.But in terms of quality, that is to say, the quantity and quality of flour or meal-boxes from which it can be made, English wheat cannot generally be sold in the Scottish market only at a higher price than Scotch wheat. As far as the prices of means of subsistence are concerned, there is a great difference between China and Europe, and as far as the price of labor money is concerned, there is an even greater difference.This is because most of Europe is in a state of improvement and progress, while China seems to be in a state of stagnation. Therefore, the real wages of labor in Europe are higher than in China.The money-price of English labor is higher than that of Scotch labour, because the latter is improving, but not so rapidly, and its real remuneration is therefore much lower.The great emigration of the Scotch people, and the little emigration of the English, is sufficient evidence of the great difference in the wants of labor in the two countries.It must be remembered that the proportion of the different real remuneration of labor in different countries is not governed by the actual degree of wealth or poverty of each country, but by the state of progress, regression, or stagnation of each country. Gold and silver are naturally of the greatest value among the richest nations, and of the least among the poorest.Among the poorest savages, gold and silver are of little value. Corn is always more expensive in large cities than in remote places.But this was expensive, not as a result of the real cheapness of silver, but of the real dearness of corn.It requires as much labor to bring silver to a great city as it does to a remote country, and much more labor to bring corn to a great city. In some very wealthy commercial countries, such as Holland and the district of Genoa, the price of corn is high from the same cause as that in the metropolises.They cannot produce enough grain to sustain their inhabitants.They are rich in industry and dexterity of artificers and manufacturers, in machinery of every kind which simplifies and saves labour, in ships of transport, and in all other means of transport and means of commerce.They have, however, want of corn, and the corn which they require must be imported from distant countries, and to its price the cost of bringing it from these countries must be added.It required no less labor to bring silver to Amsterdam than to Danzig, but much more labor to bring corn to Amsterdam.In short, the real cost of silver must be nearly the same in both places, but very different in the real cost of corn.Now suppose Holland or Genoa to have the same number of inhabitants, but their real wealth to be lessened, and their ability to import corn from distant countries lessened, then this decline must be accompanied by a decrease in the quantity of silver, a decrease in the quantity of silver. Either the cause or the effect of the recession, the price of corn, instead of falling as the quantity of silver diminishes, rises to the price of a year of famine.When we lack the necessities, we must give up all unnecessary items.The value of unnecessary goods falls in times of poverty and distress, just as it rises in times of abundance and prosperity.The situation with necessities is different.The real price of necessaries, that is, the quantity of labor which they can command or purchase, rises in times of poverty and distress, and falls in times of abundance and prosperity.A period of prosperity is always a period of abundant supplies, otherwise it cannot be said to be a period of prosperity.Grain is a necessity, while silver is just an unnecessary item. Hence, the increase, however much, in the quantity of the precious metals, due to the increase of wealth and the development of improvement, during the period from the middle of the fourteenth to the middle of the sixteenth century, had no effect on Britain or any other country in Europe. A tendency to reduce the value of precious metals may occur.If, therefore, writers who collect past prices of corn have no reason to infer, from observations of the prices of corn or other things, that the value of silver was lowered during this period, still less shall they have any reason to infer from the supposed increase and improvement of wealth. Infer the decrease in the value of silver during this period. the second term However different the opinions of the various scholars on the changes in the price of silver in the first period, their opinions on the changes in the price of silver in the second period are the same. During the period of about seventy years, from about 1570 to about 1640, the ratio of the value of silver to that of corn varied in exactly opposite directions.During this period the real value of silver fell, or, in other words, it fetched a lesser quantity of labour, than before; At present, the selling price at this time is six coils or eight ounces of silver per quarter, which is about thirty or forty shillings in today's money. The discovery of the fertile mines of America seems to have been the sole cause of the lower price of silver to corn during this period.The same explanation is given by all for this change, and there has never been any dispute about the fact and reasons for the fall in the relative price of silver.During this period the greater part of Europe saw progress in industry and improvement, and the demand for silver necessarily increased.However, the increase in supply greatly exceeded the increase in demand, so the price of silver fell greatly.It should be noted that the discovery of the silver mines in America does not seem to have had any appreciable influence on prices in England until after 1570.Although the silver mines of Potosí have been discovered for more than twenty years, they have had no effect on prices in England. According to the records of Eton College, the average price of the quarter or nine bushels of the best wheat in the Windsor market from and including 1595 to 1620 Two pounds a shilling six and nine thirteenths pence, and from this amount the fractions shall be subtracted, and one-ninth of the full sum shall be subtracted, that is, four shillings seven and one third pence, and one quarter A tex or eight bushels cost one pound sixteen shillings ten and two-thirds pence.From this amount likewise omitting the zeros, and from the remainder, subtract one-ninth four shillings one-ninth pence, that is, the difference between the prices of the best wheat and the middle wheat, and then the middle wheat The price, about twelve shillings eight and three-ninths pence a pound, is about one-third of six ounces and an ounce. From the same record, the average price of the best wheat of the same measure, in the same market, from 1621 to 1636, was about £2 ten shillings.From this sum, deducted as above, the average price of a quarter or eight bushels of medium wheat is £1.99 s.6p, or about seven and one-third ounces of silver. Phase III The depression of the price of silver occasioned by the discovery of the mines of America seems to have ceased between 1630 and 1640, or about 1636, and the depression of silver in comparison with the price of corn at that time seems to have ceased. It seems more than that.In the present century, the price of silver tends to rise more or less. This upward trend may have started long ago in the previous century. According to the above records, from 1637 to 1700, the last sixty-four years of the last century, the average price of a quarter of the best wheat, consisting of nine bushels, in the market at Windsor appears to have been £2.11. Order a third of a penny.This average price is only one shilling and a third of a pence higher than it was sixteen years ago.But two events occurred during these sixty years, so that the scarcity of grain far exceeded that which the harvest conditions would have caused.These two events alone will explain why corn is now somewhat expensive, without imagining a further decline in the price of silver. The first event was civil unrest.Civil strife hampered farming and hindered commerce.As a result, the price of corn has risen much more than the state of the harvests would have caused.This effect of the civil strife has spread to all the markets of Great Britain, and it has been especially affected in the London market, where the corn has to be supplied in remote places.The quarter, therefore, of the best wheat, consisting of nine bushels, in the market at Windsor, according to the above-mentioned record, was £4.5s in 1648, and £4 in the following year.The price of corn in these two years exceeded £2 ten shillings (the average price of the sixteen years preceding 1637), and amounted to £3 five shillings.If it were spread over the last sixty-four years of the former era, it would be sufficient to account for the slight increase in the price of corn at that time.此兩年度的價格，雖屬最高價格，但內亂引起的高價格，無疑不只是這些。 第二件事，是一六八八年頒布的穀物輸出獎勵法令。據一般人設想，這種獎勵金，由於促進耕作，經過長久的歲月，大概總會增加穀物的產量，使國內市場上的穀價因此趨於便宜。獎勵金究能在什麼程度上，增加穀物生產，減低穀物價格，我要在後面討論，現在所要說的，只是一六八八年到一七○○年間，並不曾發生這個效果。在這個短期中，獎勵金的唯一效果是，因為獎勵每年剩餘量的輸出，曾使前一年度的豐產，不能彌補後一年的歉收，所以反抬高了國內市場上的穀物價格。從一六九三年到一六九九年間，英格蘭普遍感到的穀物缺乏，雖主要起因於當時天時不良，因此不是英格蘭所特有的現象，而是歐洲大部分所共有的現象，但我們應當知道，獎勵金的頒發，確曾在英格蘭增加穀物缺乏的程度。所以，一六九九年，有九個月時間禁止穀物輸出。 在上述兩件事發生的時候，還發生了第三件事，這件事雖不會引起穀物的缺乏，也不會增多通常對穀物所實際支付的銀量，但穀物價格的名義金額，卻必然會因此增大若干。這種事件，即銀幣的削剪磨毀，使銀幣價值大大低落。此種惡劣行為，始於查理二世時代，從後繼續發展，一直到一六九五年。據朗迪斯所述：當時通用銀幣的價值，比其標準價值平均約低百分之二十五。但是，代表一切商品市場價格的名義金額，與其說受標準銀幣應含銀量的支配，無寧說受銀幣實含銀量的支配。所以，這名義金額，在鑄幣因削剪磨毀而價值低減的場合，比較在鑄幣接近標準價值的場合，非較大不可。 在本世紀，銀幣低減至標準重量從下的程度，當從目下為最。不過，銀幣的磨損雖很大，其價值卻因它能與金幣兌換，而為金幣價值所維持住了。在晚近金幣改鑄以前，金幣雖磨損了不少，然沒有銀幣磨損那麼厲害。反之，在一六九五年，銀幣的價值，並沒有得到金幣維持；金幣一幾尼，當時通常可換削損了的銀幣三十先令。晚近金幣改鑄以前，銀塊價格，每盎斯很少能值五先令七便士以上，這價格只比造幣廠價格高五便士。但一六九五年，銀塊普通價格，卻為每盎斯六先令五便士，即超過造幣廠價格十五便士。所以，就是在晚近金幣改鑄以前，金銀兩種鑄幣和銀塊比較，其低於標準價值的程度，至多不過百分之八。反之，在一六九五年，據說鑄幣卻低於標準價值百分之二十五。但是，在本世紀初葉，換言之，在威廉王進行大改鑄之後，大部分通用銀幣，一定比今日銀幣更接近其標準重量。本世紀中，沒有發生一種象內亂那樣阻害耕作妨礙商業的大災厄。採行將近數十年的穀物輸出獎勵制度，雖必定把穀物價格抬高，超過按照那時實際耕作情況本來會有的價格，但因為這種獎勵金在本世紀已有充分時間，產出一般人們所期待的好結果，即促進農耕和增加國內市場上的穀物量。所只，就我們後面將要說明的那種學理說來，它在一方面雖產生稍稍抬高物價的效果，同時在另一方面，卻也不見得不會產生稍稍減低物價的效果。許多人還以為，減低的效果，比提高的效果更大。所以，根據伊頓學院的記錄，在本世紀最初六十四年期間，溫莎市場上由九蒲式耳組成的一夸特最好小麥，平均價格計為二鎊六又三十二分之十九便士。這價格比前世紀最後六十四年期間的平均價格，約低十先令八便士，即百分之二十五以上；比一六三六年以前十六年期間（那時候美洲豐富礦山發現的影響，可以認為已經充分發揮）的平均價格，約低九先令六便士；比一六二○年以前二十六年期間（那時候美洲礦山發現的影響，尚未充分發揮）的平均價格，約低一先令。據上所述，則在本性紀最初六十四年中，中等小麥的平均價格，由八蒲式耳組成的一夸特，約為三十二先令。 由此可知，在本世紀中，和穀物價格相比，銀價似乎稍稍上升，但這上升的趨勢，也許於前世紀終結以前即已開始。 一六八七年，溫莎市場上，由九蒲式耳組成的一夸特最好小麥，價格計為一鎊五先令二便士。這價格，是一五九五年以來的最低價格。 格裡戈裡．金，是一位通曉此種事情的有名學者。一六八八年，他推算的結果，認為在一般豐年，小麥的平均生產者價格，為每蒲式耳三先令六便士，即每夸特二十八先令。據我所知，所謂生產者價格，有時又稱為契約價格，即農民簽訂契約，規定在一定年限內，供給商人一定數量穀物時所定的價格。因為這契約，使農民可以省去上市議價的費用和麻煩，所以，契約價格通常比一般認為的平均市價低。金氏判定當時一般豐年的普通契約價格為每夸特二十八先令。據我所知，在最近連年天時不佳穀物缺乏的時期以前，這種價格，確是一般年歲的普通契約價格。 一六八八年，議會通過設置獎勵金，獎勵穀物的輸出。當時鄉紳在立法機關所佔席數，較現今為多。他們感到穀物的貨幣價格在暖漸下落。獎勵金是以人為力量，使這價格抬高到查理一世及查理二位時代那種程度的權宜辦法，所以，在穀價每夸特漲到四十八先令以前，要繼續發給。這個價格，與金氏在同年推定的一般年歲的生產者價格相比，約高二十先令，即約高七分之五。假使金氏的計算，確有幾分值得它那時候所博得的普遍讚揚的話，那末，當時除了極歉收的年度，每夸特四十八先令的價格，就只有借助於獎勵金那一類人為手段，否則絕無實現可能。不過，當時威廉王政府的實力，尚未鞏固，正在懇求鄉紳制定年土地稅。政府方面既有所求於鄉紳，對於鄉紳們的建議便只好採納了。 由此可見，在前世紀結束以前，銀價和穀價相比大抵已抬高若干了，到了本世紀，這上升趨勢，雖由於獎勵金的必然作用，不能按照當時的實際耕作情形而大大顯著起來，但銀價大體上仍繼續上升。 在豐年時候，獎勵金由於促進穀物的輸出，當然會使穀價特別昂貴，超過本來會有的數目。但獎金制度最明顯的目的，卻也就是在最豐收的年度，仍要設法使穀價提高，以獎勵耕作。 不錯，在穀物大缺乏的年度，獎勵金大抵停發。但是，在這種年度內，仍有許多年數的穀價，不免蒙受獎勵金制度的影響。豐年穀物，既由獎勵金誘起了異常的輸出，所以，以甲年豐收補救乙年不足的調劑作用，就無從施展了。 總之，獎勵金不論在豐年或在歉歲，都會使穀價抬高，超過按照實際耕作情況所本來會有的價格。這樣說來，假使本世紀最初六十四年的穀物平均價格，比前世紀最後六十四年期間的穀物平均價格低，那末，要是在同一耕作狀態下，沒有獎勵金的作用，那就一定會低得多了。 但是，也許有人說，沒有獎勵金的促進，耕作狀態或許就有所不同。獎勵金制度對於一國農業究有何種影響，我要在後面專門討論獎勵金的時候說明。在這裡，我只打算論談銀價和穀價相比升漲更多這一事實，並不單是英格蘭特有的現象。這現象，在同一時期且以幾乎同一比例也在法國發生。這事實，曾經三位非常忠實、勤勉而辛苦的穀價研究者社普雷．De.聖莫爾先生、麥桑斯先生和穀物政策論著者所承認。 但法國在一七六四年以前，曾以法律禁止穀物輸出。我們很難設想，幾乎相同於發生在一個禁止穀物輸出國家的價格下降現象，在另一個國家卻歸因於獎勵穀物輸出。 大概，穀物平均貨幣價格上這種變動，與其認為是穀物真實價值下落的結果，倒不如說是歐洲市場上銀的真實價值漸趨騰貴的結果。前面說過，穀物在相當長時期內，和銀或任何共他商品比較，是更正確的價值尺度。美洲各豐饒礦山發現後，穀物的貨幣價格，比從前騰貴了三倍乃至四倍。當時這種變動的原因，一般人都以為不是穀物真實價值騰貴，而是銀的真實價格下落。所以，本世紀最初六十四年間的穀物平均價格，如果比前世紀大部分年度的穀物平均價格低廉，我們應該同樣說，這變動的原因，不是穀物真實價值下落，而是銀的真實價值上升。 過去十年乃至十二年間高昂的穀價，曾使人猜疑，歐洲市場上白銀的真實價值還會繼續下落。但這種高昂的穀價，分明是天時異常不順的結果，是偶發的暫時的事故，不是恆久的事故。在最近十年乃至十二年間，歐洲大部分，都苦於天時不良。加以波蘭發生擾亂，許多在穀價高昂年度須仰賴波蘭供給的國家，於是益陷於穀物缺乏的苦境。像這樣長期的天時不順，雖不是很尋常的事故，但也決不是特殊希奇的事故。曾研究過去穀價的人，都不難舉出同種類似的其他若干實例。此外，異常荒歉的十年，比異常豐收的十年，並不是更為稀奇的現象。從一七四一年到一七五○年的穀價低廉，與最近八年乃至十年間的穀價高昂正好是一個對照。據伊顧學院的記錄，一七四一年到一七五○年間，溫莎市場上，由九蒲式耳組成的一夸特的最好小麥，平均價格僅為一鎊十三先令九又五分之四便士。這比本世紀最初六十四年間的平均價格，約低廉六先令三便士。依此推斷，在這十年間，由八蒲式耳組成的一夸特的中等小麥，平均價格就僅為一磅六先令八便士了。 但是，一七四一年與一七五○年間的穀物價格，一定是由於有獎勵金的緣故，才沒有在國內市場上按自然的趨勢下落。據海關統計，這十年間所輸出的各種穀物的數量，竟達到八百零二萬九千一百五十六夸特一蒲式耳。為此而支付的獎勵金達一百五十一萬四千九百六十二鎊十七先令四便士半。一七四九年，首相佩蘭，在下院陳述，前三年中，穀物輸出獎勵金一項支出了極巨大的金額。他所說，有很正當的理由。但如在次年，則更有充分理由。因為單是這一年，付出的獎勵金就達到三十二萬四千一百七十六鎊十六先令六便士。這種強制的輸出，必曾使國內市場上的穀價，升漲到超過沒有獎勵金時所會有的價格，至於超過多少，無須說明。 在本章所附的統計表之末，讀者可以看到，那十年的統計，是和其他各年的統計分開的。此外，也可看到前此十年的統計。這十年的平均數，雖同樣在本世紀最初六十四年的總平均數以下，但低得不多。但一七四○年，實是異常歉收的年度。一七五○年以前那二十年間，和一七七○年以前那二十年，恰好是一個對照。前者雖夾有一二昂貴年度，但顯然比本世紀的總平均數低得多，後者雖夾有一二低廉年度（例如一七五九年），但顯然比總平均數高得多。假使前者低於總平均數以下的程度，不如後者超過總平均數以上的程度，其原因，自應歸於獎勵金制度。況且，這變動顯然很急激，非緩慢漸進的銀價變動所能解釋。結果的急激，只能由動作急激的原因來說明。那就是天時的意外變動。 不列顛的勞動貨幣價格，在本世紀中，確是上升了。但這種上升，不是歐洲市場上銀價減低的結果，而是不列顛普通繁榮因而對勞動的需求增加的結果。法國的繁榮程度，不及英國，目前世紀中葉以來，該國勞動的貨幣價格，隨穀物的平均貨幣價格，日漸低落。在前世紀乃至本世紀中，法國普通勞動一日的工資，幾乎始終如一地等於小麥一塞蒂埃的平均價格的二十分之一，一塞蒂埃約為四溫切斯特衡蒲式耳。前面說過，不列顛勞動的實際報酬，換言之，付給勞動者的生活必需品和便利品的實際量，在本世紀中，已著著增加。其貨物價格的上升，似乎不是由於歐洲一般市場上銀價的跌落，而是由於不列顛有特殊的好景況，使該國特殊市場上勞動的實際價格上升。 在美洲發現以後，在一段時期中，白銀在歐洲市場上，依舊是以原來的價格或不大低於原來的價格出賣。因而，這一期間的礦業列潤，非常可觀，大大超過自然水平。但此後不久，以銀輸入歐洲的人，漸漸發覺了，輸入額不能全部以這高價售出。銀所能交換的貨物量，逐漸減少。銀的價格，逐漸落至自然價格的限度。換言之，銀的價格，僅夠按照自然率支付其上市所須支給的勞動工資、資本利潤及土地地租了。前面說過，秘魯大部分銀礦都須付西班牙國王所課等於總產額十分之一的賦稅。於是，使土地的地租，全無著落。這種賦稅，最初為總產額之半，不久即減低至三分之一，接著又減至五分之一，最後為十分之一，一直繼續到現在，在秘魯大部分銀礦中，這似乎就是償卻開礦家資本及支付其普通利潤後所剩下的全部了。開礦家的利潤，曾有一度非常高，但現今卻低落到僅足使他繼續開採了。這事實，是一般所承認的。 西班牙國王對於秘魯銀礦所課的礦稅，在一五○四年，減為等於登記的銀的五分之一。該年即一五四五年波托西銀礦發現之前四十一年。在九十年中，即在一六三六年以前，這些對西班牙國王納稅的美洲最豐饒礦山，有足夠時間，充分發揮影響，使歐洲市場上的銀價，降低到無可再低的限度。九十年是一個足夠長的時間，使任何非獨佔商品的價格，都要降落到其自然價格，或者說，降落到在它繼續繳納特種賦稅的場合下仍能長期間繼續出售的最低價格。 歐洲市場上的銀價，本有可能進一步跌落，使得稅率，也許不但必須減低至十分之一，像一七三六年那樣，而且還必須象金稅一樣，減低至二十分之一，甚至使得現今尚繼續開採的大部分美洲礦山，有停止開採之必要。這些情況之所以沒有發生，是由於銀的需求亦在逐漸增加，美洲銀礦出產物的市場亦在逐漸擴大，不僅維持住了歐洲市場上的銀價，而且還把銀價抬高到稍稍超過前世紀中葉的水平。 自美洲發現以來，一直到現今，其銀礦出產物的市場，都在逐漸擴大。 第一，歐洲市場已逐漸擴大。美洲發現後，歐洲大部分都有很大進步。英格蘭，荷蘭，法蘭西，德意志，瑞典，丹麥，甚至俄羅斯，都在農業及製造業上著著向前發展。義大利似乎也不曾退步。它的沒落，是在秘魯被征服以前，此後，則漸有起色。西班牙及葡萄牙，據說是退步了。可是，葡萄牙只佔歐洲的極小一部分；西班牙的衰退，亦沒有達到一般想像的程度。在十六世紀初葉，西班牙即與法國比較，也是一個極貧窮的國家。法國從那時以來已有很大改進。所以，常常巡遊這兩國的查現五世，曾有這樣有名的評語：在法國一切物資都是豐富的，但在西班牙一切物資都是缺乏的。歐洲農業和製造業的生產額既然增大了，其流通所需的銀幣量自須逐漸增加；富翁的人數，既然加多了，銀製器皿和銀製飾物的數量，也必須逐漸增加。 第二，美洲本地，是它的銀礦產物的新市場。這地方農業、工業及人口的進步，比歐洲最繁榮國家也快得多，因此對銀的需求的增加也自然快得多。英領殖民地，完全是一個新市場。那裡，以前一向對銀沒有需求，規則一部分因為鑄幣，一部分因打製器皿，而不斷增大銀的需求了。大部分西班牙領和葡萄牙領殖民地，也全為新市場。新格倫納達、尤卡登、巴拉圭、巴西等地，在未被歐洲人發現以前，其居民純為不知工藝不知農業的野蠻民族。可是，他們到現在，大部分都有了相當的工藝與農業了。墨西哥與秘魯兩國，雖不能全然視為新市場，但確是比過去擴大了的市場。記述這兩國古代壯麗狀態的奇異故事，不論如何掩飾誇張，凡讀它們的發現史及征服史的人，只要具有沉著的眼光，就會看出，當時居民在農工商業上比今日烏克蘭的韃靼人更為無知。即兩國中比較進步的秘魯人，也只知道以金銀作裝飾品，而不知鑄金銀為貨幣。他們的商業，完全以物物交換的方式進行，所以，幾乎沒有分工這回事。耕作土地的人，同時不得不建築自己的住宅，製造自己的傢具、衣物、鞋及農具等。他們之間，雖有若干工匠，但是據說都是由君王貴族僧侶維持的，實際上恐怕就是這般人的僕役或奴隸。墨西哥和秘魯所有的古代工藝，從來沒有以任何製造品供給過歐洲市場。西班牙的軍隊，不過五百人，甚至往往不到二百五十人，卻幾乎到處覺得不易獲得食物。據說這般軍人足跡所至，就連人口極稠密、耕作極發達的地方，也常常發生饑荒。這種事實足以證明，記述這些國家人口稠密、耕作發達的故事，大部分是虛構的。西班牙殖民地的統治方式，在許多方面沒有象英國殖民地那樣有利於農業的發展、技術的改良及人口的增長，但西班牙殖民地在所有這幾方面，卻比歐洲任何國家都進步得快。其原因是土壤肥沃、氣候宜人，以及土地廣大低廉。這是一切新殖民地共有的優點。有了這些優點，就足以補償其政治上的許多缺點。弗雷齊埃曾於一七一三年觀光秘魯，他說，利馬市人口在二萬五千至二萬八千人之間。但一七四○年到一七四六年間，居住此地的烏洛阿卻說，這市人口超過了五萬。這兩位著者，關於智利及秘魯其他許多主要都市人口的計算的差異，與此略同。他們兩人報告的正確，是無可置疑的。其計算的差異，正可表示當地人口的增加，並不遜於英領殖民地。總之，這一切，都表明美洲即是該地銀礦產物的新市場。那裡對於白銀的需求的增加，必定比歐洲最繁榮國家還快得多。 第三，東印度為美洲銀礦產物的另一市場。自這些礦山開採以來，該市場所吸收的銀量，日有增加。從這時起，依賴亞卡普科船舶而進行的美洲和東印度間的直接貿易，繼續增大，而同時經由歐洲的間接交易，增加得尤其多。十六世紀中，與東印度進行正規貿易的歐洲民族，只有葡萄牙人。但同世紀末，荷蘭人起來競爭。不及數年，就把葡萄牙人趕走，使不能再在印度的主要殖民地上立足。在前世紀的大部分時間，東印度貿易的最大部分，由這兩國分佔。葡萄牙人貿易日見衰退，而荷蘭人的貿易，卻以比這衰退更快的速度不斷增長。英國人和法國人在前世紀即與印度進行交易，到這一世紀，他們間的貿易大大擴大了。瑞典人及丹麥人的東印度貿易，開始於本世紀。俄羅斯人，最近也組織所謂商隊，取道西伯利亞及韃靼，逕赴北京，與中國進行正規的交易。總之，除法國東方貿易因最近的戰爭而被毀滅了以外，其餘各國對東方的貿易，幾乎無不在繼續擴大。歐洲所消費的東印度貨物日益增多。其消費額之大，似乎曾使印度各種業務逐漸增大。例如，十六世紀中葉以前，歐洲用茶，極其有限，不過把它用作藥品。然而現在，英國東印度公司為本國國民當作飲料而輸入的，每年計達一百五十萬磅。但這還不夠滿足需要，又由荷蘭各港和瑞典的哥登堡，不斷秘密輸入。而且，在法國東印度公司繁榮時代，又常由法國海岸秘密輸入。此外，對於中國的瓷器，馬魯古群島的香料，孟加拉的布匹，以及其他無數貨物，歐洲的消費額也只幾乎同樣的比例增加。所以，就用在東印度貿易上的船舶說，前世紀任何時候全歐洲所用的船舶，比最近航運銳減，以前的英國東印度公司一家所用的船舶，以噸數計，怕多不了許多。 但當歐亞初通貿易時，亞洲各國尤其是中國與印度的金錢的價值，卻比歐洲高得多。迄今仍是如此。此種差別，是因前者多為產米國，其稻田大抵每年能收穫兩次甚或三次，而每次收穫的產量，又比小麥普通的收穫多。所以，產米國與產麥國比較，即使面積相同，產米國的糧食，亦必較更為豐富。這些國家的人口，因此多得多。此外，這些國家的富人，持有自身消費不了的大量剩餘，可以出賣，於是掌握著可購買多得多的他人勞動量的手段。因此，徵之任何記載，中國和印度斯坦的高官巨豪，比歐洲最富裕的人，都有多得多的隸役。而且，這些大官富豪，持有過剩食物，於是能夠支付較大數量的糧食來交換那些產額甚少的珍奇物品，例如富翁競求的金銀寶石。所以，供給印度市場的銀礦，和供給歐洲市場的銀礦相比，即使同樣豐饒，其產物在印度所能換得的糧食，亦必較多。可是，以貴金屬供給印度市場的礦山，似乎遠較以貴金屬供給歐洲市場的礦山貧瘠，而以寶石供給印度市場的礦山，卻遠較以寶石供給歐洲市場的礦山豐饒，所以，貴金屬在印度，自然比在歐洲能換得更多的寶石，並能換得多得多的糧食。像金剛石那樣非必要物品，其貨幣價格，在印度比在歐洲要低些，而像糧食這樣最重要必需品的貨幣價格，在印度要比在歐洲低得多。但前面說過，在中國和印度斯坦這兩個印度大市場，勞動的真實價格，即勞動者得到的生活必需品的真實量，卻不如歐洲勞動者。這些勞動者的工資，因此只能購到較少量的食物，食物在印度既比歐洲低廉，所以，與歐洲比較，印度勞動的貨幣價格，就加倍低廉，因為一方面它只能購到少量的糧食，一方面糧食的價格又便宜。在技術相同勤勞相同的場合，各國製造品，必有大部分的貨幣價格，與其勞動的貨幣價格成比例。中國和印度斯坦製造業上的技術和勤勞，雖不及歐洲各地，但似乎相差不遠。它們勞動的貨幣價格，既如此低廉，其製造品的貨幣價格，自然要比歐洲任何地方低。加之，歐洲大部分地方輸送貨物，多由陸運。先把原料由產地運往製造所，再由製造所運往市場，其間所消費的勞動既多，製造品的真實價格及名義價格，就因而增大。反之，在中國和印度斯坦，則因內地河港縱橫，貨物常由水運。所需運費，既較歐洲為少，其大部分製造品的真實價格與名義價格，就更加降低。綜合這些理由，貴金屬由歐洲運往印度，從前極有利，現今仍極有利。在印度能夠獲得好價的物品，沒有什麼能與貴金屬相比擬，就是說，在歐洲產製花費一定數量的勞動和商品的商品，沒有一個在印度能比貴金屬換得更多數量的勞動和商品。貴金屬中，以金運往印度，又不如以銀運往印度為有利，因為在中國及其他大部分印度市場上，純銀與純金的比率，通常為十對一，至多亦不過十二對一。而在歐洲，則為十四或十五對一。在前者方面，雖能以銀十盎斯至多十二盎斯購得金一盎斯，在後者方面，則需銀十四盎斯乃至十五盎斯。團此，對於航行印度的歐洲船舶，一般地說，銀是最有價值的輸運品。對於向馬尼拉航行的亞卡普科船舶來說，也是如此。新大陸的銀，實際就是依著這種種關係，而成為舊大陸兩端通商的主要商品之一。把世界各處相隔遙遠的地區聯絡起來的，大體上也以銀的賣買為媒介。 為供給如此廣大的市場，每年由各礦山掘取的銀量，不但要足夠供應一切繁榮國家不斷增加的鑄幣需求和器皿需求，還必須足夠彌補一切用銀國家銀幣銀器皿的不斷毀損和消磨。 貴金屬用作鑄幣的不斷消耗，用作器皿由於磨損與洗擦的不斷消耗，只及用作使用範圍非常廣泛的各種商品的不斷消耗，是極其可觀的。單就這些消耗來說，每年就必須有極大數量的供給。某些製造業中所消費的這些金屬，從全體來看，或許不比這逐漸的消費來得多，但由於消費快得多，所以特別感到顯著。據說，單單伯明翰某些製造品，為鍍金包金而使用的金銀量，每年計達英幣五萬鎊，這五萬鎊金銀，一經移作此種用途，就絕對無恢復原狀之可能。從這事實，我們更可以想到，世界各地，在與伯明翰這些製造品相類似的製造品上，或在鑲邊、彩飾、金銀器、書邊鍍金及傢具等物上，每年所消費的金銀，不知多少。而且金銀每年由一地運往他地，在海陸途中失去的份量，也一定不在少數。加之，掘地埋藏寶物，為亞洲各國幾乎普遍的習俗。埋藏的場所，在埋藏者死亡以後，往往無人知道。這種習俗；必然增加金銀的損失量。 根據