[Illustration:  The above diagram shows the relative annual production of gold and silver from 1493 to 1870, and also average ratio of values of the two metals.]

I should say, at this point, that my figures are taken from the latest, and in my opinion the most scholarly work in favor of monometallism, “The History of Currency,” by Prof.  W. A. Shaw, Fellow of the Royal Historical and Royal Statistical Societies.  As the ratio between silver and gold varied considerably in the different marts of Europe, I follow his plan (which is Soetbeer’s) of taking it as it stood at any particular time in the city which might then be called the greatest commercial centre, whether Venice, Hamburg, Antwerp, or London.  His history comprises the entire period from 1252 to 1894.  It is only fair that I should also give his explanation of the stability of the metals, which is extremely interesting.

He begins his second chapter with the statement that the discovery of America was “the monetary salvation and resurrection of the Old World”; that it was a time of unexampled increase in the precious metals and equally unexampled rise of prices, but there was also “feverish instability and want of equilibrium in the monetary systems of Europe.”  He shows how the first great import was of gold, which began to affect prices in 1520; how this was followed by a very much greater increase in silver, and how, while prices were rising so rapidly as to stimulate trade and incidentally do damage by causing great fluctuations, yet there must have been some great regulator preventing the evil which we should a priori have expected.  He finds it in the fact that Antwerp had taken the place of Venice and Florence, and conducted a great trade with the far East.  His language is:  “The centre of European exchanges—­Antwerp in the sixteenth century as London to-day—­has always performed one supremest function, that of regulating the flow of metals from the New World by means of exporting the overplus to the East.  The drain of silver to the East, discernible from the very birth of European commerce, has been the salvation of Europe, and in providing for it Antwerp acted as the safety-valve of the sixteenth century system as London has done since.  The importance of the change of the centre of gravity and exchange from Venice to Antwerp, therefore, lies in this fact.  Under the old system of overland and limited trade, Venice could only provide for such puny exchange and flow as the mediaeval system of Europe demanded; she would have been unable to cope with such a flood of inflowing metal as the sixteenth century witnessed, and Europe would have been overwhelmed.”