HC Deb 27 June 1898 vol 60 cc221-41

Order for Third Reading read.

*MR. J. H. ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)

Before this Bill passes, I should like to say a few words in regard to it. I desire to remind the Secretary of State for India of a question which I put to him in reference to the financial statement he made this year, and to the reply he then gave to the effect that it had been presented in that form with a view of enabling Members of this House to have it for perusal before this Bill came up for discussion. Well, Sir, he said that, if desired, he was willing to publish the omitted portions from that statement, and I desire to inform the noble Lord that there is a widespread desire in the House that those portions should be published before the close of the Session, and I hope that he will fulfil the undertaking he gave. Now this Bill has been discussed in all its stages, and I do not desire for a moment to go again over the same ground which has been repeatedly gone over, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two questions which arose upon it. Mr. Speaker, the first point upon this Bill which we, on this side of the House, desire to bring the attention of the Government to is the desirability in a Bill of this kind that there should be a Committee of inquiry before its provisions are carried out. Now, I wish to say, Sir, that this is no new idea; neither is the desirability of appointing a Committee of inquiry by this House upon the question of the government of India. Nor is that idea confined entirely to this side of the House, which takes especial interest in Indian questions, for I find in reading the evidence recently given before the Commission appointed to inquire into the finance of India, that two of the most distinguished Indian, finance Ministers have expressed themselves in favour of the appointment of a fresh Committee. Sir Auckland Colvin, in reply to a question before that Commission, said— He looked to strengthening the financial interests in the Council of the Secretary of State, and ultimately trying in some way, without undue interference with the authority of the Government of India, to establish a control emanating from what theoretically is at present the last court of control—Parliament. That was plainly the view of Sir Auckland Colvin, whose judgment on a question of this kind we know is of the utmost importance. I will only read one further statement upon this point, and it is the evidence of Sir David Barbour, given before the same Commission. He said— I should think it would be a very good thing, especially as regards Indian affairs, if, when Parliament had to do with them, it appointed a Select Committee to report from time to time upon particular things; that, I think, would be very good. It would be most dangerous if Parliament interfered without first taking the report of a Select Committee, or of some other special body. I submit, therefore, that anyone can see that the views which we have endeavoured to put forward on this occasion in favour of a Committee of inquiry are not held by one section of thinkers upon Indian affairs only. The next point I should like to allude to is this. A good deal has been said in the Debates upon this subject as to the views of the Government, and as to the views of the representatives of the Government of India. I do not think the noble Lord Opposite has himself referred to the views stated by the native members of the Viceroy's Council. It seems to me that from every standpoint it would be well d£ we considered the views of these gentlemen in Indian affairs. I notice upon that point in the Times this morning that there is an interesting article upon Indian affairs in which there is a particular reference to the Currency Committee now sitting. That article is of importance in view of the discussion which is now taking place on Indian affairs, because it lays stress upon the fact that discussions have almost hitherto proceeded from the English standpoint. I have only one word, Mr. Speaker, to say in reference to the question of railways which is raised by this Bill. I do not intend to go into the figures upon this point. I only desire to notice a remark that was made by my right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, in the course of his Speech upon this point, when he called attention to the fact that he was mainly responsible for initiating this extended railway policy in India when he was in office. I simply desire to point out that at that time India was in a somewhat different position from what she is to-day financially, and from other standpoints as well. With regard to the railway policy I think the House is pretty unanimous in favour of its extension in India and elsewhere upon principle, but that does not in any way debar the House from modifying its views on that question if under the test of actual experience it has proved unsuccessful. And, Sir, upon this point I should like, with the permission of the House, to quote a reference from a most interesting book on India, by Sir George Chesney, from his chapter on "Railways," in which he says, speaking upon the policy of the Indian Government in regard to railways— The present mode of administrating the Indian public works is indefensible. It is at the root of almost all the mistakes, blunders, and objectless changes of purpose, and especially the lamentable delays which have occurred to discredit the Indian Government. Sir, a view of that kind, coming as it does from a man of such wide experience as Sir George Chesney, with his vast experience of the internal administration of Indian affairs, is a view which ought to command, I think, the unanimous attention of this House. And Sir George Chesney went on further to advocate that it was necessary to have a man of tried and expert experience at the head of the Public Works Department in India, with a properly-qualified board to guide him. He was also in favour of a distinct separation, of the Indian railway accounts from the general finances of India. Now, the third point to which I wish to allude very briefly is a question which I desired to raise in Committee upon this Bill, but, owing to the fact that the Committee stage unexpectedly came on, I was unable to move my Amendment. It was to call attention to the desirability and to remind the House of Commons of the necessity of having a more effective, and retaining a more effective, check upon Indian expenditure and making the British Treasury responsible for the interest and the principle of these loans raised for Indian purposes in case of the default or failure of the Indian revenue. No doubt, morally speaking, this country is liable; but TE appears to me that it would exercise a very wholesome check upon Indian expenditure if it were made perfectly clear that in cases of this character this country was responsible for them. I admit that this is not so large a question when it is laid side by side with another question and a kindred subject, and that is the necessity which is growing from year to year of making some contribution from the English Treasury to the Indian war expenditure, incurred for Imperial purposes, and not specially and exclusively for Indian purposes. Without doubt, as time goes on, and under present circumstances in the Far East, it will grow more and more necessary to come to some decision upon this point of military expenditure in India for Imperial purposes, which is bound to grow, and we shall be bound very soon to face the question whether it is not right and just—and I hold very strongly it is—that this country should bear the share of those expenses which occur in India for Imperial purposes. Now, as I have said before, I do not intend to intervene at any length in this Debate; and knowing the anxiety of the House to discuss the Egyptian Vote, I only desire, in conclusion, to say for myself to the noble Lord, and to the House, that in approaching this question from an Indian standpoint, I do not desire to place myself in hostility to the Indian Government. There is no one prouder of the achievement which resulted in the establishment of the Indian Government than I am. Speaking of the late year, and particularly of recent months, during which the Indian Government have gone through unprecedented difficulties, I desire, for myself at all events, to pay my tribute of respect and admiration to them for the way in which they have conducted themselves—worthy, I think, of the best traditions of that splendid Service—and I cannot conceive of anything worse for India than that this House, which should be a sort of court of appeal or tribunal in all Indian matters, should judge this question from a Party standpoint. I can think of nothing worse than that this House should become an arena for Party politics in regard to India. As far as I am concerned, I shall never allow myself to approach these questions in that spirit or to speak from that motive. In conclusion, Sir, it appears to me that although this Bill is not in itself very important, it raises questions of a very wide and far-reaching character in regard to Indian finance, and to the responsibility of this country in reference to Indian expenditure; and, having regard to all the difficulties which lie around India at the present time, it seems to me to be an occasion when every section of this House should be united in trying to make these difficulties less and not greater; when we should not accentuate, but rather strive to lessen, the differences of opinion between the rulers and the ruled; and in considering these matters we should, as far as possible, endeavour to promote good feeling between the Government and the people of India, because upon that in the long run the stability of the fabric of our Indian Empire rests. Sir, I do not desire to take up any further time this afternoon, but I thought it my duty to lay these few observations before the House.

MR. A. STRAUSS (Cornwall, Camborne)

I desire to explain that owing to the unexpected collapse of the Benefices Bill the Committee stage of this Bill was taken on Thursday last, and in consequence several honourable Members who had given notice of Amendments were out of their places, and consequently they did not bring those Amendments forward. I myself gave notice of an important Amendment for the purpose of debarring the Government from making any change in the currency of India, but unfortunately I was not in my place to move that Amendment. I merely mention this as an excuse for raising the question at this stage, because I had intended to deal with it in Committee. Sir, this Bill does not specify what this money, what these £10,000,000 are to be used for, and more particularly it does not say that the money is not to be used for currency purposes. It is quite true that there is a memorandum attached to this Bill stating to some extent for what purpose this money is to be used, but that is not sufficiently definite. It is equally true that the Secretary of State for India in Committee gave an explanation as to what this money was wanted for, but we all know that Indian Secretaries come and go, and it is a doubtful point how far the successor of the noble Lord might be bound by the utterances of the noble Lord in considering this point. Now, Sir, in my opinion, this Bill is defective, and will remain defective unless a clause is inserted debarring the Government from using any part of that money for the purpose of changing the present monetary system of India, or, failing that, unless the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, on behalf of the Indian Government, will give us a distinct pledge that any proposals for the alteration of the currency will be submitted to the House before they become law. If the House will permit me, I will briefly give the reasons why I consider that such a clause is necessary. The House is aware that there is a Committee sitting at present which will report upon the currency question. Now, this Committee is not likely to finish its labours while the House is sitting this Session after the prorogation of Parliament. Now this Committee to which I allude is similar to a Committee which sat in the year 1893, and what happened then? Why, the Government of that day, in 1893, without consulting Parliament, made some important changes in the currency of India, and thus showed us not only that they had a right to do so without going to Parliament, but also that they did not hesitate to exercise that right. Now there is a great danger that the Government of India will again exercise that right without coming to Parliament, or without consulting Parliament in any way; indeed, it has been hinted that such may be the case. Now, Sir, the questions which are at present before the Committee are of a more far-reaching character than the questions which are before the Committee of 1893. The proposals of the Indian Government which are at present before that Committee do not meet with the approval of the commercial community, and the constitution of that Committee is universally condemned by all the commercial classes both here and in India. This may be a strong statement to make, but I feel bound to make it at once. A memorial has been handed to the noble Lord, and I will read the first and concluding sentences, to show what its effect is. It says— We, the undersigned bankers, merchants, and traders of the City of London, desire to point out the general dissatisfaction which exists in the City and elsewhere with regard to the constitution of the Committee on the financial proposals of the Indian Government. It concludes— We would also venture to point out that it is of the highest importance that the Government in formulating a financial policy of this importance, and more so in view of the enormous difficulty there would be in taking a false step should such be taken. I may say that general dissatisfaction exists in the City and elsewhere with regard to the constitution of the Committee, and the financial proposals of the Indian Government are entirely disapproved of. That memorial is signed by the Governor of the Bank of England, Messrs. Rothschild, and it is also signed by all the Indian companies, and others, who, I am sure, represent more than three-fourths of the whole trading community of India. It is signed, Sir, by Sir John Lubbock, and by the head of that eminent house which was founded by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is signed also by most of the eminent firms in the City, and by over a thousand merchants in Manchester and Glasgow. I wish at once to state that amongst this general condemnation there is but one exception, and that is the appointment of the right honourable Gentleman opposite as Chairman, whose fairness and business capacity commands the admiration of everyone. If the right honourable Gentleman will allow me to criticise his character in any way, the only fault I have to find with him is that he does not always act up to his convictions, because if he did he would be sitting on the other side upon this question. Now, the Press in India is equally alarmed about these proposals, and from all sides in India, and from all shades of opinion, warnings are addressed to the noble Lord not to act upon this currency question without the previous consent of Parliament. Now, Sir, there is in this Bill, and attached to it, one ominous phrase; it is this— Power to borrow in case of emergency arising, such as war, famine, or failure of demand for bills. But those who are conversant with the laws of exchange know that there is not always an unlimited demand for bills. If more plain words had been used it would be seen that in case of the exchange value going down, the Government, with this money, would again, by artificial means, try to keep the exchange value up, and would use this money for that purpose. Now, the proposals which have been submitted to the House necessitate the leaving over of a large sum of money which must necessarily be raised in this country. The commercial community until now felt absolutely secure that these proposals would never be carried out, because they were able to elicit from the noble Lord that there is only left power to borrow a few hundred thousand pounds. We, therefore, knew that he would have to go to Parliament before he could give effect to these proposals. Now, the commercial community has absolute confidence in this House. We know that there are honourable Members here—like the honourable Member for Tower Hamlets, like the honourable Member for East Islington, the honourable Member for Hull, and others—who know all the laws that govern the rate of exchange. Therefore, we know that any fallacious argument which might be brought forward will be refuted, although such an opportunity is not given to us in this Commission, because we do not know what is going on there. We do not know the witnesses before the Commission, and we do not know what evidence they may give. We, therefore, have no absolute security in this Bill unless the noble Lord will give us such a pledge as I demand, or inserts such a clause as will prevent the noble Lord or his successor using that money for the purpose of making a change in the monetary system of India. The apprehension and fears which exist in the City of London and all over India are of the plainest possible character, and I can assure the noble Lord that they are much more important than he has any idea of, and I would, therefore, appeal to him, in order to mitigate these apprehensions and fears even now, to see that a clause is inserted, or to give such a pledge as will ensure that until Parliament has had an opportunity of deciding this question this loan will not be used for making any change in the currency of India.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

The honourable Members who have spoken upon this question have done so from a commercial standpoint; at the same time I am going to approach it from a strictly non-commercial point of view, and upon the basis of common necessity. There was great enthusiasm in this House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his financial proposals in the Budget, but the House, in reference to an important proposal affecting the poor people of India, is now in a lazy and languid condition. We are now invited to make the people of India pay £10,000,000 of money. This sum, of course, will have to come ultimately, every single farthing of it, from the wretched and impoverished resources of the Indian people. With the strong arm of the law you are proposing to take from the Indian people by this Bill £10,000,000, that you have no more moral right to than you have to take my purse out of my pocket. I wish briefly to show how this is done, because sometimes Indian matters are overwhelmed with such an amount of Phariseeism that we do not understand them. Previous speakers have been able to congratulate my noble Friend upon the present state of the Indian Empire. Now, we all know the way the Indian people are treated. Now, in all the discussions which have taken place to-day the commercial community has been well represented, but I have not heard one word about the interests of the people who are to pay the money. This enables these great commercial houses to pursue their businesses at the expense of the Indian people; but I have not heard one word about the interests of the Indian taxpayers themselves. The commercial community, whose interests are at stake, do not seem to have the slightest regard whether the people who have to find the money are living in misery and poverty up to the very lips. I must again say it, though I shall not enlarge upon this topic, that the noble Lord, by his statement upon the prosperity of India, and the systematic and permanent character of Indian finance, has admitted that it was due to the fact that these taxes come not from luxuries, but from necessities practically, and that is the most melancholy feature in the whole subject of Indian finance at the present time. My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for India spoke in very hopeful terms indeed in reference to the increase in the salt tax, although he regarded it as a very disagreeable incident. May I remind my right honourable Friend that that salt tax now charged upon the Indian people has been taken word for word from the French system which produced the French Revolution? This salt tax is now the chief source of revenue of the Indian Government. Now, Sir, honourable Gentlemen who have not read this Bill—and I do not think that one out of every 10 of those honourable Members present have read it—know nothing about it. Why, this Bill, astonishing as it seems to me, gives practically to the noble Lord—I do not think that I am misstating it—the sum of £10,000,000 sterling to do exactly what he likes with. There is nothing in the Memorandum to state what he intends to do with it; and he is not in the slightest degree bound by that Memorandum; and, even if he were, the terms of it are so very general that he could apply the money to any purpose he liked The noble Lord spoke really in terms which I cannot understand of the prosperity of India, but, of course, he was acting upon official information. But the real prosperity of India depends upon its financial state, and, from the British point of view, India is prosperous if a certain sum of money is wrung out of the poor people of that country. Let us consider how this money will go. The noble Lord has stated that the sum of £2,500,000 will go to pay off some of the debts of the Indian Government, in order to get a transfer of those debts to others, and a lower rate of interest, and £3,000,000 are supposed to be expended on railways and the balance is to go anywhere. The noble Lord said that Sir James Webster approved of this Bill, but he did not tell the House that the people vehemently protested against it, and that this provision which is now before the House is merely the proposal of the officials. The people of India absolutely protested against expenditure of this kind. Of course, I am well acquainted with the highly prosperous assurances of the Government in reference to India, but to me it is always very unpleasant to speak of these Indian questions. I believe that if this House were in earnest in this matter it could elevate the position of the people of India, but at present there is a disregard—a heartless disregard—of the sufferings and grievances of these people. May I say to the right honourable Gentleman the late Secretary of State for India that the pæans about the great advances of India are the absolute reversal of the facts, and I tell him to his face that we hold India not for the good of India, but for the good of the commercial classes. Now, Sir, the House has listened to me, as it always does in these matters, with patience, and I feel sometimes that I may exhaust that patience, for I have repeated myself on these matters at least a dozen times over. But as long as I have a seat in this House I shall continue to protest against the robbing of India, and the injustice which is done to its people. I shall also continue to protest against the system of governing India, which is a fraud upon the Indian Empire, and it is a system which, I believe, will call down upon this country the vengeance of a just God.

*MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)

I think that the honourable Member who has just sat down has been listened to with more patience than would be extended to any other Member of this House who indulged in the same kind of language, for he still continues to bring railing accusations, with talk of vampires and locusts and other illustrations of the same kind. I think, however, that this House generally regards the bark of the honourable Gentleman as worse than his bite. As for the Government of India, they can take care of themselves, and it is not for me to defend them against such attacks. The honourable Member for South Donegal said in the course of his remarks that he did not care what happened to commercial houses, but what he wanted to know was how it would affect the people from whom the money came. He also said that India was held for the benefit of our trade, and not for the benefit of the people of India. Now, If he honourable Gentleman would just consider that question for a moment, he would see that what is for the benefit of our trade in that country is also for the benefit of the people of India. It is only by stopping internecine conflicts between the natives, which would be instantly renewed if English rule were withdrawn, that we are enabling them slowly, it is true, to increase their scale of comfort by commerce, and it is solely on that account that we claim that we have a moral right to rule in India. The honourable Member for South Donegal spoke as if all the men engaged in commerce were class who are in the habit of swooping down upon the country and looting it of so many rupees or sovereigns, and carrying them off, and he did not seem to realise the ordinary process of commerce. Commerce enables men to cultivate the land, and gives them the means of obtaining what they require. I should now like to turn to the remarks made by the honourable Member for Camborne. No person, I am sure, can fail to realise how very strong is the disturbance in commercial circles of this country with regard to Indian affairs. The honourable Member has shown that in the city of London almost every leading house connected with India has joined in a protest to the Government, or to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, and the words of that protest are really startlingly strong, coming, as they do, from a body many of whom were supporters of the Government. It really is startling when these gentlemen think it necessary to tell the noble Lord, as they did, that "it is necessary to enlist the confidence of the city." Now, I did not sign that memorial myself, and I should have felt very loth to sign it, because it is such a reflection upon the noble Lord. But if the noble Lord had listened to me when I ventured to implore him to give a majority of the places on his Committee to men who had a thorough knowledge of Indian trade, and who had a knowledge of the effects of movements of bullion on the commerce of this country, if he had done that I think he would now have been in a far better position, and I am sure he would not have received such strong protests and such strong letters as he has had addressed to him by the chambers of commerce in Manchester, Glasgow, and many other places. And, Sir, it is not only to England and to the commerce of England that this anxiety and disturbance is confined, for the proposals of the Government stand condemned by every newspaper in India and England which has expressed an opinion upon the subject at all, and when it is considered that these proposals are of the most vital importance to the commerce of this country, and to that of India, it is only reasonable that we should complain when we see the men, the wisdom or unwisdom of whose conduct is now under consideration, placed as judges in their own cause, as members of the Committee. That in itself is calculated to destroy the value of their finding, whatever it may be, and the noble Lord knows perfectly well, and I may say it with all respect to the right honourable Gentleman who is Chairman of the Committee, about whom, at any rate, as to his capacity and his fairness there is no question, that it is absolutely necessary that before the proposals of the Indian Government, whatever may be the findings of that Committee, become law, they should have the confidence of the great commercial centres of this country. That has been refused entirely to these proposals, and they stand condemned already. Now, what is it that the Indian Government have really been doing? Why, it has been forcing up the exchange, an achievement of which the noble Lord is so proud, and in which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire stands side by side with him in consideration of the matter. What the Indian Government has really been doing is this, they have been increasing without the knowledge of the people their taxation, and increasing it in a way which has long been regarded in this country as the most mischievous way in which taxation can be increased It has always been held that a Government which tampers with the currency and compels people to take coins at a rate which is higher than their real value, that artificially interferes with the currency by restricting its amount, puts money into its own pocket with the maximum of disadvantage to the people under its authority. If only the honourable Member opposite would confine himself to saying that the Indian Government has done very badly for the people while meaning to do very well, I would join with him; but he seems to suggest that they pursue a course of malignancy, while I think that they govern wrongly from want of proper consideration of economic truths. This is not the first time that the Indian Government have applied for gold currency in India, and for the closing of the mints to silver. Of course the fall in the rupee has been long looked upon with alarm by the governing classes in India, and on three separate occasions they have addressed strong protests to this country, demanding the adoption of the very course which is now being carried out, and which they desire now. It was not until 1893 that they found anyone in the present position of the noble-Lord to fall in with their views, the fulfilment of which I regard as the greatest mischief and which I look upon as the greatest source of danger both to England and India. There is one other matter to which I should like to call the attention of the House. Perhaps I may be allowed to say in a few sentences that during the time from 1893 to the present time, while India has been declining in the ratio of exports over imports by 60 per cent., Mexico, a country in precisely the same position in that she has a large gold debt in England, and that she has a silver standard, has increased 40 per cent. This increase is very remarkable, and since last I spoke I have seen a copy of a French magazine, L'Economists Européen, which I would ask anyone interested in the commerce of Mexico to read. Later on I will quote two or three sentences. Here is a country which, according to the arguments used by the noble Lord, ought long ago to have been bankrupt. She has a silver standard, and she has an enormous gold debt. The noble Lord says, and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire says, that if India did not close her mints she would have been bankrupt by this time. What are the grounds for this statement? Anyone who reads this article or looks at my figures, or goes, into the City, and inquires about Mexico, will find that her prosperity and credit have been advancing during this period, and instead of becoming bankrupt, she is in a better position than she has ever been in before within the memory of living man. Here is an article merely discussing the position of Mexico. Of course it points out that there are a great many other causes which have promoted its prosperity besides the currency. There is the confidence of its traders and the railway enterprise, which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton naturally says has been a great advantage to the people of India, and other causes. It says— Mexico finds in a silver standard a strong protection to her commerce, her agriculture, and all her industries, and an encouragement to foreign capital. There is the very thing which the noble Lord is desiring for India. He says how much he would wish to see more English capital flow into India. If he desires that then let him see that the Indian Government leaves the currency alone, and that it works on natural lines, and he will then find that capital will pour into the country again. This same journal goes on to say that— The premium on gold has been for Mexico a shield to its natural industries against foreign competition, and has proved an energetic stimulus to its exports. This statement is borne out by the figures which I quoted in this House before, and shows in how marked a degree the exports of Mexico have increased, while those in India have diminished. That is a simple matter of figures which I should like the House to bear in mind when they are weighing the pros and cons of this policy about which before long it is very probable that this House will have to make up its mind.

*MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

I desire to say in a few words that I cannot agree with my honourable Friend who has just sat down—with whom I generally, on City and political matters, find myself in agreement—that it is necessary to impress the noble Lord with the importance, and even the necessity, of enlisting the confidence of the City. I must dissociate myself entirely from that view, because I think it is an entirely groundless objection.

*MR. VICARY GIBBS

I was quoting from the City memorial.

*MR. COHEN

Well, I do not think it is necessary to impress upon the noble Lord the importance of the City memorial or of enlisting the confidence of the City upon the question of the currency in India. I believe that the noble Lord and any Secretary of State in any financial proposals which he is entertaining must know, as indeed the noble Lord showed in reply to the memorial from the City, that he is quite aware that no proposals could be successful which would be attended with any serious disturbance of the financial credit, or which produced any artificial stringency in the money market in the City. I was sorry to hear my honourable Friend say that the proposals of the Indian Government stand condemned already. I have watched this discussion in the Press from day to day, and I must say that nothing has startled me more than the readiness—I would even say rashness—with which gentlemen whom I look upon as very great authorities have proceeded to dogmatise on their own ipse dixit, on one of the most perplexing and vital questions which have ever been submitted for thoughtful inquiry, and which is now, in my judgment, being submitted to as competent and representative a body as could possibly be constituted. I am aware that I differ in this respect from very great and very eminent and experienced authorities in the City, but I think they approach this subject from a point of view from which I entirely differ. In my judgment people having strong opinions on the currency question, and, having already strong opinions as to the direction in which the decision of this inquiry should go, are excellent witnesses, and indeed are indispensable witnesses; but they possess by their convictions—and my honourable Friend must forgive me if I say sometimes by their fads—an absolute disqualification to judge upon proposals of the kind which are submitted to the Committee. On the other hand I hold that we do not want so much persons of absolute experience in particular branches of trade to sit on that Committee as we want, first of all, men capable of examining and weighing evidence which these gentlemen ought to bring before the Committee, not in the capacity of members of the Committee, but in the capacity of witnesses. But, Sir, it seems to me that the importation of this question of the currency is altogether irrelevant to the Bill which is now being read a third time. I hope the House will pardon me, but I was induced to make these observations in reply to the remarks of the honourable Member for Camborne and the honourable Member for St. Albans. My honourable Friend the Member for Camborne said that this Bill gives my noble Friend power to change the currency. Well, now, there is no Member of this House who is more disinclined to alter the monetary system of India than I am; but I do not know where the Member for Camborne has found in this Bill any desire to change the monetary system of India or of England.

*MR. STRAUSS

I never said so.

*MR. COHEN

I am glad to hear that he did not say so. I say, Sir, that this is not a Bill, as the honourable Gentleman opposite has said, to add £10,000,000 to the Indian debt, for it does not do any such thing, but it is a Bill which will to a large extent reduce the charge payable by the Indian Exchequer. Of all the observations to which we have listened there is only one which I agree with, and which I will repeat. It is this, that I shall be glad when my noble Friend or his successor—and I hope that no one will succeed him for many years—comes to the relief of the Indian Exchequer by causing all loans raised for Indian purposes to be issued with the Imperial guarantee—an arrangement which, in my opinion, would not cost a single penny to the Indian Exchequer, and which would not reduce in any way the stimulus to economy on the part of the Indian Government. I did not rise for the purpose of raising this question of the currency, because it is much too large for consideration at this stage, and I apologise to the House for having reverted to it, because the Indian currency question is quite outside this Bill. But, as my honourable Friend raised the question, I am sure he will forgive me for replying, because I hold very strong opinions on this question.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,) Middlesex, Ealing

I think that the House will agree with the observations of my honourable Friend who has just sat down that the currency proposals of the Indian Government which the House has unanimously referred to a Special Committee are in no sense relevant to the Bill now before the House, the Third Reading of which we are now asked to assent to. On the Motion for the resolution in Committee on which to found this Bill I stated clearly on behalf of the Indian Government and of Her Majesty's Government that the loan was in no way connected with any currency proposals, and that the sums raised would not be applied to the promotion of any proposals of the kind, and I can assure my honourable Friend the Member for Camborne that that declaration will be adhered to; and I think that, if before the sum mentioned in the Bill should be exhausted there should be a change of Government, any Secretary of State who Was foolish enough to trifle with the House of Commons by deliberately departing from the pledge given by his predecessor would find he had made a great mistake, and that the House of Commons would not support him. My honourable Friend may rest assured that, however dark and insidious may be the designs of any future Secretary of State, I have precluded myself from in any way applying any portion of this loan to any currency policy. I am sorry that the question of the composition of the Committee has been raised. The first petition from the City, I was informed, was to a considerable extent signed under the misapprehension that the inquiry was to be limited in its character, and many of those who added their signatures would not have signed had they known the inquiry was not so limited. But my honourable Friend represents a very extreme school of opinion on the currency question, and he is associated with a powerful party organisation, which has one object in view—to obtain from the Committee a decision in favour of re-opening the mints. In the re-opening of the mints my honourable Friend thinks he will find the salvation of India; but let my honourable Friend and those who hold similar views devote their time in the interval before the Committee reports to a consideration of the question whether the depreciation of a currency is a benefit to the community among which it circulates. As regards the speeches delivered in the earlier part of the Debate, they deal with, subjects more or less academic. The honourable Member who opened the Debate wishes me to give him the information which was not contained in the Explanatory Memorandum presented to the House this year. That Memorandum was prepared in the belief that the House generally did not care for detailed statistics in such a statement, and, except from the honourable Member, I have had no complaints of any sort or kind in reference to it. If further information is sought, I shall be very glad to give the honourable Member the official information he asks for. There are certain other details which are not strictly connected with the occasion, and that is the reason why they were excluded; but if the honourable Member desires to have that information, I shall be glad to give it. I have been attacked by the honourable Member for Donegal for being able to introduce what he called a prosperity Budget; but why? If I can show that the government of India can be carried on without additional taxation, the honourable Member should look with satisfaction on the figures, because they indicate that, unless very exceptional circumstances should arise during the present year, there will probably in future years be a reduction of taxation. My honourable Friend has found fault with the Indian Government for not taking the advice of the native Members of the Council; but has finance been usually the strong point in Oriental Governments? Is it not a fact that everywhere, in India, China, Persia, Egypt, Oriental ideas have not been directed to finance with distinguished success, and is it not a fact that wherever the stricter ideas of Europe have been associated with Oriental rule the result has been improvement of the financial conditions of the country, and the establishment—frequently, if not invariably—of equilibrium between revenue and expenditure? While I am quite ready to listen with attention to native opinion in relation to all Indian questions, I do not think that native views on finance and the fiscal system which should be imposed are necessarily those which, under all conditions, should guide the Government of India. Now, I really think that I have practically covered almost all the requests that have been made, and answered all the questions which have been put to me. It must not be assumed, as the honourable Gentleman the Member for Donegal has assumed, that this Loan Bill will increase taxation or the burden on the Government of India. In this country every year there are great additions to railway capital, but shareholders do not necessarily look upon this as an increase of liabilities and decrease in dividends; on the contrary, our great railway enterprises would never have attained their present dimensions but for these continual additions of capital. In India the Government have undertaken railway construction, and in the same way have expended capital which will, it is believed, be for the ultimate benefit of the shareholders. No country has benefited an ore from railway extension, and to this, in a great degree, is due the success with which India has been able to meet her recent difficulties. Sir, I hope that this loan Act will be sufficient to meet the exigencies of the Home Government for a good many years to come, and I can assure my honourable Friends that I have no wish whatever to interfere with the undertaking which I have already given, that I will take care that no part of this loan will in any way be associated with any currency proposals, present or prospective, which the Indian Government may desire to forward. shareholders. No country has benefited

Bill read a third time, and passed.