HC Deb 05 April 1881 vol 260 cc732-50

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. FIRTH

said, he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper in reference to this Bill, which he begged to move—namely, that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. The Bill was introduced this year by the Corporation of the City of London as a Private Bill; but his contention was that it ought to have been introduced as a public measure, so that a better opportunity would have been afforded of discussing it than the House could possibly have in its present form. The main object of the measure was the sale by the Corporation of the City of London to the Commissioners of Public Works of certain land on the Thames Embankment for the purpose of erecting a new Mint. The question of erecting a Mint on the Thames Embankment had been considered by the House before—namely, in 1871, when the subject underwent a very careful examination. At that time a Bill was brought forward for this purpose which was a Public Bill; but the measure was rejected by 118 to 95. It was now proposed to purchase a site for the same purpose, which, if carried out, would have the effect of overriding the decision arrived at in 1871; and it was further proposed to effect this object through the medium of the Private Bill now before the House. The Bill set out and confirmed an award which had been given by Mr. Edward Norton Clifton, architect, of London, by which three acres of land on the Thames Embankment were to be sold by the Corporation of the City of London to Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings, for the sum of £254,475. In some sense it might be alleged that the Bill was merely to carry out this award. He believed that the late Administration were the means, or, at any rate, they were parties to the award being made; but he had always understood, and, indeed, a distinct pledge was given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the whole matter should be submitted to the careful consideration and decision of Parliament. One question for inquiry was whether the land the Government sought to acquire was worth the money proposed to be given for it. Although Mr. Clifton had decided that these three acres of land were worth the sum of £254,000, it was probable that an independent investigation would result in showing that it was worth much less. At any rate, there were two observations that might be made upon the matter. In the first place, in 1871 the value of land nearly close to this was fixed at a much lower figure than it was now proposed to give. Sir Henry Hunt valued the land in that year at £40,000 per acre; but it was now proposed to give £80,000 per acre for it, or exactly double. He had endeavoured to ascertain what the cost of this land was, and he had asked more than one Alderman of the Corporation of the City of London; but they represented themselves as possessing no knowledge upon the matter at all. He believed that that was a true representation; but he had been informed that for the whole eight acres of land possessed by the Corporation of London in this locality, a less sum had been given than was now proposed to be given out of the Public Exchequer for three acres only. This was a serious matter, and it was most desirable that there should be some sort of public discussion whether so large a sum ought to be given for a purpose of this kind. When the proposal was made in 1871, it was a commercial proposition for building a Mint on two acres of land, for which £80,000 was to be given, while £60,000 was to be expended in the building and £400,000 machinery, making a total of £180,000. As the three acres of land on which the Mint now stood was stated to be then saleable for £180,000, the account in that case would be squared, and there would be no loss to the Exchequer at all. But the House of Commons deliberately rejected that proposal, and the proposition now made was of a far less commercial character. In the first place, the value of land on Tower Hill had lessened rather than increased in value. It had lessened for this simple reason—that it was formerly available for the building of large bonded warehouses; but such warehouses were now generally built by the Railway Companies at their termini, and the present site of the Mint would be worth much less now than it would have been some years ago. In addition, the cost of erecting the building would be much larger than the original estimate. He had seen the elevation of the proposed building for the Mint on the Thames Embankment. It would, no doubt, be a very fine building; but it was absurd to suggest that it would be erected for £60,000, or for anything like that sum. But, supposing that it was possible to erect it for £60,000, and to put up the machinery for £40,000 more, the cost, including the site, would amount to £354,475; and if the building and site at Tower Hill produced £180,000, there would be an actual loss of £174,475. Surely a loss of that kind ought not to be incurred without careful consideration. As a matter of fact, however, there was every reason to believe that the loss would be more than £200,000. In 1871 the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the new Mint should be erected upon the Thames Embankment, because it might be built compactly upon two acres of land. The proposal now before the House was to purchase three acres, so that the argument of having the building compact upon two acres would no longer apply. When the present Mint was built in 1810, it was placed near the Tower because it was considered convenient to have the troops at hand in case of an attack being made upon it, and also that it might be near to the Bank of England. Whatever might be the value of these two acres, he presumed that the site on the Thames Embankment would not be more commodious than the site on Tower Hill. Moreover, it could be demonstrated to a certainty that the Mint could be rebuilt on its present site. He was aware that there were people who objected to that proposition; but there were more than three acres of land on Tower Hill, and there could be no difficulty in rebuilding the new Mint gradually. The coinage would not suffer, because, so far as the silver and copper coinage was concerned, it had been repeatedly put out by contract at Birmingham and other places; and with respect to the coinage of gold, if building operations going on at the same time were likely seriously to affect it, there was this to be said—that for some time the coinage of gold had been suspended. He believed there had been no gold coined for nine months, and that from last July they did not propose to coin any until the present month. In the course of another nine months the rebuilding of the Mint could be far progressed; and it must, therefore, be admitted that the difficulties which formerly existed did not exist now. The nuisance arising from the smoke and fumes of the smelting operations would be no greater than they were at present; and the noise by working with leverage and new machinery would hardly be equal to that met with in the Western Prairies when they approached one of the great stamping mills. The commercial aspect of the question appeared to him to be one which ought to be carefully considered. There were one or two other points connected with the Bill to which he ought to make allusion. In the first place, the Bill empowered the Commissioners of Public Works to sell the Basinghall Street buildings to the Corporation of the City of London for the sum of £93,500. This was the site of the old Bankruptcy Court, which the Corporation wished to use for what they termed a temporary purpose. It was not for him to suggest that it was not desirable that the Corporation of the City of London should temporarily go into the Bankruptcy Court. He agreed with an observation made rather wittily—having regard to the place in which it was made—in the Court of Common Council, that unless the City altered its ways it would have to take up more than a temporary residence in a Court of that kind. The City proposed to purchase the old Bankruptcy Court, which was near to the Guildhall, and the purchase formed part of the transaction that was to he carried out in the Bill. There was also a proposal to sell to Sion College a piece of land on the north side of the Thames Embankment for a sum of £31,625. It did not appear in the Bill how it became requisite that the consent of Parliament should be given to such a sale as this; and, certainly, if the consent of the House of Commons was necessary, he thought the House should be put in possession of all the circumstances of the case, and be told for what purposes Sion College required this land. Sion College was founded 250 years ago by Dr. White, for certain specified objects—namely, for the maintenance of a popular preacher at St. Dunstan's, for the erection of alms-houses, the incorporation of lecturers or curates, the holding of quarterly dinners, and the propagation of pure truth and doctrine. At the present moment he was not aware whether or no there was a popular preacher at St. Dunstan's; there was certainly no almshouse, and no incorporation of lecturers or curates. He knew nothing about the quarterly dinners; and if pure truth and doctrine continued to be propagated, it was not through any special action of Sion College. He believed the only thing that existed now in connection with Sion College was a library of some 60,000 volumes, which, he believed, was established by one of the executors of Dr. White. The House ought to be told what was the object of this sale, and if it was necessary that they should give their sanction to it, no doubt they would give it. These were the whole of the proposals contained in the Bill. There was a power to the Corporation of the City of London to sell other lands, and he certainly did not see why that power was necessary. It ought, he thought, to be explained, and also the power to purchase other lands. With respect to the whole question of the sale and purchase of important lands by the Cor- poration of London, it must be borne in mind that the entire position of the Corporation was at the present moment subjudice, and it was a matter for consideration whether transactions of this sort ought to receive the sanction of the House of Commons until that question was settled. As to the application of the purchase money, one of the clauses of the Bill provided that the money payable by the Commissioners to the Corporation should be paid into the Bank of England as if it were paid in under the 69th section of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. He was fully aware of the difficult position which the Government occupied in the matter. When they came into Office the question had been already referred to an Arbitrator, and that Arbitrator had now given his award. To a certain extent, Her Majesty's Government might feel themselves called upon to support that award; but he held that the proposal was one which was entirely for the consideration of the House; and he ventured to think that no wise Administration would associate itself with a decaying body like the Corporation of the City of London. He had thought it necessary to put the case clearly and fully before the House, inasmuch as the carrying out of the scheme proposed by the Bill would result in a loss of not less than £250,000. It would be much better that such a measure should be brought forward and discussed in a Public Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.

MR. BRAND

begged to second the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth). His hon. Friend had fully explained the reasons why this Bill ought to have been introduced as a public measure and not as a Private Bill. The Bill seemed to be a very simple and a very insignificant measure. It was a Bill, in fact, to enable the Corporation of the City of London to sell, and Her Majesty's Government to buy, certain lands on the Thames Embankment and elsewhere. Now, he did not wish to oppose, or in any way to restrict, the freedom of the Corporation of the City of London in buying or selling land, because he did not object to the Corporation and all its works in the same way that his hon. Friend did. But he objected to the Bill because by the 1st clause, and by the first part of the 1st schedule, Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings were enabled to buy of the Corporation of the City of London certain lands on the Thames Embankment. Any hon. Member who casually looked at the Bill would not discover from anything contained in it what was the real intent and object of the measure. The real intent and object of the Bill was to enable Her Majesty's Government to build upon the site thus purchased of the Corporation of the City of London a new Mint. Now, if this was the first occasion upon which such a proposal had ever been brought before the House of Commons, he might still object on the ground that it would be a more legitimate and expedient course to have brought the measure before the House of Commons as a Public Bill. But the case was very different. This question was discussed in 1871. It was discussed then upon a Public Bill, and in 1871 the House of Commons rejected the proposal by a majority, and rejected it on the ground that even then it would cost a large sum of money to the English taxpayer. That being so, this was distinctly an attempt—and this was his objection to the Bill—it was distinctly an attempt to reverse the decision come to by the House of Commons on a public measure by a Private Bill. He maintained that it was a very inexpedient course to pursue. His noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), or his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who would answer for the Bill, would say, he presumed, that the circumstances were different now from what they were in 1871. It was perfectly true that they were different in this sense, that the economic arguments that were pleaded for the Bill of 1871 were no longer applicable. What was the condition of things then? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1871, proposed to buy a site on the Thames Embankment, the value of which was £80,000. It was proposed to erect upon that site buildings that were to cost £100,000, and competent authorities stated that the sale of the old Mint building would more than cover the whole of the expenses of the new building. The case was very different now. The land was to cost not £80,000, but £254,000, and he maintained that that altered the whole of the circumstances. and that the Bill ought to be submitted as a public measure to the consideration of the House of Commons. There were only two other small points upon which he would touch. It might be said that there was a necessity for a new Mint. It might be so. He did not dispute the contention; but he should like to know whether the engineers had stated that it was impossible to adapt the old Mint to the new requirements. At any rate, it was a question for the consideration of a Select Committee, and if the necessity did exist it would not justify the introduction of this Bill as a Private Bill. He believed that the history of the Bill was this—the award was accepted by the late Government; and, therefore, the present Government thought they were bound in honour and good faith to bring the matter forward in this way before the House of Commons. He fully admitted that it was so; but there was no reason why the House of Commons should confirm the award, and, at any rate, there was no reason why the question should not have been brought before the House of Commons in a Public Bill. For these reasons he seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Firth.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

SIR THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had failed to adduce a single argument which was not an argument in favour of the Bill being submitted to a Committee upstairs; and the whole proposition now before the House was that the Bill should be read a second time with a view to its being considered in Committee in the ordinary course. He believed the House had been informed that the Bill had already been investigated by a Committee of the House of Lords, and, having passed that House, it now came down to the House of Commons. Its object was to carry out an arrangement which had been entered into between the Corporation of the City of London and Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the acquisition of a site on the Thames Embankment for the erection of a new Mint. He had read over the correspondence which had taken place between the Government and the Corporation upon the subject. It extended over several years, and it showed that the Corporation had throughout been reluctant to sell; but that pressure had been placed on them by the Government to compel them to sell these three acres of land which they were in possession of upon the Thames Embankment. The negotiations arose in 1874 in consequence of a wish expressed by the Corporation to purchase the site of the Bankruptcy Court in Basinghall Street, the business of the Court having been removed to Lincoln's Inn Fields. After these negotiations had gone on for some time, the Government sounded the Corporation as to their willingness to sell the land on the Thames Embankment. Well, the Corporation were very reluctant to do so, and their objection to sell these three acres of land to the Government was because they were afraid that the erection of the Mint on the Thames Embankment might be the means of creating a nuisance to the adjoining property by the fumes from the works, the pollution of the air, the noise of the manufacturing processes, and the constant passing of a large number of workmen during certain periods of the day. It was only after these objections had been entirely removed by the frankness and fulness with which the Government explained the whole matter, and by the Reports of two very able scientific men, one of whom, a chemist, reported upon the effect which might be produced upon the air by the establishment of a Mint upon the Embankment; while the other, Mr. Bramwell, the eminent engineer, reported upon the other points of difficulty. It appeared, from the Reports of these gentlemen, that there was no foundation whatever for the apprehensions that were entertained as to the erection of the new Mint on this particular site being a nuisance. The Corporation, when they were satisfied upon that head, at once withdrew their objection, and became willing parties to the negotiations for the sale. As soon as they came to the conclusion that the Mint might properly be constructed on the Embankment, the Corporation referred the matter to their own City Architect, while the Government, on their part, referred it to an eminent surveyor and valuer, and these gentlemen appointed as Arbitrator an- other architect and valuer, Mr. Clifton. As the result of that reference to arbitration, Mr. Clifton ultimately gave his award, and it was to carry out that award that the present Bill had been introduced. He failed to see, in as much as it was purely a local matter for the purchase and sale of a piece of land, why the Bill should necessarily have been brought in as a public measure. It appeared to him much more natural that it should be introduced as a Private Bill. There could be no technical objection to the scheme being carried out in a Private Bill; and, therefore, it was submitted to Parliament in a Private Bill. It had already passed through the House of Lords, and its sole object was to carry out an arrangement in regard to which, in the first instance, the Corporation had been extremely reluctant to negotiate. Ultimately, their objections were removed, and they had made what they considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. The only question now was whether the Government would be allowed to complete a negotiation which had been carried on for the last five or six years, and whether a Committee of the House of Commons should have the opportunity of considering the circumstances of the case, and expressing an opinion upon it. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had another Amendment on the Paper, in which he proposed, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, to refer it to a Special Committee, with special instructions to regulate their inquiry. He believed that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Corporation of the City of London had any objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend; and, on the whole, he (Sir Thomas Chambers) thought the best course would be to read the Bill a second time, and then to refer it to a Select Committee constituted in the way in which his hon. Friend suggested.

MR. RYLANDS

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Recorder of the City of London had made a speech which no one in that House could take the slightest objection to. At all events, he (Mr. Rylands) did not intend to take the slightest objection to the statement made by his hon. and learned Friend. He entirely repudiated any disposition to charge the Corporation with anything in connection with the proposal before the House which reflected upon the course they had pursued. So far as they were concerned, he quite admitted that the first movement in the matter was on the part of the Government. He remembered the debate which took place on the matter in 1871, and he had watched it narrowly over since. It was a most singular thing that outside the Government a certain amount of constant pressure—whether one right hon. Gentleman or another occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer or First Commissioner of Works—a constant pressure was put upon the Government, by somebody outside the Ministry, to induce them to take a step which, in the judgment of the House in 1871, and, certainly, in his (Mr. Rylands') judgment, was a step not only unjustifiable, but which would entail on the country a very large expenditure, without any corresponding benefits. He must say he entertained a strong feeling that the Bill which was now before the House ought not to have been introduced as a Private Bill, especially after what had occurred last Session and in previous Parliaments. It was a remarkable thing that a Bill, the effect of which was to reverse the deliberate decision of the House, should have been introduced in an unostentatious manner in the House of Lords as a Private Bill, and then brought down to the House of Commons without a word of explanation from the Government, seeing that it proposed to commit the country to a large expenditure which the House had already refused to sanction. He ventured to say that no hon. Member who was not conversant with the circumstances of the case would gain the slightest knowledge of the nature of the measure from a mere examination of the provisions of the Bill itself. When the matter was before the House on a former occasion, there was only a very partial and insufficient inquiry. The Committee reported in favour of the removal of the site of the Mint from Tower Hill to the Thames Embankment. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), whose absence from the House on account of ill-health they all regretted, took a prominent part in the debate which followed; and he was able, from his great knowledge of the subject, to adduce substantial reasons against the adoption of the Bill. The House divided against the Government, and rejected the Bill by a majority. What happened then? The matter was settled as far as the House was concerned, and as far as the Government were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer then came into Office, and the same pressure was put upon him as was put upon his Predecessor to remove the site of the Mint. With his known good nature, the right hon. Gentleman was induced to give way, and negotiations were entered into with the Corporation of the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect that he (Mr. Rylands) put a Question to him—he thought it was in 1879—asking him whether it was the fact that negotiations were going on between the Government and the Corporation with a view to obtain a site for the new Mint. He further asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would give an undertaking that the House should not be committed to the purchase of a new site without having an opportunity for fully discussing the question. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly told him that negotiations were going on, that they were not concluded, and that he would take care that the House should not be bound by the negotiations, or precluded from considering the whole matter. The House were now in this position. They were entitled to consider the whole matter; but they had certainly expected that no Bill would be brought in for dealing with it except a Public Bill, and on that ground he might have been prepared to vote against the present measure. At the same time, he had placed a proposal on the Paper for the appointment of a strong Committee, with a special Reference to such Committee, which would enable them to take the whole circumstances of the case into consideration, and to see whether or not it was desirable to remove the Mint from its present site, and whether an improvement to meet the necessities of the case could not be made upon the existing site. He thought that a strong Select Committee, with such an extended Reference, might be able to sift the matter thoroughly. He understood that the Government had no objection to his proposal; and he thought that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), in view of that proposition, might not feel disinclined to allow the Bill to be read a second time, on the distinct understand- ing that a Committee with an extended Reference would be appointed.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he only wished to say a few words. No doubt, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had correctly stated what had transpired on the subject. At the same time, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) wished to state to the House what his position had been in the matter. It was one which had been constantly before him, and to which he had given very anxious attention, with every disposition to avoid the spending of the large sum of money which the operation was sure to cost. But he had the conviction entirely forced upon him that there really was a necessity, and a growing necessity, for a complete alteration of the Mint buildings; and, as far as he had been able to consider the question and investigate it, he did not believe that the alterations which were required could be carried into effect on the site of the present building. He meant by this that if they were able to shut up the Mint for a certain time and carry on the operations of the Mint some-where else, it was possible to re-construct the building on the present area. But if they could not do this, the inconvenience and loss to the public would be such that it almost seemed impossible to do what was necessary without obtaining a new site. There had been a great many difficulties in the way of getting a new site, arising principally from the prejudices of those to whom the proposed site belonged, or the persons who lived in the neighbourhood. That had been one of the difficulties in the way of the arrangement which had been proposed; but he hoped that they were now able to see their way to a satisfactory arrangement in the future. At the same time, he was not at all disposed to contest the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley, that it was reasonable there should be another inquiry. There had already been a formal inquiry before a Committee of the House; but he saw no objection to the appointment of another Committee if the Government entertained no objection to it. Therefore, the course now proposed by the hon. Member for Burnley appeared to him, on the whole, to be the most satisfactory one. The object they had in view was a public object of very great importance. At any moment the most serious inconvenience might arise in consequence of the break- ing down of the existing machinery. Under these circumstances, he was of opinion that if the Bill was allowed to be read a second time, and was then referred to a Committee with some such instruction as that proposed by the hon. Member for Burnley, they might be able to see their way to a satisfactory solution of the difficulty.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

failed to see the force of the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that the Bill ought to have been brought in as a Public Bill. It was a simple Bill for carrying out an arrangement for the sale of a portion of land belonging to the Corporation of the City of London to the Government, and the sale of another portion of land by the Government to the Corporation. As the learned Recorder for the City of London (Sir Thomas Chambers) had well stated, the arrangement was to be carried out for the convenience of the Government, and the Corporation of the City for a long time were unwilling sellers. It was only after strong pressure that the Government were persuaded to sell the Bankruptcy Court to the City, and that the Corporation were induced to sell to the Government the land which they held in their possession on the Thames Embankment. That, he contended, had nothing to do with the question whether it ought to be a Private or a Public Bill. No mention of the word "Mint" was contained in the Bill. It was simply a Bill to enable the Government to purchase a certain quantity of land from the Corporation; and, in order to enable them to build a new Mint, it would be necessary for the Government to bring in a fresh Bill, and obtain the sanction of the House to the arrangements for the erection of a new public Mint. So far as the Corporation were concerned, the Government might use the land for any other purpose. There was no limit in the conditions of sale, and no compulsion whatever. So far as the opposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) was concerned, it was quite sufficient for his hon. Friend that the Corporation proposed to sell anything or to buy anything. His hon. Friend was quite ready to oppose any object they might desire to carry out; and, no doubt, from his hon. Friend's great knowledge of the value of property in the City of London, and particularly in Chelsea, his views upon the matter were worthy of consideration. The House, however, would bear in mind that the opinion of very eminent men had been consulted as to the value of this land, and that the Bill only carried into effect the award of the Arbitrator who had inquired into the whole question. If the views of his hon. Friend were to be adopted, the Government ought to have no dealings whatever with the Corporation of London, and all the property belonging to the Corporation ought to be kept fastened up until the hon. Member's views in regard to the establishment of a great Metropolitan Municipality were carried out. In the meantime, this particular portion of the property of the Corporation would have to remain an open space probably for the next 50 or 100 years. He believed that that was the real object of his hon. Friend, and he had no fault to find with it. If it amused his hon. Friend, it certainly did not injure the Corporation. With respect to the Bill, if it were sent to a Select Committee, the Committee would have all the merits placed before them. If the House should then decide that the Mint should not be removed from its present site, and that it should not be built upon the Thames Embankment, the Corporation of London would have nothing more to say in the matter. The only object of the Bill was to carry out the arrangement which had been entered into with Her Majesty's Government; and the question whether the Government were to carry out their present intention, and build a Mint upon the new site, would have to come before Parliament in a regular form after the arrangement with the Corporation was completed. When that was done, it would be for the Government to adduce arguments to satisfy the House as to the advantages which would arise from building the Mint on the Embankment.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

remarked, that there were various important questions involved in the present Bill. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had done good service in calling the attention of the House to the measure; but he could not agree with his hon. Friend that the Bill ought to be rejected because it was a Private Bill. If the Bill was rejected on that ground, it would not determine the question whether or not a new Mint was to be erected on what was called the Thames Embankment site. If it did, then ho should be quite prepared to agree with his hon. Friend that the matter ought to be dealt with by a Public Bill. But even if the present Bill passed, the House would still have to consider and settle that question. The necessity for the measure arose from the fact that the Corporation of the City of London were the owners of a certain plot of land on the Thames Embankment, which the Government were anxious to obtain for public purposes, and they had no power to sell it without an Act of Parliament. The question whether a Mint was to be erected on the site would have to be decided when the House was asked to vote a sum of money for the cost of the building. The only question at present raised was whether the Corporation should have power to sell and the Government power to purchase. The House would always have another opportunity of passing a judgment upon the question of erecting a new Mint. He wished to explain now why it was that the Government felt themselves bound to support the Bill, and why they felt themselves bound to confirm the arrangement entered into by their Predecessors in Office with the Corporation of the City of London. They felt that it was absolutely necessary that one Government should adhere to the engagements, in matters of this kind, that were entered into by another, so that anyone who transacted business with one Government would know that the arrangements made would not be disturbed by another. Indeed, it would be absolutely impossible for Public Business to be conducted if each succeeding Government could release itself from the engagements entered into by its Predecessors. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that the Government were bound to support the present Bill. But, while the Government were bound, the House was free; because, in the arrangement entered into by the late Government, there was a special Proviso that an Act of Parliament would be necessary to make it obligatory, and all the engagements were to be conditional on the obtaining of that Act. The House was, therefore, perfectly free in the matter, and, at the proper time, would be able either to confirm or to reject the proposal for the erection of a new Mint on the Thames Embankment. He hoped, however, that the House would not refuse its assent without grave consideration; and he would venture to suggest a few reasons why the matter should be more fully considered than it was possible that it could be on this, the second reading, stage of the Bill, and why he hoped the Motion, which his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) intended to make after the Bill had been read a second time, would be accepted. The whole question was carefully considered by a Select Committee in 1870, and the Government of that day were fully impressed with the absolute necessity of a great improvement being made in the Mint buildings. The present Mint buildings were erected at the beginning of the century. The demands upon the Mint had, however, largely increased, and the present Mint was altogether unable to meet the demands that were made upon it. It was quite true that within the last few years the demands made upon the Mint had been much smaller than usual owing to various causes. But it was not likely that the demands upon the Mint would remain in that position much longer; and it was necessary, therefore, to make provision for meeting all the demands that were likely to be made upon it. In the year 1872 the demands which were made upon the Mint were such that the Mint was unable to fulfil them, and the Government were obliged to enter into contracts with private firms for assistance in the copper and silver coinage, and great inconvenience might have been the result. There was also another consideration which rendered it necessary that there should be an improvement in the existing buildings. The gold coinage, he was sorry to say, was by no means in a satisfactory condition. The proportion of light coin was very large, and it was absolutely essential that the whole question of the gold coinage must be taken in hand before very long. But it might and had been said by some of his hon. Friends that the requirements might be met on the present site, and that it was perfectly possible to improve the existing Mint. Now, that was not so easy a matter as might appear at first sight. It would by no means be easy to extend the Mint while its operations were being carried on. In the first place, there were grave objections to the closing of the Mint for any lengthened period. The Mint was obliged to convert into coin all the bullion that was sent to it; and the closing of the Mint for six months or for a year could not, under ordinary circumstances, be safely undertaken. Then, again, the gold coinage was a very delicate operation. It required to be carried on with the greatest accuracy and nicety; and it would be impossible to conduct such a coinage amid all the turmoil and bustle of pulling down one part of the building and rebuilding another. Therefore he did not believe, under ordinary circumstances, that it would be possible to make extensive alterations in the present Mint. But, on the other hand, it was perfectly true that the circumstances had very greatly changed since the proposal for the erection of a new Mint was originally made by the present Lord Sherbrooke, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was then hoped that the Government would be able to obtain the site on the Thames Embankment for £80,000; its present value had been estimated at £254,000. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) said the present moment afforded a remarkably favourable opportunity for improving the present Mint. It so happened that the amount of gold coinage held by the Bank of England was larger than it had ever been. The amount of gold coin held by the Bank of England, under ordinary circumstances, varied from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000; but, at the present moment, it stood at £17,500,000. Under all these circumstances, it certainly appeared to him that the Mint question might advantageously undergo the careful consideration of a Select Committee. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time, and that it would then refer it to the Select Committee which would be proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley.

MR. FIRTH

said, that after the observations which had been made by his noble Friend he would not press the Amendment. The object he had in moving it would be completely attained by the appointment of the Committee suggested by his hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Burnley; and, on the understanding that that Committee would be appointed, he would now withdraw the Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member propose to withdraw the Amendment?

MR. FIRTH

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee, to consist of Fifteen Members, Ten to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection. Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they consider and report upon the condition of the buildings, machinery, and appliances of the Royal Mint, and whether such alterations and improvements as may be required in them can be made upon the present site of the Royal Mint, or whether it is desirable that new buildings should be erected upon the site proposed to be sold by the Corporation of the City of London under the provisions of the London City Lands (Thames Embankment) Bill, or elsewhere.