§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the mission of Sir Louis Mallet to Paris, who is understood to have gone thither with a view of taking part in the Monetary Conferences, is to be interpreted as giving any sanction on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the project of conferring a fictitious value on one of the metals employed as currency, and of aiding whatever consequences may reasonably be anticipated from the adoption of what is called "Bi-metallism?"
MR. GLADSTONEIn answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, what 173 I have to state is this. The French and American Governments have accepted the terms on which the delegates were to be sent, on the part of India, to the Monetary Conference before these delegates were nominated, and therefore the view supposed to be entertained by Sir Louis Mallet does not enter into the question. The terms upon which the attendance of the British delegate was accepted were these—The Secretary of State for India, in Council, would not be held by his actions to commit the Government of India to any act or proceeding in the nature of the adoption of the principle of bi-metallism. He was unwilling to encourage the expectation of any material change in the monetary policy of India; but he would favourably consider any measure for adoption in India calculated to promote the re-establishment of the value of silver. That is the extent of the pledge given; and I do not believe there is any necessity for making any additional proposal.