COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 28 July 1879)

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, that after the Division which took place on Friday he would venture to make a somewhat unusual appeal to the Government—namely, whether they could not make some other arrangement than they had done in the Bill? He had been looking into the provisions contained in the Bill, and more especially with reference to the respective amounts which India and England were to be called upon to contribute to the expenses of that war, and he did not think so large a proportion should be thrown upon India. He found that, out of 137 Members who voted for the second reading of the Bill no less than 29 were Members of the Government. Taking those from the majority, the result would be that the Government 1513 was in a minority of 17, in the opinion of independent Members. As there had been, practically, no attempt to place an Amendment with regard to the Bill on the Paper, he hoped that the Government would not proceed that night, but would, before taking the Bill, be able to make an announcement which would, to a certain extent, meet the views which had thus been so distinctly expressed.

§ MR. RYLANDS
remarked, that he had voted against the second reading of the Bill; but he did not vote in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for Hackney. Many hon. Members who voted against the second reading of the Bill did so on various grounds which had relation to the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with the matter. They voted against the Government because they believed that the mode in which the Government was dealing with the question would form an objectionable precedent, and, therefore, they would rather that the Bill did not pass. He did not, however, take the same views with regard to the Bill as those which had been expressed by his hon. Friend. After the Division, the Government was perfectly justified in proceeding with the Bill notwithstanding the late period of the Session.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that he abstained from voting upon the second reading of that Bill; but he thought that if money clauses were to be put in the Bill they ought to vote against it. He did not think that they had anything to do with the Afghan War; and, for his own part—and he believed many hon. Members concurred with him—he did not see why a place, for instance, like the West of Ireland, should be made to pay for wars for the benefit of India. He should certainly vote for putting the whole of the expenses of the war upon India.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
was disposed to agree with the view taken by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that after the Division which took place the other day, when a majority was in favour of proceeding with the Bill, that it ought to be proceeded with. He did not think that the whole of those hon. Members who voted in the minority took the same view as the hon. Member for Hackney, although a proportion might have done so. The question was one 1514 upon which he did not think that the Government should change its mind. The proposal made by the Indian Government had been accepted by the English Government early in the Session, and arrangements were made for carrying it into effect. Various objections were brought forward to the proposal, and they had a discussion the other day upon the subject. Although the majority in favour of the Government was not a very large one, yet the House did decide to go on with the Bill, and the Government could not undertake to propose any alterations in it. If they did as the hon. Member for Hackney desired, he did not think that there would be any chance of passing the Bill. In his opinion, they must go on with the Bill in its present shape.

§ MR. CHILDERS
wished to make a suggestion to the Government and the Committee upon this clause. The proposal was one which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) strongly advocated the other evening—namely, to make loans with interest on the ordinary conditions of loans, and that the interest should be re-paid by the Government of India to the Consolidated Fund. That would not disturb the loan account, for the amount would be borrowed on the one side and lent upon the other. The matter would then appear in the Consolidated Fund charges, and it would be effected in accordance with the ordinary rule. Very few words would introduce that provision into the Bill.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
did not think that there was any reason for adopting the proposal, and that the transaction would be quite apparent. They proposed to keep the monies borrowed for that purpose outside the credit, and to make it appear that the amount received from India was the amount in payment of the loan and interest. He did not see the advantage of making it in three re-payments.

§ MR. CHILDERS
thought that the debt from India should be charged upon 1515 the Consolidated Fund every year, and he would suggest an Amendment in the Bill accordingly.

§ MR. COURTNEY
remarked, that no time was mentioned in the Bill at which the re-payments were to begin. He understood that the first instalment was to be made in the year after this; it would, therefore, be necessary to provide for seven annual instalments, and he would suggest that this should be inserted in the Bill.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it would be better to leave the clause as it stood. The intention was that seven annual instalments should be made, beginning in 1881. He did not think it would be desirable to tie up the hands of the Government in this matter.

§ MR. CHILDERS
moved to add the words, "but the interest so received shall be re-paid to the Government of India."

§ MR. FAWCETT
understood the Bill to contain nothing which would prevent the money being re-paid in five or six annual instalments. He would, therefore, suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had said the intention was that it should be paid off in seven, that some words should be introduced to make that intention perfectly clear.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that no doubt the intention was to have re-payment by seven annual instalments, beginning next financial year; but he saw no reason for tying up the hands of the Indian Government, who might, perhaps, agree to make the re-payment within a shorter period.

§ MR. COURTNEY
pointed out that, according to the strict interpretation of the clause, re-payment would be made in eight annual instalments.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said that, undoubtedly, strictly speaking, there would be eight instalments; and this might give rise to difficulty, seeing that the clause provided for equal annual instalments.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, it would not be desirable to give an opportunity to the Government of India to defer re-payment; such a plan would introduce confusion into the accounts. He would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should re-consider the question before Report.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
thought great inconvenience might result from not allowing the Indian Government to arrange the most convenient time for re-payment. At present, certain annual instalments were provided for, and that arrangement would be carried out, unless something were to arise to make it desirable to adopt another course. He presumed there would be no objection to earlier re-payment than in the period mentioned in the clause.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, under the system which seemed to be favoured by the Government, it might possibly happen that in three, four, or five years, the Indian Government might drop the whole thing; whereas, if they began to pay year by year, the instalments would be regularly kept up.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
would confer with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India upon the matter.

§ MR. CHILDERS
moved the insertion, in page 1, line 18, of the words, "and all interest re-paid to the Government of England by the Government of India."