MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the comments in the Indian press lately as to the injustice to India of conducting its chief finance operations in London; whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Bullionist of 9th February last; whether it is a fact that, as stated in this letter, the Indian business has got into the hands of certain "sets" and "rings" in London; and, whether Government will furnish a list of those from whom it has purchased Indian stores, and to whom it has sold "Indian paper," during the past five years?
§ MR. J. K. CROSSI have not noticed in the Indian Press any accounts of the alleged injustice of the Indian Government conducting its chief financial operations in London, but my attention has been drawn to a letter in The Bullionist of the 9th February, in which it is stated that the Indian business has got into the hands of certain "rings" or "sets" in London. If I may be allowed to state to the House how Council drafts are sold, I think the hon. Member will see that the statement is totally void of foundation. Since 1876 it has been the practice of the India Office to advertise for sale, weekly, by public tender to the highest bidder, a certain amount of bills upon India. In April, 1883, it was found that the convenience of remitters would be better suited, and a higher average rate of exchange obtained, by selling bills or telegraphic transfers whenever there was a demand for them; and since then any person or firm wishing to make a remittance to India of Rs. 10,000, or more, may tender at the weekly sale, or may apply any day at the Bank of England and obtain bills— that is, orders on the Indian Treasuries for rupees, at the rate fixed by the India Office. The number of applications at the weekly sale varies from eight or 10 to 18 or 20, and comprises eight banks and about 40 private firms, but no advantage would arise from publishing their names. The hon. Member also asks for a list of those from whom stores have been purchased during the last five years. The list would give no information to the House, and would be very 1094 voluminous—no less than 1,020 persons or firms having received contracts during the past year.