HC Deb 13 June 1871 vol 206 cc2023-42
MR. FAWCETT

rose to call attention to a Petition recently presented to this House, numerously and influentially signed by Native and European inhabitants of India, in reference to the Financial and General Administration of the Affairs of that Country; and to move— That, in order to make an inquiry into the finances and financial administration of India as complete and satisfactory as possible, this House is of opinion that it would be expedient to obtain either by the granting of a Commission, or by some other means, evidence in India on the subject, both from Native and European inhabitants of that Country. The hon. Member said, that the Petitioners directed attention to the fact that in India there had been a succession of deficits, antagonistic to the well-being and credit of the country, and involving an increased and new taxation alien to the feelings and the customs of the people, and likely to create in their minds a sentiment of opposition to British rule. They then asserted that these deficits might be avoided if the finances of India were administered with greater statesmanship and economy. They alluded particularly to the Public Works Department, in which they alleged there was great waste, prodigality, and extravagance, and they asserted that many costly public works had been or were in the course of being carried out which were not likely to prove remunerative, and which would throw a heavy burden on the people of India. Further, they asserted that there was no proper check on the sums expended on stores in England, they being frequently purchased at extravagant rates. They next referred to the Home charges, complaining that there was no proper control over the Indian money spent in this country, and they asserted that Indian Budgets would continue to be uncertain as long as the Home charges were uncertain. Next, they objected to the vexation and the corruption which they asserted were sometimes caused by the collection of the income tax. They referred likewise to the inadequate representation of the Natives in the administration of the affairs of their country, stating that the unfairness of such inadequate representation was heightened by the fact that the greater portion of the year was spent by the Government at Simla, where it was difficult for the non-official Members to follow them, so that the Administrative were separated from the Executive parts of the Government. They further referred to certain changes which might be carried out in the Army, and they alluded particularly to the importance of abolishing the separate military commands in the different Presidencies. Having made these allegations, they went on to pray that a Commission might be appointed to take evidence in India on the subject. When this sub- ject was referred to in "another place," an extraordinary and unprecedented response was made on the part of Her Majesty's Government. They said to the Marquess of Salisbury—"If you press for a Commission to take evidence in India, we shall consider that it is a censure on the Government of India, and, in fact, we shall treat it as a Vote of Want of Confidence in that Government." He entreated the independent Members of that House to put an end to this system of treating almost every Motion as one involving a Vote of Want of Confidence. If, indeed, they did not make a strong protest against the practice, they would never have any question decided upon its merits, as the Government would constantly resort to a subterfuge that would prove fatal to the independence of the House. There was no ground whatever for treating this Petition from the people of India as though it involved a censure of, or a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government of India; and he (Mr. Fawcett) thought that the proposal of the Petitioners might be supported on three very distinct grounds of approval. In the first place, the demand of the Petitioners was in itself reasonable; secondly, the argument of the Government that a Vote of Want of Confidence was involved was absolutely indefensible; and, thirdly, it could be easily shown that no investigation into the affairs of India could be complete or satisfactory if evidence on the subject were not taken in India. By consenting to the appointment of a Select Committee, Her Majesty's Government had admitted that Indian finance and financial administration required investigation. Why, then, should there not be an inquiry in India as well as in England? What would be said if Englishmen had to go to India and give evidence respecting the finances of this country? Still, they might go there, although the cost and inconvenience would be very great; but it must not be forgotten that a large proportion of the Natives of India absolutely refused, for reasons connected with their religion and caste, to cross the ocean; and, consequently, their evidence could not be taken except in India. It might, perhaps, be said that he was one of the first to suggest the appointment of the Select Committee, and that he now came forward to ask for something more. Nothing could be further from his intentions than to say a word against that Committee which had now been sitting for three months, the revelations and the results of which would, he believed, be far more important than anyone could have anticipated. Nevertheless, that Committee would not do all that was necessary. The Petition he had referred to alleged that no investigation could be complete and satisfactory unless evidence was taken in India. Among the subscribers to that Petition was Mr. Boleyn Smith, the President of the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce, and also a non-official member of the Legislative Council there. In their Petition they distinctly asserted that unless evidence was taken in India, it was impossible for the investigation to be complete and for all the facts to be ascertained. If the request to have evidence taken in India was refused, a bad impression would be produced in that country, and much of the good which the investigation would otherwise do would be lost; for the people of India would say we not only refused to give them adequate representation, but we wished to create an impassable gulf between the rulers and the ruled, because we refused those who were most affected by a special investigation an opportunity of expressing their views. Every statesman who had considered Indian affairs had concluded that the greatest problem we had to solve was to create greater communion in India between the rulers and the ruled. Sir Donald M'Leod had said that the people of India had no constitutional method of making their wants known; that the devising such a method was the most important problem which could present itself to Indian statesmen; and that unless it were solved our dominion in India could not be secured, and the continuance of our power there could not work for the good of the people; and he added that the want of sympathy and of understanding between the Government and the people was absolutely lamentable, and if something were not done to remedy the evil our power in India must be most gravely imperilled. Would not this want of sympathy and of understanding be intensified if we held a special inquiry, at which those who had the least opportunity of being heard would be the people of India themselves? It might be said that nothing could be elicited in India which could not be gathered by the Select Committee sitting in this House; but no one could express a confident opinion on that point; and, even admitting that a Commission would not elicit a single fact which could not be brought out by the Select Committee upstairs, that assumption would scarcely weaken the force of his argument, for, however painstaking and exhaustive the inquiry might be, unless Natives of India were examined, the people of that country would not believe that justice had been done them. No one would be less inclined than himself to join in passing censure upon the Governor General of India; and he maintained that a Commission in India would no more amount to such a censure than the inquiry here implied any censure upon the Secretary of State for India. If the Government opposed a Commission, probably at the bottom of their refusal would be a certain official dread that Natives of India would propagate strange doctrines, make unreasonable proposals, and show that they did not appreciate the so-called blessings of England's rule. If this officialism were to prevail, the blunders of the past would be repeated in the future, and as long as it continued we should never be able to create more confidence between ourselves and the people of India. Officials were prone to think that what was good for Europeans must be good for Hindoos; and we were too much inclined to the conclusion that, if we sent to India some institution which we worshipped as a political fetish, and if it were not appreciated by the Indian people, this want of appreciation was a proof of their inferiority in civilization. It was said that our rule had conferred many blessings upon India by increasing the safety of life and the security of property; and, certainly, if the blessings we had conferred were to be measured by taxation, life and property ought to be secure. One thing, at all events, they had obtained from us, and that was administrative extravagance; and, admitting what we had done for the material well-being of India, we must consider the cost at which it had been purchased. Twelve years ago the annual expenditure in India was £30,000,000; now it was £50,000,000; twelve years ago its debt was £60,000,000; now it was £100,000,000. Conceding all that was said of the material prosperity of India, it could not be maintained that that would satisfy the people and make them contented, if we continued to treat them as unworthy to be consulted, and unfit to be intrusted with any of the privileges of self-government. If the people of India were like the aborigines of Australia we might continue to treat them in this way; but their traditions of the highest civilization came down from a time anterior to Greek or Latin literature. The people of India ought gradually to be admitted to a greater share in the government of that country; and, as a step in that direction, he hoped the House would support him in the demand he was about to make, that means should be adopted for obtaining evidence on Indian finance and Indian administration. Possibly it might be said that the evil complained of was about to be redressed, and that we were giving the people of India a higher education. But the higher the education they received only intensified the evil of excluding them from the government of the country. The House had no higher mission to perform than to do everything in its power to increase the sympathies between the English and Indian subjects of the Empire; and he ventured to think if independent Members, either by their votes or the expression of their opinions, should be the means of obtaining the Commission he sought for obtaining evidence in India, they would render no unimportant service to that great dependency; for they would at least show that the House was anxious that the people of India should be, as far as possible, taken into counsel—that their feelings should be inquired into, their wants ascertained, and redress given where redress was needed. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in order to make an inquiry into the finances and financial administration of India as complete and satisfactory as possible, this House is of opinion that it would be expedient to obtain, either by the granting of a commission or by some other means, evidence in India on the subject both from Native and European inhabitants of that Country."—(Mr. Fawcett.)

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, that the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) deserved the careful consideration of the House. To one alone he particularly wished to call attention. There were a number of feudatories whose dominions had from time to time been absorbed by the English Government, and to whom pensions or annuities had been secured by treaty in lieu of the rights which they surrendered. Questions, however, were continually raised as to the duration of a succession to these annuities, and when the heir of one of these feudatories attempted to assert his right against the Government he was met by the plea that the treaty under which he claimed was an Act of State of which no Court of Law could take cognizance. This state of things had been aggravated by Sunnuds granted by Lord Canning to the successors of these feudatories after the Indian Mutiny, guaranteeing their rights and the succession to them according to Mohammedan law, or the custom of the country or the family, as the case might be. These Sunnuds were, no doubt, most proper in themselves; but the construction of them was in many cases a purely legal question, and the parties interested were stopped from a decision of them by any competent tribunal in the manner he had stated. In one case within his own knowledge the Court of First Instance, notwithstanding the plea in question had been raised by Government, had entertained the case, upon which the Government appealed to the Privy Council, who held that a legal tribunal had no jurisdiction, and that the plea therefore must be maintained; but in giving judgment the Judicial Committee made such strong observations on the conduct of the Government, that the latter compromised the case. He believed if all such questions were referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for judgment, a much greater sense of satisfaction and security would be spread among the Natives of India. He trusted the matter would be taken into consideration by the Government.

MR. GRANT DUFF

Before alluding to the Resolution which is now before us, I wish to point out to the House that that Resolution is not the Resolution which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) put upon the Paper, and which he kept on the Paper till within the last two or three days. That Resolution ran as follows:— To call attention to a Petition recently presented to this House, numerously and influentially signed by Native and European Inhabitants of India, in reference to the Financial and General Administration of Affairs in that Country; and to move, That, considering the wide-spread discontent existing amongst the Native and European Inhabitants of India in reference to the Financial and General Administration of the Affairs of that Country, this House is of opinion that it would be expedient to appoint a Commission, so that evidence might be obtained on the subject in India, both from Natives and Europeans: And, to move, That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to take steps to obtain more fully and precisely the opinions of the Native and European inhabitants of India, with regard to the finances and financial administration of that Country. The House will see that that Resolution is conceived in a totally different spirit from the new one. I do not know, Sir, whether you would rule that the hon. Member has exceeded his extreme rights in obtaining a place upon the Paper on behalf of one Resolution, and then replacing it by another so different, both in the reasons on which it is founded, and in the course which it proposes; but of this, Sir, I am quite certain—that not only all hon. Members, but all honourable men will be of opinion that for one in the responsible position of a Member of this great Assembly to attach his name to the proposition, that there is general discontent among the Native and European inhabitants of India, and then after giving as wide publicity to that statement as he could, to run away at the last moment and to decline to take the judgment of the House upon that question, is not a proceeding calculated to advance the interests of the country. But now for the new Resolution of the hon. Member. If the name attached even to it had not been that of any Member of the House except himself I should have listened to it with some surprise, for a stranger proposal has not, I think, often been made to us. It will be in the recollection of many that the hon. Member, catching last year some echo of the grumbling with which an income tax of 7½d. in the pound was greeted in India by the small but influential class which had to pay it, became, or appeared to become, very much alarmed about the state of Indian finance, and informed us that he would move this Session for a Committee on that subject. The Government, believing that nothing but good could come from laying bare the whole state of the finance and financial administration of our great Eastern dependency, met the hon. Member much more than half-way, and moved for the appointment of a Committee, which was appointed and immediately entered upon its duties. That Committee, exceptionally large from the first, consists now of 27 Members, many of whom attend most closely and take an active part in the examination of the witnesses. There have already been 17 meetings, though only a moderate portion of the gigantic subject with which we have to deal has been traversed; but I appeal to every hon. Member of that Committee to say whether there has been, either on the part of the Chairman or of myself, the slightest shadow of an attempt to shut out any evidence whatsoever that could reasonably be expected to throw light into the inquiry, or even to suggest that the Committee should not investigate everything which could by any fair interpretation come within our Order of Reference—and it is difficult to say what branch of Government will not come under an Order of Reference which instructs us to deal with the moving power of every branch of Government—with finance and financial administration. These things being so, the hon. Member calmly comes down, and telling the House, in effect, that its Committee is incapable of arriving at the truth and of satisfying opinion in India, proposes to send a Commission to that country. Well, if sending a Commission to India would not be sending coals to Newcastle I do not know what that phrase means. Why, how do you govern India, except by a British Commission perpetually renewed? I have always thought that it is most important, from time to time, to inquire into the affairs of India by Select Committees of this or of the other House of Parliament, because it is most important to keep the necessarily despotic Commission which governs India in harmony with the tone and spirit of our Constitutional and Parliamentary system; but why you should send out another Commission to do a part of the work which is being already done by your standing Commission is more than I can understand. I can, on the other hand, quite understand why the course he adopts should appear a natural one to the hon. Member. It is so very much easier to come down here and to make good, strong, round assertions, than to sit hour after hour upstairs, patiently waiting, till your turn comes, to try and prove by examining or cross-examining a witness the truth of those strong assertions, and hearing every moment facts and opinions which conflict with dearly cherished theories. I can, I say, quite understand, after sitting on Committee with him, why the hon. Member should be dissatisfied with the tribunal which he himself proposed and should suggest another method of arriving at what he would describe as the truth. To allude to evidence that has been given before that Committee, which may not have been acceptable to the hon. Member, would, of course, be out of Order, and so I will not do it; but I may say, with regard to the future, that the chief pleasure to which I look forward on this Committee—and at the best there is not very much pleasure to be got out of a Committee in the month of June—is seeing the writhings of the theories of the hon. Member as witness after witness touches them with the light of fact, just as Ithuriel touched that other hon. Gentleman with his spear.

And now a word about the Petition that gives occasion, or rather opportunity, for the hon. Member's Motion. It consists of 20 paragraphs. Of these, the first 10 and the 15th relate to matters which may come directly within the cognizance of the Committee on East Indian Finance and Financial Administration. About the points raised in these paragraphs I will say nothing, for the very simple reason that what the House wants to know with regard to them is not either the opinion of the Government or the opinion of the hon. Member for Brighton. What it wants to know is the opinion of its own Committee, when that Committee has taken the usual means of forming an opinion; but just to show the carelessness, the neglect of the most ordinary methods of arriving at correct conclusions which have inspired the authors of this Petition, I will read one paragraph, and then explain the state of the case with regard to it. Paragraph 8 runs as follows:— With reference to the Home charges generally, your Petitioners submit that the people of India have the same right to be furnished with a full account of the expenditure of that portion of their revenue, which is disbursed in England, as of that which is disbursed in India; and that, as regards such of the charges concerned as are not of a fixed and permanent character, a power of practical control should be vested in the Government of India, or in some authority responsible immediately to it. Now, here is the answer which is furnished to this, in an extract from the speech made on the 9th of March last by Sir Richard Temple, the very man who would have had most reason to complain, if the statements put forward by the Petitioners had had any foundation in fact— Before finally quitting the finances of the year I must ask leave to notice certain remarks which have been made, and, indeed, reiterated, regarding the accounts of the Home Treasury of the Government of India which are kept in England. It has been said that the expenditure in England on account of India is incurred without sufficient reference to the authorities in India, and that the detailed accounts of it are not made known in India. Now, I showed, in my last exposition, that by far the greatest part of that expenditure is really incurred either under rules proposed by the Government of India, or upon requisitions made by the Government of India. So far we ourselves must accept a very large share of the responsibility. There are some exceptions to this; but they are not considerable. So much for the expenditure. No doubt the accounts of that expenditure are kept under the direct orders of the Secretary of State for India. But they are rendered to us, month by month, with the greatest regularity and the fullest detail. We again publish the account annually, with all its details, in The Gazette of India, and have usually done so for years past; the publication taking place in the summer. In short, the information before the public in India regarding the expenditure in England, is as full as that regarding any portion of the public expenditure whatever. That contradiction is, I think, pretty decisive; but if the hon. Member for Brighton thinks that he can substantiate the views of the Petitioners on that or any other point where they pass out of the region of mere truism and commonplace, he has got his tribunal upstairs, and I wish him much joy of his chances of success. There are, however, a few matters noted in the Petition which do not come within even the wide sweeping net of a Committee on Finance and Financial Administration, about which I may be expected to say a little. The 11th and 12th paragraphs complain of the existing constitution of the Viceregal Council; the 13th deprecates the resort of the supreme Government to the hills; the 14th, against which the Native Petitioners protest, proposes to make the Governor General more independent of the Home authorities—or, in other words, of the Cabinet of the day and of Par- liament—and the paragraphs from the 15th to the end complain of the present organization of the Native Army, and pray for a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole circle of subjects to which the Petitioners allude—that is, in effect, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, into the whole financial and general administration of the country.

Now, as to the constitution of the Viceregal Legislative Council, and as to the present organization of the Native Army. These may conceivably become one day legitimate subjects for separate inquiries; but both the Council and the Army are quite new institutions, dating from 1861, only 10 years ago; and to inquire into them at present would be to imitate the behaviour of a child who digs up seeds to see how they are growing. These questions, I say, may conceivably some day require examination; but the instrument of that examination will not, I should think, in either case be a Royal Commission. As to the first, a Committee of this House would surely be in every way a fitter tribunal to try the question—how far representative institutions can be extended to our Asiatic possessions. I know no reason in the nature of things why they should not some day or other be so extended; but the time has not arrived for a real representation in India. Even here representative institutions grew very slowly, and although it is natural enough that these Petitioners should ask for the re-modelling of the Legislative Council because they fancy that they will thereby obtain some accession of influence, we must not forget that they are interested parties.

With regard to the present organization of the Native Army, that, too, may be conceivably one day a very legitimate subject for a separate inquiry; but the mode of inquiry which is alone at present applicable is being applied now, for the Native Army is constantly being watched and constantly examined by your great officers in India. If they are incompetent — if Lord Mayo and Lord Napier of Magdala are unfit to advise the Government as to the Native Army—recall them, and send better men, if you can find them, in their place; but do not supersede them by sending a Royal Commission to take off their hands, perhaps, the very gravest and most responsible part of their duty; for, after all that has happened, it would be idle to deny that the good ordering of the Native Army must be always one of the most important portions of the duties to be performed by the great officers of the Queen in India. I need not add, I am sure, that it is one of the most delicate, as well as one of the most important portions of their duty—just about the last to be handed over as part of a bundle of subjects to be inquired into by a Royal Commission, mainly constituted with a view to inquire into finance, for much more than half the Petition relates to that subject, which was evidently uppermost in the minds of the Petitioners. It remains to say a word as to the proposed independence of the Viceroy and the resort of the Government to Simla. As to the first, I have already pointed out that the Native Petitioners will have none of it. They know that the Europeans who have signed it merely wish the Viceroy to be independent, because they think they can act upon him, and they know they cannot act upon the Home Government; but does the Viceroy ask for more independence? Will not every Viceroy tell you that in 99 cases out of 100—in every case, I may say—where the House of Commons does not positively interfere, the tendency of the Home Government under all Administrations is always to strengthen the hand of the Viceroy? When it does not do so, it almost always is because some particular course could not be reconciled with British opinion; and while India remains a dependency of the British Crown it must be governed in the last resort by British opinion, wisely, cautiously, even diffidently expressed—expressed after hearing all that the specialists have to say—but still British opinion.

As to the annual removal of the Supreme Government to Simla, the opposition to it arises merely from the private interests and quite natural prejudices of the inhabitants of Calcutta; but a very short-sighted opposition it is, for it is pretty clear that if the Government of India had to remain in one place year out and year in, it would not remain in Calcutta. Once let the annual resort to Simla, or some other place where the European can work at full power during the hot season, be given up, and Calcutta will cease for ever and a day to be the political capital of India.

And next with reference to the cry that the Natives of India have not sufficient opportunity of expressing their views before this Committee. What is to prevent any Natives of India putting their views directly before the Committee, either in the shape of Petitions to this House—which would, of course, be immediately referred to it—or by sending over any person to be examined whom they may select, or by instructing any of their numerous countrymen here to go before the Committee? Already several Natives of India have been proposed as witnesses before that Committee, and I should fancy that the Committee would be only too happy to hear the evidence of any Natives of India, for whom the hon. Member desiring to call them would vouch as having anything to say that would be worth hearing. I am afraid, however, that most persons who know India will tell us that the views of the Natives of India upon finance and financial administration—and, indeed, upon all the problems which occupy us in connection with India—will fall under one of two heads. Either they will be mere reflections of some well-known form of Anglo-Indian opinion upon finance—say of the existing Governmental view, or of the more sanguine view which I may call Mr. Laing's view, or of what I may call the irrational view, which can be summed up in these words—"Diminish revenue, and increase expenditure;" or they will be the expression of the good old-fashioned pre-British view—"Make your taxes light, and leave your detestable improvements alone." The hon. Member has held forth to the House at great length upon consultative councils; but does he really think the Committee is so stupid that it will not investigate all the more plausible suggestions for the improvement of Indian Financial Administration? Why, for what other purpose was it appointed? Was it appointed only for the purpose of watching the hon. Member for Brighton engaged in the congenial occupation of finding mares' nests? It was unnecessary to appoint a Committee to do that. The House has been—sufficiently often—a witness to the hon. Member's success in that branch of ornithological research. Let the hon. Member make himself easy. If the Committee, after having used all the ample powers which the House has conferred on it, finds that it cannot execute the task which is committed to it, it will suggest some means for carrying the inquiry further. But it is for the Committee to do that, and not for a single Member—one twenty-seventh part of it. For the House to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member at this stage of the Committee's proceedings will be to pass upon that Committee a severe and quite undeserved censure. And I must therefore give, on the part of the Government, the most unqualified opposition to it.

MR. C. B. DENISON

said, by common consent and felicitous usage all parties in that House discussed Indian questions without reference to party politics. He would not, therefore, yield to the temptation of commenting on the extreme divergence of opinion shown by the speeches of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, and on the tone of unusual asperity adopted by his hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Brighton, but would keep to the question before the House. What was really for the good of India was the question they had to ask themselves. Was it the Committee or the proposed Royal Commission? To fall back on the latter would be to stultify themselves; for the Committee which was now sitting had not concluded one-half of its labours, or even made an interim report to the House. He agreed entirely in the concluding remarks of his hon. Friend, that circumstances might arise—he did not apprehend they would arise—which would prevent them getting the required information; and in that case it would be their duty to consider what steps should be taken to bring that information under their cognizance. But, as far as they could at present see, there was no reason to apprehend that any difficulty would be thrown in their way. The hon. Member for Brighton alluded to a gentleman who was president of the Chamber of Commerce, and laid great stress on the fact that he had signed the Petition praying for a Royal Commission. But he was coming as a witness before the Committee at his (Mr. C. B. Denison's) suggestion, and he should be much surprised to find that gentleman still adhering to the opinion that a Royal Commission was essential to the object they had in view. He could not agree that the Committee was appointed with a foregone conclusion that there were great abuses to remedy. His view was that there were some things which called for investigation, and others in which there were misapprehensions which the labours of the Committee would remove. And it must not be forgotten that in the Petition which formed the basis of the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton, there was internal evidence to lead to the belief that the Petitioners themselves were not at the time aware of the appointment of a Committee of that House. Under those circumstances he was strongly opposed to the Motion at the present moment, and preferred to wait the result of the labours of the existing Committee. If in any way thwarted in their inquiry it would be open to them to recommend Commissions to India, but that was a course open to many obvious objections and difficulties, and not to be lightly or hastily determined on.

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

said, he must agree with his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India in the remarks which he had made on the proposition that the Viceroy should be left more free. The reason why the non-official English in India desired more power for the Viceroy was because they thought they could bring more influence to bear on him than on the Secretary of State. The controlling powers of the Secretary of State were greatly approved of by the Natives, and he was not surprised that they should have dissented from this part of the Petition. There was, however, serious discontent at the present moment in India at the financial measures of the Government, as was proved by the number of Petitions from the four great cities, the unanimous opinion of the Press, and even the speeches in the Council of the Governor General where civil servants high in position testified to the discontent of the people, and the anxiety they themselves experienced while watching the constant increase in taxation. From the time of Lord Cornwallis to that of Lord Lawrence there was one creed in regard to taxation in India—namely, to trust mainly to the established sources of taxation, and to be most cautious in imposing new imposts. Lord Lawrence said in 1864 that the people were poor, and were impatient of any except the old modes of taxation, while Lord Canning declared he would rather govern India with 50,000 European soldiers and no income tax, than with twice that number with that impost. Although the income tax had now been lowered to 1 per cent, yet the grants from Imperial revenues for local wants having been reduced, the odium of raising further taxes had been thrown upon the local governments. Sir Seymour Fitzgerald stated this distinctly the other day, and actually proposed a tax upon feasts, which would have been an impost on the hospitality exercised at family gatherings and religious ceremonies. That proposition had been withdrawn; but other new taxes were about to be imposed. It would have been better to have reduced expenditure rather than to have resorted to these irritating measures, and he believed that great troubles were in store for us if this policy of increasing taxation at the arbitrary will of the Government was persevered in, for it was sowing broadcast the seeds of disaffection. He did not attach much importance to the objection that a Royal Commission would weaken confidence in the Governor General of India, for authority was not strengthened by refusing to inquire into grievances. But he did not entertain the conviction that a Royal Commission was necessary. There were former members of the service, and of the commercial classes now in this country, as competent to give evidence before the Select Committee as those persons who were now residing in India in the service of the State or in the pursuit of commerce. He admitted that inquiry without hearing the opinions of the members of the community most affected by the financial administration would be imperfect; but he thought we might reasonably expect that Native gentlemen of education and position would present themselves for examination before the Committee. The difficulties of the journey were not too great to preclude that idea; and the laws of caste were not so stringent as to prevent the adoption of such a course, as was evident from the number of Native gentlemen who now came to this country to pursue their studies. And, besides, he had no doubt that the great associations of wealthy landowners in Bengal and Oude would be ready to defray the expense of sending representatives to ex- pound their views. He saw no statement in the Petition to the effect that an inquiry could not be properly conducted in this country, and he did not think that those who had accepted the Committee would be acting in good faith towards the Government if they raised their demands to a Royal Commission in India. He was satisfied with the assurance that the portions of the Petition relating to finance should be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. AYRTON

, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Indian Finance, said he must oppose the Motion, which he considered to be unnecessary. Personally, he should be glad to see it carried, if it would relieve him from the duty of presiding over the long and arduous labours of the Committee, which was proceeding with great care, deliberation, and zeal, laying a broad foundation for further investigation, and qualifying its Members to give full consideration hereafter to questions connected with Indian finance. That subject, he might observe, was a most difficult one, for as expenditure had exceeded income, they would have to consider how financial operations could be brought within the resources of the country. It was satisfactory to know that this Petition had evidently been prepared without any knowledge of the fact that an inquiry was already proceeding. Persons who had presented other Petitions, on becoming acquainted with the circumstance that a Select Committee had been appointed, had expressed great satisfaction. An association including the most intelligent and influential persons in Bombay, and another association in London, of which a great many gentlemen connected with India were members, were also satisfied with the step which had been taken in appointing the Committee. It would be observed that the Committee which had been appointed had precisely the same duties and the same purpose as the Royal Commission would have, and that being so, the House would be placing itself in an extraordinary position if it appointed a Commission which was virtually to supersede its own Committee. He asked the House, out of respect to its own Committee, and out of consistency in its own proceedings, not to entertain the Motion of his hon. Friend. There could not be a Governor General administering the affairs of India, and at the same time another body roving about the country hearing evidence against the Governor General in Council, and against the Governors of the various Presidencies, without unsettling the minds of the people of the country. He trusted, therefore, seeing that the Committee possessed a capacity that could not belong to a Commission, that the House would not assent to the Motion.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he did not feel he was quite the man in that House to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett); but he did hope that the hon. Member would forgive him, if he asked him not to press his Motion to a division. He sympathized very deeply with the motives which had induced the hon. Member to bring forward this Motion, and he sympathized also with the persons who had signed the memorial to which he had called attention. The real grievance hitherto had been the great difficulty of calling the attention of the British Parliament, and especially the House of Commons, to Indian questions. When the Indian Budget came on for discussion it had been very difficult often to secure an attendance. At present they were happily in a very different position from that of late years, because that House had shown that it was alive to that difficulty, and they were now investigating, by a Committee, the financial condition of the country, and endeavouring to arrive at the truth as regarded its administration. If this had been a case of smothering inquiry he should not rise to assist the Government to stop inquiry, but it was because the present investigation had been entered on in a sincere and earnest spirit that he thought it very undesirable to throw any cold water on the new-born zeal of the House of Commons. What was really wanted was, that they should endeavour to understand these questions and investigate them for themselves; and though it might be hereafter found desirable to obtain information in the manner suggested by the Motion, yet until that time came, and until that fact was brought before the House by the Committee itself, it was contrary to the spirit in which the Petition had been drawn up that they should leave the Committee in the hands of a Royal Commission. That was the principal ground on which he would wish the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion. It would be unfortunate if the Motion should be pressed to a division and be defeated, because that result would lead to a misapprehension in India.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he should not have troubled the House further but for the very unusual tone which had been adopted by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India. Five years' experience in that House had convinced him that an hon. Member had done right in bringing a question forward, if the fact of its having been brought forward caused the Minister in charge of the Department to which the question related to lose his temper. The Under Secretary for India had characterized his line of conduct in altering the terms of his Motion as being one which would not have been taken by any honourable man; but he would remind the House that the Government had, after wasting much of the time of the Session, altered their course in reference to the Bill for the regulation, and re-organization of the Army without giving any previous notice of their intention at all. The Under Secretary for India stated further that he (Mr. Fawcett) last year constituted himself the organ of a small and discontented section in bringing forward a Motion for a Select Committee, but as a matter of fact the effect of his Motion had been the appointment of the Committee and the introduction of the Indian Budget early in the Session instead of at the end, as was the case heretofore. He should not, in deference to the appeal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), press his Motion to a division at the present moment; but he wished it to be clearly understood that if at any time hereafter the necessity for holding an inquiry in India was urged by witnesses from India to be examined before the Committee now sitting he should renew his Motion.

Motion, by leave withdrawn.