CONFERENCE. (Hansard, 16 March 1893)

§ SIR W. HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.)

, who had given notice that he would move to reduce the Vote by £100 in respect of the expenses of the Brussels Monetary Conference, said that he wished to draw attention to a matter of some public importance in view of the possibility of the re-assembling of the Conference at Brussels. The question he wanted to put to the Government was this: Upon what authority certain members of the British Delegation at the Conference took upon themselves to speak in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? So far as he could understand, certain members of the British Delegation were placed in a different position from that which the other Delegates occupied, though the Instructions were perfectly plain and placed all the Delegates on the same footing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other night that he did not recognise any of the Delegates as official 330 Delegates. It was true that there was no mention whatever of official Delegates in the Instructions. The Instructions contemplated that the Delegates should have no restriction in expressing their individual opinions and giving their individual votes. But there was one very decided instruction, and that was that the Delegates were in no sense to commit the Government of Great Britain. He would be able to prove that certain Delegates did commit the Government very seriously, and did speak on behalf of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the position of the Delegates as being a novel position, He thought the justification of that novelty of the position was to be found in the fact that the Reference was somewhat novel. The Delegates were sent to Brussels to discover, if possible, some means for the use of silver in the currency. It was impossible for the Government to give definite instructions to the Delegates on such a ground as that, and the Instructions contemplated that the Delegates should have a free hand with the Delegates from other countries in considering the various proposals to be laid before the Conference, but without committing the Government in any way whatever. The Instructions stated that, in the event of the adoption of any plan or plans by the Conference, the Confer-once was to adjourn in order to enable the respective Governments to be consulted as to the adoption, rejection, or modification of these plans. He, therefore, held that it was contrary to the Instructions for any Delegate from Great Britain to express any opinion as to what the Government, qua Government, might do in any contingent circumstances. The Delegates were to give their individual opinions and individual votes, and, beyond that, their Instructions allowed them to do nothing. But Sir Rivers Wilson, who was an official of great experience, and who would not, in his opinion, have committed himself unless in the belief that he was justified and authorised to do what he did, made three declarations. The first of these was that it would be useless for the British Delegates to discuss one of the proposals recommended for the consideration of the Conference, on the ground that Great Britain would undoubtedly be unwilling to submit to the inconvenience of the 331 withdrawal of half-sovereigns unless the proposal were presented in conjunction with a plan conferring advantages which a preponderating majority of the Powers would recognise. What authority had Sir Rivers Wilson to express that opinion on behalf of Great Britain? But still more important was the declaration which Sir Rivers Wilson made against bimetallism. There was nothing objectionable in Sir Rivers Wilson stating that he and his colleague, Sir Charles Fremantle, were monometallists pure and simple, but he went on to say that no other system but the monometallic system would be possible in this country. He thought Sir Rivers Wilson in that had traversed the boundary line of the Instructions; but the matter was made perfectly clear by Sir Rivers Wilson, because on a subsequent day, when the question was raised by one of the Indian Delegates, Sir Rivers Wilson very frankly told the Conference that it was not his individual opinion, but the opinion of the British Government. In reply to criticisms, and a request to give an explanation how he came to make that declaration, he said— I wish to state that it was purely out of respect for the Delegates, and to shorten as much as possible our labours, that I felt it my duty to make a very explicit declaration, and to state that my Government, as a Government, could not admit that the maintenance of our existing monetary system should be brought into question, or that the presence of British Delegates at a Conference where bimetallism is discussed should lead to the supposition that England would be ready to examine the possibility of a change in her monetary system. It was for that reason that my colleague, Sir Charles Fremantle, and myself thought that it was opportune to let it be known from the very beginning of our debates that our Government did not desire to take up the discussion of the question of bimetallism. Now, in that declaration Sir Rivers Wilson had acted entirely in opposition to the Instructions of the Delegates, for the Instructions said that they were to enter into a discussion on every proposal—one of which it was said would be bimetallism—with the greatest care. He therefore desired from the Government an explanation of how it came to pass that Sir Rivers Wilson was able to state that the Government did not desire to enter into a discussion of bimetallism. That declaration had had a great effect on the discussions of the Conference, and, indeed, altered the 332 whole policy of the Conference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that bimetallism was discussed by the Conference from beginning to end. That was not so. Before this declaration was made by Sir Rivers Wilson it had not been discussed—it had been referred to by two Delegates; but in both cases it was expressly said that bimetallism was a question that had been postponed to another day. There was another declaration made by Sir Rivers Wilson, and it was considered an important declaration by the Delegates from the other countries. It was made in reference to the adjournment of the Conference. It was a curious coincidence that the adjournment, instead of the closing of the Conference, was only opposed by the Delegates from England. Mr. Bertram Currie, and to some extent Sir Rivers Wilson—but no other Delegate—opposed the adjournment. Sir Rivers Wilson, in expressing a doubt as to whether it was desirable to adjourn the Conference, said— It is no secret that the Government of Her Majesty entered upon this Conference with the greatest reserve, and it may appear to the Government unnecessary to renew the mission which it has entrusted to its Delegates. The Delegate of Russia rose immediately after, and said that he had heard with great surprise that declaration; that it should not be forgotten that Sir Rivers Wilson and the Director of the English Mint were high officials; and that the statement must throw cold water on the proceedings. He wanted to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a plain question, What authority had Sir Rivera Wilson for speaking in the name of the Government at the Brussels Conference? It was evident either that Sir Rivers Wilson exceeded his Instructions, or that the other Delegates were in a different position from him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he gave no other Instructions than those which appeared in the Blue Book. But would the right hon. Gentleman deny that there were communications? These communications may have been of a private character, but he was aware that there had been communications, because one of these communications had been handed to him, and he had got a copy of it. That communication was intended to be shown to the other Delegates. He 333 had reason to believe that there had been other communications which he had never seen. That might possibly explain why it was that Sir Rivers Wilson was able to speak on behalf of the Government, while the other Delegates were not. This was an important question, and should be cleared up. Many people in this country believed, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Conference might have done something if it had had fair play, but he had no hesitation in saying that Sir Rivers Wilson had taken away by his declarations any chance of progress being made by the Conference. If the same thing was done again at any future meeting of the Conference it would be equally fruitless; but if the Delegates were sent out with the same Instructions as before, and loyally carried them out, he believed there would be good results. In conclusion, the hon. Member said he would not move his Amendment.