HC Deb 14 January 1913 vol 46 cc1859-62
11. Mr. GWYNNE

asked what was the market price of silver in China on 11th September, and its equivalent in London at the rate of exchange of the day?

Mr. BAKER

The Secretary of State is not aware that there is a market price generally prevailing in China in the sense in which there is one for each day generally prevailing in London.

Mr. GWYNNE

; Did not the hon. Gentleman tell me, in answer to a previous question, that the price of silver in China was not necessarily the price in London, and was not that one of the reasons given for Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company buying silver in China at 29⅛ when the price in London was 28 13–16?

Mr. BAKER

I have never said there was a market price in China. The hon. Member has a question further down the Paper, and he will see how the calculation is made.

Mr. GWYNNE

Did not the hon. Gentleman give me to understand that the exchange was different?

12. Mr. TOUCHE

asked whether the Bombay or Calcutta mints worked over time at any time during the latter part of the year 1912; if so, for what period; did they work night and day during any part of the period; and have they been so working during the present year?

Mr. BAKER

As regards 1912 I have nothing to add to the statement I made in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 1st January. As regards the present year such information as is available indicates that there has been no overtime; but, without inquiry, I cannot be certain.

Mr. TOUCHE

Will the hon. Gentleman try to get the information with regard to 1912, and will he endeavour to keep the Office in closer touch with what goes on in India?

Mr. BAKER

It is a very easy calculation, but if the hon. Member wishes to have direct information I will ask for it.

13. Mr. GWYNNE

asked for details of the cost per ounce, separating the items of freight and insurance to India which would have had to be paid by a purchaser at the London market price of 28 13–l6d. on 11th September when Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company bought £600,000 of silver on behalf of the Government of India at 29⅛d. to be sent from China, freight and insurance being paid by the seller?

Mr. BAKER

The figures are, approximately:—

Freight .1297 of a penny
Insurance .0240 of a penny
Packing, marking, cartage, etc .0103 of a penny
Total .1640 of a penny
In addition there would have been a loss of interest for the period between the 11th September and the several dates on which the payments for delivery from China were made, equivalent to approximately 1460 of a penny per ounce. As I mentioned on 26th November, there is no reason to believe that so large a purchase could have been in London on the dates mentioned without raising the price above 28 13–16d.

Mr. GWYNNE

If there was no different market price in China from that in London for silver, will the hon. Gentleman say how it is that even adding the cost of freight and insurance to the market price of 28 13–16d., it does not amount to 29⅛d., the price that Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company paid?

Mr. BAKER

It falls short by an extremely small fraction, and against that the last part of my answer shows that the price in London would have been considerably raised by so large a purchase.

Mr. GWYNNE

Could not any other firm have bought in China, and could it not be done through the Bank of England?

Mr. BAKER

If the hon. Member has any information which leads one to suppose that there was a market rate in China, I shall be very glad if he will communicate that information.

Mr. JOHN WARD

Will the hon. Member inform us who it was wanted the job in place of this company?

14. Mr. R. GWYNNE

asked if the cost of carrying over contracts for the purchases of silver through Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, instead of taking delivery at the due dates, was equivalent to borrowing £661,000 for an average period of two months at the rate of approximately 4.46 per cent, interest, while the India Office was obtaining interest at the rate of approximately 2¾ per cent. only by the employment of its balances'?

Mr. BAKER

The statement in the question, which is in effect a summary of replies that I gave on 29th November and 7th January, is correct. As I explained in the previous replies, substantial advantages, not mentioned in the question, were obtained by the postponements.

Mr. GWYNNE

Are we to take it the extra cost of carrying over is the difference between 4.46 and 2¾ on £661,000?

Mr. BAKER

Only if you omit the substantial advantages referred to in the latter part of my answer.

Forward to