The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-03-08

parliament for White Chapel, and well
known as a member Of the banking house
Of Samuel Montague & Co., earnestly sup
ported Sir Henry's motion and argued in
favor of bimetallism. Other bimetallists
also addressed the house in behalf Of the
proposition.
Mr.. Gladstone in reply reminded the
house that the international monetary con-
ference met at the initiative of the United
States and it would be an unprecedented
proceeding now to deprive America Of the
initiative. England had followed the Brus-
sells discussion with more or less sympathy
and had right to expect from the United
States a declaration as to what step that
country proposed to take next. In the
opinion of the government no plan yet
proposed showed how it was possible to
change the standard of value in Great Brit
ain. It would place the government in a
ridiculous position if it should assume the
initiative in reopening the conference, hav-
ing nothing to recommend for discussion.
Mr.. Gladstone said that England was not
alone among civilized nations in her deter
mination to adhere to her present monetary
system. Seven other powers, without the
slightest reference to England, had signi6ed
their intention not to change their currency.
Half of the powers represented at the con-
ference had shown that they leaned toward
bimetallism, but as yet they had not given
the most shadowy indication of what change
they were prepared to make. In conclusion
Mr.. Gladstone made an elaborate exposition
of the benefits of monometallism and the
dangers of bimetallism.
Mr.. Chaplin, president of the beard Of
agriculture under the last Salisbury ad-
ministration, supported the motion of Sir
henry Meysey- Thomson. At the Brussels
conference, he said, Bertram Currie British
delegate) persistently and deliberately did
everything in his power to defeatthe objects
of the meeting.
Sir William Vernon Harcourt, chancellor
of the exchequer, repudiated Mr.. Chaplin's
charge against Mr.. Currie. The British
delegates, he said, had been almost the only
ones to support the American resolution in
favor of extending the use of silver. From
Rrst to last bimetallism had been at the
bottom of the conference, as it was at the
bottom of the present debate. The failure
of the conference had been due to the alb
sence of all definite proposals. If the
United States should reconvene the confer
ence and submit definite proposals the
British government would be happy to send
back their delegates, but could not be OK
pected to provide a scheme for the more
extensive use of silver. He pointed to the
returns of the income tax and death duties
to prove the growth Of the country's wealth.
He contended that the agricultural depres-
sion, which was largely responsible for the
bimetallistic agitation, was only temporary.
The motion before the house, he said, was
intended to raise prices, an operation which
the government could not undertake, as it
was outside its province.
Mr.. Balfour, leader of the unionist oppo-
sition, denies that he. or any of his COL
leagues desires a monetary system which
would raise prices. The motion was not in
favor of bimetallism. The fact was that
= the government had decided to do nothing
to remedy the present evils, evident both
in trade and agriculture.
Sir Henry Meysey- -ThOmson's motion
eventually was rejected by vote of 229 to
) 148. The announcement ofthe vote was re-
) ceived with loud liberal cheers.