Commons Sitting of 4 June 1889

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
  Resolution [3rd June] reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund."
    Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY— CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  SUPPLY— CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That a sum, not exceeding £23,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    MR. BRADLAUGHSince my Motion was placed on the Paper a Vote on account has been taken, and I therefore beg to move the reduction of the Vote, not by £30,000, but by £20,000. The only new feature of the Vote this year is that it is £5,000 less than it was the year before. I wish to urge, first, by way of repetition, the general objection I have taken to this Vote on other occasions, and next to deal with it by way of special objections in consequence of the answers by the
    1824
    Home Secretary to questions which have been put to him during the present Session. With regard to the general objection I would refer the Committee to the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee by Sir William Dunbar in support of the doctrine that all payments of every character made out of the monies voted by this House ought to be audited by somebody. Although last year that argument was met by the statement that each Minister made upon his honour a declaration as to the disposal of the money, I think I shall be able to show the Committee as to the Home Office at any rate, and possibly at the Foreign Office and the Irish Office, that that declaration is utterly illusory. The Foreign Office has not expressed its opinion in any answer, but the answer of the Home Secretary has been so distinct as not to leave the possibility of any doubt. Sir William Dunbar says—
    "The only reason hitherto brought forward in justification of departmental resistance to the law of Parliament is that if proofs of the application of Civil Service money were placed in the hands of the Controller and Auditor General such a course might admit him to the knowledge of some of the purposes, covered by that vote which, in the interests of the public service, should be kept undivulged. In my judgment the same trust which may be reposed in a subordinate officer should be extended to the Controller and Auditor General, who is a high Parliamentary functionary, holding one of the most responsible offices under the Crown, and therefore bound by every obligation of duty and honour to act with discretion. It may be safely assumed that so far from revealing anything that would compromise the interests of the State, the only items of the Secret Service accounts likely to be challenged publicly would be payments, if any should occur, applied to other than Secret Service purposes."
    Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Ryan have expressed a similar opinion. Now, it is quite clear from what has occurred in the case I am going to refer to specially, that disbursements of Secret Service money have been made by persons in no way under the control of a Minister at all. Therefore the declaration of the Minister of the Department in which Secret Service money is expended is a declaration of no real value and affords no protection, because in some cases it is abundantly manifest, and may be so in all cases, that the Minister does not know into whose hands the money passes, to what purpose it is ultimately applied, or

    1825
    whether or not it has been used for some purpose for which this House ought to have been called upon to vote it, and therefore have had an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the desirability of the expenditure. The occasion I am going to refer to is the case on sworn evidence of the man Beach, who has been repeatedly spoken of in this House, and whom the Home Secretary describes by the alias he gave to himself of Major le Caron; le Caron is a person who had been employed and paid for many years, according to his own evidence; and, as far as I am aware, he has never been paid out of any money voted by this House other than the Secret Service money. He could only have been paid out of the money at the disposal of the Foreign Office, the Irish Office, or the Home Office. I am inclined to think from the evidence of Le Caron himself that he was not paid out of the Foreign Office money. It appears to be clear both from Le Caron's own statements and from a letter sent to the Times, and read by a Member of the Cabinet before it was sent to the Times, that he was paid by moneys which came solely from the Home Office. Therefore I am not inclined, in connection with this case, to make any attack upon the Foreign Office except the general objection that it is possible that there, too, there may be agents of a similar character—agents the office are not directly acquainted with, but into whose hands the money goes to be applied to purposes of which the Minister has no knowledge. Nor have I any evidence to connect this man, Le Caron, with the Irish Office, and it is solely with the Home Office that I feel justified in connecting him. Mr. Anderson appears to have an office at the Home Office, and Le Caron appears to have been specially connected with the Home Office in what he was doing, but absolutely nothing was known at the Home Office of him. The present and some time Home Secretary did not know his name; and two other ex-Home Secretaries in the House have never heard his name; and it is clear, therefore, that Le Caron has been employed and has received money out of the Secret Service Fund, and that he corresponded with no person responsible to this House, but with a gentleman who happened to be connected with the Home Office, and who happened to have access
    1826
    to the Secret Service money through the Minister, but who was left entirely uncontrolled in the disbursements he made to Le Caron, and was required to give no account of the reports of Le Caron whatever their nature may have been. So much was that so that these reports were kept together not as part of the archives of the Home Office, but as part of a private—I will not say friendly —correspondence between Mr. Anderson and Le Caron, and were absolutely regarded by the Home Secretary himself as being documents over which the Home Office itself had no control, but the private property of this person to be had by him when he pleased, and how he pleased, and to be done with what he pleased. I would suggest that when the present Home Secretary, following the example of his predecessor, made a declaration on his honour as to the application of the money disbursed by Mr. Anderson, he must have trusted blindly to Mr. Anderson. I do not suggest that Mr. Anderson is not a gentleman perfectly worthy of that trust, but what I do suggest is that a practice of this nature opens the door to the widest possible misuse of the public money. And what is true in the case of Le Caron will probably be equally true in the case of every other agent occupying a similar position to Le Caron. It is clear that even Mr. Anderson did not know what Le Caron did with the whole of the money, because Le Caron in his evidence, which was unchallenged, said that he made payments to people who were not named. Perhaps the whole of the £35,000 this year and the whole of the £40,000 of last year found its way into the hands of persons whom I will not describe, because no description could properly do justice to them. This is a system likely to lead to horrible crimes, for there is a tendency on the part of such men to get up the conspiracy for which they receive the most money—a tendency to manufacture crime. In 1833 there was an investigation by this House as to the application of moneys from the Home Office, and Mr. Richard Mayne, Assistant Commissioner of Police, afterwards Sir Richard Mayne, showed that the money paid out of this very fund was applied in England to paying men to buy pistols for the purpose of pretending that there was a conspiracy of physical force, for which allegation there

    1827
    was not one word of truth. I say that money of this kind becomes a temptation to manufacture crime, and it would be quite possible for the Home Secretary to say, as Sir Richard Mayne said in 1833,
    "I know nothing of any irregularities committed by any of the agents of the Home Office."
    But when you employ scoundrels to do scoundrel-like things crime generally results from their employment. Therefore I ask the Committee to vote for the reduction of the Vote as a protest against the possibility of the manufacture of crime. I do not pretend that no Department should have the control of moneys not voted by this House; but the expenditure of such moneys should come under the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of course, we now have the assurance of the Government that this money is not applied in payment of anything which the House could be asked to vote; but that has not always been so, and although the Government may answer for themselves and those with whom they deal directly, it is impossible for them to control other agents who may be employed indirectly. The moment a Minister parts with money to some one who does not account to him for it, all control over that money is necessarily lost. I have felt bound to make this protest, and I hope the House will divide on the question. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £20,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Bradlaugh).
    SIR J. CAMPBELLI have always felt that it is necessary to provide a certain amount of Secret Servive money. No doubt, the employment of Secret Service money in past years has been very much abused and used for purposes that were never intended—sometimes for purposes which ought to have been voted by this House, and sometimes for a purpose—namely, to control elections—for which the House never would have voted it. The real question is whether we have now sufficient security that the money is properly applied. I think we have, and I notice also a gradual reduction in the amount
    1828
    of the Vote. So far as Le Caron is concerned, whether his employment was judicious or not, it is distinctly one of those cases in which Secret Service money must always be employed. If the Government are to defeat a Fenian or any other conspiracy, they must employ secret agents, and they must pay those agents. I think that after the declaration of the Government as to the future application of Secret Service money, the Committee ought not to be divided on the question of the employment of Le Caron, which is past and done with.
    MR. BIGGARThe Home Secretary says that he never heard of Le Caron or of the documents which were sent over to him, but nevertheless Le Caron swore that he was in receipt of a fixed salary of so much a year. I heard Le Caron's evidence, and so far as the value of it is concerned, it was simply a lot of flimsy gossip which any ordinary newspaper correspondent could have supplied. The correspondence Le Caron sent to Anderson could not be said to belong to Anderson, and therefore in giving that correspondence to Houston a man who had swindled the Times) Anderson simply stole it. It was a correspondence which extended over some years, and Anderson never obtained permission from the Home Secretary to hand it over. It was supposed to be of great value, and ought to have been kept with great care. I think the Committee are indebted to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) for bringing the matter forward. I think the Committee would do well to mark their sense of the indiscreet way in which these things are managed. If you want secret information, in the name of goodness pay for it; but do not keep it for years in the hands of an irresponsible person, and allow that irresponsible person to steal it without the fear of any punishment whatever.
    MR. MATTHEWSThe subject raised by the hon. Member for Northampton is one upon which my lips are almost sealed, as the hon. Member must be perfectly well aware. The hon. Member's speech is an argument against having any Secret Service money at all. [Mr. BRADLAUGH: Hear, hear.] I do not propose to argue that question with the hon. Member. I confess that so far as my personal feelings are concerned, there is no part of the

    1829
    duties of my office more disagreeable than the disposal of Secret Service money; but so long as it exists it stands to reason that I must give no account of it, for if I did, it would cease to be Secret Service money, and therefore, I repeat, my lips are sealed. I can, therefore, only make a few general observations in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member says there is a risk of Secret Service money getting into improper hands. I am afraid that this is inseparable from the necessary employment of sub-agents. That is a circumstance which imposes great caution and circumspection upon those who dispose of the money, but it is a circumstance which will not be met by the suggestion of the hon. Member that the Controller and Auditor General should audit the expenditure. We do not find that the persons to whom Secret Service money is necessarily dispensed are always trust-worthy. One remedy would be that there should be no Secret Service money at all, but that is not the point put by the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member also says that Secret Service money leads to the employment of that hateful creature, happily unknown in this country, the agent provocateur. Since I have been responsible for the expenditure of Secret Service money I have spared no pains to prevent the employment of such persons as agents provocateurs. There was a system which for aught I know, may have prevailed before I took office—I do not profess to know anything of what happened in the time of my predecessors—and that is, to wait until a crime is what is called "ripe" before interfering. So far, however, as I am concerned, I have done all I can to discourage such a system. My instructions have always been that no dallying or trifling with a projected crime shall be allowed for a moment, for that mode of action is precisely what led to the existence of agents provocateurs. It has been said, and it is perfectly true, that some Secret Service money has gone of late to persons who were unknown to the Ministerresponsible for the distribution of the fund. There is nothing extraordinary in that. Information is constantly coming from persons whose names are only known to one agent of the public service, and that agent would be acting dishonourably if he were to reveal the names. Every
    1830
    criminal Department receives information from men whose names cannot be disclosed. Of course sometimes the information is not trustworthy, but at other times most valuable information is given by accomplices whose consciences have at last been touched. The real safeguard against a useless expenditure of money is for the Minister to take care that his principal assistant is a thoroughly capable man. Having said that, I cannot but take advantage of the opportunity to renew my strong and emphatic testimony to the capability of Mr. Anderson. As to Le Caron, his name, as I have already told the House, was unknown to me until a short time ago. I have nothing to subtract from the declaration which I made on a former occasion with reference to Le Caron, nor do I desire to amplify it. There are, it cannot be denied, obvious objections to any system of Secret Service money, but on the other hand great advantages accrue from it. The Committee will, perhaps, remember a prosecution successfully undertaken not long ago against two men whose design it certainly was to use dynamite in London, probably in this very House. In that case a great public danger was averted by the discovery of the intended crime, and that discovery would never have been made if there had been no Secret Service Fund. The amount of the fund is diminishing, and is smaller than it was a few years ago; and taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, I think the Committee will be doing wisely in continuing the Vote.
    MR. BRADLAUGHThe amount of the fund may be less than it was a few years ago, but it certainly is far larger than it was 50 years ago, so that if it diminishes at the same rate in the next half century we shall not have gained very much. I quite feel that the right hon. Gentleman is within his right in refusing to answer my statements, but there was one fatal flaw in the reply he made. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Controller and Auditor General ought not to audit these payments, not because he would not be a proper person to audit them, but because the money has already been paid, and it would be too late. If that is so, the Controller and Auditor General would be a useless officer altogether, because his audit only comes after the money

    1831
    has been applied. But I remember a case in which the Controller and Auditor General drew attention to an item of several thousand pounds. A correspondence took place in regard to it, which extended over several years, and although the money was never given back, the effect of the discussion was to prevent the occurrence of a similar item in future. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is very often necessary to pay secretly for information about crimes. In connection with that point I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that in one of the worst scandals that has ever been disclosed in our Detective Department men were implicated who stood high in the Department, and who were relied on specially as efficient distributors of Secret Service money.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERThere can be no misconception as to the position which the Controller and Auditor General occupies, and the controversy which has been raised on various occasions as to what the duties of the Controller and Auditor General are in reference to this Vote. The House of Commons came to a definite decision upon that point. The House of Commons vote annually £30,000 or £40,000 for Secret Service. That very expression implies that no one is to know to what special purposes the money is devoted, and, therefore, if the Controller and Auditor General were to seek to ascertain how the fund is expended he would be exceeding his powers. This money is practically dispensed by the Cabinet, and no Minister outside the Cabinet knows anything about its appropriation. In the Cabinet itself special precaution is taken to prevent any misappropriation of the money, for every Minister concerned in its expenditure has to sign the following declaration:—
    "I hereby certify that the amount actually expended by me or under my direction for Secret Service in the year ending March 1, 18—was so much, and that the balance in my hands was so much; and I further solemnly declare that the whole sum so expended has been paid for purposes to which, in my belief, Parliament intended that Secret Service money may be allowed, and that no part of the sum has been paid for any service which has been or could properly have been provided for by an ordinary public department."
    Every Minister who spends one penny of the Secret Service money has
    1832
    to make that declaration, and if the 12 or 15 gentlemen who form the Cabinet can be entrusted with the management of the domestic and foreign policy of the British Empire, surely they can be entrusted with the expenditure of £30,000 or £40,000. That the money may be spent foolishly is possible, but you must trust to the Home Secretary, and if he is not fit to be trusted to that extent, then he is not fit to be Home Secretary at all. On a former occasion a Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
    "I wish to point out that if Secret Service money be granted at all it must be granted so that Parliament cannot trace it. It is a vote granted to Ministers for a public purpose as to which Parliament trusts absolutely to the discretion of Ministers on the condition and understanding that the employment of the money shall be absolutely secret."
    The hon. Member has referred to certain evidence given before the Special Commission, I submit to the House that the time has not arrived for us to review those proceedings. When that Commission closes its investigation, it will be not only our right, but our duty to examine the proceedings from beginning to end in all its details. The present proposal, however, would by a side-wind condemn that which is, I think, a very necessary part of our constitutional system—namely the trusting of Ministers with moderate sums of money for Secret Services. Under these circumstances, while recognizing the consistency of the course, my hon. Friend, the Member for Northampton, has taken in this matter, whatever Government has been in power, I think that if, after his speech he takes a division to-day, it will be capable of being misunderstood, because it will appear that one issue is being put before the country, whereas the House itself is voting on another issue. We cannot accept his Amendment without voting against the principle of Secret Service, and I do not think that a large number of Gentlemen on either side of the House are prepared to abolish Secret Service altogether.
    MR. BRADLAUGHMay I say that with respect to the Parnell Commission I carefully refrained from making any reference to it except so far as the facts had been stated in this House in answer to questions put either to the Chief Secretary for Ireland or to the Home Secretary.
    MR. W. REDMONDI wish to say one word in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. I can quite understand hon. Members agreeing with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), but we have to remember that this Vote affects Ireland as well as England. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that, as far as England is concerned, any money spent under this Vote is spent in a legitimate way. With regard to Ireland, I think the case is wholly different, and I firmly believe that the fact that such a large sum of money is voted every year for Secret Service—for purposes which will never be explained in this House—really tends to the creation of crime in Ireland. You must remember that the country is filled with informers, and it has been proved over and over again that informers in Ireland have themselves got up crimes. The case of the informer Cullinane is a case in point. I have no hesitation in saying that the policeman, Whelahan, would not have lost his life and the raid very likely would not have taken place, but for the work of that informer. What led the informer to engage in the matter at all? It was the hope of being paid by the Government out of the Secret Service Fund. I am positive that there are numbers of men in Ireland who make it their business to endeavour to get information of some kind or other implicating people in the commission of crime, solely and simply with the object of obtaining this money. I regard it as a most dangerous thing in a country like Ireland to hold out to men of the Cullinane type inducements to get up bogus informations in the hope of obtaining money from the Government. It would be an extremely interesting thing to ascertain how much of the large sum of money annually voted is spent in connection with Ireland. I am certain that a great proportion of it goes in keeping up this wretched, miserable class of informers in Ireland. With regard to the money Le Caron is alleged to have obtained from the Secret Service Fund, all I can say is that the Government did not get very good value for their money. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.
    MR. BIGGARI should like to say a word or two in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler.) He says that a complaint is made against Cabinet Ministers. The complaint, as far as I am concerned, is not against the Cabinet Ministers at all, but against the obscure persons to whom the Cabinet Ministers delegate their authority, and who would not have been known by name even now but for an accident. In Le Caron's case the money was paid through an obscure person who turned out to be a thief, and stole the papers he got from Le Caron. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary told us that Mr. Anderson was a man of high personal character.
    MR. CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is treating the name of a public servant with great freedom. His remarks are not relevant to the discussion.
    MR. BIGGARWell, Sir, the money came through this particular person. I say that it may be perfectly right for a Cabinet Minister to have the distribution of this money, but that he ought not to hand it over to people who turn out to be exceedingly improper characters.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 43, Noes 141.—(Division List, No. 137.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,595, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum. necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Officers."
    DR. CAMERONI rise to move a reduction of this Vote on the ground that the manner in which the citizens of Glasgow have been treated by the Scotch Office has involved them in great and needless expense in the matter of the Glasgow Boundaries Commission. The question of extending the municipal boundaries of Glasgow has again and again been brought before this House, in the shape of private Bills, but unsuccessfully. In 1886 there was a severe struggle on a private Bill between Glasgow and some of the adjoining burghs, in regard to annexation, and the Bill was ultimately thrown out.
    Mr. Caldwell,one of the bailies of Glasgow, in his evidence before the Committee on private Bill legislation last year, gave a history of the matter. He said that in 1886 a Bill for the extension of the Glasgow boundaries went before a Committee of the House of Commons, and eventually was sent to the House of Lords. The proceedings were then interrupted by a dissolution, but, by an order of the House, they were carried over to the new Parliament. At the conclusion of the proceedings, Mr. Caldwell said, everybody was struck with amazement to learn that the Bill had been thrown out. Well, there was so much dissatisfaction at the result, that the Marquess of Lothian, on being appealed to, at once saw the necessity of having a Commission to inquire into the subject on the spot. It was arranged that the whole expenses of the Commission should be saddled on Glasgow. The Town Clerk of Glasgow gave evidence to the effect that the total expenses occasioned to Glasgow were over £5,600. The expense caused to the suburban burghs must have been of an equal amount. The result was not only to cause this expense, but to engender the bad feeling usually created when the conflicting claims of various districts are asserted. The inquiry was granted for the purpose of doing away with further applications to Parliament for the extension of those boundaries, the Chairman being the predecessor of the present Lord Advocate (Mr. Macdonald). The authorities in Glasgow never had the smallest doubt that they were virtually promised by the then Lord Advocate that a public Bill should be brought in for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations of that Commission. I asked a number of questions of the Lord Advocate as to when the Bill would be brought in, using language which distinctly implied that a promise had been given—and never once was that promise repudiated. Last year, when the present Lord Advocate had succeeded to his present position, I asked him whether the Government would not bring in a Bill to give effect to the promise of his predecessor, and he answered the question without any repudiation of the promise. Again, on one occasion, the whole of the seven Members for Glasgow waited on the Secretary for Scotland
    1836
    (Lord Lothian) for the purpose of urging him to bring in a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission, and although all the arguments used were based on the assumption that a pledge had been given, not a single word was said by the noble Lord in repudiation of the existence of such a pledge. This year, when the Scotch Local Government Bill was coming before the House, the crisis became more acute, and it was regarded as a matter of the utmost necessity that these boundary questions should be settled at once and without delay, so as to enable the different Local Authorities concerned to understand their financial position under the new arrangement. Deputations came up, and after trying to get some answer from the Secretary for Scotland, they proceeded to the Prime Minister. The result was that the matter apparently came before the Cabinet. At all events, the authorities in Glasgow received a letter from Lord Salisbury's Secretary stating that the Government had given careful consideration to the proposal that they should introduce a Bill to Parliament relating to the boundaries of Glasgow, but it did not appear to them that sufficient cause had been shown for so great a departure from the ordinary rule by which Bills of this nature were usually governed, and they were unable to accede to the suggestion that it should be introduced as a Government measure instead of a private Bill. The result was that the authorities in Glasgow attempted to bring forward the subject as a private Bill, but they were too late to comply with the Standing Orders, and the Bill was thrown out on the Standing Orders. I am not going to contest the principle that the proper way is to proceed by private Bill in a case of this kind; but if so, why did Lord Lothian grant a Commission? I must say that the citizens of Glasgow have great reason to complain of what has been done. They have done their best to obtain a fulfilment of the promise made on behalf of the Government, and on several occasions their treatment has strongly resembled what is vulgarly known as a snub. On one accasion they applied for an audience of Lord Salisbury, and the only satisfaction they could get from him was the letter I have read. There can be no question that Lord Lothian was mainly responsi-

    1837
    ble for the issue of the Commission, and that the directions to the Commissioners were issued in his name. I want to know whether he was authorized by the Cabinet to grant that Commission; because if he was, on what ground can the Government now repudiate his action? My colleagues who were present at the interview with Lord Lothian will bear me out that his Lordship offered no word of dissent to the assumption that the Government were pledged to deal with the recommendations of the Commissioners by public Bill. There could have been no object in issuing the Commission if such had not been the intention. There is another ground on which I protest against the action of the Government. What, I ask, is the use of a Secretary for Scotland if he is not allowed to deal with such a question? I do not say that Lord Lothian was right in issuing the Commission, but I say that having done so and saddled Glasgow with the expense, he was morally bound to see that the Government carried out the promise he had given. I asked the Lord Advocate a question which I put on the paper in reference to the "promised legislation," and it was then for the first time that the Lord Advocate said he had found no trace or indication of such a promise having been given. I know that the people of Glasgow have no doubt on this point; they have again and again stated that such a promise was given; and although they may not have proved very wise in this matter, I do not think they are such absolute fools as to have incurred all the expense of this Commission without having the promise of some quid pro quo which was to arise out of it. The whole thing lies in a nutshell: the Secretary for Scotland was solely responsible for the issue of the Boundaries Commission which induced the people of Glasgow, under what seemed to be a promise of legislation by means of a public Bill, to share the expense of that Commission with the neighbouring authorities, at a cost to Glasgow of over £5,000, and to the surrounding burghs of at least as great a sum. He allowed the assumption of this promise to remain uncontradicted for over twelve months, but at the end of that time when he is again approached he assumes a sort of non possumus, and when an appeal
    1838
    is made to the Prime Minister he informs them by his secretary that although he has put them to this expense and has set neighbours by the ears over the matter, he does not think this is a case for doing what they have all along thought he was going to do; and he tells them to have recourse to a proceeding which they could have thought of for themselves without his advice had the Government refused to issue the Commission at all. The result is all this needless expense and the deferment for two or three years of the settlement of the boundary question, which ought to have been arranged before the passage of the Local Government Bill. I now beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £500 from the salary of the Secretary for Scotland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Lord Advocate."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,I regret exceedingly that the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman should entertain a feeling of disappointment at the decision come to by the Government. The hon. Gentleman has conceded with great frankness that he does not dispute the propriety of the Government abstaining from initiating legislation in this matter, and that is an important admission. It is unquestionably the case that the question of settling the boundaries as between one Local Authority and another is not a question which is ordinarily taken up by the Government; but the hon. Gentleman complains that false hopes have been aroused in Glasgow to the effect that the Government would undertake this duty. He has not, however, specified when and where or by whom any such promise was made, and in behalf of my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland and the right hon. and learned gentleman my predecessor, I have to say that neither of those officials made any promise that the Government would introduce legislation on the subject. I think the case of the hon. Gentleman does not consist of explicit statements, but resolves itself into the proposition that the issue of the Commission by the Government must be taken to imply that the Government

    1839
    intended to propose legislation on the subject. But what are the facts? This question it seems had gone on smouldering in various stages of activity for a long time, and there was a moot point as to whether it would be of advantage to the community around Glasgow that this boundary question should be settled. That question had broken out in various shapes. It was, under these circumstances, strongly put before the Government that it would be desirable to appoint a Commission which would bring the parties together and enable them to come to some agreement as to the proposal for annexation. Had such a result been brought about it would have been productive of great public advantage, and would have placed the matter in a very different position from that which it then held, as one which was in dispute among the different communities. But that hope was disappointed, and it was found that the harmony anticipated did not commend itself to the different parties, on the contrary, there was a considerable protest from dissentients who believed they would suffer from annexation, and the question the Government had to face was whether it was proper to force on that annexation. They decided that it was not. I would point out that Glasgow is in no way damaged by this, nor are her interests affected or prejudiced. On the contrary, the result has been to focus public opinion on the merits of the question, and to bring together accurately and precisely the results of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman has made further charges against the Government of different kinds. He complains of the conduct of the Government towards the officials of Glasgow. So far as the protest against Lord Salisbury not having given an audience to the Glasgow deputation, the reason was that it was not asked for.
    DR. CAMERONThe letter I read was in reply to one asking for an audience.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONI did not so understand it. I need hardly say that with regard to Glasgow there has always been a desire, not merely to show the respect due to that city, but also to show consideration for the large interests of the Glasgow people. I have stated the circumstances under which this Commission was granted. It
    1840
    was for the double purpose of ascertaining the facts, and also, if possible, to promote an agreement. The result of the Commission has been not to retard but to advance the general interests in so far as they can be served by accurate ascertainment of the facts.
    MR. CALDWELLThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question whether this Commission was granted with the authority of the Government, or whether Lord Lothian appointed this Commission on his own responsibility. If Lord Lothian acted on his own responsibility then I venture to say he was deceiving the people of Glasgow, who believed that this Commission was issued with the full weight and authority of the Government. They believed that this Commission was appointed not merely to ascertain the facts but also with a view to special legislation. But the result has been that Glasgow has not been able to move for the last three years in connection with this boundary question, owing to the promise held out by the Government that they were likely to deal with the subject as a Government measure. Under the Local Government Bill these districts outside Glasgow will be formed, and I want to know how they could afterwards be taken from the County Government and handed to the burgh. If the Government did not mean to legislate, they had no right to appoint a Commission, and I maintain that the fact of their appointing a Commission was an indication that they meant to legislate. Not merely has Glasgow been prejudiced, but it has been put to all the expense. The Lord Advocate said that harmony might possibly be the result of bringing the parties together. But I do not believe that anyone connected with the City of Glasgow had the remotest hope that harmony would be brought about by the Commission. The contention as to these boundaries has continued for years; it was the subject of discussion in Committee upstairs, and there was no prospect of agreement between the parties. The issuing of a Commission of this kind was not a mere Departmental act, but it was an act of such a nature that it required the authority of the Cabinet to deal with it, and Lord Lothian certainly acted in a manner

    1841
    which justifies the proposed reduction of his salary. Not only has the matter cost Glasgow £5,000, but her position is even worse, because these districts will be dealt with by the Local Government Bill, and I wish to know how you could proceed by Private Bill next year for the purpose of retaking those districts, and remodelling your whole county arrangements? If Lord Lothian had the authority of the Government in appointing the Commission, then the Government ought honourably to carry out the real purpose for which the Commission was appointed. With regard to the audience granted in London last year, it was for the purpose of getting the Government to say whether they were prepared to go on with the Bill. It was not a question of whether or not the Government would introduce a Bill. The only question was whether the Bill was to be introduced by the Government last Session, or whether it would be more prudent to introduce it this Session. From first to last there was no doubt that the Government were going to bring in a Bill, and that they were going to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners. The Government is certainly placed in a very awkward position with regard to Glasgow. The entire community of Glasgow, irrespective of politics, feel they have been prejudiced. The Local Government Bill is likely to stultify and upset this action in getting the burghs united, and it would be in the interests of Glasgow if this Local Government Bill could be shelved for the present year in order that they might have an opportunity of bringing forward their Boundaries Bill, and pass it before the boundaries could be decided under the Local Government Bill.
    DR. CAMERONThe right hon. Gentleman has said that there has been no indication of a promise on the part of the Government that legislation should follow the issue of this Commission. Here are the terms in which his predecessor wrote to Lord Lothian:—
    "My Lord, I have to inform you that I have determined to appoint a Commission to inquire and report with reference to future legislation, &c."
    What could be more definite than that? When the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate took office, he answered a question of mine on the 13th November last. I asked—
    1842
    "Whether he proposes before the end of this Session (the Autumn Session) to produce the promised Bill for carrying out the recommendations of the Glasgow Boundaries Commission?"
    The Lord Advocate replied:—
    "The recommendations of the Commission are still under the consideration of the Government, and I am, therefore, not in a position to give a definite answer to that question."
    It is clear that the Government contemplated the introduction of a Bill. It was not a question of whether or not they would introduce it, but whether they would introduce it speedily. If it was not the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to introduce a Bill, all I can say is that the language he used in this House in reply to various questions successfully concealed his thoughts. The deputation waited upon the noble Lord for the purpose of urging him to bring in his Bill; but now the Lord Provos of Glasgow is informed by Lord Salisbury's Secretary that it is not a question to be dealt with by a public Bill at all, but a question which should go before a Committee upstairs. Why did not the Government think of that before they issued their Commission and before they put Glasgow to expense? The right hon. Gentleman says that Glasgow has not been damnified. The citizens of Glasgow are deeply damnified by the matter. They have been damnified by the answer of the right hon. Gentleman himself; for, had he told us last year that this subject was a proper matter for decision by a Committee upstairs, then, Sir, Glasgow would at least have been in a position to give the requisite notice required by law, and the scheme would have come before Parliament in the ordinary way. As it is, they have acted in the delusive hope that the Government would carry out its implied promise. I do not know whether it might be possible to get the matter dealt with by a public Bill this year; if so, it would have been desirable that the Government should come to some decision at once.
    MR. CHILDERSI have listened very carefully to the debate, which opens up a question of considerable importance, as to which a few words were dropped by the Lord Advocate, but I do not think that he struck the key-note at all. What I

    1843
    understood the Lord Advocate to say was that there was no obligation on the part of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. Now, Sir, I think the precedents are all the other way. If an inquiry is conducted by a Commission appointed by the Crown, with power to take evidence—and I am told that this Commission had power to take evidence on oath—it is customary to follow it up by a public Act, and not to leave it to private persons to pursue the matter through the machinery of a private Bill. I do not myself remember any case, during my thirty years' experience of Parliamentary life, of a Commission being appointed with power to take evidence on oath, and of a failure to follow up its recommendations by a public Act. There are a good many instances in which the Government have brought in Bills based on the recommendations of their Commission, and I think we are entitled to a distinct explanation from the Lord Advocate, or some other Member of the Government, as to the precedents, if there are any, for the course pursued.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,I am not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the particular matter under discussion by the Committee to express a definite opinion upon it, but with respect to the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, I can refer him to a similar case in which a Commission, ten years ago, was appointed to investigate boundaries of certain boroughs in Ireland, and notably of the City of Dublin. It was appointed by the Government and was much of the same character as that to which allusion is now being made. No Government, however, since then has brought in a Bill to carry out the recommendation of that Committee, and therefore the present is not the only case of non-interference on the part of the Government.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLI wish to vote for the reduction of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland on broader and wider grounds than those which have been advanced by the preceding speakers, and I must begin by protesting, as I do in the strongest possible terms, that the Scotch Members are being infamously used in the way in which Scotch Estimates are
    1844
    being forced on during the afternoon of the last day before the recess, when a great majority of the Scotch Members are absent from town, and the few who do remain are being coerced into rushing Votes through without proper discussion, because unless they consent to do that they will have to bear the odium of. depriving the House of a considerable prolongation of the holidays. I think we have been very badly treated in this way, and, in regard to the particular Vote under discussion, I think it is most unbecoming that an attempt should be made to rush it through. Remember that the administration of Scotland is in a kind of transition state. You have a Secretary for Scotland, but the machinery of administration has not been adapted to the new state of things. We have still a responsible Board in Edinburgh who are not represented in Parliament, and I think it would be a good thing to get rid of this Board, and have them concentrated in the Office of Secretary for Scotland. It is impossible to discuss this question in the absence of the great majority of Scotch Members. I want to know why we are treated differently to the Irish Members. The Government tell the Irish Members that their convenience shall be consulted, that on no account shall Irish Votes be taken either immediately before or immediately after the holidays. I am afraid that we shall have to show our teeth and make ourselves disagreeable, for it is because the Irish Members have always been. ready to cause the Government inconvenience that they are now treated with the utmost civility. In the presence of the First Lord of the Treasury I repeat that we have been very badly treated in this respect, and as regards the Vote of the Secretary for Scotland I assert that our machinery requires revision. We have three highly paid officers, the Secretary for Scotland, the permanent Under Secretary, and the assistant Under Secretary, all having high salaries, and we have six clerks under them. I could never make out what work is done in the Scotch Office at Dover House. Whenever I go there the officials tell me that they are overwhelmed with work, but my constituents can never find out that they are in contact with the rest of the world. I believe the truth is that you have too much head and too little tail in that department, with the result

    1845
    that highly paid officers are doing petty clerks' works. Now another ground on which I shall vote for the reduction of this salary is that the Secretary for Scotland ought to have a seat in this House. Once or twice, at long intervals, we have had a Scotch Secretary in the House of Commons, but it is the practice to fill the post with a Peer; and although the present Secretary for Scotland is no doubt well versed in the affairs of Scotland, I hope the time may not he long distant when the Upper House of Parliament will cease to exist, and I shall be delighted then to see the present Secretary for Scotland on the Front Bench opposite, should the Conservative Party at that time be in power. I think it a matter of vital importance that the Secretary for Scotland should have a seat in this House.
    MR. CALDWELLI wish to press for an answer from the Government to my question: Was it, or was it not, with the consent of the Government that Lord Lothian issued his Commission? This question is one of far more importance than the Government imagine, because when the census takes place it will be found that the City of Glasgow, instead of coming out as the second city of the Empire, as it ought, and as it would do if this Boundaries Bill were carried, will occupy a very different position. It is all very well for the Government to treat this matter lightly in this House. It is not treated lightly in the City of Glasgow, and I do not think the Government will find that they can afford to put it aside. I again ask, did the Lord Advocate have the authority of the Government in appointing that Committee?
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 155.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CLARKBefore this Vote is taken, I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, or in his absence, the First Lord of the Treasury, how it is that the senior clerk in the Scotch Office at Dover House is only paid a salary beginning at £450, and rising by an annual increment of £20 to £600 per annum, when the senior clerks in all the other Government Departments begin with a salary of £700, which rises up to £800? Why are the Scotch senior
    1846
    clerks paid less than senior clerks in the other Departments?
    MR. W. H. SMITHI am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the information he desires. It is the duty of the Government to see that their officials are amply paid for the duties which they perform, and I have every reason to believe that the salaries fixed for the Scotch Department are fixed with due regard to the capacities of the officers and the ability they have with which to discharge their duties.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    3. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,726, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the hereditary Revenue."
    DR. CLARKOn this point I want to ask the First Lord of the Treasury for information about the Bible Board. I understand that there has been a Departmental inquiry in this matter, and I wish to know whether any new departure has been carried out, and if it is to be permanent?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLThis is another Vote which illustrates the inconvenience of taking Scotch business in the absence of Scotch Members. I know there are several matters on which many of my hon. Friends desire information, especially in regard to this Bible Board, and also as to the salary of the Queen's Commissioner, who gets paid a salary, but does not produce any paintings for money. I will therefore move the reduction of the Vote by £500.
    Motion made, and Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,226, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,The Treasury have been in constant communication with the office in Edinburgh on the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) and since this Vote was under discussion before, I myself have written several

    1847
    letters urging that a speedy decision may be come to. I hope in a very short time a decision will be arrived at.
    SIR G. CAMPBELLNo doubt we shall be obliged to deal with this question on Report again, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what the £20 for the Queen's Plate is for?
    SIR H. MAXWELLIt is a recognition of, and I suppose an encouragement to, the ancient and honourable body of Archers.
    SIR G. CAMPBELLIs it a plate for which they shoot, and do they actually practice with bows and arrows?
    SIR H. MAXWELLI have never seen the plate, but I believe the hon. Gentleman has correctly described it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    4. £4,036, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
    DR. CLARKPerhaps the Government will tell us why the Scotch Lunacy Commissioners, who are better known as authorities on the subject of lunacy than the half-dozen men who do the work in England, are paid only £*1,000 a year, which is 50 per cent less than is given in England?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,That question was raised last year on a somewhat kindred subject, and I am not prepared to admit that we are paying in Scotland less than we ought to pay. It may be that we are paying too much in England, and I think the question ought to be examined rather from that point of view than from the point of view suggested by the hon. Member.
    Vote agreed to.
    5. £4,497, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
    DR. CLARKThe whole of the charge of registration in Scotland is defrayed by the people, whereas in England a portion of it is paid by this House. I think that is a question which the Government should consider, so as to obtain uniformity, and have all the charges defrayed locally, and not partly by Votes from Parliament and partly by local charges.
    Vote agreed to.
    6. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £25,464, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
    1848
    necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Expenses under the Public Health and Vaccination Acts, including certain grants in aid of local taxation in Scotland."
    DR. CAMERON)While I am willing to allow these Votes to pass without repeating the usual objections year by year, I think we must enter a strong protest against this one. At the present moment the Board of Supervision is about to be invested with the most extraordinary and wide reaching new powers. It is to have a very large share in framing the scheme of Local Government in Scotland. I protest against anything of the sort. The Board of Supervision is a body altogether out of accord with our notions of what a Board should be. It is not elected. It consists of a paid chairman, and seven sheriffs who are members ex officio, but whose duty consists in advising the Board and Parochial Authorities on disputed points of parochial law, and two more ex officio Members,—namely, the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow,—most amiable and estimable gentlemen generally, but having no special knowledge as Poor Law officers. Why, then, they should have been appointed ex officio members of the Board, it is very difficult to imagine. Well, Sir, to a body thus constituted it is proposed to give all sorts of duties under the new Local Government Bill. If I remember aright they are to regulate the number of Councillors to be appointed in certain instances; they are to settle questions of boundary, and they are to frame to a large extent this scheme of Local Government. Under these circumstances it becomes imperative for us, to protest against their continuance, and not to allow this Vote to pass in silence, in case we might be thought in any degree to concur in the fitness of this body for the duties to be imposed upon it. It has none of the powers or responsibilities or functions of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board is a Ministry of Health. It is represented by an important Member of the Government who is very generally in the Cabinet. It is directly responsible to the House for all its actions, but the Board of Supervision of Scotland is a hole-and-corner affair, consisting of paid

    1849
    officials and irresponsible. I believe the Solicitor General for Scotland is one of the ex officio members of the Board. On a former occasion I challenged the Lord Advocate as to whether, when he was Solicitor General, he was ever present at the Board's deliberations, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was obliged to confess that he had not been so present, or at least he had been present at remarkably few meetings.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONWhen I was Solicitor General I attended a sufficient number of meetings.
    DR. CAMERONIn order to qualify, I suppose, for the salary which Parliament is asked to vote. But as a matter of fact the right hon. and learned Gentleman did tell us that important business is transacted without meetings being regularly called.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONWhat I said was that I had, while I was Solicitor General, attended some meetings, but that when questions of law arose involving matters of general importance, papers were sometimes sent to me for my opinion. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that any important business is done otherwise than at meetings; but it is true that the legal members of the Board have, upon Questions of law, papers sent regularly to them in order that they may give their opinions.
    DR. CAMERONThat is so; otherwise why should we be asked to vote money for these gentlemen? But matters are disposed of without formal summonses to attend meetings being sent to all the members of the Board. I know that on one occasion, when some relief scheme was to be discussed, the Provost of Glasgow attended a meeting of the Board, and that that was the first meeting he had attended, although he had been long in office. I maintain that the Board of Supervision, constituted as it is, is an absolute anachronism, and that to entrust to that Board as is proposed under the Local Government scheme —
    THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is entitled to discuss the constitution of the Board which is discharging the functions for which money is voted, but he is not entitled to discuss the Local Government Bill.
    DR. CAMERONWhat I contend is that the work discharged by the Board of Supervision might be infinitely better
    1850
    discharged by a Department of the Scotch Office. On that ground I beg to move the reduction of the Vote which stands in my name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £5,000."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    SIR G. CAMPBELLI entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe there is no Vote amongst all the Votes presented to the House which requires more thorough discussion than this Vote. The Board of Supervision is an anachronism which the people of Scotland want to get rid of. The majority of the Scotch Members are absent, and we are obliged to pass these Votes. We can do nothing more than protest. I believe that all that has been said by my hon. Friend with regard to the constitution and functions of the Board of Supervision, and as to the feelings of the people of Scotland with regard to the Board, is perfectly correct. The functions of the present Board are functions which do not give satisfaction to the people of Scotland, and therefore I heartily join in the protest my hon. Friend has made.
    MR. A. SUTHERLANDI also beg to join in the protest which has been made in regard to the Board of Supervision. It is truly an anachronism that a Board which possesses such powers as the Board of Supervision should be composed as this Board is. I do not know what qualifications Sheriffs have for the discharge of duties of the kind entrusted to them, but I think it improper that Sheriffs and Lord Provosts of cities should, in virtue of their positions, have seats on the Board of Supervision. I desire to point out that Mr. MacNeil, an official of the Board, seems to have had plenty of time to go over to Canada in the interest of private landowners and Canadian land companies, and to lay before the people of the Highlands schemes for the pecuniary benefit of the landowners. It must have occurred to others, as well as to myself, that a gentleman who can devote himself to private enterprises can very well have his services as an official of the Board of Supervision dispensed with.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONWith regard to Mr. MacNeil, it is fair to say he went on the errand referred to at the

    1851
    express wish of the Secretary for Scotland. He did not go to promote the interests of any land company, but to carry out a scheme of emigration conducted by the Government. Mr. MacNeil is a very valuable public servant, and certainly no suggestion can with justice be made that he left his public duty in order to assist in business with which he had no official connection. Now, I hope the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) will excuse me if I do not follow him in what he has said as to the Board of Supervision. I know he entertains strong opinions on the subject, but I think he will admit the accuracy of my statement when I say that all the points he has raised to-day he raised last December. The present constitution of the Board of Supervision certainly conduces to economy, inasmuch as for a slight addition to their salaries the services of the Sheriffs are obtained on matters in which they are well qualified to act. The Board of Supervision has had accumulated upon itself ditties relating to the administration of the poor and the public health, and it has discharged its functions with discrimination and efficiency.
    DR. CLARKOf all the Boards in Scotland, the Board of Supervision is the worst. The members are a bad lot: they are irresponsible, and whenever we get Home Rule we will soon sweep them away, if this House does not do so before. It is as to the administration of the Public Health Act that I desire to say a word. Our Public Health Act in Scotland is very far behindhand, and our methods of carrying it out are also far behind. The expenses of the Board of Supervision are very reasonable; the salaries are very low—so low, in fact, that I think efficiency suffers. The Board is entrusted with the carrying out of the Public Health Act, and the entire money expended by them in causing inquiries to be made under that Act, and in paying their medical attendant, is £200, and for vaccination and all other similar services only £500 is spent. In England upon the same services there is spent £17,704. Instead of £400 in salaries, as in Scotland, £9,200 is spent here. In Ireland £5,360 is spent in salaries and expenses. I believe there are thousands of preventable deaths in consequence of the
    1852
    neglect in Scotland, and yet we cannot get from the Government a proper Public Health Act. Year after year we have tried to do so, but there has not been time for it to pass.
    DR. MACDONALDI certainly think that if we are to get Local Government in Scotland, it is our duty to insist upon such a Local Government Board for Scotland as exists in England.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 162. (Division List, No. 139.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    7. £38,630, to complete the sum for Privy Council Office.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNERThere is just one question I wish to ask in relation to this Vote, and which, I think, the Vice Chamberlain can answer. It will be remembered that last year we voted £5,000 for agricultural and dairy schools, and I should like to know how this sum has been allocated among the various agricultural districts in the country. I need not remind my noble Friend that this is a question of some interest to those who represent agricultural constituencies or are concerned in agricultural matters. When the question of this grant was before the House we were given to understand that this sum of £5,000 would not be the final amount the Government would demand for the purpose. If I remember rightly, the First Lord of the Treasury said distinctly, in replying to a question, that £5,000 did not represent the final sum the Government might think it necessary to ask for, and the President of the Council in another place said that this sum would be expended really in obtaining information as to the real needs of the country, and upon this information the Agricultural Department would take further action. I simply ask now how the money has been expended in the past year, and whether the Department are likely to recommend that the House should vote any further amount of money in this direction, whether they have discovered in allocating the sum granted whether the plan of so aiding Dairy Schools is one to be encouraged or otherwise. It is important we should have this information. Some of us take the deepest interest in Dairy Schools; and others

    1853
    have suspended their judgment in regard to the matter. An authoritative statement from the noble Lord may influence these last and assist in the formation of an opinion on the subject.
    THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,When it became known that the sum of £5,000 was to be granted, we had, as may well be understood, many applications from various parts of the country. The form of procedure adopted by the Privy Council was as follows:—Three temporary Inspectors were appointed, two for England and Wales, and one for Scotland, and as applications for assistance were received, one of these Inspectors was sent to the locality to conduct a personal investigation into all the circumstances. The Inspector prepared his Report, and this Report was submitted to the Agricultural Committee of the Council, which from time to time sat to consider these Reports, and whether any grant should be made and to what amount. Of the total sum voted, only £3,423 have been expended, but there is an additional sum of £5,000 asked for again this year, though of course the Privy Council knew nothing of this in the first instance. Without attempting to enumerate the places to which grants have been made, I may say that the grants have been pretty generally scattered throughout the country, in England, Scotland, and Wales.
    MR. H. GARDNERI do not gather whether the Government intend to ask for any further sum beyond £5,000.
    VISCOUNT LEWISHAMNot for this year.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONI would ask the First Lord whether it is not expedient now to report Progress, seeing the amount and importance of the present Vote, upon which many matters may properly arise. The Scotch Votes have been disposed of in a very short space of time under circumstances to which I need not allude, and there is but a short interval left before the suspension of the sitting.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the suggestion, but I would remind him that the understanding was that the whole of Class 2 should be disposed of with the exception of the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board, and I must ask the Committee to carry out this under
    1854
    taking. I am not aware of any important question likely to arise in connection with the present Vote which should prevent us from going on with it. I think the Committee will agree that it is desirable the Vote should be taken. If there is any important matter in relation to administration that hon. Members desire to raise and do not find the opportunity on this Vote, I will go so far as to say that I will endeavour to secure them an opportunity in the discussion upon the Agricultural Department Bill.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONI do not admit there was anything like the agreement mentioned arrived at; but, however, if we take the Vote now, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if we seek an opportunity of raising questions in which we are interested upon the Report stage.
    DR. FARQUHARSONI will not detain the Committee at length with a subject I desire to raise upon this Vote. I have put down a notice for the reduction of the Vote in order to raise one or two points in relation to the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act; and I will carry out my intention rather in the shape of putting queries than in making a formal speech. I will ask the noble Lord if anything has been done to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee by placing the disease of tuberculosis among those in respect of which cattle are required to be slaughtered. This is a disease which, as evidence has shown, can not only be communicated from one animal to another, but from animals to mankind. I lay stress on the point, having in view the fact that evidence is not wanting to show that tuberculosis has been communicated to young children through milk from cows affected with this disease. That there is a considerable increase in acute tuberculosis among young children is admitted, and this, I think, is due to the fact of their being fed on milk from tuberculous cows, and this grows more alarming day by day as the season advances. I ask, therefore, is the Department going to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, and include this disease among those for what animals are slaughtered? Then, we have lost large sums in Scotland from

    1855
    the disease of pleuro-pneumonia. I am quite of opinion that in our present state of knowledge of this disease, the only remedy is the pole-axe—is to kill it out; but alongside this summary method we ought to carry out some scientific system of investigation for the collection of certain data in relation of the disease, its causes, period of incubation, and development. I noticed in an Aberdeen paper, recently, an account of an interesting series of experiments carried out in South America by a Commission appointed to investigate the subject. This Commission carried out a large number of experiments in inoculation, and came to the conclusion that in inoculation, carried out on the Pasteur system, there might be found a remedy for this, as yet, incurable disease. I will not detain the Committee by going further into the subject. I will only put this other question to my noble Friend, can he hold out any hope that the Government will give any encouragement, pecuniary or otherwise—pecuniary is preferable—to experiments for the purpose of discovering a remedy for this intricate, and, at the same time, dangerous disease, from which we in Scotland lose an enormous amount of money from time to time?
    VISCOUNT LEWISHAMI will convey the request of the hon. Member to the other Members of the Privy Council, but I may point out that dealing with tuberculosis is surrounded by all sorts of difficulties. As the hon. Member is, no doubt, well aware, chickens are a source from which the disease is carried as frequently as any other. As regards pleuro-pneumonia, the decision arrived at, so far as my recollection goes, by the Committee on the subject was, that there are three ways by which the disease may be dealt with—by isolation, inoculation and extirpation; and though inoculation has been found a great assistance, it has been found impossible to stamp out the disease by inoculation alone.
    DR. FARQUHARSONThe noble Lord is speaking of pleuro-pneumonia?
    VISCOUNT LEWISHAMYes.
    DR. FARQUHARSONBut chickens do not have pleuro-pneumonia.
    VISCOUNT LEWISHAMNo; nor did I say they do have the disease. The first of my remarks referred to the hon. Member's observations on tuberculosis.
    DR. FARQUHARSONChildren in arms are not in the habit of consuming many chickens; it is the milk from tuberculous cows that does the mischief.
    MR. CHILDERSI am not going to raise any formal objection; but as we may be going to set a precedent for the conduct of business, it is well to observe that on the Order Book for to-day Vote 7 in Class 2 does not appear among business to be taken. On the contrary, in the Order Book for future days there are two Amendments down to the Vote, and this is an intimation to the House that Vote 7 in Class 2 is not, intended to be taken to-day. If hon. Members will refer to the Orders, they will see that I am not misstating the position, and that it is a clear intimation that the Vote is not to be taken. We are now on Vote 7, and it is intended by the Government to proceed with it on the assumption that the words "the remaining Votes in Class 2" include a previous and postponed Vote. As I have said, I am not making a formal objection, but it is quite necessary that it should be clearly understood that we are not setting a precedent, and it would be well if the First Lord should give a distinct declaration to that effect; otherwise, in proceeding counter to the intimation conveyed by the Order Book, we may be setting an example that on some future occasion may be followed and attended by serious objection.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI entirely agree with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not responsible for the bringing forward of the notices on the Paper, but I accept fully the right hon. Gentleman's view of the situation, and if any hon. Member feels there is any substantial objection to the Vote being taken now, I will not go on with it. Certainly, it was my understanding to include this Vote in the remaining Votes of Class 2 which were to be taken to-day, and I think this particular Vote was postponed at the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite until after the Second Reading of the Agricultural Board Bill, and, having carried out that undertaking, I did not think there was any substantial objection to taking the Vote now.
    MR. CHILDERSI expressly said that I took no formal objection.
    MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)As a question of order that might be important at another time, as these notices

    1857
    appear on the Order Book among those Notices of Motion for which no days are fixed, and as they concern this Vote, is it competent for the Committee to take this Vote now?
    THE CHAIRMANNo doubt it is competent for the Committee to take the Vote as included in the business to be taken technically; still, if any hon. Member objects, certainly the Vote ought not to be taken.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday, June 17.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday, June 17.

  THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHI wish now to move "That the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday, the 17th of June." This date has been arrived at after some hesitation. At the same time, I wish to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the consideration they have shown to public business for the last two days, which makes it possible to propose a longer adjournment than I thought it right, under the circumstances, to have a few days ago.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House at its rising this day do adjourn to Monday, June 17."
  MR. CHILDERSI think the House may congratulate Her Majesty's Government both on the progress made in the last day or two with business, and upon the decision arrived at to extend the holidays. But I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to tell us what the business will be on Monday the 17th, and for the Morning Sitting on Tuesday. It is necessary to have this information, because notices will have to be given today.
  MR. W. H. SMITHI intended to rise immediately after the Adjournment Motion was carried, but I may as well state now what we purpose. On Monday and Tuesday we propose to take the Army and Navy Estimates, and on Thursday the Scotch Universities Bill. I think this will be convenient to the House, and I hope we shall get the Second Reading of that Bill. Imme-
  1858
  diately after the House meets again I shall move that Government Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions shall take precedence of all other business on Tuesdays. I think the House will not be indisposed to yield us this.
  MR. CHILDERSReverting to three o'clock sittings?
  MR. W. H. SMITHI wish with regard to that question to suit the convenience of the House. The usual course is to revert to three o'clock sittings, but if hon. Members prefer a Morning Sitting the Government will raise no difficulties. The usual course is undoubtedly to revert to the three o'clock sittings.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERIn relation to this point, I would ask the Government to consider how it affects the sittings of Committees. The two o'clock sittings are very inconvenient for Members serving on Committees, and there are some important Committees will be sitting on Tuesdays and Fridays for the remainder of the Session. I wish to add another word or two by way of justification of the House before the public. It has been stated in the public Press within the last few days that Supply has never been in such a state of arrear as it is in at the present time. I am not going for a moment to say that we have made any rapid progress with Supply. I am well aware that a large amount of time has been devoted to Supply in this as compared with previous Sessions, and this raises a question which the House will some day have to consider in connection with Supply. But what I now wish to point out is that, whereas on July 9, 1888, Classes 1 and 2 of the Civil Service Votes, there were remaining 33 Votes undisposed of, we have this year on June 4 only nine Votes remaining to be taken in Classes 1 and 2, and we have also disposed of the Telegraphic Vote. Therefore, I think it is not fair after the tribute of praise we have had from the Leader of the House for our critics in the public Press, who are always finding fault with the House of Commons, and especially with the Opposition, to say that public business is in a state of arrear this year as. compared with former years. Public business is more advanced before Whitsuntide this year than for many years past, so far as Supply is concerned.
  MR. CHANNINGI take the opportunity offered by this motion of asking the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can see his way to reconsider his decision as to legislation which was Practically promised last year, for the promotion of public safety in connection with railways. I heartily approve of taking Supply early in the Session, and I think the state of business would justify the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the question this Session. It seemed to me last year when this question was discussed, there were very few points of difference between those I have the honour to represent in this matter and the Board of Trade. I wish to acknowledge most cordially the great efforts made by the President of the Board of Trade during the last three years to clear off arrears of legislation in relation to his Department. When at the close of the Session we reckon up the Departmental Bills the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in passing, I do not think any Department will be able to show a better record. But while making this acknowledgment, I must really complain that legislation to which I am referring did not have a foremost place in the right hon. Gentleman's programme, legislation that is imperatively demanded by all the railway employés in the country, and which, it can be proved to demonstration from the official documents of the Board of Trade, would in all human probability result in a sensible diminution of the still terrible list of deaths and injuries. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have given precedence to such Bills as the Merchant Shipping Tonnage Bill, the Merchant Colours Bill, and others. We are not asking, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, that the Board of Trade should take upon itself the duties of railway management. In urging that the Board of Trade should take power to enforce its recommendations, I shall not be met by that antiquated argument. It is about as rational as to say that Local Authorities turn themselves into architects and builders when they insist on certain standards of sanitation. Again and again, when I and others have called attention to the causes of serious accidents, the right hon. Gentleman is
  1860
  forced to admit the Board of Trade has no power to remove them. The Returns of the past year add many reasons for the passing of such a measure. Again and again has the Department pointed out to the Directors of Scotch lines the serious risks of marshalling mixed trains with goods vans and waggons in front of passenger carriages, but the warnings were disregarded, and we had an accident on the Highland line that might have been attended with serious loss of life, but happily the saloon and other carriages which were dashed down an embankment were empty. Then there is the question of communication between passengers and drivers and guards. The opinion of the Board is that means of communication should be made compulsory with regard to all trains, not limiting it to trains that proceed 20 miles without stopping. There was an instance on the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire line, where an accident at Hyde Junction, accompanied by serious loss of life and injury, would, in all human probability, have been prevented had there been communication between passengers and driver. There was no point last year to which the right hon. Gentleman agreed more fully than as to level crossings, and when I recently put a question as to two cases that I have frequently brought before this House, he must have been dissatisfied at having to reply that he still had no power. One was the typical case of Todmorden Junction on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. The Board of Trade and the Local Board of Todmorden have for years pressed on the Directors the necessity of erecting a bridge or constructing a subway to communicate between platforms at a junction where three thousand passengers interchange daily. So also at the Milford Haven Station of the Great Western Railway, where there has been loss of life, the railway company will not erect a bridge for the protection of their servants and of the public. In this case the conduct of the railway company seems to me to be a disgraceful instance of the misuse of a monopoly, for they are using their power and the knowledge of the danger for the purpose of extorting from the inhabitants a contribution towards the building of a bridge which in ordinary consideration

  1861
  for the protection of life the company ought to have constructed long ago themselves. I do not wish to detain the House beyond establishing the importance of the subject I am raising. I may say that I speak on behalf of the great body of railway servants in the country, and the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that it is not quite my fault that I had not a previous opportunity of bringing this subject before the House. There are many matters I might touch on as showing the necessity for extending the powers of the Board of Trade. There is the question of couplings. The Return which the right hon. Gentleman promised last year cannot be completed from the fact that nearly half the wagons used on railways are the property of private owners, and are not registered or under the control of the Board or of the companies, and it is impossible to obtain the facts in regard to them. That in itself is a serious danger. In regard to overtime work, there we now, in Lord De La Warr's Returns, ample material to deal with that question. In the early part of this year we had a case of revolting cruelty, the death of a miserable fog man from this overtime work. I would suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman contemplates legislation on the point, he should approach it from the same point of view as the law regarding the undermanning of a ship. The Secretary to the Board of Trade very properly replied to the railway company, when they made the excuse that they had not a sufficient number of trained fogmen, it is the duty of the company to provide a sufficient number of men for the purpose. The Board of Trade might compel additions to the staff, where in the view of the Inspector such additions are necessary for safety. I owe an apology to the House for detaining it so long, but I must plead the importance of the subject to many thousand railway servants who have a right to be heard on a matter in which the safety of their lives is concerned. Many petitions have been presented to the House on the subject, and I am sure Members on both sides are anxious to give fair consideration to the claims of a body of men who give to their work a high degree of intelligence and a still higher degree of loyalty to duty, men
  1862
  to whose hardships and patient endurance we have again and again owed our protection from the gravest dangers. I gladly recognize the good legislative work for which the President of the Board of Trade has this Session been conspicuous, and if he can add to that work the carrying through of a Bill for the better regulation of railways, he will accomplish a work that will be the means of saving many lives, give general satisfaction, and I think I may add he will not meet with opposition from any section of the House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACHI have no right to complain that the hon. Member has taken the opportunity of bringing this matter forward nor of his manner of doing so. He was prevented by an accident for which nobody is responsible from calling attention to the subject on a previous occasion. If I decline to enter into the matters he has raised it is not from any disrespect to him or want of appreciation of the importance of the subject, but simply beceuse I have very little to say in regard to it. I am not quite, I think, in agreement with the view expressed by the hon. Member as to the increase of danger to railway servants and the travelling public, and the degree to which legislation would remove it. I think that the record for 1888 will show a decided improvement in the number of accidents, and I very much doubt whether such accidents as did occur could have been obviated by anything Parliament could do as the hon Member anticipates. A very strong force of public opinion is now brought to bear upon railway authorities through the agency of this House, the Press, and the Board of Trade, and it is to that public opinion that I rather trust for the removal of evils. With regard to overtime. I am inclined to think that remedial legislation is not possible, and that publicity alone can effect the cure of any evils that exist. With reference to other matters, however, I admit that it would be possible to alter and improve the law, and if there were any reasonable chance of a measure being adequately discussed at this period of the Session I should certainly produce one. But, having regard to what has passed this Session and to what is yet to come, I could not hold out any hope that I shall be able to deal with

  1863
  the subject this year. I have not overlooked it, however, and I have a measure on the stocks which I hope to make public in one way or another, either during the present Session or during the autumn, so that the principles of the Bill may receive that criticism and discussion which ought to be bestowed upon them by the railway authorities, the railway servants and the public. In this way I hope to put the question in a shape in which it will be ripe for legislation next year.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSBefore the question is put I desire again to ask the Government even now at this late hour, to reconsider their position in regard to the Commission on the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, which position has given rise to the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the Principality. Let it be clearly understood that neither I or the Welsh people desire to make any complaint as to the personal qualifications of any of the distinguished gentlemen who have been appointed to the Commission. But it is of the utmost importance not only that the Commission should act impartially in this matter, but that they should have the confidence of the people. It is with great regret that the Welsh people find that no one conversant with the Welsh language has been appointed on the Commission. It is true the Secretary speaks Welsh, but that is only an admission that a knowledge of the language is desirable, and there is an earnest desire that there should be a knowledge of the language upon the Commission itself. Another grievance is that, although Nonconformists predominate so largely in Wales, not a single Nonconformist is to be found among the Commissioners. Among the Commissioners is a gentleman of high position and character in the person of Lord Emlyn, but at the same time it must be remembered that when he sat in this House he was one of the two Welsh Members who voted against the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill and I think he expressed his opinion by speech against the measure. Lord Emlyn not re-elected; his views are not in was harmony with the Nonconformists, who form the great majority of his former constituents, and we know how continued opposition hardens and crystalizes opposing sentiments. There is great
  1864
  doubt whether Lord Emlyn is a Commissioner in whom the Welsh people have confidence for the impartial consideration of this matter. I need not go through the list of Commissioners, but I may say that I do not know that they possess special qualifications unless ignorance of the Welsh language is a qualification. With one of them, Mr. Horatio Lloyd, I have the honour of personal acquaintance, and for him personally I have the greatest respect. His selection as a Commissioner is, however, unfortunate on another ground, for he has indulged in sweeping assertions as to what he believes to be a vicious characteristic of the Welsh people. I again urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the desirability of adding to the Commission two gentlemen possessing the qualifications I have referred to. It is matter of deep regret that we have not the services of Lord Herschell on the Commission. It was after consultation between Members of both sides representing Welsh constituencies, that the unanimous desire was evinced that Lord Herschell should be asked to serve as Chairman, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when a Member from either side waited upon him in relation to the matter, it was merely to urge this modest request, and certainly with no intention of infringing, as he seems to suppose, the high prerogative of his office. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of asking if Lord Herschell had accepted the Chairmanship of the Vaccination Commission at the time when the deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman? If he had not then, I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should ignore the suggestion pressed upon him by the united Welsh representatives.
  MR. T. ELLISI wish to endorse the complaint of my hon. Friend. The circumstances attending the appointment of this Commission made it specially necessary to take care to constitute a Commission acceptable to the general body of the Welsh people. The Act was attacked in a series of anonymous articles in a Tory paper in Cardiff. Wales and its representatives cared little for the attacks of a paper which habitually attacks Welsh institutions. The request for a Royal Commission came not from Wales, but

  1865
  from the Tory Member for a Lancashire Borough who owns the paper which made the attacks on the Welsh Sunday Closing Act. This request was forth with granted. The requests of Welsh Members to the Government are, as a rule, refused, while the request of a Tory Member on a subject relating to Wales is granted immediately, although he has no connection with Wales except such as he derives from the ownership of a Tory newspaper published in the Principality. In appointing a Commission that the Welsh people did not ask for or want, it was incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to appoint one that was, at any rate fair and reasonable, and which would command the assent, respect, and confidence of the Principality. But what did he do? He appointed one Gentleman connected as a landlord with Wales—not a Welshman himself, but once a representative of a Welsh constituency in this House. This Gentleman was the only Welsh Member who opposed the Sunday Closing Act; and his own county, part of which he owns, marked its sense of his conduct by rejecting his candidature on the earliest possible opportunity. Who are the other four Commissioners? One of them is an old Member of this House, who was defeated by the hon. Gentleman who asked for this Commission, and to whom the Government so willingly granted the inquiry. This Gentleman was, I suppose, put on the Commission as a sort of consolation for defeat. He is the only Member of the Commission known to have any sympathy with the political and religious views of the vast majority of the Welsh people. The other three Members of the Commission, though the Home Secretary says they have not publicly expressed their views on the Sunday Closing question, are known in Wales as strong and in some cases bitter opponents of the views of the majority of the Welsh people. One of them is a County Court Judge figuring largely in Unionist circles at Chester, and another is a Chairman of Quarter Sessions in a neighbouring Tory county. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had gone into the highways and wherever he could in England and Scotland, he could not have found four public men more objectionable to the Welsh people than four of the persons he has appointed.
  1866
  It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman could very easily have found County Court Judges in Wales who would command the respect of the Welsh people of all shades of political and religious opinion. Would the right hon. Gentleman like the question of the Union between England and Ireland, or the question of the existence of the House of Lords, to be entrusted to a Commission composed of advanced Radicals hostile to those institutions, and including Mr. Davitt and the hon. Member for Cork? In the opinion of the Welsh people this Commission is composed in much the same way. Though I do not suppose we shall make any impression on the Government on this occasion. I am glad my hon. and learned Friend has taken the opportunity of giving expression to the deep and bitter dissatisfaction felt by the Welsh people with the constitution of this Commission.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANThe hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made several allusions to me which were rather uncalled for. He has attributed this Commission to my interference. It is quite true that I asked a question on this subject, but I had absolutely no communication with Ministers before putting the question, and I think I shall be borne out in that by the Home Secretary when he addresses the House. The hon. Gentleman has said that a number of articles have appeared in a paper of which I am part proprietor attacking Sunday Closing in Wales. That is perfectly true, but those articles were not written from a partizan point of view, but were the reports of a Commissioner appointed to find out the facts in regard to the actual working of the Act. My sole reason for interfering was not simply that these articles had appeared in the newspaper with which I am connected, but it was based on the fact that those articles made such an impression upon disinterested men in Wales that Lord Aberdare said that they convinced him the Act ought to be repealed, and that if a Bill for that purpose were brought in he could not vote against it. A similar effect was produced upon Mr. Justice Grantham and others. I knew that the Welsh Members would never draw attention to these articles, and I

  1867
  therefore put the question on the Paper, which drew from the Home Secretary the announcement that this Commission would be appointed. It is perfectly true that Mr. Hibbert, who was once my opponent at Oldham, is on the Commission, but he is an honourable man—one of the stamp who, when appointed on such a Commission, forget their politics, and try to do what is fair and right. I wish that Welsh Members on the other side would occasionally act in the same spirit. It is not for me to defend the composition of the Commission, but it seems as if nothing would content the two hon. Members who have spoken but a Commission composed entirely of Welsh dissenting ministers.
  MR. MATTHEWSThe observations of the hon. Member for Merionethshire leave the matter in a very peculiar position. While the two Welsh Members have declared that the people of Wales do not care for this Commission, they have occupied the time of the House of Commons with questions as to who the Chairman of the Commission is to be. I have been blamed because Lord Herschell was not appointed Chairman of the Commission, but I am not aware that the noble Lord, for whom I have the highest respect, speaks Welsh; and he therefore failed in what hon. Members opposite consider an essential accomplishment. I take the blame upon myself for not attaching to the representations made to me with regard to Lord Herschell that grave significance which I now understand is attached to it. I should have had the greatest pleasure in appointing Lord Herschell, but the President of the Local Government Board, who was perhaps more wide awake, secured him for another Commission before I could make the application, and Lord Herschell could not sit on two Commissions at once. I spent two weeks of intense mental anguish in trying to discover five men who were not committed on this Sunday Closing Question, but unfortunately the noise of this agitation for Sunday Closing had so filled the country that I could only find three such men. The Chairman was one of those. He is a man of very great business faculties and of positive integrity. County Court Judge Horatio Lloyd is a man of impartiality, who is not committed on this question, and who has a considerable
  1868
  familiarity with the habits and wishes of the people of the Principality. I hardly know what amount of education is necessary, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to enable a person to know Welsh wishes. Sir R. Harrington is a man of singular calmness and impartiality. He is one of my personal friends, and I have often admired this Gentleman's legal knowledge and acumen. With regard to the other members of the Commission, I appointed two gentlemen who had committed themselves, one on one side and the other on the other. I thought Mr. Hibbert was a most desirable person to serve on this Commission; he had voted in favour of Sunday closing and local option, and his record was therefore immaculate. The fifth member had committed himself on the other side. The only endeavour has been to appoint a fair Commission, who will secure the confidence of all who desire a full and impartial inquiry.
  SIR W. LAWSON roseto speak.
  MR. W. H. SMITH (interrupting)I would remind hon. Members that unless the Motion for the Adjournment is taken by ten minutes to seven, no adjournment will be possible.
  SIR W. LAWSONI do not wish to interfere with the adjournment, but I want to make one appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He has said that when the House meets again he intends to take the Tuesdays. The right hon. Gentleman will only get four hours a week in that way. The Government are strong, and have got on so well with their business that I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to be merciful and just to leave the private Members their little ewe lambs.
  Question put, and agreed to

  OFFICIAL SECRETS [EXPENSES].(No. 97.)
  Resolution reported:
  " That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the Prosecution in Scotland or Ireland of a misdemeanour under any Act of the present Session to prevent the disclosure of official Documents and Information,"
  Resolution agreed to.

  POLITICAL OFFICES PENSIONS ACT (1869) REPEAL BILL. (No. 77.)
  Order for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading (24th May), read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE, 1888–9.
  Return ordered,
  "Of Analyzed Account of the Public Income and Expenditure for the year ending on the 31st of March, 1889 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 293, of Session 1888)."—(Mr. Hubbard.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the practice and proceedings of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durham." Palatine Court of Durham Bill (Lords).
  Also, a Bill, intituled. "An Act for amending and consolidating the enactments relating to Arbitration." Arbitration Bill (Lords).

  ARBITRATION BILL (LORDS).
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 17th June, and to be printed. (Bill 267.)
  ASSIZES RELIEF BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday, 17th June, and to be printed. (No. 268.)
  MOTION.

    BI-METALLISM.
    MR. CHAPLINsubmitted the following Motion, which he had upon the Paper:
    " That this House considers that the recent divergence in the value of the precious metals is prejudicial in the highest degree to the finances and the Government of India, and that it seriously adds to the difficulties of trade between the United Kingdom and countries which possess a silver standard; it is further of opinion that the divergence has been primarily due to the monetary charges which occurred upon the Continent, and to the abandonment of the bi-metallic system which had prevailed in certain European countries prior to 1873; it has also viewed with great regret the recent and prolonged depression in trade and agriculture, and the consequent irregularity of employment for vast numbers of the population to which it believes that these changes have contributed in
    1870
    a material degree; and it therefore urges on Her Majesty's Government the importance of consulting the chief commercial nations, such as Germany and the United States, together with France and other countries which comprise the Latin Union, as to their readiness to join with the United Kingdom in a conference for the purpose of considering whether and how far a bi-metallic system can be re-established by international agreement in the interest of all the nations and communities concerned."
    The right hon. Gentleman said,—Sir, I feel that I owe an apology to the House for having undertaken to introduce this question to its notice, and more particularly at a time which I fear is equally inconvenient to many hon. Members, as it is unfortunate for the Motion now before the House. Moreover, I could have wished that it had fallen to the lot of some one among the number of those eminent financial authorities whom we are able to reckon in this House, or, at all events, to some Member of greater Parliamentary position and influence than myself. For, Sir. I have never attempted to disguise for a moment from myself, whether it be with regard to the multitude of subjects which it touches, and the number and great variety of the questions which it may effect, or to its intricate and complicated character and the difficulty of making it thoroughly understood, or to the exact and possible scope of its effects if the views of bi-metallists should prevail, that this is essentially a question which ought not to be dealt with on any light or insufficient grounds. The Motion which I have placed on the Paper refers to the Report of the Currency Commission, and I wish to correct, in the first place, a wide misapprehension which appears to prevail as to the conclusions which were arrived at by the Commissioners in their Reports, of which I may remind the House that there are three. Now, I have seen it constantly stated and sometimes in quarters which I confess not a little surprised me, that in regard to the various matters which were committed to their inquiry the Commissioners were hopelessly divided in their opinions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question put to him on the 2nd of April by the hon. Member for North Kensington, fell into this error himself. He was asked by my hon. Friend whether his attention had been drawn to the declaration of the Indian Government in the Budget statement for the

    1871
    year, namely:— "That no solution of the currency question is possible without international agreement." And he replied as follows:—
    " If the hon. Member means by the 'currency question' the question of bi-metallism, then it is true that no solution is possible without international agreement. But the point is whether it would be possible even with international agreement. That is a question upon which the Royal Commission is hopelessly divided."
    Now, Sir, I venture to say that that expression of opinion on the part of my right hon. Friend, as I will prove to the House in a moment, is an absolutely misleading and inaccurate statement. For that is precisely one of the points, and a most important point it is, upon which the Commissioners, so far from being hopelessly divided, one and all of them put their names to paragraphs in which they were absolutely unanimous in opinion. That Commission was appointed to inquire into four things in particular—firstly, as to the causes of the recent divergence in the relative value of the precious metals; secondly, into the consequences which had followed upon that divergence, and whether they were causing permanent and important evils; thirdly, if that was found to be the case, whether a remedy was possible; and, fourthly, if a remedy was possible, whether it would be expedient in the general interests to adopt it. Now, Sir, with regard to the first and third of these points, it is only necessary to turn to two or three paragraphs of the Report itself to ascertain without doubt the views of the Commissioners. I do not wish to delay the House for a moment longer than I can help, but they must forgive me if I quote three short paragraphs upon these points, for it is a matter of the first importance. With regard to the first point, the views of the Commissioners will be found in paragraphs 192 and 198 of Part I. of the Report. In paragraph 192 there occurs this passage:—
    "Undoubtedly the date which forms the dividing line between an epoch of approximate fixity in the relative value of gold and silver and one of marked instability is the year when the bi-metallic system, which had previously been in force in the Latin Union, ceased to be in full operation; and we are irresistibly led to the conclusion that the operation of that system, established as it was in countries the population and commerce of which were considerable, exerted a material influence upon the
    1872
    relative value of the two metals. So long as that system was enforced we think that, notwithstanding the changes in the production and use of the precious metals, it kept the market price of silver approximately steady at the ratio fixed by law between them—namely,15½ to 1."
    And, again, in Section 198 they say—
    "The action of the Latin Union in 1873 broke the link between silver and gold which had kept the price of the former, as measured by the latter, constant at about the legal ratio; and when this link was broken the silver market was open to the influence of all the factors which go to affect the price of a commodity."
    That paragraph was signed by all the 12 Commissioners, and it shows, I think, pretty clearly what were their views as to the causes of the divergence. What do they say as to the possibility of a remedy? It will be found in Section 107 of Part 2 of the Report. It is as. Follows—
    "The first step towards answering the inquiry we have proposed to ourselves is to determine the subsidiary question whether a bi-metallic arrangement could create and maintain a stable ratio between silver and gold. We think that in any conditions fairly to be contemplated in the future, so far as we can forecast them from the experience of the past, a stable ratio might be maintained if the nations we have alluded to were to accept and strictly adhere to bi-metallism at the suggested ratio. We think that if in all these countries gold and silver could be freely coined, and thus become exchangeable against commodities at the fixed ratio, the market value of silver, as measured by gold, would conform to that ratio and not vary to any material extent."
    That paragraph again is adopted by all the Commissioners, and I am quite unable therefore to perceive the hopeless division of opinion of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke. And the only modification of that view is to be found in a Memorandum at the end of Part 2, in which two of the Commissioners out of the 12, the Member for London University and Mr. Birch, expressed their doubts as to the permanent stability of any given ratio, although even they admit that it could and probably would be maintained for a very considerable time. Where the Commissioners differed, and the only respect in which they differed, so far as I know, was in this—namely, the gravity of some of the evils which were alleged, and the expediency of the remedy which we proposed. Six of the Commissioners, of whom I had the honour to be one, were of opinion that the evils in question were of a magni-

    1873
    tude to call for a remedy and to call for it without delay. The remaining six, upon the other hand, while admitting the existence of many of the evils, and denying none of them, and while acknowledging in those cases, even where they had doubts, that they deserved the gravest consideration, yet were of opinion that some of them had not been proved to their entire satisfaction, and consequently they were afraid of proposing the remedy which we recommend, although they acknowledged it was possible and would probably be efficacious The House, then, will perceive that on the two principal points of the inquiry, around which in the past the bi-metallic controversy has been chiefly waged, the Commissioners, so far from being hopelessly divided, have been shown to be practically unanimous in opinion. That is one misapprehension to which I was anxious to call attention at the outset, and another is this. In Section 120 of Part 2 of the Report there will be found a statement which is vouched for by the President and five other members of the Commission, as one of the reasons against the adoption of bi-metallism, to this effect—namely—
    "That the change which we propose is tremendous, and that the novelty of our proposal in itself is sufficient to excite apprehensions which might not be without danger."
    Again, Sir, I venture to say, with all possible respect, that that is a statement which is eminently and entirely calculated to mislead. I affirm distinctly, and I challenge contradiction, that it is an entire mistake to suppose that there is anything whatever new in what is called bi-metallism. On the contrary, although it is perfectly true that in this country we adopted a gold standard and became mono-metallic ourselves in 1816, prior to which we were always distinctly bi-metallism or in the enjoyment of a silver standard, yet bi-metallism existed all that time upon the Continent, and we in England lived, and all the business of the world was conducted, under the full effects and advantages of a bi-metallic system, which were felt and were universal in all the commercial countries of the world for the whole of the present century, and, indeed, in one form or another for a period long before that, probably at least 200 years prior to 1873. The only novelty in our proposition, if novelty indeed it is at all,
    1874
    is this — that England should take the lead in asking other nations to consider whether it would be possible in the general interest to revert to such a system, with advantage to all the communities concerned; and, if that were so, that she should join with them in the endeavour to arrive at a common understanding for the purpose. Si, it appeared to me that these were two very common and prominent misapprehensions, which I should do well to clear up at the outset. And now I think, perhaps, that in order to make myself intelligible to hon. Members, some of whom, it is possible, may not have thoroughly studied this question for themselves, that I ought to preface what I have to say by a reference, however brief, to the history of this question in the past. Having done that, I will explain exactly what the bi-metallic system was, which prevail up to 1873. Thirdly, I will show the circumstances under which it came to an end, and the consequences which have followed upon its abandonment; and fourthly, I will put before the House what it is that we propose. Now, with regard to the first of those points. It will not be necessary for me, I hope, to go back further than the beginning of the present century at all events, and within the limits of that period. The history of the question is very briefly this. From as far back as 1803 up to 1873 the Mint of France, and from 1865 to 1873 the Mints of certain countries on the Continent belonging to what was known as the Latin Union, in which France also was included, were open to the free coinage of silver— that is to say, to the unlimited coinage of silver as well as to the coinage of gold. The countries which composed the Latin Union were five—namely, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, and afterwards Greece. And their Mints were compelled by law to convert into coin all the silver and all the gold that was brought to them at a given weight and fineness. The effect of that law was to establish a fixed proportionate value, or, as is more technically termed, a fixed ratio between them; that ratio at the time being in the proportion of 151 of silver to one of gold. All the silver thus converted in coin became legal tender money, available for the discharge of debts to any amount within the limits of the several States of

    1875
    the Union, equally with gold, at the ratio which was fixed law. The results of that system were as follows:—In the first place, it gave to silver a position and a value as legal tender money equally with gold at the legal ratio; secondly, the ratio never varied except within the narrowest limits, but remained practically steady from the beginning of the century up till 1873; and, thirdly, although the practice of the system was limited to the five countries, the effects of the system were universal, and were felt and were enjoyed by every civilized country in the world. Indeed, as a matter of fact, as one of our witnesses pointed out to the Commission, we in England for all those years were living under bi-metallism, though we might not know it, just as surely as our forefathers lived under the laws of gravitation prior to the time of Newton, although they did not know it either. Now, that was the system which was known as bi-metallism. It existed in France, as I have shown, almost from the commencement of the present century, beginning in 1803, and it continued to prevail both in France, and the other countries I have named, from 1865 up till 1873, without cessation. Unfortunately, however, in 1873, or, to he strictly accurate, shortly before that date, some-thing happened which ultimately led to the abandonment of that system; and what is a curious and most remarkable coincidence—and I beg the House to observe it—is this: that concurrently with the disappearance of bi-metallism there set in a period of severe, prolonged, and unprecedented depression in almost every trade and industry you can mention, both here and on the Continent, and for which no human being has ever yet been able to assign any other valid or sufficient reason; and with regard to which, though I gladly admit there have been some signs of improvement lately, yet with regard to many others, and notably the cotton industry, the agricultural industry as a whole, and I fear I must add the iron industry, there has been continued depression from that period up to the present. Now, what ultimately led to its abandonment was the demonetization of silver by Germany. Germany, which had previously had a purely silver currency, determined to convert her silver currency into a gold one. A favourable opportunity was presented by the pay-
    1876
    ment of the enormous indemnity by France to Germany at the close of the Franco-German war, and the German policy in that respect was accordingly carried out with results which it is absolutely certain were neither foreseen nor contemplated at the time. Large quantities of the silver which had been withdrawn from circulation in pursuance of this policy in Germany were brought to the French and Belgian mints, who were bound by law to coin them. Enormous quantities of silver in consequence were coined in this way at the French and Belgian mints in the course of a single year alone. There gold was leaving them and being exported to Germany at the same time, the greater part either going directly or indirectly from France, and these two countries naturally became apprehensive lest they should be left with silver alone. A convention of the States of the Latin Union accordingly was summoned, the general result of which was that it was decided in the month of January, 1874, to limit the annual coinage of silver to a fixed amount in each of the five countries in future. The free coinage of silver, therefore, and that is the cardinal point, without which it became impossible to maintain the fixed ratio in future, was suspended at that date, and from that moment the bi-metallic system ceased to exist. Well, now, Sir, I am quite aware that that is but an imperfect description of the history of the question in the past, but it may, perhaps, be sufficient to enable hon. Members to follow me in the arguments which I desire to submit to the House. I come then to the next point, and I want the House to consider what have been the consequences of these monetary changes, and the way in which various interests have been and are being affected by them, both here and in other countries in the world. These consequences, for the purposes of this discussion, have been, in my opinion, mainly two. They led, in the first place, to a marked appreciation of gold, and in the second, to a wide divergence in the relative values of the precious metals. With the permission of the House, I will deal for a short time with each of these consequences in turn. The fact of appreciation, I think, can scarcely be denied. Indeed, it is only another name for

    1877
    a general fall in the prices of commodities, and that there has been such a general fall in a vast number of articles, since 1873, is a matter of fact and not of opinion. I do not mean to say that the whole fall in prices has been due, by any means, to appreciation alone. Other causes, no doubt, have contributed to that fall as well, and it is impossible for anyone to decide precisely how much of the fall is owing to the one cause and how much to the other. But that some part, and probably a large part, is the result of appreciation I hardly think can be disputed. If it is, I should have to cite a whole host of witnesses, who are great authorities in support of that contention. The very first that I should call would be the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one has expressed himself more emphatically or ably on that point than my right hon. Friend. Next I should take the authority of Mr. Giffen, who has maintained the same proposition; and his opinion I regard as all the more important and impartial, for I have reason to know, though I do not at all despair of him in future, that he is not converted to the bi-metallic view, at all events at present. I might also quote the high authority of Lord Beaconsfield, who, in one of the last speeches that he made in the House of Lords, I think in the year 1879, expressly adopted the theory of the appreciation of gold. He was speaking in a debate on agricultural depression, in which he attributed the depression to three causes in particular—bad harvests, foreign competition, and the appreciation of gold. "Gold," he said, after arguing the question minutely and at considerable length, "is every day appreciating in value, and as it appreciates in value the lower become prices. This, then, I think, is the third cause." Next I should cite the Report of Lord Iddesleigh's Commission on the Depression of Trade. The Majority Report of that Commission was signed by 19 out of the 24 Commissioners, and in their enumeration of the influences which had tended to produce depression they gave "a leading place," to use the language of the Report, to the fall in prices due to the appreciation of the standard of value. Finally I should come to the Report which we are engaged in discussing, in which all the
    1878
    Commissioners, some in a greater and some in a less degree, acknowledge the fact of the appreciation of gold. Some people, I know, maintain that the fall may be altogether accounted for by a greatly increased production of commodities in all parts of the world and by greatly increased facilities for their production. There are others, again—and that is the view of six of our colleagues on the Commission—who, while admitting that appreciation is undoubtedly a factor in the case, nevertheless attribute the chief part of the fall in prices to causes directly affecting commodities themselves. In that contention it seems to me that they are met with two formidable difficulties at once. They appear to forget that pari passu with increased production there has been a wide increase in the area of civilization and an immense addition to the population of the world; and there is certainly no proof that in proportion to the demand and to the increased population the supply of commodities to-day is greater than it ever was before. That is one difficulty, and the other is this— Are we to suppose that none of these incentives to increased production were in operation, and that if they were in operation they had no effect prior to the year 1873? I cannot find the slightest proof either that the supply of commodities generally has increased or that the cost of production has diminished at a greater rate in the 10 or 15 years which have elapsed since what is called the rupture of the bi-metallic par than was the case in other periods of like duration previous to that date On the contrary, it would seem to be absolutely certain that it was shortly after, and no doubt in consequence of the great discoveries of science, the invention of steam, of electricity, and the telegraph, that the most marked advances in production were apparent; and yet there is no record of any general or permanent fall in prices such as that which we have seen of late. I acknowledge that facilities for production are habitually increasing, and the cost of production is constantly growing less; but these are factors which have been in operation since the world began, and while their tendency is to gradually depress the prices of commodities, they are not sufficient in themselves to account for this

    1879
    wholly exceptional and abnormal fall in prices in gold using countries which has been apparent since 1873, and only since that time. Until then these objections which I urge against the theories which are advanced on the part of our opponents are met and fully answered, I must be permitted to argue my case upon the assumption that there has been a distinct appreciation of gold as a fact which can neither be disputed nor denied. Now, why has gold appreciated, and what is the meaning of the term? Gold has appreciated since 1873, in my humble judgment, for the simple and sufficient reason that gold has had to do, so far as the metals are concerned, a larger proportion of the work which formerly was done partly by gold and partly by silver; consequently in proportion to the work which it has had to do gold has become relatively scarce, and therefore more valuable than it was before. This is, of course, a gain and a great advantage to those who are fortunate enough to be the owners of the gold—that is to say, to men who derive their fortunes from the possession of gold or from fixed incomes, or from the funds or from investments the interest upon which is payable in gold; but it is a corresponding loss to the owners of every other kind of property and commodity in the world, and above all to the working classes of this country, for the great commodity which they have to sell and which they must exchange for gold is the labour and the toil of their families and themselves. The answer to this argument, of course, is this:—That may be quite true, but the appreciation of gold cuts both ways. If you get less for what you have to sell, so also you give less for everything you want to buy, and it comes to the same thing in the end. That, again, would be true, and the argument would be unanswerable if there were no such things as fixed charges and obligations to pay in gold already in existence, and if the prices of all commodities had fallen in the same proportion. But then we know that that is not the case; and what I want to lay stress upon, and what I want to impress upon the House is this—that however much gold may continue to appreciate, however much more value it may become than it was before, these fixed charges and obliga-
    1880
    tions must still be met in full, whatever it may cost the debtor to obtain the amount of appreciated gold which is necessary to meet them. Now, I ask the House to consider what an enormous burden it is that is imposed in this way upon the industries of the country when we remember that the fixed charges already in existence of one kind or another have been estimated by men who are competent to judge at no less, take them altogether, than the gigantic sum of 4,000 millions of money. I do not vouch for the accuracy of these figures myself, although I have great confidence in the general accuracy of those who are responsible for them. But in order to avoid any possible exaggeration, let me take them at one-half, which must be well within the mark; for we know that the National Debt and the Municipal Debt of the country alone are estimated at 1,000 millions, and the mortgages upon all kinds of property in the United Kingdom are put at another 1,000 millions also. Now, what does all this mean? It means that when gold appreciates, and precisely in the same proportion in which gold appreciates, so much more of the produce and the labour of the country must be given in exchange for the gold which is required to meet these obligations. The only way in which the gold can be obtained is by exchanging for it something that there is to sell, and excepting land which is unreclaimed and in a natural state, and therefore practically worthless, I know of nothing that there is to sell which is not the product of the labour of the country. Those who gain by the present state of things are the great gold capitalists of the country, whose capital is invested, not in industrial undertakings which provide employment for great numbers of people, but in fixed investments, and also the limited class who are in the enjoyment of fixed incomes or pensions, which are payable in gold. Those who suffer, on the other hand, are the workers and the producers of the country. The former class can be counted by thousands, and they are a mere fraction of the community as a whole; the latter class, upon the other hand, represent the masses and the millions of the people, and that is why I say that in a condition of society like our own the appreciation of

    1881
    the standard of value causes, and must always cause, grave and serious and important evils to the great majority of the community. I now pass from this subject—namely, the appreciation of gold, and I come to the second consequence which has resulted from the monetary changes—namely, the wide divergence in the relative value of silver and gold. It has taken the form of a heavy fall in the gold price of silver. Silver was valued in 1873 in the proportion of 15 of silver to 1 of gold; now it has fallen of 22. Silver, which was worth in 1873 60d. an ounce, is now, according to the latest quotations, worth only 42d. an ounce. The rupee, again, which is the coin of the realm in India, was formerly worth something very nearly approaching to 2s. Now it is worth only ls. 4d. These figures show how serious has been the fall in the gold price of silver; but silver is the subject not only of a fall in price, but also of constant fluctuations in its value as well, and by these two causes—namely, by the fall and by the constant fluctuations—a whole variety of interests are affected in a variety of ways. Now let me take the effects of the fluctuations in the value of silver first. Take that portion of our trade, for instance, which is conducted with silver-using countries. It forms a large and an important portion of the whole. What is the position of the English merchant in that case? Every transaction into which he enters is always liable to an alteration in the value of the metal in which he must be paid. Either he must take that risk or he must insure himself against it. Either alternative inflicts an additional burden or a loss on him, and to that extent his trade is hampered and is made less profitable than it was before. It must be obvious that trade between two countries, both of which use the same metal as their standard, is free from the risk and inconvenience to which trade is always liable between countries, one of which uses gold and the other silver as its standard; and one of the first effects then of this constant fluctuation is to encourage and to stimulate trade between two silver-using countries, to the prejudice and the great discouragement of trade between countries one of which, like England, uses gold, and the other of which, like India or China or Japan, uses silver. There is a very remarkable
    1882
    illustration of this argument to be found in some figures which are given at page 27 of the Report. They refer to the growth of the export trade in cotton yarns between India and other silver-using countries as compared with the same export trade in England during the period of the ten years which elapsed between 1877 and 1888, and what they show is this—that while in England during those ten years that particular trade has been practically stationary, in India it has increased by over 1,000 per cent, and the returns for the year 1888, which are not included in these figures, are much greater even than they were in 1887. Now, that is owing partly to the fall in the price of silver and to its exchange conditions, as well as to the constant fluctuations; but, in any case, it shows that apparently we are losing rapidly—if, indeed, we have not lost it altogether already—that portion of our trade with the East, and that, I venture to think, is a grave and important consideration which is well deserving of the attention of the House. This is all the more remarkable when we remember that it was shown in evidence before the Commission, and has never been contradicted or refuted up to now, that after allowing for all the advantages of cheap labour in India, after allowing for the saving of the cost of transport and allowing for the advantages of having the material on the spot, yet, notwithstanding all this, it was conclusively proved before our Commission that we are able to manufacture those particular goods at so much per pound cheaper than they can be manufactured in India. That evidence, moreover, was substantially confirmed by a decision of the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester itself, after a committee of that Chamber had been expressly appointed to inquire into and to sift this question to the utmost. Now, Sir, I turn to another point, and I take the case of Indian finance, which suffers both from the fall and from the fluctuations in silver as well. India, it must be remembered, owes a large debt in gold. She has to make payments annually in gold amounting altogether to 15 millions sterling. Her revenue, on the other hand, is collected in silver, part of which must be afterwards exchanged for gold in order to enable her to meet her obligations. Now, with the

    1883
    rupee at 1s. 4d. it takes a vastly increased number of rupees to exchange for 15 millions sterling compared with what it did when the rupee was worth 2s. The difference at present amounts to some 72,000,000 rupees a year, all of which has to be met by greatly increased taxation, which would not be needed and would not be necessary but for the fall in the value of silver which has occurred. India is taxed already to as great an extent as she ought to bear, and probably as she can bear.
    MR. MACLEAN: No.
    MR. CHAPLINI defer to the great authority of my hon. Friend, who is more conversant in Indian matters than myself, but I think I have heard authorities express an opinion that if, for any reason, it was necessary to impose any greatly increased taxation upon that country, it might not improbably lead to grave political complications which every well-wisher of the Empire would desire to see averted. But that, Sir, is not all, for the fall in silver has been hitherto progressive, and no one can say that a further fall in silver may not occur at any moment; and consequently, with the value of silver constantly changing, it is impossible for any Minister or any statesman, however experienced he may be, to forecast with anything like accuracy what revenue may be required or what number of rupees he must collect in order to meet his obligations. All his calculations may be turned upside down at any moment by some sudden and unexpected fall in the price of silver, and that is why Indian Budgets are so constantly upset by what is called a fall in the exchange, and why they suffer so severely by what is known as loss by the exchange. Many people think, and I confess I am inclined to that opinion for my own part, that unless something is done shortly to deal effectively with this question we must look forward to considerable and further falls in silver value. Look at the position in America at this moment. The Bland Act, which requires the annual coinage of a minimum amount of silver in the United States, undoubtedly exercises for the time a steadying influence upon the value of that metal. But if we in England persist, as we have done up to now, in ignoring all the difficulties which are everywhere created by the present position of the silver question, it is not
    1884
    impossible by any means that America may refuse to continue coining silver, and that she may think fit to suspend the Bland Act altogether. At all events, that is a matter entirely within her own discretion, and in respect to which we are absolutely at her mercy. If she elected to take that course, it is no exaggeration to say that we should be immediately confronted with something not very far removed from the bankruptcy of our Indian possessions. The rupee would go down almost certainly to a shilling, and possibly even lower than that. And as every fall of a penny in the value of a rupee makes the difference of a million sterling to the Indian Exchequer, we may find ourselves confronted any morning by the action of America, with the deficit of, it may be four, or five, or six millions sterling in the Budget of that portion of our Empire. I ask the House, Is that a condition of affairs which we ought to ignore? Is that a position in which we are justified in allowing any portion of our Empire to be situated for a single moment longer than we can help? I noticed an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Baronet opposite, in which he admits that the present state of things has had an injurious effect upon Indian finances, but that there is no sufficient reason why action should be taken on our part. Well, I confess that I differ with him in toto, and I can only say that I am supported in my views by some of the highest possible authorities upon this question. I should like, if the House will allow me, to read a letter which I have recently received upon this subject from Lord Dufferin, and which he has given me permission to make any use I like. I wrote to him to ask him for his opinion, and his reply, dated Rome, April 24th, 1889, is as follows:—
    "My dear Chaplin,—In reply to your letter of April 14th, I can only say that, as Viceroy of India, my attention was continually preoccupied with the terrible difficulties affecting Indian finance, not only by the depreciation but, what was even worse, by the fluctuations, (hear, hear) "in the value of silver. This decrease of a penny in the value of silver is tantamount to the loss of a million to the Indian Exchequer. In framing our Budgets we always felt ourselves face to face with an unknown and immeasurable disturbing force, which had the power of overthrowing all our calculations, and had not my Government

    1885
    possessed advisers of great financial ability the results would have been most disastrous. Consequently, from an Indian point of view, I have no hesitation in saying that any means which could be devised for maintaining a steady relation between the value of gold and silver would be of the greatest benefit, not only to the Government of India, but to all classes of the Indian community; for, although I have heard it argued by some persons of financial knowledge and ability in India that the depreciation of silver has been beneficial to the export trade of the country, there can be no doubt that, even from their own point of view, the constant fluctuation in the relative value of the two metals was detrimental to commerce."
    The remainder of Lord Dufferin's letter is devoted to the subject of the adoption of bi-metallism in England, a portion of the question which he says he has not had time to examine with sufficient accuracy or care to justify him in expressing an opinion. Well, now, Lord Dufferin is a man, as everybody knows, of the highest possible experience and ability, and his views upon the question of Indian finance, I venture to say, are deserving of the most careful attention of the House. I trust that I shall, therefore, be pardoned for reading his letter upon this occasion. I am sorry I have been obliged to detain the House at so great a length, but I am afraid it is impossible to deal with a question like this very shortly. So far I have been dealing with the results of the divergence in the value of metals which are not denied by any one. They are described by Lord Herschell and his friends in that part of the Report which they have signed as the proved evils which were brought before them. They expressed themselves with regard to those proved evils quite as strongly as we could have done ourselves. I am very anxious that this should be clearly understood, because it affords another answer to the statements which are being so repeatedly and so erroneously made as to the wholly inconclusive character of our Report. So serious, I confess, do I regard these proved evils, that on these grounds by themselves I should be quite prepared to urge the recommendations which we make, even if they stood alone. But they do not stand by any means alone. There are other interests nearer home which are closely connected with the divergence in the value of the metals, the manufacturing and the agricultural interests of this country. I will
    1886
    take the cotton industry of Lancashire for one, with the millions of people whom it employs, and the wheat-growing industry of this country for another. Both of these great industries are directly affected by the fall in the exchange, because the exchange operates on all commodities which pass between gold and silver-using countries, and both cotton and wheat are included in them. Now, in order to understand the effects of the exchange two things must be borne in mind to begin with. First, that, unlike the case in England, the prices of commodities in India have not altered, but have remained practically stationary as they were before. And the second is this—that however much the rupee may have fallen in relation to gold, in relation to commodities in India it has not fallen at all. In other words, the same number of rupees will no longer exchange for the same amount of gold as formerly, but they will exchange for—that is, they will purchase—as much of any commodity or commodities in India as they ever did before. I do not deny that this has. appeared strange to myself as it has to other people. But it is a fact which was vouched for by every single witness who gave evidence before the Commission, and I believe it was the unanimous opinion of the Commissioners themselves. I should like to show in half a dozen words how the export of cotton from this country is affected. Take the ease of cotton goods which are sent from Manchester to Bombay, on which, in order to make a profit, it is necessary to realize the sum, say, of £10,000. With the rupee at 2s., £10,000 is realized by the payment of 100,000 rupees; with the rupee at, say, 1s. 6d., it takes, upon the other hand, 133,000 rupees to realize that sum. Now comes the question. Will the Indian importer give, can he afford to give, this greatly-increased price for precisely the same article as he bought before? Obviously he cannot, and we know that he cannot, because, as I have shown already, prices in India have not risen, but have remained practically the same. The English exporter, therefore, must either be content to take the old silver price—namely, 100,000 rupees, which at the present rate of exchange means only £7,500 instead of £10,000, which he got before, or he must forego his

    1887
    sale. In either case he undergoes a loss which must directly be traced to the fall in the value of silver. Well, now, let me take the case of wheat which is brought from India to England. It is exactly the converse of the last case. When wheat was making 40s. the quarter, and the rupee was worth 2s., the English grower, of course, got £2 for his wheat and the Indian got 20 rupees. Wheat, however, now has fallen to 30s., and the rupee has likewise fallen, let us say for the sake of argument, to 1s. 6d.—as a matter of fact it has fallen a great deal more. The English grower, therefore, is getting less by 10s. per quarter for every quarter that he sells. The Indian grower, upon the other hand, is saved from any loss by the fall in the exchange. £1 10s. in gold will still exchange with the rupee at 1s 6d. for 20 rupees, and those rupees when he gets them will buy as much of any commodity or commodities for the Indian grower as they ever bought before. He is enabled, therefore, by the fall in the exchange to take the lower price of 30s. a quarter, which presumably he could not otherwise afford, and as the export of wheat from India to Europe has reached already very large dimensions, the market price of wheat in this way is unnaturally and artificially depressed in all the gold-using countries of the world. Now, Sir, the difficulties of agriculture, and especially of the wheat growing industry are great enough, God knows, already. I put aside all questions of Protection and Free Trade. I know I am tainted in the eyes of Gentlemen opposite on those questions. I ask the House to consider this question. Is it wise? Is it statesmanlike? Is it good or sound policy on our part to view with complacency the possible ruin and destruction of two great industries such as those I have named by these purely artificial means, which are the result of nothing else but foreign legislation. Ought we to acquiesce in this state of matters for the sake of a possible increase in momentary cheapness, remembering that any further considerable fall in the value of silver may close every mill in Lancashire to-morrow, and may render it impossible to grow with profit one single quarter of the grain, which is our staple food, in this country for the future?
    1888
    If that is so, I confess I am totally unable to comprehend the doctrines of modern Free Trade. They seem to me to have degenerated into nothing but a cry for "cheapness at any cost," no matter how it is produced, and which I firmly believe is absolutely in contravention of all the principles and doctrines and teachings of Mr. Cobden himself. Now, what we propose is simply to revert to a system such as that which prevailed upon the Continent prior to the year 1873. But in order to do this it is necessary, in our opinion, that Germany and the United States, together with the countries of the Latin Union, should join with the United Kingdom in an agreement for the purpose, and accordingly we desire that the English Government should consult the chief commercial nations as to their readiness to join in a Conference with the United Kingdom for the purpose of considering this question. There is good reason to believe—indeed, I know —that they would not be indisposed to concur in that proposal. The main difficulty which is always held up to us is this—namely, the ratio which is to be fixed, and we are always asked what ratio it is that we propose? The answer to that question appears to be simple, and, I think, conclusive. Obviously that is a matter which can only be settled by the nations and communities who are directly concerned. I should say that the view of the bi-metallists generally is this—that almost any ratio would be better than none; but it is idle for them to lay down a hard and fast line, as a preliminary to negotiations upon a point which can only be settled by the Conference itself. The ratio, in my judgment, is one of those questions which is certain to settle itself; and long before it is enacted by any legislation the market price of silver will conform to any ratio which is fixed upon. The stock argument, the standard argument, of course against the whole of these proposals is this—that you cannot fix by law the relative value of the metals. [Sir R. FOWLER: "Hear, hear."] Well, I have shown already that the twelve Commissioners, at all events, think you can. And, further, I say this—that what I am told cannot be done has been done already, and with complete success for

    1889
    at least 100 years. It rests with our opponents to show what are the circumstances which render it impossible to-day which were not also in operation prior to 1873. No one has succeeded in doing this at present—I do not think they ever will—and until they do so it is useless to pursue the subject further. Now, I do not know if the House would wish me to anticipate any of the objections which are commonly raised to our proposal. If I do so, it can only be with the utmost possible brevity. We are told that this is nothing but an endeavour to raise prices. On this point I may refer hon. Members to the end of the second Report of the Commission, where will be found a memorandum signed by the great advocate of cheapness, Sir Thomas Farrer, in which he says that these monetary changes have done nothing to lower prices. If that be true, then our proposition is to do nothing to raise them. If I am asked my own opinion, I think that in the course of years by degrees the effect of the adoption of our proposition would be in a modified degree something like the effect of the gold discoveries in former years. Well! But is there any harm in that? It is undoubtedly the fact that the great discoveries of gold in those days led to an era of general prosperity, such as the world has seldom seen, and I, for one, should hail with rejoicing the return of such prosperity to-day. Cheapness, it must be remembered, may arise from either of two things—from increased facilities of production, or from a contraction of the currency. We have nothing to say, and we propose nothing whatsoever, against cheapness which arises from increased facilities of production; but cheapness which arises from a contraction of the currency we regard as an undoubted evil, for the reasons which are given at great length in our Report. I observed an article in the Economist this morning in which the writer challenges bi-metallists to answer in the course of this debate some of the objections which have been urged to their proposals. I accept the challenge, but I will only detain the House a few minutes longer. I accept it the more readily because, though bitterly opposed to us, the Economist is in that section of the Press one of the few papers
    1890
    that have given profitable study and attention to the subject. We are asked, "How is it that you can reconcile your theories with the fact that prices and wages are rising at the present time?" I commenced my observations by acknowledging that there were many causes which had contributed to the fall in prices in addition to the appreciation of gold, and I said it was impossible to decide how much was owing to the one cause and how much to the other. That there is a rise in prices in some cases at present, is owing to the fact that some of these causes are ceasing in their operation. But the rise in prices and in wages is by no means universal; prices and wages are in many cases no better than they were before. Then we are asked how it is that trade has increased more between England and the silver-using countries than between England and the gold-using countries? The explanation is simple and complete. The ports of all the silver-using countries are free and perfectly open to English goods, and every one knows that the ports of nearly all gold-using countries are being closed to us by heavily restrictive and sometimes prohibitory tariffs. Then it is said, "If silver gives a bounty to the producer, how is that compatible with your statement that the present state of things inflicts injury on India?" I have already pointed out that the present state of things involves an addition of £6,000,000 of taxes which would not otherwise he required; and am I to be told that it is right, wise, statesmanlike, or judicious to impose £6,000,000 of taxes on the people of India in order to bolster up two or three industries in that country? They say, "Why legislate against the Indian producer?" My answer is this: Why are we to continue to acquiesce in foreign legislation which is producing the most unfortunate effects upon a vast number of the producers of this country? If I had to choose between the interests of Lancashire in cotton spinning and the interests of Bombay, I should take Lancashire in preference. It may be a very unfortunate thing that we should do anything to interfere with the cotton industry in India. But am I to be told that it is not ten times more serious to threaten with ruin and destruction the great cotton industry

    1891
    of Lancashire? If it be a choice between the rajahs and ryots of India and the labourers and employers of this country, I would ask, Are we to bolster up the one to the ruin of the other? I have answered some of the objections only imperfectly, I know, for I do not wish to detain the House a single moment longer by answers to objections in anticipation, and I feel that I cannot, with anything like decency, prolong my observations, and that I have trespassed far too long upon the attention of the House. It has been exceedingly difficult to state this case with anything like brevity. Of this I am sure, and I hope the House will believe me, that I do not in any degree desire to dogmatize or force my views down the throats of others upon a question which is admitted to be of the most difficult and complicated nature. But it does so happen that it has been my fortune and my duty to pay some attention to the subject, and I became profoundly impressed with its importance. I have, therefore, tried to submit to the House some reasons which would make it in their opinion deserving of the full and careful consideration of Parliament. Upon the merits of those reasons, and of the arguments I have used to-night, it is not for myself to insist. But what I want to impress upon the House, what I ask hon. Members to remember, is the extremely moderate character of the proposals which we make. We maintain and we urge that this question deserves the fullest and most careful consideration of Parliament and the people, and, more than that, of those who alone can give effect to it—namely, the chief commercial nations of the world. The ultimate decision of this question must always, as a matter of course, rest in the hands of the House of Commons. Surely, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the proposal which I submit is not an extravagant request for a Member of the English Parliament to make. Surely it is not too much for the House of Commons to accept. I beg to move the Resolution which I have placed in your hands.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the evils which have followed upon the monetary changes in 1873, can only be effectually dealt with by a Conference of the Chief Commercial
    1892
    Nations for the purpose of considering whether, and how far, a Bi-Metallic system can be re-established by International agreement in the interest of all the Nations and communities concerned."
    MR. S. SMITHI rise to second the Motion of my right hon. Friend. I think I may congratulate the House of Commons upon the clear, luminous, and very comprehensive manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with a very large and difficult question. I may say that I am no new convert to the doctrine of bi-metallism. As long ago as 1876 I was led to give my adhesion to what is called the bi-metallic theory. I was educated on this question by means of my connection with the cotton trade of Lancashire and as a merchant trading with India. I was brought into contact with the suffering and misery caused to large classes of people by the heavy fall in the rate of exchange and the great check given to the industries of Lancashire. I was led to see that the rupture of the bi-metallic system of France was the chief cause of all the sufferings which ensued. I propose to-night to deal with the matter mainly from the commercial and industrial point of view as a business man closely connected with the trade of Lancashire, and to show why it is desirable that we should take part with other nations to re-establish the state of things under which our commerce flourished up to the year 1873. The first proposition I lay before the House is this—that great injury was done to this country by the destruction of the old par of exchange between silver and gold. We had virtually a fixed ratio between the metals for 70 years prior to 1873, and during that long period the French Mint was open to coin either metal without limit at the ratio of 15 of silver to 1 of gold, making each legal tender to the fullest amount, and the effect was to keep that ratio between the metals fixed throughout the world, or with only infinitesimal fluctuations. During that long period the price of silver in London scarcely varied beyond 15¾ to 1 and 15¼ to 1. Yet during that period the yield of the metals fluctuated very much. At one time we had a yield of gold amounting to two millions, at another to 30 millions; at one time the yield of silver was three millions, at another 18 millions. At one

    1893
    time the yield of silver was three times the value of gold, at another the yield of gold was three times the value of silver. Now, it is often said the relations between the metals are decided by natural laws, and artificial laws are totally incompetent to touch them. Let me point out that during that long period we had a fixed value as between gold and silver, though we had a conjunction of circumstances that might be expected to destroy this fixed ratio. England by sending her gold or silver to the French Mint could always exchange the metals for one another at a fixed rate, and so the merchants who dealt with a silver-using country like India or China could trade with as much safety as if they were gold-using countries. We had, what I will venture to call, the inestimable benefit of identical money in the world of commerce. It mattered nothing whether the merchant sold for gold or silver; his consignments brought him the same value. Capital could flow from gold-using to silver-using countries without loss and with no fear of virtual confiscation. England was able to lend vast sums to silver-using countries with interest payable in silver without dread of loss or partial repudiation. I can hardly overstate the importance of this to a rich country like ours with superfluous capital. The silver-using countries are the poor countries, the undeveloped countries that require capital. Nature seems to have designed that the rich countries that accumulate capital should lend to the poor ones to develop their resources. A great part of British trade consisted of loans to India and other silver-using countries, which loans were spent in railway material and other products, keeping our industries at home fully employed. All this was rudely shaken by the rupture of the system in 1873, after which it became unsafe for our capitalists to invest in silver loans, and equally unsafe for silver-using countries to guarantee interest in gold. To speak metaphorically, there came to be two railway gauges instead of one, and this caused an interruption of traffic. The banks in England could no longer safely invest their funds in Calcutta, although the bank rate in Calcutta was recently 12 per cent and in London only two, because a fall of exchange might turn their profit into loss. Hence arose ac
    1894
    cumulation of capital at home, a great rise in interest-bearing securities, and much speculation in unsound undertakings. The difficulty of making railways in India was also greatly increased, and the flow of trade between this country and India, China, Japan, and other silver-using countries was much impeded. But the greatest evil in my judgment was the appreciation of the gold standard. Some deny this appreciation of gold, but—not to dispute about words—I will call it an increase in the purchasing power of gold; and no one can deny that this took place during the enormous fall of prices from 1873 to 1886. Since then there has been a slight recovery in the fall of prices, but the average fall as compared with 1873 is still 30 per cent; at its lowest it was fully 35 per cent. The purchasing power of gold has therefore increased since 1873 by 43 per cent which is the equivalent of a fall of 30 per cent. According to a recent pamphlet issued by the Cobden Club, between 1873 and the present year the purchasing power of gold has risen 45 per cent. This fall of prices was the cause of the intolerable depression which this country underwent between 1873 and 1886–7, the worst period since Free Trade was established. Mr. Fielden, of Manchester, has made a calculation of the losses incurred by the working classes during this period. His estimate is that the working classes lost by fall in wages and want of employment no less than £85,000,000 annually, and that in the way of cheapened produce they gained £40,000,000; so there was a net loss of £45,000,000. The great trades union societies were reduced to the verge of bankruptcy; in 1886 they had almost no funds left to meet the wants of the great number of men out of employment. Trade has improved since, no doubt; I am glad to think it has very materially improved, but I hold that but for the demonetization of silver and the corresponding appreciation of gold the crisis would have come to an end many years since, and years of suffering would have been saved to the people of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out the great loss caused to the industrial classes by the rise in the burden of fixed payments. I have paid some attention to this subject for years past, and have done my best to make an

    1895
    estimate of the amount of the fixed payments under which the industry of this country is carried on. I estimate that the total sum payable in this way for interest on national and local debts, railway bonds and debentures, ground rents, royalties, pensions, mortgages, life interests, and the like, is about £200,000,000 annually, representing a capital value of £5,000,000,000. All this is ultimately paid out of the produce of industry. As £100 will now purchase what previously to the great depression was purchaseable only for £143, it will be seen what an enormous advantage has been conferred on the classes who hold this class of property. The people, in fact, who have benefited are the money-lending, mortgage and bond-holding, and, in short, the non-working capitalists of the country. It takes now 40 or 50 per cent more of the produce of industry to meet these charges than it did in 1873. Dr. Giffen states:
    "Appreciation is a most serious matter to those who have debts to pay. It prevents them gaining by the development of industry as they would otherwise gain. There may be compensations in other directions as by the lowering of the rate of interest which seems to take place as the result of appreciation, but on the whole the balance is against the debtor as compared with what it would have been if there were no appreciation.
    That is the opinion of Dr. Giffen as it it is stated in his unanswerable pamphlet on the appreciation of gold. It may, perhaps, be difficult to grasp this question when we deal with these immense figures. Let me take a familiar illustration. Suppose in Lancashire a man built in 1873 a mill for £50,000, of which £20,000 was his own capital, and £30,000 borrowed on mortgage. The value of the mill is now about £35,000. It has depreciated 30 per cent, but the mortgage remains the same, and so he is only worth £5,000. Tens of thousands of such cases might be cited, and many instances in which the margin has wholly disappeared, and the mortgagee has become the owner of the property. Take the case of a landowner who had in 1873 property of the value of £10,000 a year, subject to charges of £5,000, and with a net income of £5,000 a year, he finds now his gross income reduced to £7,000 a year, and his available spending money diminished from £5,000 to £2,000, because he is still
    1896
    liable for the £5,000 of charges, though his rents have been reduced 30 per cent. I could give a multitude of cases in which the net income has been wholly swallowed up by the fixed charges. The same process is going on in all gold-using countries. More than half the land of France and Germany now belongs to mortgagees, and probably three-quarters of the land of Ireland. I believe that one main reason for the comparative failure of the Land Act of 1881 was this appreciation of gold, and the consequent fall in agricultural prices. Half of the agrarian trouble in Ireland would have been avoided but for the demonetization of silver. To the same cause is due in great measure the difficulty of the Egyptian people in meeting the claims of the bondholders, and also the rapid spread of Socialism throughout Europe. France, Germany, and Italy have greatly increased their tariffs within the last ten years in consequence of the fall of prices and consequent depression of trade. In my belief the general effect of the demonetization of silver has been a recurrence to a more protective policy than was the case before. I believe that if there had not been this monetary dislocation in Europe we should have freer trade than we have now. All the best economists hold that it is much better for a country that the standard should be depreciated rather than appreciated. Mr. Jevons, who is a high authority on the subject, says, speaking of the effect of the yield of gold from Australia and California, and prior to 1873:—
    "I cannot but agree that, putting out of sight individual cases of hardship, if such exist, the fall in the value of gold must have had, and I should say has already had, a most powerful beneficial effect."
    Now, our opponents meet us very generally by saying that we want dear prices and that the countryrequires cheap prices. I believe that the cry for cheap prices is very much exaggerated. There are ways of obtaining cheap prices which are very detrimental to a country. A reduction of prices caused by currency contraction is purely evil. During the Napoleonic wars this country contracted a Debt which has been estimated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) at about one-third of the capital of the country. In 1816 we adopted the sole gold stan-

    1897
    dard, and the result was a prodigious fall of prices. The burden of the National Debt was practically doubled, and the prices fell 50 per cent. The effect of the fall of prices was really to confiscate a great deal of the property of the industrial classes in this country for the benefit of the financiers and fundholders. Between 1815 and 1849 great misery existed in this country, and this misery attained its maximum when prices were lowest. Then there was an entire swing of the pendulum. We had the gold discoveries in California and Australia, and for nearly 25 years, while prices kept rising, there never was a time when we had such prosperity in this country. Prices rose 40 per cent, but the average earnings of the working classes rose 75 per cent; the profits of capitalists were never so large, and 95 per cent of the population were undoubted gainers by the depreciation of the standard between 1848 and 1873, the losers being the holders of fixed investments, mortgagees, and pensionaires. For us to remonetize silver now would be to repeat in a smaller degree the effect of these gold discoveries. It is said that England is the creditor of the world. Well, it is true that England receives £100,000,000 annually of surplus imports over exports, but a large part of that surplus is payment for freight and another part is the result of industrial enterprizes in which we are interested—such as mines, railroads, tea and coffee plantations, &c., which would come all the same whether the currency was gold or paper or silver. The amount we receive for gold interest is limited, perhaps not more than £30,000,000 annually, and is partly balanced by silver interest. Among the objections urged to our views is one that there can be no appreciation of gold, because the rate of interest is so low. I am sure I shall be upheld when I say that this is one of the emptiest and hollowest of contentions. Up to 1873, when gold was flowing in in large masses, we had a much higher rate of interest than we have had since. The amount of gold production has nothing to do with the rate of interest, except that when prices are rising trade is active, and interest is al ways higher; when prices are falling interest is always low. The fact is, that if we were to close up all the gold mines in the world
    1898
    for a hundred years, and prices were to fall 50 per cent, I venture to say that the rate of interest in this country would be lower than ever was known before. Another of the objections made to our theory is that the great fall in prices is owing to cheap transit and other economies in production; but these economies wore in as active operation before 1873 as since.
    An hon. MEMBERNothing like it.
    MR. S. SMITHI venture to differ from the hon. Member. That period was one of wonderful invention and discovery when, but for the gold discoveries, prices ought to have fallen. In place of that prices rose 40 per cent between 1849 and 1873. The fall which has occurred since is equally the result of monetary causes, and has been as great in land and house property as in commodities at large. If we had been a silver-using country, should we have had any such fall at all? No; the silver - using countries have escaped it, and all the consequent depression. Then we are told there is no scarcity of gold. There never will be a scarcity of gold in the strict sense of the word, because prices will always adjust themselves; but if all the gold mines were shut for 100 years the fixed charges would constantly rise, so that the industrial classes would be completely ruined. Further, I allege, without fear of contradiction, that since 1873 we have given an immense stimulus to the competing industries of India as compared with our own. Take, for instance, the cotton trade. In India during 10 years ending 1885 the increase in cotton spindles was 105 per cent, and in looms 91 per cent. In Lancashire during the same period the increase in spindles was only 7 per cent and in looms 21 per cent, while one very large branch of the trade—namely, the supply of yarn for China and Japan has been almost wrested from Lancashire. That process is going on every day, and any one can see the reason why it is so. The reason is that these enormous burdens I have spoken about are always growing heavier in England, while they grow lighter in India. As an illustration, lot us take the case of two men, each starting a cotton mill—one in Lancashire and the other in India, and commencing about 1873. Suppose each man has a capital of £20,000, and

    1899
    that each mill is built at a cost of £50,000, the Lancashire man having a mortgage of £30,000 on his mill with interest at 5 per cent payable in gold, while the Indian has a similar mortgage payable in silver, and supposing they both started together, how would they stand to day? The spinner in India would have had good trade all the time and no exchange troubles, while the spinner in Lancashire would have had 12 years falling prices. He would still have to pay £1,500 annually in gold upon his mortgage, while the man in India would have the same amount payable in silver, the value of which is yearly diminishing, so that to-day the one man would be paying £1,500 sterling in gold, while the other would be paying a sum in silver equal to about £1,000 in gold. The Indian manufacturer benefits by the lightening of burdens just as the Lancashire manufacturer suffers from the increase of burdens. The property of the man in Lancashire will have depreciated 30 per cent, and his mill will, therefore, be worth only £35,000 instead of £50,000, while he still owes £30,000 on mortgage. In India the manufacturer's property remains intact. The enormous advantage which the one trader thus has over the other is the chief reason why the trade is leaving the one country and going to the other. That state of things will continue so long as the exchange difficulty remains unsettled. It is the same with the jute trade, which is leaving Scotland and going to the valley of the Ganges, and it will always be the same where a silver-using and gold-using country are competing. If during the next ten years the rupee falls to 1s., we shall see a still greater transfer of manufactures to India, because it is hopeless for our producers to compete against such enormous odds. I do not want to do injustice to India, but simply wish fair play. All we say is that we should not load the dice against ourselves. But there is another side to the account. Every decline in exchange imposes on the Indian Government the necessity of levying additional taxation. Upon the whole, when everything is put into the scales India is no gainer, while this country is a loser. Some will meet me with the further objection that our trade is fairly good on the whole. I grant that it is. They say matters have settled down. "Why should we
    1900
    unsettle them again?" Well, my answer is we are not yet in a safe position. If we were, there would be a good deal to be said for letting things alone; but unfortunately we are on an inclined plane, and silver is sliding down stage by stage. I can see no reason whatever why the disastrous history of the last 15 years should not be repeated in the next 15 years if the nations do not agree to cure the source of the evil by remonetizing silver. There ought to be an international arrangement with the object of re-establishing silver. One of these days America may demonetize silver, the Bland Act having only been adopted as a temporary expedient; and when she does, all the miseries of the past few years will be repeated. Austria and Russia are both talking of demonetizing silver and resuming specie payments on a gold basis, and they will do it unless we have some international arrangement to re-establish silver. In that way we shall be driven on step by step, and shall be obliged at last to give India a gold currency. If preventive steps are not taken the intolerable loss to the Indian Government from the incessant fluctuations will become so great and silver will become so totally unstable as a standard of value that there will be no alternative except to give India a gold currency; and when that happens silver will be finally doomed, and will become a degraded metal like tin or iron. You will then probably see another prodigious fall in prices in all gold-using countries, and all fixed payments will become immensely heavier than they were before. You will give an further impetus to socialism, and no one can say what the result of such a madcap policy will be in Europe. I would remind the House of a few weighty words spoken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer 10 years ago at the Conference at Paris In 1878 the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I believe that it would be a great misfortune if a propaganda against silver should succeed, and I protest against the theory according to which this metal must be excluded from the monetary system of the world. A campaign against silver would be extremely dangerous even to a country with a gold standard."
    These were prophetic words, and I now

    1901
    ask the right hon. Gentleman to prevent his predictions from coming true. At the time when those words were uttered nobody thought that the price of silver could fall as low as it is now. All the wise men said it was impossible; but why should it not fall still further during the next 10 or 20 years? The wise men now say that a fixed ratio is impossible. We reply that the ratio was fixed during the greater part of the last century at nearly 15 to 1, and during the most of this century at 15½ to 1; and can anyone believe that if the four great commercial nations were agreed on the point they would not be able to maintain a fixed ratio now? The reason why France did not prevent trifling fluctuations, say from 15¼ to l5¾ in London, was that France lay between two competing systems—gold on the one hand and silver on the other—at one time vast sums in silver being sent to France, and at another time vast amounts in gold; but had we had a Bi-metallic Union, all this would have been avoided. Some people think that if we were to adopt the bi-metallic system gold would leave this country and disappear. I believe that this is an utter delusion. The four great States that would form the Union hold six hundred millions in gold. Where is the gold to go to? Where is it wanted? No one has been able to guess where it would go to, as there is no place where it is wanted. It is held by nations in whose favour there is a large balance of trade, and there is no possibility of the poorer countries draining away their gold. Indeed it is a thing which cannot be done. I am afraid I am detaining the House too long, and I will therefore draw my remarks as speedily as possible to a close. I would only remind the House that the Royal Commissioners state, unanimously and most decidedly, that it is in the power of a combination of nations to tie together gold and silver. That opinion has been arrived at by men who have thoroughly Studied the subject, and some of whom, in the first instance, approached it with a very strong prejudice against it. They were very slow in arriving at this conclusion, and nothing but an exhaustive study of all the facts in connection with this question could have convinced them. We say that the bimetallic principle is no new thing; on the
    1902
    contrary, it is an old thing. It is a case of quod semper, quod ubique, quod abomnibus. We wish to go back to what has been the rule of Christendom in former ages. We do not look with complacency on brand-new currency schemes; we stand on the system which has existed from the earliest times. As to the ratio, we leave that to the Conference; it is not a question which any nation can deal with alone. We approach the matter with an open mind. For my part, I have no particular desire to go back to the old ratio; nay, I am ready to admit that it would be very difficult to do so, though I cannot forget the prodigious contracts that were made under it prior to 1873—nor, as has already been stated, that four thousand millions of the National Debts of the world were incurred on the old ratio. Moreover, I believe we should be more honest in going back to the old ratio even now than in adopting any other. I should, however, be content with some intermediate ratio; but this is entirely a matter for international agreement. We ought not to bind ourselves to any particular view of the subject, but be prepared to accept whatever ratio the Conference might determine. We are, in fact, only asking the House to vote for the principle of an international arrangement. Besides, whatever decision might be come to by a Conference would be referred for final decision to the various Parliaments concerned. In conclusion, I would say that this question is one which is surrounded with great difficulties; but the end we aim at is one of immense importance not only to this country, but to the world at large, and I feel that its consideration will well repay the time and attention of Parliament. It is a subject that cannot be burked any longer, for it is one of the burning questions of the day; and I trust it will be discussed with impartiality and with a sincere desire for truth, and not be engulfed in the muddy stream of Party politics. Thanking the House for the attention with which it has listened to my remarks, I beg to second the Resolution.
    MR. SPEAKERI would point out to the right hon. Gentleman who has moved the Resolution that I find some difficulty in putting the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's Motion at the same time, as it contains several different

    1903
    propositions. I propose, therefore, to put the last paragraph which, as amended, would run as follows—
    "That this House is of opinion that the evils due to the monetary changes which occurred upon the Continent, and to the abandonment of the bi-metallic system which had prevailed in certain European countries prior to 1873, can only be effectively dealt with in a Conference for the purpose of considering whether and how far a bi-metallic system can be re-established by international agreement in the interests of all the nations and communities concerned."
    MR. J. M. MACLEANI have now to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, and which is—
    "Line 3, to leave out all the words after That,' in order to insert the words "the Report of the Commission on the effects of the fall in the gold price of silver, and the proposed remedies therefor, is of too inconclusive a character to warrant the Government in taking action upon it."
    I have taken up this question with some diffidence, and I should not have moved in the matter if I had not given very close attention to the question for a great number of years and had not had the opportunity of studying it froth both the Indian and the Lancashire points of view. The question is one that especially affects the trade of Lancashire and India, and during the last 15 years it has been my lot to speak and write a good deal on the subject of the exchange between the two countries and the effects of the depreciation of silver on the fortunes of the people of India and the people of Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Motion to the notice of the House this evening has made a speech of very great ability and earnestness, and I think that nobody who listened to the right hon. Gentleman could fail to understand why it is that he alone amongst the champions of bi-metallism has been able to secure for his theory some amount of popularity in this country. The deputation which the right hon. Gentleman introduced to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a most imposing one, and it had such an effect on the minds of those two Ministers that they could only murmur words of deprecation as to the great change which would take place in the currency of the country if the contention of the right hon. Gentleman were successful; in fact,
    1904
    the Prime Minister went so far as to say that he hoped the question would be thoroughly discussed in Parliament. That being so, I think the Government might have allowed more than four hours on a Tuesday evening just before the holidays for this discussion. However, nothing can be better than a free discussion of this question. The monometallists will now be called upon to show what they have to say in defence of their faith, and I have always been a believer in the theory of John Stuart Mill that nobody knows how to defend his own creed until it has been tested by free and thorough discussion. The right hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Motion and the hon. Member for Flintshire have both spoken of the great interests that are involved, and I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman appeared before the Prime Minister he had gathered together a deputation representing very varied interests indeed. A more strangely assorted team were never put in harness together, and, for my own part, I wonder how long the right hon. Gentleman, with all his skill as a charioteer, will be able to drive them without upsetting the coach, because there is no doubt that the artizan of Lancashire and the great landlord have no permanent interests in common, with reference to his proposal to alter the currency of the country; they must pull in different directions. The right hon. Gentleman holds out to the landlord that he will do away to a certain extent with the competition of bounty-grown Indian wheat; the artizan, on the other hand, is to be freed to some extent from the competition of Indian mills, and he is to get much better value for the goods he sends out to India. But how is the artizan to benefit if he does get better prices for his cotton goods while he has to pay largely-increased prices for his food and for the cotton which he has to work up and manufacture? That is a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters have to face, and for my own part I shall be curious to discover whether the right hon. Gentleman's agitation has any permanent effect on the popular mind. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has gathered together some leading men in the trade unions of the country, and I had the curiosity to ask one of them

    1905
    the day after the deputation how it came to pass that many of the working men of Lancashire, apparently, are inclined to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford. The person whom I asked said with the utmost candour, "We know nothing about the subject, but we were told it would benefit our trade, and therefore it would be a good thing to see if something could not be made out of it." That frank admission, in my opinion, represents the state of mind of the people in the great industrial districts of the North who meet together and pass resolutions in favour of bi-metallism The right hon. Gentleman has gone into the historical aspect of the question, into which, however, I will not attempt, at this late hour, to follow him. I will take it for granted that the ratio between gold and silver was maintained up to 1873, and I will assume that the Commissioners have unanimously come to the conclusion that the demonetization of silver on the Continent has been one of the chief causes of the great fall in the prices of commodities which has taken place in all parts of the world. I do not think, however, the contention of the hon. Member for Flintshire can be admitted for one moment that, since 1873, silver-using countries have been uniformly prosperous, while gold-using countries have been passing through a long period of depression. From 1875 to 1880, India certainly did not pass through a period of prosperity; yet, if the theory of bi-metallism be true, those were the very years in which India ought to have been experiencing the greatest benefits from the depreciation of silver, which began in the year 1873. But in those years India was visited by a famine, and there was a considerable export of gold during the five years, whereas since India has had good years there has been a very large importation of gold into that country, amounting, I may say, on the average to £3,000,000 a year. That is an illustration of the danger of attributing commercial changes entirely to the fall in silver. The decline in the prices of commodities is very largely attributable to other causes—to the great advance in the productive powers of the world; to the increased accessibility of markets where there is a sudden demand, through the opening, for instance, of the Suez Canal, which has caused a
    1906
    complete revolution in the trade of the East; to the improvements in the machinery of ships, which have facilitated commerce to a very large extent; to the opening out of immense productive regions in the West and North-West of America; to the influence of the development of the Indian railways, and to the telegraph, which has been brought into very much greater use than before in the transaction of commercial matters. The result is that you no sooner have a demand in a particular market, than you have supplies rushing to it from all parts of the world. Productive power has also been very largely increased during the last eighteen years, because they have been years of perfect peace. Since the Franco-German War there really has been nothing to cause any great destruction or waste of industrial energy and capacity in Europe. All these considerations should cause us to hesitate to rush to the conclusion that the depreciation of silver has been the sole cause of any evils which we may suppose to have arisen from the low prices that now prevail. In my Amendment I propose to ask the House to say that the Report of the Commissioners is of too inconclusive a character to warrant the Government in taking action upon it. The right hon. Gentleman disputed the contention that the Report of the Commissioners is inconclusive. He quoted, from Section 120, words showing that in the opinion of all the Commissioners the adoption of bi-metallism by international agreement is not impracticable. No doubt, Lord Herschel and his colleagues went a very long way, much further than one would have expected, in trying to make things pleasant for the bi-metallists. But however favourably they may have expressed themselves towards what may be called the sentiment of bi-metallism, when it came to any practical proposals they were strong enough in saying that no change in the currency system of this country should be recommended. They followed the siren of bimetallism to the very brink of a precipice, and then they suddenly pulled up, saying, "Oh! we must not take this tremendous leap in the dark." Their practical advice on the whole subject is given in these words:—
    "Under all these circumstances, whilst fully impressed with the difficulties of the present

    1907
    situation, and more especially with those which affect the Government of India, we are not prepared to recommend that this country should proceed to negotiate with other nations a treaty embodying a bi-metallic arrangement."
    That is a very distinct statement on their part, and, when the Commission could come to no other practical conclusion than this, the House and the country would act very rashly indeed if they were not to stand by the currency system which has prevailed in this country for the last 70 years. The central doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman's faith, the foundation on which he has built the immense superstructure of the benefits that are likely to result from any change in the present condition of the currency, is this, that the purchasing power of the rupee in India has not diminished. We can all see plainly enough that the Government of India suffers a good deal from having to remit 22 millions of tens of rupees to this country in payment of £15,000,000. But according to the theory of the bi-metallists, there are very great counterbalancing advantages obtained from the present system by the natives of India. They get a very considerable bounty, it appears, upon the export of all their produce. They are gradually being enriched at the expense of the people of this country. The carriage of all traffic in wheat and seeds and cotton, and so forth, brings money to the Treasury of the Indian Government. The returns of the railways in India are very much larger than they used to be; some of the railways are actually paying 9 per cent on the whole of their capital invested, and the general state of the country is exceedingly prosperous. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the severity of taxation in India; but if the rupee is a depreciated coin, the natives who now only pay their taxation in the depreciated currency are much less heavily taxed than they used to be when the rupee was at its full value. So that there are many compensations to the Indian Government for this heavy charge that it has to pay on account of its remittances to London. The Government of India has also largely benefited by the low rate of interest. The other day the Secretary of State converted the 4 per cent loan into a 3½ per cent loan. And the most recent loan of the Government of India for £7,000,000 at only
    1908
    3 per cent has been issued at a little over par. I believe that Lord Cross has saved the Government a quarter of a million sterling in interest by the conversion of the debt. And I think that if the Government of India took a little courage, and raised a very large loan, now that capital is so cheap, for the purpose of paying off its silver debt in India, it could borrow 100 millions sterling at something less than 3½ per cent. That is one of the concurrent advantages to be set against the disadvantage of the heavy remittances they have to make to this country. So that all is not loss to the Government of India through what has occurred in the depreciation of silver. Now as to the trade of India. When I first came over to England, some eight years ago, I was strongly impressed with the opinion which then prevailed very generally among Anglo-Indians that no change had taken place in the purchasing power of the rupee. In a period of prosperity of more seasonable years than we had before 1880, the rupee was exchangeable against a much larger quantity of commodities than it had been in the famine years of the previous decade, and it was perfectly natural that I and others, not taking a sufficiently wide view of the circumstances, should be inclined to attribute that result to the fall in silver which had then set in. But subsequent experience and reflection, and especially a study of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Currency, have convinced me that this theory of the purchasing power of the rupee being as great as ever in India cannot possibly be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman read us a letter from Lord Dufferin on the subject. Everybody recognises Lord Dufferin as the highest possible authority on the transactions of the Government of India, but I would much prefer the opinion of a few business men engaged in commerce as to conditions of trade in the country. And what do we find to be the opinion expressed by competent business men as to the present purchasing power of the rupee in India? I will quote the opinion of such a man as Mr. Bythell, who has been engaged in the trade of Bombay for the last quarter of a century. Now, Sir, there is an expression of Mr. Bythell's opinion in the report of the

    1909
    Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the competition between Lancashire and Bombay mills, and he used these words. He says—
    "I maintain it is also the fact, that the fall in silver has enhanced prices to the Bombay spinner—that there has been a compensating advantage there. Everything, including wages, is much dearer to the Bombay spinner now than in 1873. The calculation to which I am referring takes no account of this, nor of the fact that, if bi-metallists bring about what they are aiming for—according to their own view—there will be an advance of prices here, and a decline of prices there."
    Then, Sir, there is the case of another gentleman who gave evidence before the same Committee, Mr. Cocker, a mill manager, both of Oldham and Bombay. He was speaking of the profit made by mills in Oldham, and he said that the amount of profit reckoned to be made on the capital employed was 10 per cent in Bombay. He was asked, should you consider that good at Oldham? Mr. Cocker laughed, and said—
    "My impression is that the China market is secure for Bombay, just because special attention is paid to it. I do not think there is a plant in Lancashire laid out as it ought to be to compete with Bombay in the spinning of 20s. for China. I believe if half the skill, energy, and determination that is shown in Oldham in spinning 32s. and 54s. weft, or in 60s. twist in Bolton, was put into the spinning of 20s.—plant being set out for it—that we should easily turn Bombay out of the China market."
    That seems to me to be the gist of the whole matter. Bombay devotes her energies to the spinning of those particular goods for which the Bombay cotton is particularly suited, and, with the natural advantages she possesses in having at her doors the cotton and the market too, she inevitably has a striking superiority over Lancashire in the manufacture of coarser yarns. But to say that the Bombay millowner has an advantage because anyone can buy in Bombay a larger quantity of commodities than he could buy in England for the same amount of money, cost of carriage being of course always excepted, is, I believe, a perfect fallacy. Why, we may take the opinion expressed on this subject by a gentleman who bears a well known name—Mr. Edward Sassoon —one of a firm who have probably the largest dealings with Bombay of any firm in the City of London. He gave evidence before the Royal Commission. The evidence appears in the Appendix. He says—
    1910
    "I think, myself, that to attribute the development of the export trade of India with the gold-using countries to the fall in silver is altogether a fallacy. The gold prices here respond so quickly to a fall in the value of silver to gold, that anything like a bounty is so short-lived as to be undeserving of consideration."
    These are the opinions of business men, and I cannot find any merchants trading with the East who support the contention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Flintshire, that they are unable to calculate what their trade will be on account of the incessant fluctuations in exchange. Perhaps, however, prices of commodities in India are not an exact guide to the real purchasing power of the rupee, because they may be affected by a thousand different causes. But we will take now the wages of labour in India. Labour, in the main, is a constant quantity, and if you find that wages have gone up, then you may safely come to the conclusion that the purchasing power of the rupee has been affected in India. This morning there has been published a Blue Book giving the result of 30 years' administration in India, and which comes down to the date of February in this year. This is the latest authoritative declaration of the Government of India about the change in the prices of wages and labour in that country. They say that—
    "The wages of skilled labour and the amount of skilled labour finding employment have increased considerably, and in some districts, more especially along railway lines, the standard of wages for unskilled labour has advanced. The price of food, however, has risen, though this increase makes little difference to agricultural labourers, who are paid in kind."
    Then, in the special Report from Bombay, we have mention of cheaper clothing, higher wages, and evener distribution of wealth among all classes. I will give one more instance of the abandonment by competent Indian authorities of the right hon. Gentleman's favourite idea, that the rupee will buy as much as ever it did in India. In the debate on the East Indian financial statement, the hon. Mr. Steel, a leading Calcutta merchant and a member of the Viceroy's Legislative Council, said:—
    "I find that all over the country wages are steadily advancing, much more rapidly than the cost of living."
    I think that all these statements serve to show that the purchasing power of

    1911
    the rupee in regard to commodities and labour has diminished. It is obvious, indeed, that that must be the case. Look into what a network of difficulties the Bi-metallic Commissioners plunged themselves when they attempted to state the opposite conclusion. They say—
    "In India, on the other hand, where, in the opinion of nearly all the witnesses whom we have examined, the purchasing power of the rupee continues unimpaired, the prices of commodities measured in silver remain practically the same. We have no evidence to show that silver has undergone any material change in relation to commodities, although it has fallen largely in relation to gold; in other words, the same number of rupees will no longer exchange for the same amount of gold as formerly, but, so far as we can judge, they will purchase as much of any commodity or commodities in India as they did before."
    MR. CHAPLINWill my hon. Friend permit me to read a little more of this paragraph? He assures us it may be safely said there is evidence of a rise of prices in India; but there is a general agreement among the witnesses we have examined that the purchasing power of the rupee has not fallen. That is signed by all the 12 Commissioners.
    MR. MACLEANThe right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in his quotation of Section 53 in the Report signed by all the Commissioners. Personally, I do not think it is correct to put the matter in the way the Commissioners do, but they do all agree in making this statement—that absolutely the purchasing power of the rupee in India in regard to commodities has not diminished. Still, the monometallists on the Commission carefully refrained from saying that relatively with gold it has not diminished, and that makes all the difference. The right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the distinction. Let us take an illustration of this matter. The Bi-metallic Commissioners are bold enough to say that the purchasing power of the rupee relatively to gold has maintained itself, and that it is an advantage to have rupees rather than gold in the purchase of commodities in India at the present moment. It is very easy to talk in a general way about such matters; but when the Commissioners descend to particular instances you very soon find them tripping. Now, I find on page 96 of the final Report of the Royal Commission, the following illustration
    1912
    which they themselves offer of this theory—
    "For example, cotton goods are sent to India, for which, in order to make a profit, the English exporter must receive a certain sum, say £10,009."
    "With the rupee worth 2s. £10,000 is realised by the payment of 100,000 rupees."
    "With the rupees at 1s. 6d., £133,333 are required to realise that sum "
    "Will the Indian importer give this greatly increased price for precisely the same article as he bought before?"
    "Obviously not, because prices in India, as we have seen remain the same, and the English manufacturer is in consequence obliged either to take the same silver price as formerly, viz., 100,000 rupees, which means a greatly lowered gold price, viz., £7,500, or not to sell at all; and in either case he undergoes a loss which must be traced directly to the fall in the gold price of silver."
    I will take that illustration. A man sends out goods worth £10,000. He sells them, according to the argument, but only gets 100,000 rupees for them. If he exchanges those 100,000 rupees into gold and brings the money back into this country, he only gets £7,500 for his goods, but if he buys commodities with those 100,000 rupees, then, according to the supposition of the Bi-metallic Commission, as laid down on page 95 of the Report in the passage I quoted before the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, he gets £10,000 worth of commodities. He has, therefore, only to exchange the rupees into commodities and then buy gold with those commodities in order to get £10,000 instead of £7,500, so that, as things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one another, we come to the interesting conclusion, if the right hon. Gentleman's argument be correct, that £7,500 is equal to £10,000. That is the most extraordinary proposition that has ever been offered for public acceptance since Father Tom, in Maginn's famous story, proved to the Pope that black was white. I am amazed that Commissioners of such high standing should sign a Report of this nature. The truth is, that everything in India, although they talk of the rupee being the current coin of the realm, is now actually measured by the gold standard. Gold circulates everywhere in India, and I wish to point out that they import three millions of gold every year. People talk about the trade between England and China being affected to the advantage of the trade between India and China because

    1913
    the two latter are silver-producing countries. Does not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire know that in part payment for the Indian goods sent to China a million sterling in gold is imported into Bombay every year from Chinese ports alone? Now, Sir, this is a remarkable thing showing the unsuspected abundance of gold in that part of the world. Everywhere in India gold is exchangeable against silver or other commodities at the actual London value. You can sell a sovereign on any day in the Bombay market for about 15 rupees in silver; and although gold coins may not be current all over India, certainly weight in gold is always exchangeable against silver and other commodities. I say that this idea of the depreciation of silver being found to be an advantage to Indian exports in any way is absolutely unfounded. Now I think I have dealt sufficiently with this matter. I have not attempted to deal with the argument of the hon. Member for Flintshire about fixed charges. That is a very important argument, and in reference to that I will say I do not think that he attributes sufficient weight to the very great advantage which has been derived from the cheapness of capital and abundance of credit in this country. He talks about the burden of local taxation being much heavier than it used to be. Why, we recently witnessed the conversion of the National Debt at a lower rate of interest, and cannot our municipalities also borrow money on a lower rate of interest than they used to, and cannot the solvent landlord or the solvent borrowers get capital on easier terms? Are not all these benefits to borrowers of money the result of the fall in prices which the hon. Member deplores, and have they not proved great advantages? I will pass by that, how, ever, because it is time for me to conclude my observations. There is one matter with which I wish to deal, and that is the question of the ratio between gold and silver. We know that the essence of bi-metallism is this—that according to the bi-metallists it is possible to fix a ratio between gold and silver, which can be steadfastly maintained from year to year. If the bi-metallists had had the courage to say what the ratio should be, I should not have had
    1914
    so much fault to find with their report on account of its inconclusive character, because then there would have been something for the country to go upon. But they shirked the very substance of the whole controversy, for, unless we know what the fixed ratio is to be, there is absolutely no substance in their imaginations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division, no doubt, wants to go back to the ratio of 15½ to one. He told us the other night, in the debate on Indian pensions, that, if we adopted bi-metallism, the Indian Government would save six or seven millions a year, but it cannot do that unless we have a ratio of to one. Now the hon. Member for White-chapel is the one bi-metallist on the Royal Commission, I believe, who stated what he thought should be the ratio between gold and silver, and he put it at 20 to one. What, I should like to know, in that case, would be the relief to these people suffering from the tremendous burden of fixed charges; what relief would be given to the Government of India, and who would be benefited by a change of that kind? Directly I saw that the Bi-metallic Commissioners did not attempt to fix the ratio, but had actually said in their Report that it was a matter of detail, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing whatever in this agitation that was worth talking about any longer. One of the deputation who went up to the Prime Minister used a very pretty figure of speech. He said: "We do not wish to dethrone King Gold; we only wish to restore Queen Silver to her conjugal rights." But when two people have been separated for 16 or 17 years and the estrangement has been growing deeper and deeper all that time, would it not be rather a rash proceeding to join them together in the bonds of holy matrimony once more, without even an attempt to fix the terms on which they should come together again? Yet that is the exact position of the bi-metallists at the present moment. The proposal of the right hon. gentleman really amounts to this—That we should go to foreign nations and ask them to settle for us what the price of silver shall be. I, for one, think that we have had pretty nearly enough of International Conventions to regulate the commerce of this country. We had a

    1915
    Convention which was to fix the price of sugar. Are we to have another International Convention which is to raise the price of silver, and of all the commodities we purchase from silver-using countries, by any amount from 10 to 50 per cent? What advantage could that possibly be to this country, which does not produce practically one ounce of silver? We have no store of silver in England. There are hundreds of millions' worth of silver coin and bullion in France and India. There is untold wealth of silver in the treasuries and the mines of America, and why should we go to these countries, which have silver of their own, and ask them to be good enough to allow us to put an artificial bounty of 30 per cent on this great mass of wealth which they possess—a bounty which will have to be paid, after all, by the British consumer? I think that is really a proposition which only requires to be stated in order that the people may thoroughly understand what bi-metallists are anxious to lead us into. The hon. Member for Flintshire referred to free ports. Well, Sir, I am in favour of free ports, and I agree that one cause of the advance of trade with silver-using countries is that then do not put such high tariffs on our trade as other countries do. But I would say that we want freedom in everything in connection with commerce. For the last 70 years we have had a system of currency which has been good enough for us. Under it we have prospered amazingly. We have had our ups and downs, but trade is now reviving and we are now enjoying a state of prosperity which probably no country ever possessed before. Why should we imperil this by submitting ourselves to engagements with foreign nations which would have the effect of raising seriously the price of food and of the raw materials of all our industries?
    Amendment proposed,
    "To leave out all the words after the word That,' in order to insert the words the Report of the Commission on the effects of the fall in the gold price of silver, and the proposed remedies therefor, is of too inconclusive a character to warrant the Government in taking action upon it.—(Mr. James Maclean.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEI believe it may be for the
    1916
    convenience of the House if I now second the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, instead of taking the course of going back to the Amendment which I myself had placed upon the Paper at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire put down his Motion. At this hour I will not detain the House at the length I had intended to had I been able to take the place which I originally hoped to obtain. I have looked at the question so far as I can, with a view to collating and collecting those facts and figures that bear upon it. Now, Sir, the main question which my right hon. Friend, places before us is that we are a monometallic nation, and he says that because we are so, we have not done So well for ourselves and our people as we should have done had we had a bi-metallic standard. This raises the questions at once. Have we not been fairly prosperous? Could we have done much better than we have been doing? And what are the signs and figures which induce the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that the country has been going to the bad under the present system of finance? It is all very well to say that there is a scarcity of gold. I am one of those who doubt that, but if gold is. appreciated then the things which gold buy are depreciated. At the present moment it is difficult to draw the precise line between appreciation and depreciation as affected by the supply of the precious metals and the supply of goods in the market. I have looked carefully into this question, and I have come to the conclusion that it is, in our case, too often the largeness of the supply of goods on the market that affects the prices and brings about the depreciation. I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman took a very erroneous standard, when he fixed upon the prices of the year 1873, because that was the year of a higher inflation of prices than we had ever known before and we have ever seen since. His plan in adopting that year as his standard, reminded me very much of a story told of an old neighbour of mine in Yorkshire, who was coming home from market during the time of the war, and having sold his oats at six shilling per bushel, said he thought the

    1917
    prices were fair as between man and man—so it is with my hon. Friend in promulgating the theory that 1873, the year of the great inflation in prices, is to be the standard of comparison because the high prices then arrived at were fair between man and man. Because 1873 was a year of inflation of prices, it seems to be thought that we must by some means endeavour to get back to them. What is the state of the country at the present moment? In the following figures I have taken 1871, two years before the prices of 1873, and the alteration in the French standard to a gold one, and I have compared them with the figures produced for 1887 or 1888, the latest which we have officially supplied to us. Now what do I find? Our population increased between 1871 and 1888, accordingly to the Poor Law returns in England and Wales, from 22,788,000 to 28,628,000. Our indoor and outdoor paupers in 1871 numbered 1,000,000. In 1873 they had fallen to 887,000; in 1888 there was another fall to 825,000, and in 1889 there was a further decrease to 817,000. Therefore although the population increased one-fourth, pauperism has gone down one-fourth, as compared with 1871. Then we come to that useful institution, the Savings Bank. Taking the Post Office Savings Bank we find that the amount invested in 1871 was £15,000,000. In 1887 it was £49,000,000; while in the Trustee Savings Banks in 1871 the amount of capital invested was £32,000,000, and in 1887 it was £36,000,000. Again, the investments of capital in railways in the United Kingdom in 1871 amounted to £552,000,000, and in 1887 it was £845,000,000, an increase of nearly £300,000,000 of the savings of the country invested in railway companies in the United Kingdom. Then we come to the Income Tax returns. Here again we find an increase of £41,000,000 under Schedule A, which includes lands, tenements, &c., and under Schedule D, which comprises profits in trade, &c., the increase in 1887 is £57,000,000; under Schedule B, occupation, &c., the increase between 1871 and 1887 is £3,400,000, and the total annual value of property and profits assessed to Income Tax in the United Kingdom has risen £116,000,000 between 1871 and 1887. These figures, at
    1918
    any rate, do not show that the country has been growing worse under the present financial system. On the contrary they show growing incomes, growing savings, and growing wealth. Again the figures show that in the production of silver during recent years, there has been a very marked increase, and according to tables which have been published during the years 1881 and 1885, the annual average has been £21,000,000 sterling, as compared with an annual average of £11,900,000 in the five years ending 1870, so that according to these figures we have produced in those five years nearly £50,000,000 more silver than we produced in the five years ending in 1870. No wonder, then, that the Commissioners say in their Report—
    "That the fall in the gold price of silver is mainly due to the depreciation of silver."
    They go on to say—
    "The above are reasons for thinking that the greater part of the fall in the gold value of silver has been due to causes affecting silver rather than to causes affecting gold; and this conclusion fortifies and is fortified by the conclusion to which we have already come to, that the fall in the gold price of commodities is in the greater part due to causes which affect these commodities rather than to causes which affect gold."
    The right hon. Gentleman approached very boldly the question of what is to be the relative value of silver and gold, but when he came straight up to that difficult fence he turned round and left the point to be settled by the Commissioners or the representatives of the foreign countries proposed to be assembled. My hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire took the same course. The crux of the whole position rests in that what are to be the relative legal values of the two metals. In the Paper which he read before the Statistical Society, Mr. Giffen very truly said, "it would be impossible by law to control the effect of the decreasing value of silver as compared with gold." Mr. Giffen also gave a table which is so entirely contrary to what has been stated by the mover and seconder of the Resolution that I must trouble the House by referring to it for a moment. He says the ratio of silver to gold has been steadily on the decline from the year to the present moment. From 1501 to 1520 it was 10.75 to 1; in 1661 to

    1919
    1680 it was 15.00 to 1; in 1800 it was 15.50 to 1; and at the present time it is 22.00 to 1. No wonder, Mr. Giffen says, it would be impossible by any legislation to keep up a standard of value as compared with gold when the whole history of the silver value is against such a theory. Although the supply of gold may have fallen shorter than at one time there has been a very large annual supply. Dr. Soetbeer estimates that the value of gold in the National Treasuries and principal banks of the world was in 1882, £203,500,000; in 1883 £230,000,000; in 1884 £234,000,000, and in1885£252,000,000. Judging from the Returns there has been no fear on the part of the Directors of the Bank of England of gold running away from them. In recent years the rate of discount has been especially steady. Again more money is now paid in cheques and drafts and orders than was paid 20 years ago. Then I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) has forgotten what a very large factor silver is in our every-day transaction. I find that in the railway world about one-fourth of the whole wages paid is paid in silver. In the textile fabric trade I find that 50 per cent of the wages is paid in silver, and in the coal and iron trades from 16 to 20 per cent is paid in silver. But what I want more especially to point out is that there is a great fallacy in the argument as to the Manchester trade, and the Indian corn trade. It is assumed that each transaction is a separate transaction. That is not so. It is the balance of the aggregate of transactions that influences exchange, and the remittances of balances in bullion. One word or two as to the Lancashire trade about which so much has been said. I see that the cotton goods and yarns sent from Lancashire to India were of the value of £14,825,000 in 1871, while the raw cotton imported from India was of the value of £11,732,000. Lancashire, therefore, had only to draw from India about £3,000,000. In 1873 the £14,000,000 had risen to £17,000,000, while the imports of raw cotton had decreased from £11,000,000 to £9,000,000. Instead, therefore, of being £3,000,000 to draw from India, Lancashire had in 1873 to draw £7,000,000. In 1887, the exports of
    1920
    cottons and yarns to India had, in spite of all we have heard about the Lancashire trade, risen from £14,825,000 in 1871 to £20,991,922, while the imports of raw cotton had decreased to £4,815,647. The balance against India for Lancashire alone, therefore, was £16,176,275, in the place of £3,000,000 of 1871. The balance of our trade with India is very steadily increasing under the present mode of dealing. England now sends about £13,000,000 worth more goods to India—£33,000,000 instead of £20,000,000 worth — than she did 15 years ago. At the same time, instead of money coming back from India we are always sending money to India. I come to the following conclusions, and I am sorry that time does not allow me to give my reasons at greater length. That this country has prospered under a monometallic system; that the supply of silver has been enormous and has thus depreciated its value; that there has been no scarcity of gold; that these metals are not so much required in commerce as heretofore; that the supply of the standard articles on the market has been in excess of the demand; that in addition to the enormous imports of agricultural produce the state of freights has contributed to an abnormal condition of prices. I find that last year's Return shows a loss on the main articles of agricultural produce as compared with 1873 of £9,000,000 on the quantity of beef produced at home, £12,000,000 on the quantity of mutton, and £20,000,000 on the quantity of wheat. These figures represent £1 5s. of less net profit per acre on the whole acreage in the agricultural returns. The quantity of iron produced in the world in 1871 was 12,000,000 tons, in 1873, 13,000,000 tons, in 1887 it was 21,000,000 tons; the total quantity of coal produced in the United Kingdom in 1873 was 127,000,000 tons, while in 1887 it was 162,000,000 tons; and so, independently entirely of the question of the value of the precious metals, there has been put upon everyone of these markets a vast increase above the quantity in them in 1873. More than that, we overdid our shipbuilding to a very large extent, so that the freights became exceedingly low, and agricultural produce was brought into this country at abnormally low prices. It appears to

    1921
    me that it would be perfect madness in the present state of things to embark in any such changes as those proposed, and I think that if 12 of the cleverest men in the country cannot agree upon the question we ought not to call in our neighbours to tell us what to do. I beg to second the Amendment.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI do not propose at this late hour (12.45) to detain the House more than a very few minutes. Whether hon. Members agree with my right hon. Friend or not, I think we must all admit that the House is greatly indebted to the right hon. Member for Lincolnshire for the exceedingly lucid and able statement he has made. No Member can fail to acknowledge that it was one of the most able statements of a most intricate and difficult question ever presented to this House, in which every argument was stated with absolute fairness. The question is one of such very great importance that it is exceedingly desirable that it should be stated fully, fairly, and completely from every point of view. The view of the Government was explained the other day by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am bound to say for myself I could not embark rashly on such a matter without the most complete evidence that the changes proposed are received by the country as embodying in themselves conditions of absolute security for the vast transactions in which we are engaged. If there is one thing more necessary for the maintenance of the commercial fabric than another, it is a sense of security in the investments of capital and labour. Any Government that was a party to a scheme which would shake the confidence of the commercial classes in the currency would be inflicting a very serious injury on the national prosperity. With reference to the proposition that has been put forward that Government should pay off their debts otherwise than in gold, let me point out that in these cases the contract which exists between the debtor and the creditor can only be liquidated in gold, and that if the proposition were assented to the debtor would be paying back to the creditor something which was not as valuable as gold. That idea would startle very seriously all commercial classes throughout the world, for it is essential in
    1922
    order to insure the continuance of prosperity and the success of commercial undertakings that every contract shall be faithfully fulfilled. I must say that I am not myself satisfied with the arguments in favour of the Motion, and I believe that my right I hon. Friend does not ask or desire that change which he advocates should at once take effect. I think that all who are interested in the industries of this country, all those who are prepared to borrow money, and those who are prepared to lend money, should accept the change before we attempt to make any change in the present system. I believe that if we act hastily in this matter we may go far to transfer our trade to other countries, and, if not to destroy, at all events, to impede our present prosperity. It would seem, too, that the arguments of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion do not always agree; for my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincolnshire argued that the depreciation of silver inflicted a great loss annually upon India, and therefore was a great burden on the people of India; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire pointed out that it was a great grievance to England, and especially to Lancashire, and that the depreciation of the rupee enabled the Indian cotton-spinners to increase the manufacturing power of that country. These arguments show how greatly involved this question is, and until, at all events, we come to an agreement among ourselves, until the commercial classes of this country come to an agreement among themselves, no Government could be rash enough to deal with this question. I only mention these things to justify us in the course we are taking when we say that we cannot undertake what we are asked to do; that we cannot accept a change which, I believe, is not proved to be necessary or advantageous to the country, and that, however right and sound in theory its principles may be, they must first of all be accepted by the people at large and be held to be safe and sound and true by the commercial classes, before we venture to accept them. I acknowledge all that my right hon. Friend has said as to the importance of the question; I admit the great dislocation of trade and the great distress, but I venture to think that

    1923
    still greater dislocation and distress would result on the adoption of a change which is not proved to be necessary or accepted generally by the people.
    MR. W. SINCLAIRI beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Qestion proposed, "That this debate be now adjourned."
    MR. CHAPLINIt is evident it is necessary that this question should be more fully debated than has been possible to-night, and therefore I have no objection to the adjournment of the debate. I hope, however, that it will be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to give us a day on which the question can be fully discussed.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday, 18th June.

  MOTION.

    TITHE RENT CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Secretary Matthews, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Recovery of Tithe Rent Charge, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
    Bill presented, and read first time, [Bill 272.]

    TELEGRAPHS (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Raikes, Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1885, and the Post Office Acts in relation to the Isle of Man, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Raikes and Mr. Jackson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 273.]

    COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. (No. 204.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CHANNINGI beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
    MR. TOMLINSONI could hardly believe that any hon. Member would propose to read a Bill of this nature without giving the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. It is quite certain—
    MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
    It being One of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till 17th June.
    And Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday 17th June.