Sir Charles laid such eloquent stress, there is also that of the claim of common honesty. It may be rather far fetched, but I think it is very real and relevant. We have been in the past a great place of deposit for other peoples both officially and individually, because London was thought to be a place where money could most safely be put with the certainty of getting it back. This was partly because of the freedom with which gold could be taken away and partly owing to our comparatively stable politics and our long freedom from invasion. Foreigners left and kept money here because they knew that when they wanted it they could take it back in gold. Thanks to the tricks that our Governments have played with our money any foreigner who had put money here before the war and took it away after would get a quantity of gold that would be less than he originally expected according to the premium on gold current on the day when he drew it. Unless he got a licence he could not take gold at all, and would probably take dollars and get so much fewer of them. It is easy to argue that this wrong has already been perpetrated, but I do not see that this justifies us in making it perpetual. It is surely worth while to make an effort so that we may show that although the war and the bungling and cowardice of our
Page:Bankers and Credit (1924).pdf/287
