HC Deb 05 April 1922 vol 152 cc2269-84

It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State at any time or times to raise in the United Kingdom, as and when necessary, by the creation and issue of capital stock, bonds, debentures, or hills, or partly by one of such modes and partly by another or others, any sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole fifty million pounds sterling, to be applied to—

  1. (1) The construction, extension, equipment and improvement of railways in India by State agency, or through the agency of a company or companies under engagement with the Secretary of State;
  2. (2) The repayment of the principal of any bonds, debentures, or debenture stock issued by any such company under the guarantee of the Secretary of State;
  3. (3) The discharge of any obligations incurred or arising by reason of the purchase by the Secretary of State of any railway constructed or worked in India by any such company, or on the determination of the contract of any such company with the Secretary of State;
  4. (4) The construction, extension, equipment, and improvement of irrigation works in India.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. SUGDEN

I desire to register a protest against this Clause. I am thoroughly aware of the fact that its elimination would kill the Bill, and therefore I simply desire to register a protest and to urge that representations be made to the Government of India to give consideration to the claims of taxpayers and traders of this country. We understand that this Indian loan is to have preferential treatment in our money market, for it is Trustee Stock. There never was a time when the industries of this country more required the financial support of the banks, and, although it was stated at the annual meetings of the five great banks which have been held during the last two or three months that money and full facilities were available for the trading community, we know that to-day trade and industry in this country are particularly desirous of obtaining cheap money if the 1½ millions workless are to be absorbed in industry. I suggest that if India is to come into our money markets it will not only lift the price of money to the trader, but will also make our municipal and county loans more expensive. While I fully agree that we hold a responsibility in respect of the Indian Empire, I would again affirm that they have a responsibility towards us. I would ask my hon. Friend, who stated last night that there was bad trade and difficulty of obtaining money in India, to study the balance-sheets of some Indian firms, whose profits during the last 18 months or two years have in some cases been as much as six times the amount of their share capital. I do therefore suggest, if profits are being made in such bulk in India, that the Indian people themselves—the financiers, I mean—are well able to finance more of the loans than they are doing or have promised to do.

Many of us hold that State railways anywhere are not equitable, fruitful, or successful, but, so long as we do to some extent accept responsibility for the State railways of India, I say that representations should be made by the Secretary of State for India to the Government of India that they should first of all make these railways pay. Although the passenger rates on these railways have been lifted against the poor Indians, the freight and cargo charges on goods and manufactures have not been lifted to any appreciable extent. While I am not prepared to move an Amendment against the placing of this Indian loan upon our money market, I do suggest that we should make representations that the Indian Government should do something in this matter of freight, so that a fund maybe created from profits and set aside for further capital expenditure. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman will make representations to the responsible people that they should accept more responsibility than they have done, so that these loans to be floated in this country shall not jeopardise our municipal and county loans and not make it more difficult to obtain cheap money for trade and industry.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton)

It would be for the convenience of the Committee if I answered the hon. Gentleman's speech at once. May I say, with reference to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), that I am sorry he has not had an opportunity of putting down Amendments, but there will be such an opportunity before the Report stage, which will not be taken to-morrow?

Mr. G. TERRELL

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can arrange for it to be postponed till after the Easter Recess? There is no urgency about the matter.

Earl WINTERTON

I think that is a reasonable request, although, naturally, I should prefer to get it before the Recess. As a matter of fact, I think it will be postponed till after the Recess.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

If there be no Amendment, there will be no Report stage. Would my hon. Friend, as a matter of courtesy, make a verbal amendment, so that there may be a Report stage?

Earl WINTERTON

I will consider that point, and what can be done. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) is under a complete misapprehension as to what this Bill purports to do. He is afraid that the Government of India are asking for preferential treatment in this country. They are asking for nothing of the sort, and, on behalf of the Government of India, I resent the suggestion. By an old Statute, which I think might well be abolished, they have to do what no other borrowing authority in the Empire outside this country has to do. Before they can borrow money in the English money market they have to get permission from this House. They are not asking for any sort of preference. Other portions of the Empire—the Dominion of South Africa for example—have recently put large loans on the market, and we have had no word of protest in this House, nor did we hear that it was wrong to borrow money at a time when trade was depressed. I really do not know what meaning my hon. Friend attaches to the term "preferential treatment." It has no kind of reference to the proposal in this Bill. I think what my hon. Friend has in mind is the question of the purchase of material in this country, and on that matter I wish to meet the Committee quite frankly. It is a very difficult and delicate subject, and the Committee will realize that I am in this difficulty, that, while naturally anxious to satisfy legitimate opinion in this country, I have to consider the interests of the Government of India at one of the most difficult and critical times in their history, and, more important still, I have to consider the interests of the people of India and their very clearly expressed wishes. When the Dominion of South Africa come to the English money market, as they have done since the War, and as I think New South Wales has come—

Sir F. BANBURY

Any number of them.

Earl WINTERTON

And, as my right hon. Friend says, any number of them have come, no obligation has been imposed upon them to purchase material in this country, and nobody has suggested that they should do so. I speak as one conversant with conditions in South Africa, having business interests in that country, and I believe that a large amount raised by South Africa was for the purpose of railway extension. So far as I know, no other great rival money centre, like Paris or New York, imposes any such obligation.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL

Berlin did.

Earl WINTERTON

Yes, Berlin did, but we do not want to copy the methods of Berlin. Our financial methods before the War were far sounder than those of Berlin. My hon. Friend wants to arrive at the very legitimate goal, namely, that of seeing that as much material as possible is purchased in this country for use on the Indian railways. That is the goal at which we all want to arrive. From a psychological point of view, nothing could be worse at the present time than to emphasise, either in this House or in public discussions generally in this country, that you wish to impose an obligation on the Government and people of India to purchase their material in this country. Nothing could do more harm—and I address this argument more particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), who has a great responsibility and largely represents important manufacturers—than that it should go forth that Members of this House had put pressure on the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State to insist on the Indian Government purchasing all their requirements in this country. It would defeat the very object which the hon. Gentleman has in view, namely, that by good commercial feeling between India and this country a large trade should be done in railway and other materials in this country. Of course, it would play into the hands of the extremists in India, who would use it, and from their point of view legitimately use it, as an argument, and they would say, "This is the old, old story. There is the hon. Member for Chippenham getting up and following the traditions of England in trying to make India a close preserve for British traders." That would not only play into the hands of the extremists, but it would stultify the efforts of those in India—and they are many—who at the present time are doing all they can to support not only our general position there, but our trading position there.

What, in effect, are the conditions with regard to this matter? Last year the amount of material—I gave the figures last night, but I will repeat them now— which was purchased for Indian railways was, in round figures, £11,000,000 from the British Isles and only £100,000 from other parts of the world. That, at any rate, does not look as if British manufacturers and workmen were having much difficulty in competing with their rivals and getting this trade. Not only is that so, but in point of fact the bulk of the material which is thus purchased here is, of course, purchased on its merits, and its merits lie in the superior price, quality, and terms of delivery over those of other countries. I have not the slightest doubt, having looked carefully at the figures, that the money that is going to be expended under these loans, when they are raised—and the money will not all be raised in this year— will be expended mainly in this country, and that by attempting to impose an obligation which I could not accept, in view of the opinion expressed by the Government of India, you would defeat your own object, and it would go out that this Committee was trying to shackle —that would be the argument used by the extremists—the Indian Government, who wish to bring about a most desirable state of affairs, by which a large and ever increasing amount of railway material for India is purchased in this country. Far better leave it to the ordinary operations of the contract system which the Government of India has set up, and which has in effect produced an enormous proportion of British goods, compared with the goods from foreign countries, for these railways.

Mr. TERRELL

I am very much obliged to my Noble Friend for the statement he has made, and, of course, I know the extreme delicacy of the whole position. I felt it extremely difficult, when I was urging the case which I put forward last night, for the Government in so many words to say it would accept the proposal which I then made, but what we have to guard against at this moment is the possibility of British firms competing against countries where they have a collapsed exchange. That is the great difficulty. We cannot compete against Germany or Belgium, or, I should imagine, in some cases against our ally, France. There is a precedent for what I urge in this, that no-one ever heard of a single pennyworth of material which France might be ordering from one of her Colonies being placed with a firm outside France. If France raises a loan for one of her Colonies, the whole of that money is expended in France, and I think the same thing applies to Belgium, and it certainly applied before the War in Germany. We cannot consider this matter in a hurry, dealing with the Second Beading at night and the Committee stage in the morning. We want time for consideration, and while I do not want to press it further now, I hope my Noble Friend will arrange that the next stages of this Bill shall be postponed until after the Easter Recess.

Sir F. BANBURY

I understood the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) to ask why the Indian Government had not raised the freightage on goods in India. That was an extraordinary request coming from such a quarter. I have always understood that one of the great crimes of the English railway companies was that they had raised their freights, and that the manufacturers were now tearing their hair in order to get their freightage reduced. But now comes the hon. Member for Royton, who wants to know why, where he is not concerned to pay, the freightage is not raised.

Mr. SUGDEN

I am sorry the right hon. Baronet has misunderstood me, but in business, as he probably knows better than I do, it is usual that there should be a certain equipoise between returns and expenditure, and when one remembers that the Indian railways are to a major extent State-owned, it will be seen, I think, that the State should not carry what industry should carry, and vice versa. That is why I suggested that the freightage should be more equitable and not, as it is sometimes in this country, inequitable.

Sir F. BANBURY

I understood the hon. Member to say they are making large profits in India, and if they are making large profits, why raise the freightage?

Mr. SUGDEN

I did not say that.

Sir F. BANBURY

I thought the hon. Member did say that. The hon. Member also wanted to know whether the raising of this money would not interfere with the raising of loans by municipalities—a most extraordinary doctrine. Does he forget that India is a part of this Empire just as much as Manchester is a part of the Empire, and why should Manchester receive a preference which is denied to India? The hon. Member did not, I think, make any protest against the loans which have been raised in the last 12 months by the Dominion Government of Australia, by New Zealand, and by Queensland. I am not aware that the hon. Member suggested that any Clause should be put in which would compel those Dominions to buy their material in England. I have never heard of such a proposal, and I am not aware that when a municipality comes to borrow money such a Clause is put in the loan granted to the municipality.

I remember some years ago that the Conservative party were in opposition, and they came down here on some question which was to be raised with regard to the cotton duties in India, and it was supposed that the Conservative party, which was then only in a minority of something like 32, would defeat the then Liberal Government. It was when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister. We were all "whipped" to come down, and there is no doubt that we could have got a certain number of Members from the Liberal side of the House and could have defeated the Government. In the course of the long period during which I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I can hardly ever remember a speech which has really turned a vote, but on that occasion Lord Wolverhampton, who was then Sir Henry Fowler and Secretary of State for India, made a speech. He wound up by saying, "Mr. Speaker, we are all Members for India," with the consequence that only quite a minute portion of the House went into the Lobby against the Government, and the Government had a great triumph, the majority of Conservative Members, including myself, supporting the then Radical Government of the day, our views having been entirely changed by Sir Henry Fowler's speech, which, as I said before, wound up with these words: "Mr. Speaker, we are all Members for India." I hope the Committee will remember those words. This is a time of serious crisis in India, and I hope we are not going to squabble over a small matter of this sort, which is absolutely in order and which follows the precedent of every Indian loan from time immemorial. The only effect of imposing these obligations would be to encourage the agitators and revolutionaries in India.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

I have already spoken on three earlier days on the Bill. I am all for it. I gather that the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) infers that if this money be raised in this country, its raising will be standing in the way of our manufacturers and industries, but I do not think there is anything to support that view. The Paris-Lyons Railway and the Midi Railway and the Nord and Orleans Railways in the last four or five weeks have raised £10,000,000 of money here, and those railways do not make a profit, but they have the guarantee of the French Government behind them. They come here and raise £10,000,000 at such a price that the securities then issued are to-day at a premium, and I say that shows that there is no lack of money for good investments or for sound trading and manufacturing firms at home. I say to my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State: "Get on with the work. Get the money, and do not wait. Do not fear whether the Indian loans will stand in the way even of the conversion of British Government loans. Get the money from the public, and if you can get the Indian Legislature to buy the goods with that money in England, so much the better." Although I am a member of the Council of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, as well as of the National Union of Manufacturers' Organisation, of which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) is President, I do not take his view. I take the view of my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary that it would be very 'bad policy on our part to try and make any stipulation as to where this money should be spent. What he should try to do is to get the money as cheaply as he can in this country or India, and we should produce the goods as cheaply as possible and of as good quality as possible as well. There is another reason why the issue: of this loan 6hould be got on with at once. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that about 13,000 or 14,000 young officers are out of employment and on the Appointments Department roll. Here is an opportunity of getting some employment for them out in India, in His Majesty's Dominions. If this money is raised and work begun, we shall probably get employment for some of these men.

There was one point which my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary touched upon this afternoon which seemed to me to go to the very kernel of the whole discussion. On the occasions on which I have already spoken on this Bill, I have asked myself the reason why the India Office nowadays still comes and asks for authority here to raise loans of this sort. I was very glad to hear my Noble Friend say, and put it on record, that he takes the view7 that it is absurd that India should come and ask for this permission at all. The law should be revised, and revised so far as it requires the authority of Parliament before India can float loans in Britain. It is an anomaly, and it is a point that I have made on three earlier occasions. He said last night, if I understood him correctly, that there are altered circumstances with regard to India. I do not believe that the security of these loans is in any way impaired by the alteration. I believe Indian Government loans are perhaps among the safest investments outside Britain into which Englishmen can put their money, but it is true that circumstances connecting Britain with India in legislative matters have altered, and Mr. Speaker has ruled that we cannot discuss matters of domestic import which have been dealt with by the Indian Assembly. Now the Under-Secretary comes down to the House and asks for permission to raise money in London. What is the implication? That a guarantee has been given him by the House of Commons to raise these loans. But such is not the case. The implication in the minds of trustees and others with regard to these loans, although not guaranteed by the House of Commons and the British Government, is that there is a sort of implied or moral guarantee. I think, therefore, when loans in a future Bill are issued under the provisions of Clause 3, the view the Noble Lord takes, that the House should not be again asked to authorise them, is a sound one. Either these loans are, by implication, indirectly —certainly not directly—guaranteed by this House, because authority is asked for them, or they are not. And the public is misled if the authority has no meaning so far as a guarantee is concerned. It really has no meaning or value as security. There is a feeling in my mind that that permission is needless, for another reason. The Treasury would not object to these loans being issued under Clause 3.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am afraid the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech on this Clause. We are now discussing the Clause, and not the whole principle of the Bill. That was settled on Second Reading.

Mr. SAMUEL

As my Noble Friend touched upon that point, I thought I might trespass on your kindness and go a little further, but I should like to ask him whether he can see his way, before this Bill goes through this House, to give us a little more time so that Clause 3 may be dealt with at greater length.

Sir J. D. REES

My Noble Friend dealt with this Clause so clearly and forcibly that I am far from able to improve on what he said. But, having spent 25 years in India, and having been for almost an equal length of time an Indian railway director, I rise to reinforce what has been said about the absolute impossibility of making any condition that the purchases under these loans should be made in the United Kingdom. I think it is a matter of common knowledge in this House that India, which was formerly inhabited by different races, and is now, has developed something like a common Indian nationality. It is, in consequence, unusually race proud, and nothing more offensive to the vocal class—which, at present, represents, if not all, at any rate is accepted as representing the people of India—could be suggested, nothing more unfortunate could be put forward than any condition that these materials should necessarily be purchased in the United Kingdom. I may say that on one of the largest railways in India, of which I am a director, we have had this question up repeatedly. Every director has wished to give orders to British manufacturers, but whenever it has been abundantly clear that the interests of the owners of the railway, who, to the extent of 13/14ths, in this case, are the taxpayers of India, were at stake, we have considered their interests, and given the order whenever it could be most cheaply and efficiently executed.

There is another reason why it is particularly unfortunate that this matter should be pressed. Reference has been made to the conditions under which these loans are to be raised, and to the fact that the consent of the Secretary of State is necessary under a particular Statute. Several hon. Members have expressed a desire that that Statute should be abolished. I, on the contrary, sincerely hope it will not on any account be repealed, but will be kept in force. Therefore, I am most anxious not to see any points raised, or any conditions suggested, which would lead to an agitation in India for the repeal of the Statute under which a Bill in this House becomes necessary.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Baronet is, no doubt, now going into a general discussion. We must only discuss the Clause before the House, which is neither the whole Bill nor the principle governing the Bill.

Sir J. D. REES

You have allowed a rather wide discussion, and I only incidentally noted that this request would be very likely to lead to an agitation for the purpose I mention. I wanted to dissociate myself entirely from the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), which, I think, on the Indian owners of railways in India cannot but have an unforutnate effect.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY

I should also like to dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Chippenham. I think if we in this country were to impose any such obligations upon the Government of India, as have been suggested by the hon. Member, it would raise an issue which might create the greatest difficulties for us in India. Apart from that, I think it would create an absolutely new precedent in this Empire. I will go so far as to say that there is not a single Crown Colony, the smallest colony in the Empire, which raises a loan in this country, which is not given a certain amount of latitude as to the way in which its money is raised or contracts are placed. I have risen, therefore, merely to state that if in this Bill we were to put anything which would enable this Government to bring pressure to bear upon the Indian Government to place contracts in this country, the same thing would apply, and must apply, to the Colonies throughout the Empire. I think that that would be a most dangerous thing. When the hon. Member for Chippenham suggests that that is a policy which France and Belgium adopt with their own colonies, I say that that is a policy which we should never follow in this country.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT

I would like to put to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) the question, who is ultimately to find the money which is to be expended? The money is to be found by the taxpayer in India, and his representative in the Legislative Assembly has given a clear indication of the way in which he wishes the money to be laid out. I have heard in India from people not well disposed to the British Government, and I have even heard it in this country, that England is exploiting India. It is a libel; it is absolutely untrue. But let us be careful we do not give colour to that charge by making restrictions of this kind. I am sure the hon. Member for Chippenham will see that it is a reasonable thing I am putting to him. Let us be careful we do not get into collision with the Legislative Assembly of India upon a matter of this kind. It would be deplorable beyond anything we can conceive. I feel that there is a strong objection in this House to any such inequitable limitation as this would be, and I hope that in India it will be clearly understood that there is no strong opinion in England in favour of any such limitation. The Noble Lord last night and to-day gave us abundant reasons why we need not be afraid of the competition of other countries. The amount of £11,000,000 laid out in British contracts, against £100,000,000 sent to foreigners, tells its own tale, and shows that there is no need for any such limitation as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL

I think this discussion has served to remind this Committee of the changed relations between the Government at home and the Government of India. I venture to say that the Noble Lord might have shortened the discussion very much if he had dealt at the outset with one or two points. It is obvious that, however much one might desire—and I think the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) is very unhappy in the entire isolation of his view—that this money should be applied entirely to purchases of material in this country, it would be beyond the power of the representative of the Government of India in this House to make that concession, or this House to ask, or the Government of India to give consent, having regard to their duty to the people who will pay the taxes. The Noble Lord will remember that we were asking, in reference to this money last night, whether any financial arrangements have been made. I think he will see the fairness of the question being put as to how far the money market may be affected, how far consultations have gone, and whether any arrangements whatsoever have been made. I think the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) is one that the Government should answer sympathetically, because he is a very loyal supporter of the Government. It is that the Government could have shown, as my Noble Friend could show so easily and readily, that the effect of raising this loan does not in any way prejudice or hamper the ability of the home trader to borrow money for the conduct of his own business; but my Noble Friend would not deal with that point. I take the view of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). I assume this money will be raised in different proportions up to £50,000,000, and, in view of the fact that there is something like £2,000,000,000, if not more, at this moment on deposit, the suggestion that the raising of £20,000,000 or £25,000,000 over a period of time will seriously prejudice the lending by banks to bonâ-fide borrowers and municipal loans, I think is a very wild suggestion, quite part from the figures. I would say this to my Noble Friend— he will forgive me for the parting shot— that it has been a great pleasure for me to observe that the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) have been roused to proclaim once more that it is the duty of every Government, and, I assume, of every individual when he is spending money, to buy in the cheapest market. It falls ill from them at this moment, because, much as we desire that every penny raised in this country on this Indian Loan should be spent in this country, the fact is that by an Act, for which the Noble Lord and others are responsible, the cost of manufactures in this country has been artifically raised by the introduction of tariffs, and to that extent will prejudice cur opportunity of obtaining the orders when placed.

Mr. LAWSON

I was present at the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, and I remember very well the Measure going through there almost without a word. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) was not present at the Committee stage, neither was he present at the Report stage. Last night, I understand at something like half-past twelve, he wanted to know where the Labour party was, and that after some of us had been sitting on these Benches all day! At this late, or rather early, hour he comes down to the House and wants this Measure delayed until after the Recess. I do not see why. I am not going to help this Government in financial or any other measures, and I cannot see why there should be any guarantee given in connection with this Measure, or that it should be put over until the Recess in order to suit the number of firms and the financial interests that the hon. Member particularly represents.

While I speak with diffidence upon the matter of Indian finance, I want to say that we on these Benches do not see why, if this money is to be raised here as a loan to India, it should not be spent in this country. We think that a perfectly valid point. At the same time we do not want to drive that point to what I should call the point of insanity. I agree with the interpretation of the Noble Lord. I understand this matter has come before the House for 50 years without any such limitation as those suggested. In anyone else suggests limitations in an ordinary way it should be Labour. As a matter of fact there has been no limitations for 50 years. There is a much more important point to take into consideration. Quite recently the Indian people have been granted a measure of self-government and it is not for us at this particular time to place further limitations than have already been laid upon them during the past half-century. I think I agree with the Noble Lord that it would be doing violence to our economic and our financial professions for that country. I think I ought to say this because we on the Labour Benches stand against these continuous loans for the exploitation of the Colonial and Dominion markets. At the same time we are not going to support any measure which will limit the freedom of the expression of the Indian people, be it financial or in any other way.

Mr. SEDDON

I rise in answer to what was said by the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Lyle-Samuel), when he, made the remark that the Noble Lord might have curtailed the Debate had he answered one or two questions. I am very glad the Debate has not been curtailed, but that there has been an expression of opinion all round the House. The hon. Gentlemen who represent Royton (Mr. Sugden) and Chippenham (Mr. Terrell) have been severely alone in their attitude of mind towards our fellow-subjects in India. We all know that at the present time India is going through a great crisis. We know their aspirations from their Press, which as democratics we must see developed step by step. If the attitude of mind, or expressed thoughts, of the hon. Member for Royton are to be taken as an indication of the opinion of this House, then I am certain that injury will have been done so far as that great country is concerned. I wish to join—for it is not often one has the opportunity of doing so—in the general chorus of opproval of what the Government is doing, and I sincerely trust the result of this short Debate will be the assurance to India that the two hon. Members who have spoken in so derogatory a manner of the rights and claims of India only represent themselves.

Colonel Sir C. YATE

I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) say that he objected to loans to the Dominions and to other parts of the Empire. Personally, I am only too delighted that loans should be granted for the advantage of our Dominions and the opening of them out in every possible way. I trust the Noble Lord will stick to his Resolution, and pass this Bill without any further delay.

Earl WINTERTON

May I express my great gratitude to the Committee and to all those who have supported this Bill, particularly this Clause (3), which will have a good effect in India? We have had, I think, if I may respectfully say so, a very good Debate. I thought I had answered the point put by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Lyle-Samuel), but the various points brought forward shall be given careful consideration.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 4 (Issue of Bonds) and 5 (Power to redeem securities at a premium, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.