



HOME RULE BILL 231 



question which I should be specially glad to talk over 

 with you, as it is rather intricate. 



There is another mode by which, I think, the light 

 gold might be provided for without loss to the 

 Exchequer. — I am, yours sincerely, 



John Lubbock. 



The question of bimetallism was one to which 

 he had given much attention, but it is hardly of 

 a kind that appeals to the general reader. The 

 following letter from Mr. Riversdale Grenfell, 

 arising out of its consideration, is a singularly 

 lucid statement of a matter which appears very 

 intricate to the minds of ordinary mortals : 



Copper Office, 



27 Upper Thames Street, E.C, 



20th December 1886. 



My dear Lubbock — As far as I understand the cost 

 of production theory it runs on all fours with the 

 Ricardian theory of rent. 



a . . £1 per oz. 



b . . • 2 „ 



c . . . 3 „ 



d . 4 



If the whole demand of the world can be supplied 

 by A and he chooses to sell at £l : 19 : per oz. the 

 price would be £l : 19 : 0, and the others would work 

 at a loss or give up producing. 



If A could not supply the world, but a fresh demand 

 ensued, B might come in up to £2 : 19 : 0, when the effect 

 would be that A's profits would increase £l per oz. 

 And so on to the others. 



If the demand were far below A's power of production, 

 then he would reduce the amount produced down to 

 the Demand, but he might still get £l : 19 : if the 

 Demand were a constant quantity. Of course this 

 supposition is absurd, because what A would do would 

 be to reduce the price between £1 : 19 : and £l till he 

 stimulated the demand. 



At this point the letter switches off with 

 startling abruptness to : 



