Although I have detailed the considerations recommending the adoption of the Shanghai tael as the best unit of standard for China, from the point of view of old traditions and the existing state of trade, I did not treat the question purely from the point of view of coinage. The main objection to the Shanghai tael would be that the standard is too big, involving the minting of heavy coins and keeping up minute sub-divisions. The confusion in this instance arises from the supposition that the unit has to be minted. It is, of course, usual to have the unit minted, like the sovereign in England. But there have been successful introductions of new units, while the unit coins have not been minted at all, except as multiples or divisibles. Too much has been made of the necessity for minting large quantities of the standard unit of the country, while in practice such is not the case in most parts of the world, even to-day. For instance, France and Germany are gold standard countries, with the franc and the mark as the units; but one never sees a franc or a mark in gold except as a curiosity, and it would certainly be very inconvenient to have the unit in the standard of the country. In the United States there are very rarely dollar pieces in gold, although the five-dollar piece is in general circulation - the dollar being mostly met with either in silver token coins or paper currency. In Japan there are no yen pieces at all, either in gold or in silver, in circulation; there are even no coins in circulation above the fifty sen token piece, all transactions being done with paper money. There is no reason why China should not follow the example of these countries. But it may rightly be asked that, if silver is to be the standard, there should be some coin in general circulation, and a silver coin is absolutely necessary for a silver standard country. It is not generally understood that there is a world of difference between the unit of standard and the unit of coinage, although the unit of coinage must be based on the unit of standard. It is not always necessary to have an identical unit for the standard as also for the coinage. The considerations that play an important part in the fixing of the unit of the standard are the trade transactions of the country; the considerations that ought to regulate the unit of coinage are those relating to the daily life of the people. There is no doubt that the Chinese people are as a whole poor, from the point of view of the amount of money they spend for their necessaries, i.e., their standard of living is low, as compared with the Western monetary standpoint - although they are able to attend to their creature comforts as fully as, or even better than, people in Western countries. Therefore, the interests of the Chinese community as a whole necessitate the retention of coins of very small size. The Chinese have the cash, which is very freely used in the daily transactions of life, but mostly in multiples of three and four. In England there is the farthing which is 1/960 of a sovereign, which is the unit of the country. In Russia there is a quarter of a kopek or 1/400 of a rouble, which is practically 2/3 of the Shanghai tael. In France there is the centime or 1/100 of a franc, which is 1/3 of a tael; in India we have the pie or 1/192 of a rupee, which is slightly over 1/2 of a tael. But to have a minimum division of the unit, does not always mean that coins of such denominations should be in free circulation. In England to-day, the farthing has become more or less a money of account; in India the pie coins are rarely met with; in France the sou, or five centimes, is the smallest unit in circulation. Therefore, it has generally happened that the smaller units of coinage disappear with an increase in the standard of living. But it would be bad policy to anticipate their disappearance and not to make provisions for coinage.