§ 28. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will 1175 explain why the beginning and end of each letter published in the Return of the correspondence with the Bank of England, Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, and the India Office is omitted; and will he supply a copy showing by whom and to whom each letter is addressed?
Mr. BAKERThe Return has been presented in a form which economises space and printing, and is in accordance with various precedents. The letters are signed by and addressed to the parties concerned, or their authorised representatives, and the Secretary of State sees no reason why the expense of reprinting with the formal details asked for should be incurred.
§ Mr. GWYNNEAs it is important to know who wrote these letters and to whom they were addressed, may I ask the Secretary of State if he will not go to the expense of printing them, to send me a copy personally?
Mr. BAKERThe White Paper does state to whom the letters were addressed. If the hon. Member wishes to know the exact beginning and ending in any particular case, certainly he will be informed.
§ 29. Mr. GWYNNEasked why, if Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company thought on 28th May that the silver purchased on behalf of the Government could be deposited at the Bank of England without rousing any suspicion, they wrote on 16th April recommending the India Office to postpone their purchases, entailing a further brokerage fee to themselves in addition to 3 per cent. on the cost, in order, as they then said, to avoid any premature transaction with the Bank of England?
Mr. BAKERIf the hon. Member will refer to the White Paper he will find that the firm did not on 16th April recommend the postponement of purchases, but wrote to the India Office expressing practically the same opinion as in the letter of 28th May, and asking for instructions. The Secretary of State decided on postponement, mainly in order to avoid making payments in May which, for the reason explained to the hon. Member on 3rd December, would have become widely known at an early date.
§ Mr. GWYNNEDoes the hon. Gentleman suggest that the proposal for postponement did not come from Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company?
Mr. BAKERIf the hon. Member looks again at the text of the letter he will see that they ask for instructions on the point.
§ 30. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the letter written on 24th May last by the India Office to Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, in which it is asked that all bars or boxes of silver to be shipped should bear distinguishing marks, which would enable them easily to be traced to the source of supply and so identify the seller in case it should be necessary to claim a refund, and to the reply of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company of 26th May stating that all the bars and dollar boxes they ship have identification marks; and, in view of this correspondence, will he explain the statement which appears in the letter dated 13th November from Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company to the India Office to the effect that, although the Department's orders had been large, they formed at times but a portion of their business (which involved a considerable number of clients), and that supposing they felt justified in divulging the names of those clients with whom they did business on the same days as with the Department it was impossible to disentangle from the list those which provided silver for the Department?
Mr. BAKERThe first letter showed that each bar or box of silver shipped and found defective could, in case of need, be traced to the seller. The second letter was understood to mean that, owing to considerations of time and convenience, it is not practicable for a broker to deliver on each occasion to each buying client the particular bars or boxes bought under the contracts made to satisfy his requirements. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the latter statement, which is in no way inconsisent with the former, represents the recognised practice of the bullion trade.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIs it not a fact that the second letter expressed an opinion, not of expediency, but of impossibility—that it-was as impossible to disentangle the firms who supplied silver for the Government of India as it was to distinguish the juice which came from any particular grape in wine?
Mr. BAKERI am afraid that the hon. Member again is not putting the matter quite correctly. They did not say "impossible." They said "not practicable."
§ 31. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that on 11th September last, the day on which Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company purchased £600,000 of silver for the Government at 29⅛d., the market price of silver in London was 28 13–16d., and the parity of silver in China, where the silver was purchased, at the rate of the exchange of the day on London was under 28d., thus making the price actually paid more than 1d. above market price; and whether, seeing that 1d. on £600,000 of silver is equal to about £24,000, out of which the cost of freight, insurance, and interest on shipping the silver from China to Bombay would not amount to more than £4,000, he will say to whom the £20,000 unaccounted for was paid?
Mr. BAKERI gave the hon. Member full information on this subject in reply to his question of 26th November. The Secretary of State has no information in support of the statement now made that the price of silver in China on the date mentioned was 28d., or 13–16d. less than the London price, nor does he understand how such a difference could exist.
§ Mr. FLAVINHow did the hon. Member arrive at the figure £24,000, seeing that the supposed loss is only £2,400?