Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/724

Rh above sea-level, the upper 1834 ft. There is a school of the industrial arts and handicrafts, and majolica, paper, and silk cocoons are produced. The upper town contains the hexagonal piazza, a citadel, erected in 1573 by Emanuel Philibert, the cathedral of S. Donatus, a spacious episcopal palace, and higher up is a tower, the Belvedere, with a fine view. At the foot of the hill along the banks of the Ellero (a tributary of the Po) lie the industrial and commercial suburbs of Breo, Borgatto, Pian della Valle and Carassone, with their potteries, tanneries, paper-mills, marble-works, &c. The mansion of Count San Quintino in Pian della Valle was the seat of the printing-press which from 1472 issued books with the imprint Mons Regalis.

Mondovì—Mons Vici, Mons Regalis, Monteregale—did not take its rise till about 1000. The bishopric dates from 1388. About 2 m. to the east is the sanctuary of Vico, a church designed by Ascanio Vittozzi in 1596 and crowned by a famous dome (1730–1748), which has been declared a national monument. In the square before it is a monument (1891) to Charles Emmanuel I. of Savoy.

 MONET, CLAUDE (1840-), French painter, was born in Paris on the 14th of November 1840. His youth was passed at Hâvre, where his father had settled in 1845. Until he was fifteen years old he led a somewhat irregular life, learning little at school, and spending all his time in decorating his books with drawings and caricatures which gave him notoriety in Hâvre. At the same time he became acquainted with Boudin, a clever sea-painter, under whose guidance he learned to love and to understand nature. At the age of twenty he became a soldier, and spent two years of his military time with the regiment of the Chasseurs d'Afrique in the desert. Falling ill with fever, he was sent home, and entered the studio of Gleyre. This classical painter tried in vain to keep him to conventional art and away from truth and nature, and Monet left his studio, where he had become acquainted with two other “impressionistic” painters—Sisley and Renoir. At that time he also knew (q.v.), and in 1869 he joined the group of Cézanne, Degas, Duranty, Sisley, and became a plein air painter. During the war of 1870 he withdrew to England, and on his return was introduced by Daubigny to a dealer, M. Durand-Ruel, in whose galleries almost all his works have been exhibited. In 1872 he exhibited views of Argenteuil, near Paris; in 1874 a series entitled “Cathedrals,” showing the cathedral of Rouen under different lights. He afterwards painted views of Vétheuil (1875, see Plate), Pourville and cliffs of Etretat (1881), of Bordighera (1886), of the Creuse (1889), Le Meules (1891), and some further views of cathedrals (1894). In December 1900 he exhibited some pictures called “Le Bassin des Nymphéas,” and was engaged at the beginning of 1901 in painting views of London. Several of Monet’s paintings, bequeathed by M. Caillebotte, are in the Luxembourg Museum, Paris. (See .)  MONETARY CONFERENCES. These assemblies were one of the features of the latter half of the 19th century, due to the decided tendency towards securing reforms by concerted international action. The disorganized state of the European currencies, which became more serious in consequence of the great expansion in trade and industry, came into notice through the great gold discoveries and their effect on the relations between the two precious metals. Both by its situation and its currency system, France was the country that was first led to aim at the establishment of a currency union, in which French ideas and influences would be predominant. A preliminary step was the formation of the Latin union, whereby the currencies of France, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland were—in respect to their gold and silver coins—assimilated. In 1867 the Paris Exhibition furnished the occasion for summoning a monetary conference, to which the principal countries of the world sent representatives. The guiding spirit of this assembly was the eminent economist, De Parieu, who had originated the Latin Union. By his advice a scheme was approved recommending the adoption of the single gold standard, the use of the decimal

system, and the co-ordination of the various currencies with the French system. Difficulties as to the mode of bringing these principles into practical operation were discussed, and full liberty had to be given to the several nations to carry out the proposals in the way that seemed best. The result proved that the obstacles were insurmountable, e.g. the British government could not obtain the assent of a Royal Commission to the assimilation of the sovereign to the 25-franc piece; and the course of political events soon completely altered the relative position of the leading countries, even in their monetary relations. Germany and the United States reformed their currencies, without reference to any international considerations.

The meeting of the next international conference took place under very different conditions. A great fall in the value of silver as measured in gold, in progress from 1873, had affected the relations of silver-using countries, and disturbed the level of prices. Indian interests as well as those of American producers of silver suffered, while the management of all double-standard currencies became a task of increasing difficulty. The government of the United States invited the representatives of the leading powers to meet in Paris for the purpose of considering (1) the desirability of retaining the unrestricted use of silver for coinage, (2) the adoption of international (q.v.), by the acceptance of a ratio to be fixed by agreement. Eleven nations sent delegates, Germany being the only great power unrepresented. After somewhat protracted discussion and the presentation of a large number of documents the European states accepted the American proposition “that it is necessary to maintain in the world the monetary functions of silver”; but declined to bind the discretion of particular states as to the methods to be employed. They further declared it impossible to enter into an agreement for a common ratio. The conference, therefore, separated without any result being obtained.

In consequence of the continuing fall in the value of silver, which stimulated the bimetallic agitation, a third conference was convened by the joint action of France and the United States; it also met in Paris, and was more influential than its predecessor, since Germany sent representatives, as did Spain, Portugal, Denmark and India. The characteristic of this conference was the greater strength of the support given to the bimetallic proposal by France and the United States, together with the opposition of the delegates of the smaller European countries, and the refusal of Germany to promise any co-operation. The inevitable consequence of this situation was the adjournment of the conference to obtain fresh instructions, which, however, were never furnished.

After several abortive attempts the fourth (and last) of the conferences of this class was brought together at Brussels in November 1892 on the initiative of the United States. A full representation of the powers attended, but delay arose from the absence of definite proposals by the American government. These, when they were presented, proved to be only a reaffirmation of the bimetallic policy, and showed no advance. The conference, therefore, proceeded to consider the plans of Levy, Baron de Rothschild and Sotbeer for the more extended use of silver. Such devices, being merely alleviations, failed to gain any effective support. Appeals to England and Germany to grant some concessions likewise failed. Thus, like its Paris forerunners, the Brussels conference adjourned, but never resumed its sittings.

After 1892 the currency problem passed into a new stage, in which action was national rather than international. The method of procedure by conference was for the time abandoned.

 MONEY. 1. Definition and Functions.—The difficult question as to the best definition of money has been complicated by the efforts of writers so to define the term as to give support to their particular theories. It is hard to frame a precise account which