Commons Sitting of 31 July 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES — Class II.— SALARIES AND EXPENSES OE CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, VOTES 25 to 33.
Resolutions [July 28] reported.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Considered—Third Reading — Dover Harbour; Metropolitan Street Improvements Act, 1877 (Amendment)*, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS —Ordered— Mercantile Marine Fund (Charges)*.
Second Reading—Poor Law Amendment*[251]; Artizans' Dwellings*[255].
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue (re-comm.) [239].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 he suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had given his best attention to this amended Bill; and he was very sorry to say that the changes made in it were very small indeed, and that it fell very short of what it ought to be. This result might have been expected from the course followed in regard to this Bill. The Standing Orders of the House, framed for the purpose of preventing bad Private Bill legislation, had been cast away, and the Committees on the Bill were necessarily imperfect and insufficient for investigation. For a good many years he had taken great interest in Dover Harbour, and he had served on the Select Committee which inquired into the matter in 1875. From the inquiries then made it was quite clear that a harbour on the plan then proposed was quite insufficient and this proposal, very similar to the former, was equally unsuitable. On this account, and because he believed that the Dover Harbour Board was by no means fitted to carry out this great National work, he objected to the present Bill. Moreover, he did not believe that the Dover Harbour Board had either credit or property available for providing the money that would be necessary for the construction of the harbour. It was brought out very clearly in 1875 that the property of the Dover Harbour Board was even at that time pledged to such an extent that it would be difficult for the Board to obtain any further advances of money from either the public or from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Then, again, no proof had been given by the promoters of the Bill that the piers proposed to be constructed would be sufficient for the purpose of forming the harbour on the scale set forth in the Petition of the Dover Board. And, in regard to the cost, he might mention that a smaller proposal than the one now made had been estimated to require an amount of capital considerably larger than that stated for the present works. He, for one, had no confidence in the estimates of the Dover Harbour Board. Moreover, he was convinced that a satisfactory harbour could not be constructed at Dover for many times the sum for which it was proposed to carry out this scheme. Further, that no harbour of a satisfactory character could be constructed in Dover Bay which did not cover a large area. In the next place,

    203
    he objected to the period which the Dover Harbour Board was allowed for the completion of the works. Fifteen years were to be allowed before their rights under the Bill should lapse, and he submitted that there was no precedent for giving a municipal authority so long a period for failing to carry on the works. In 1875, when a similar proposal was before Parliament, the period for the completion of the works was much more limited, and the greatest care was then taken to protect the rights of the public. There could be no doubt that the influence of the Warden of the Cinque Ports, who was the Head of the Dover Harbour Board, as well as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had been long in operation in favour of a harbour being constructed, without due regard to the works being of that kind which would provide for an efficient refuge. There was another point which it was also desirable he should mention. On the last occasion when the Bill came before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) thought it right to say that it was not desirable to interfere with the provisions of the Bill with regard to the mode in which it was proposed to carry out the works. This view of the Head of the great Department which had control over all harbours of the Kingdom was to be regretted; and he was sorry to add that the Committees of the House of Commons and Lords to whom the Bill had been referred had looked upon the matter in the same unsatisfactory light. Now, he (Sir George Balfour) submitted that public interests were deeply involved in the mode of executing the Dover Harbour Works. For instance, the defences of Dover were dependent on a powerful battery now in progress at the head of the Admiralty Pier, which must form a part of the proposed harbour, and until such time as they had a Report from the Secretary of State for War as to what form the extension of Dover Harbour was necessary in order to provide for the efficient action of the National Defences, they ought not to pass the present Bill. The Government had already expended £130,000 in the erection of this fort and batteries at the end of the Admiralty Harbour Pier, and he believed that an additional expenditure of about £100,000 would have to be in-
    204
    curred before those defences were completed. In his opinion, these works would not be adequate when the proposed piers were finished, and further defensive works would then still be required if the piers proposed for the new harbour were ever completed. But the Secretary of State for War had never been consulted on the effect of these works on the defensive works. Then, again, he objected strongly to any tolls, dues, or fees being levied for the purposes of the Bill until such time as the works were completed. It was not in accordance with the ancient practice of the House to allow parties to levy tolls until the purposes for which they were required were carried out. But for 15 years, under the present Bill, the Dover Harbour Board would have the power of imposing a considerable amount of taxation on the traffic between England and France without giving the public any advantage. He knew very well that in that thin and wearied House he should receive very little support; but he intended to leave a record of his decided objection to the scheme, as proposed, and to this end to submit a Resolution giving expression to his objection to the Bill to this effect—
    "That it is not desirable to confer on the Dover Harbour Board the powers sought for in this Bill, to construct a Harbour in Dover Bay, because this Board, by its constitution, is not suited for supervising or managing a great national work; and, finally, that there are important public rights involved in this objectionable scheme, which will be seriously injured by this Bill being passed."
    He begged to move that Resolution as an Amendment to the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not desirable to confer on the Dover Harbour Board the powers sought for in this Bill, to construct a Harbour in Dover Bay, because this Board, by its constitution, is not suited for supervising or managing a great national work; and, finally, that there are important public rights involved in this objectionable scheme, which will be seriously injured by this Bill being paBsed,"—[Sir George Balfour,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) had

    205
    always been an opponent of the Dover Harbour; but his objections seemed to him (Mr. Freshfield) to be of a nature that were not likely to receive any considerable amount of support from the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman objected to the measure on every possible ground. The proposed harbour was too small; it ought, at least, to be ten times the size. Now, the promoters of the Bill had experienced great difficulty in bringing the harbour up to its present point. Ten years ago, the Bill brought in by the Harbour Board was opposed by the Government because they thought that, being called on to contribute to the work, they ought to have charge of it; but, since then, the Harbour Board had ceased to ask for Government assistance, and the measure now introduced received the support of the Government. In the next place, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Harbour Board had no funds; and he further complained of their proposal to levy tolls. Now, his (Mr. Freshfield's) belief was that the Dover Harbour Board had sufficient means and resources, and that they would be able to construct the harbour. Then the hon. and gallant Member went on to say that the adoption of this scheme would prejudice the defences of the country. But he (Mr. Freshfield ventured to say that the harbour could not interfere with any scheme of National Defence the Government might desire to carry out. A great deal of money had already been spent upon fortifications at Dover, especially with a view to the proposed harbour; and the two Railway Companies which were there were extending their works. It was just at that moment that the hon. and gallant Gentleman came forward to oppose this Bill; but upon what substantial ground it was difficult to understand. He would not take up more of the time of the House, because he knew very well that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the satisfaction of finding himself in a minority of one. He did not believe that the hon. and gallant Member would find anybody to support him.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Queen's Consent signified.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JAMES MURPHY.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the release of Mr. John Gannon, of Kilmore, county Roscommon, he can now advise the release of Mr. James Murphy, who was arrested at the same time and on the same charge as Mr. Gannon; and, whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Murphy has now been imprisoned on suspicion for a period of seven months, he will give his earliest attention to Mr. Murphy's case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency fully considered James Murphy's case on the 13th instant, and decided that he could not at present order his release.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CARLOW BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any representations have been made to the Local Government Board with respect to the conduct of Mr. R. C. Brown, the Chairman of the Carlow Board of Guardians, in refusing to put from the Chair a Resolution censuring the Clerk of the Union for suppressing documents; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board has given any, and what, decision in the matter; whether the same Chairman has, without the authority of the Board, caused new works to be constructed in connection with the workhouse and infirmary; and, if so, whether he is within his right in so doing; and, whether the Doctor Rawson, the medical officer, who also attends the soldiers stationed at Carlow, has on several occasions introduced into the workhouse, for treatment, soldiers suffering from loathsome skin and other affections; and, if so, whether the Chief Secretary intends to take any notice of the practice?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; I find that a representation was made to the Local Government Board by a member of the Board of Guardians to the effect mentioned in the Question, and that the Local Government Board have expressed

  207
  their views to the Chairman, which were to the effect that when such a resolution was proposed the sense of the assembled Guardians ought to have been taken upon it. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, the Local Government Board have received a report from the Clerk of the Union, in which he states that the Chairman, with the sanction of the Board of Guardians, authorized alterations to be made in connection with the workhouse infirmary, on the recommendation of the Visiting Committee, but no new works have been executed under his directions. With reference to the third part of the Question, the Local Government Board have obtained a report from the medical officer, from which it appears that he allowed certain persons outside the workhouse— soldiers among others—to be placed in a sulphur bath in an outhouse in the workhouse yard. No expense has been incurred by this proceeding, but the Local Government Board will communicate with the Guardians on the subject.

  EGYPT—MILITARY EXPEDITION—COMPOSITION OF THE FORCE—TROOPS FOR EGYPT.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, circumstances had occurred which induced him to alter the Question which he had placed on the Paper, and which was as follows:—
  "To ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that three regiments of the Line (the 50th, 74th, and 87th), now quartered at Aldershot, and which are about to be despached to Egypt, have been found to contain a large number of men in each battalion who, from their extreme youth and other causes, are not eligible to accompany the head quarters; whether the three Regiments above named form part of the 'First Army Corps' described by him in moving the Army Estimates, when he spoke of 'a complete Army Corps ready for service;' whether it is intended to replace these young soldiers by a corresponding number of men from the Army Reserve before the Regiments proceed on active service; and, if so, what further drafts it will be necessary to make on the Reserve before our first Line, under the present system of short service, will be fit to take the field in Egypt?"
  He would now only ask how many Line regiments in the First Army Corps would proceed direct to Egypt, and what number of Reserve men would be sent there?
  MR. CHILDERS: As the hon. Member has not given Notice of that Ques-
  208
  tion, I cannot answer it except generally. My answer to the Question on the Paper is as follows:—The hon. Gentleman has been entirely misinformed on this subject. The three battalions to which he refers—the 1st West Kent, 2nd Highland Light Infantry, and 1st Royal Irish Eusiliers—will go to the front and will only require in all 135 Reserve men, after leaving behind all those unfit for active service and all men who, although fit for active service, are under 20 years of age. The total number of Reserve men required to fill up the Infantry battalions going from home on active service is 474; and I think the House will recognize that, considering the very short time which has elapsed since the battalions in the First Army Corps were built up to their new strength, this is a remarkably satisfactory result. I may add that the battalions going for garrison service in the Mediterranean take their recruits and young soldiers, and that we have arranged for their instruction proceeding as efficiently as in camp at home, so that the battalions will be rapidly hardening and becoming fit for service in the field.

  CONVICT PRISONS (IRELAND)—UNOFFICIAL INSPECTION.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps are being taken to take effective action under the Report of the Penal Servitude Commission with respect to the independent inspection of convict prisons in Ireland; and, what the Government propose to do as to the prison in Spike Island?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, since this matter was last referred to in the House His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has been in communication with the Visitors appointed to the convict prisons in Ireland, and has expressed to them his opinion that the objects for which they have been appointed would be more fully attained if they paid more frequent visits to the prisons than heretofore. They have also been reminded that they are expected to make a joint Report to the Lord Lieutenant at the end of their year of office, and, collectively or individually, to offer to His Excellency any suggestions that may occur to them. Four out of six Visitors have replied expressing regret that from various causes they have been unable to visit the prisons

  209
  more frequently heretofore, and the hope that they may be able to carry out His Excellency's wishes by giving more time to the duties of their office in future. At the expiration of the present year of office His Excellency hopes to be able to strengthen the Visiting Commission by adding to it some active local gentlemen, whose duties do not ordinarily require their presence elsewhere; and gentlemen with special acquaintance with prison discipline, if possible. With regard to Spike Island Prison, the matter is still in the hands of the Departmental Committee.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if the Government intend to continue in office the two Visitors who have not thought it worth their while to answer the letter of the Lord Lieutenant?
  [No reply was given.]

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES—BREVET PROMOTION.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is intended to give brevet-promotion by length of service to officers of the Royal Marines, similar to that granted to the Royal Artillery; so that they may be placed on an equality with officers with whom they are serving?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am very sorry, Sir, that I cannot give a definite answer to the hon. and gallant Member's Question at present. There is an obvious difficulty in equalizing promotion in the Royal Artillery and Royal Marines, owing to the different circumstances in which officers enter the two Services, and hence some delay has occurred in settling a plan. The question, however, would probably have been decided before this time had it not been for the pressure of business at the Admiralty and War Office. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is every desire in both Departments to meet the admitted claims of the Marine officers, and I hope the matter will soon be arranged.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked what would be the position of the Marine officers who were now serving with officers of the Army?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that, of course, till a decision on the point was arrived at they would remain in the position to which the Regulations at present entitled them.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. DENIS MULLIGAN.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been lately directed to the case of Mr. Denis Mulligan, of Kilrea, County Longford, who has been confined in Kilmainham Gaol for the past six months, under the Coercion Act, and whether he will, in the present condition of the county, recommend his release?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Denis Mulligan was released on the 25th instant.

  INDIA—CONSULS AT THE NATIVE STATES—THE CASE OF MR. SILBIGER.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that, whilst Foreign Powers are not permitted to place consuls at the capitals of Native States of India, the Government of India has refused to facilitate any public inquiry into an alleged grievous injustice suffered by an Austrian subject named Silbiger, at the hands of the Jeypore Durbar, although the Maharajah of Jeypore has himself asked for a public inquiry; whether the Government of India, by its Political Agent at Jeypore, took the case into its own hands, thereby precluding Mr. Silbiger from obtaining redress directly from the Maharajah, and subsequently refused to sanction any hearing of the case; whether, in reply to the representations of the Austrian Government on the subject, the British Government has in effect stated that an arbitration, or what practically amounted to one, had taken place; whether Mr. Silbiger has submitted an affidavit to the effect that this reply of the British Government was incorrect; and, whether any steps have been taken publicly, either to disprove Mr. Silbiger's sworn statement, or to admit the justice of his claim to have his case heard?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it would be impossible to give a really intelligible answer to these Questions without making a statement of the principal facts of a long and rather complicated controversy. This I shall be ready to do on any fitting opportunity; but I will not now, or unless I find it absolutely necessary, inflict such a statement on the House. I can, therefore,

  211
  only answer very succinctly and imperfectly the Questions of the hon. Member. It is true that Consuls of Foreign Powers are not admitted at the capitals of Native States; and for this reason the British Government would, I think, hold itself bound to see that no substantial injustice was inflicted on a foreign subject in respect of transactions which he had entered into with a Native Government with the knowledge and approval of the Government. I am not aware that Mr. Silbiger ever asked the Government of India to institute a public inquiry into his case, although he has recently memorialized the Secretary of State in Council on the subject. The late Maharajah expressed his willingness some years ago to assent to a public inquiry; but the Government of India decided that it was unnecessary. So far as we have information, the Government of India has not, through its political agent, taken the case into its own hands. All that it has done has been to express its opinion, after full inquiry into the case, that there was no ground for interference. In reply to official and non-official representations of the Austrian Government, the case has been inquired into both by Lord Cranbrook and myself, and we have both stated in. effect that an arbitration, or what practically amounted to one, had taken place. Mr. Silbiger has recently memorialized the Secretary of State in Council, and an affidavit is included among the Papers. I do not understand that he denies that an arbitration has taken place; but he denies that he assented to the Maharajah acting as arbitrator. The Secretary of State in Council has considered this Memorial, but he has seen no reason for re-opening the case. The Papers will, however, go to India in due course, and it will rest with the Viceroy to deal with them as he thinks proper, although I can hold out no hope that he will take any action in regard to them.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—WINE IMPORTS, 1881.
  MR. NORWOODasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing the quantity of wine imported in casks into the United Kingdom in the year 1881 from Spain, Portugal, France, Australia, and other countries, under the heads of degrees of
  212
  strength, as shown in a statement of importations in 1875 handed by Mr. Seldon to the Select Committee of Wine Duties, 1879?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the statement could be given, but only with great labour and expense, and it is a question whether my hon. Friend would regard the result as of sufficient importance to justify their being incurred. There are no accounts actually in the possession of the Customs which would enable them to give the figures; but they might be obtained by investigation. I would suggest that my hon. Friend should communicate, and in that way he might perhaps attain the object he has in view.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS—SCALE OF FEES ON APPOINTMENTS IN H.M. DOCKYARDS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury will consent to reconsider the scale of fees charged to established men of Her Majesty's Dockyards on their appointments by the Civil Service Commissioners, power being reserved in the Order in Council for exemptions in certain cases?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Treasury have received no communication from the Admiralty on this subject; and any suggestion the hon. Member may wish to make should be addressed to the Admiralty, which Department will doubtless communicate with the Treasury if necessary.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL—THE EMIGRATION CLAUSES—GENERAL EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND.
  MR. RATHBONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, inasmuch as there has been a discussion in some of the less congested unions of Ireland, showing that there is an idea that they may be able to avail themselves of the emigration clauses of the Arrears Bill, he will take steps to let it be known that no such aid can be given under the clauses proposed in the Bill except to districts in the counties of Donegal, Clare, Cork (West Riding), Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, and Sligo; and, whether it is not the intention of the Government to confine such aid exclusively to electoral

  213
  districts where holdings of£4 and under greatly preponderate?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the point of view expressed in the Question will be carefully kept in mind; but while the Arrears Bill is before Parliament, it is impossible for the Irish Government to commit itself to any statement of the particular course of action it may see fit to take respecting the provisions which the Bill may ultimately contain.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. HILL, R.M.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Dublin Weekly News" of Friday last, purporting to give an account of a dispute between a farmer named Manning and Mr. Tobias Hill, J.P., and proceedings consequent thereon before the resident magistrate, Mr. Hill. After which Mr. Manning told Mr. Hill that he had an application to make; whereupon Mr. Hill is reported to have said, "I will hear no application from you," and he positively refused to entertain an application that Peyton should also be bound over to keep the peace; whether the conduct of the magistrate is correctly described in this statement; and, whether, if he is not acquainted with the facts of the ease, he will cause inquiry to be made?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am acquainted, Sir, with the facts of this case, and am satisfied that the Resident Magistrate exercised a proper discretion in binding over Manning to keep the peace, and in refusing to bind over Mr. Peyton. Violent language and threats were made use of by Manning towards Mr. Peyton, who is obliged to go about armed and with personal protection. The Resident Magistrate did not refuse to hear Manning's application. On the contrary, he did hear it; but found no reason to comply with it.

  POST OFFICE—THE LETTER CARRIERS—THE NEW SCALE.
  MR. CALLANasked the Postmaster General, Why the new scale for the letter-carriers is not retrospective, the same as in the case of the sorters and telegraph engineers?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that having
  214
  fully considered the Memorials of the letter-carriers, I procured the assent of the Treasury to the scheme, the substance of which was lately explained to the House, and which, I think, without retrospective payment, meets the merits of the case.

  ARMY—THE GUARDS' REGULATIONS EXPLANATION.
  MR. CHILDERS: I must ask the permission of the House to make an explanation as to an answer I lately gave to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) about an Article in the Guards' Regulations. I was obliged, by serious indisposition, to leave the House on Thursday evening, and I understand that at 2 in the morning some reference was made to my reply by the hon. Member. I find, what I did not know when I answered the hon. Member's Question, that the Guards' Regulations, although not a part of the Queen's Regulations, have been printed as an appendix to them. But they stand, in a material respect, on a different footing. They were counter-signed by the senior Colonel of the Brigade, and the Secretary of State was not a party to them. It is undoubtedly in Her Majesty's power to dispense with any of them should She be so advised, and in the case of the appointment of the Duke of Connaught, She has been advised by me to do so.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHER: The Queen's Regulations are dated the 1st of July, 1881. The paragraph which has been alluded to is printed with appendix, and, therefore, forms part of them.
  MR. CHILDERS: The Queen's Regulations are so dated. The appendix is added for information; but it does not form part of the Queen's Regulations, for the reason I have given—that the Guards' Regulations are signed by the senior Colonel, and are commonly known in the Guards as the Guards' Domestic Regulations.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—HYDE PARK CORNER.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return, containing lithograph plans of the Schemes of his Department and that

  215
  of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, for alterations at Hyde Park Corner?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: With respect, Sir, to the plan which I have submitted for dealing with the Hyde Park Corner difficulty, I may remind hon. Members that a model of it was placed in the Tea Room of the House for many weeks, and gave, I believe, general satisfaction. An alternative scheme has since been devised by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and has also been placed by him in the Tea Room. It is only one of many alternatives, and not the best of them; and it is not one for which I could be responsible if the House should disapprove my proposal. I do not think, therefore, it would be well to circulate it among Members with, and as the only alternative to the official plan.
  LORD ELCHOwished to state with reference to his plan for the improvement of Hyde Park Corner, which the First Commissioner of Works had spoken of as having been in the Tea Room of the House, that it was still there, and that he should be happy to explain it to hon. Members. He should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman when there would be an opportunity for discussing the question?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that there would be two opportunities, one on the Motion to go into Supply, and the other on the Vote itself.

  SCOTLAND—THE MEDICAL GRANT.
  MR. RAMSAY: With reference to the discussion which took place last Saturday morning, I beg leave to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the promise of an augmentation of the Medical Grant for Scotland to£20,000, which was made by his Predecessor in Office, and subsequently confirmed by the Prime Minister, is to be fulfilled, and when?
  MR. COURTNEY: Yes, Sir; an additional sum of£10,000 is to be found in the Supplementary Estimates.

  PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  In reply to Sir JOHN HAY,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: It is proposed, as is common in the last weeks
  216
  of the Session, to resume to-morrow the commencement of the Sitting at 4 o'clock.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know whether the Prime Minister would be able now to forecast the Business of the Session, and the time of its probable termination; if not, I will put a Question to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is proposed to take the Navy Estimates to-morrow, presuming, of course, that we dispose of the Business before us to-night. Further than that, in order to give a more satisfactory Answer, I would rather take until to-morrow to consider the matter; then I will give as clear a sketch as I can of the probable course of Business.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE CONFERENCE—LETTER OF ARABI PASHA, &c.
  MR. BOURKEdesired to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had any information as to the Conference at Constantinople; whether there was any truth in the statement that the Russian Chargé d'Affaires had withdrawn from it; whether he had again rejoined the Conference; and whether the proceedings of the Conference were likely to be brought to a close before long?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly put the Question down for to-morrow.
  MR. M'COANasked whether Her Majesty's Government had any reason to believe that Mr. Blunt was in communication with Arabi Pasha; and, if so, whether it was intended to stop such communication?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no knowledge whatever upon the subject more recent than that which I communicated to the House recently—namely, that the letter bearing the signature of Arabi Pasha came to me under cover of a letter from Mr. Blunt. That was dated as far back as the 2nd of July. I do not remember the date of the covering letter. Since then I have no knowledge whatever on the subject.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could lay on the Table the evidence which led him to intimate to the House that Arabi Pasha was guilty of complicity in the pre-

  217
  parations for the attack upon Europeans at Alexandria on the 11th of June?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir. The Papers on the subject shall be laid before the House. Of course, they cannot at present be produced in a complete form; but there is a despatch giving a deposition and names of witnesses. With regard to the conduct of Arabi Pasha generally, I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen a long telegram in the Second Edition of The Times of to-day.
  MR. BOURKE: Does the hon. Baronet mean to convey that the statements in the telegram in the Second Edition of The Times are correct or authoritative?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can only refer hon. Members to The Times itself. This is the first detailed statement upon the subject I have seen. We have had a statement from our own Agents in general mentioning the subject; but we have had no detailed statement.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Prime Minister, whether all that happened in that House and in the country with regard to the Egyptian expedition was not telegraphed to Arabi; and whether, if such was the case, he would take care that important information should not be conveyed to him in that manner in future; also, whether he could give the House any information as to the Turkish expedition, which, it was stated, bad been organized by Mukhtar Pasha, and as to the place at which it was intended that that expedition should land?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: With respect to the telegraphic line, which is a Question of some nicety, particularly as the line crosses the Canal, I had rather answer it a day or two hence. I may say, however, that it has not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government, but has been carefully considered. With regard to the Question of a Turkish expedition, the hon. Member not unnaturally refers probably to the statements which he has seen in the newspapers; but his Question is really somewhat premature, for no matter connected with the despatch of a Turkish expedition to Egypt has as yet reached a stage in which it can be the subject of Questions in this House. The preliminary conditions of such an expedition, which
  218
  in our judgment are absolutely essential, are still unfulfilled.

  ARMY RESERVE FORGE.

    HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
    The COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord KENSINGTON)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
    I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
    I feel assured that I can always rely on your hearty support of any measure that may be deemed necessary for the well-being of My Empire, and the honour of My Crown.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE (re-committed) BILL.— [Bill 239.]
  (Mr. Playfair, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE (re-committed) BILL.— [Bill 239.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 28th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2 (Import duties on tea).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that when the Chairman reported Progress on Friday, he (Mr. Macfarlane) was calling the attention of the Prime Minister to the question of the duties on tea in reference to a matter which he considered to be a hardship inflicted especially upon the Indian tea importers. The Indian Government—that was to say, the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—within the last few years had compelled the Government of India to give up£1,000,000 which was previously received in the shape of import duties charged upon English goods. It formed a very valuable and important source of revenue in India, and it had been conceded in favour of the English manufacturers by India with no consideration whatever for the loss sustained in consequence. The Government, represented by the right hon. Gentleman, gave up£500,000which was derived from the same source, so that the concession made to the Manchester manufacturers amounted to£1,500,000.That sum was swept away from the Exchequer without a single farthing being conceded to India by the Custom House in return. He wished to put to the

    219
    right hon. Gentleman this question—If the Government of India had been an independent Government, and not under the control of the Secretary for India in this country, and Her Majesty's Government proposed to abolish these Customs duties in favour of English manufacturers, what would have been the answer? The Indian Government would probably have said that they were quite willing to take the matter into consideration; but the first question they would naturally ask was, what India was to get in return? That would have been a very fair and reasonable question to ask; and, no doubt, if the Indian Government had been an independent Power, it would have been able to come to Her Majesty's Government and offer to make a concession to the manufacturers of Lancashire in return for the concession they required for themselves, and, no doubt, they would have obtained it. But it so happened that the Indian Government was not an independent Government, and, therefore, was not able to make a bargain with Her Majesty's Government. The people of India were not represented either in the Indian Government or in the House of Commons. Consequently, they had no voice in the matter; and taking, as he did, a deep interest in the people of that country, and feeling that an injustice had been done to them, he thought it his duty to raise his voice on their behalf in that House. He was perfectly satisfied that if the Chinese had approached Her Majesty's Government with an offer similar to that which had been made by the Indian Government—being an independent nation—their offer to admit Lancashire goods into China free, would have obtained for them a similar concession with regard to the admission of their tea into this country. Independently of the mere money injury done to India by this arrangement, he would venture to appeal to Her Majesty's Government on the ground of policy. He would state a simple fact in order to show the extraordinary development which had taken place of late years in the Indian tea trade. In the year 1860, the quantity of Indian tea imported into this country was below 1,000,000 lbs., while last year it amounted to 46,000,000 lbs. What he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was, whether he would practice
    220
    a Free Trade policy which should be real and substantial Free Trade, and not such a proceeding as had been carried out in the case of India? The Government of this country had forced India into Free Trade; but they declined to reciprocate it on their own part. He maintained the proposition to be undeniable that if the Indian ports admitted all English goods free of duty, then, subject to the necessities of the Revenue, English ports should be free to Indian goods. He would say, further, that if the right hon. Gentleman's Revenue necessities did not permit him to make this concession to India, then he should have postponed the demand for the concession which had been made by India to English goods. Hon. Members who represented Lancashire constituencies in that House understood one precept, and that was the principle of "asking and you shall receive." They had asked for this concession. He did not blame them for the course they had taken; but it was quite evident they had placed Her Majesty's Government in a false position. No doubt, the false position was originally brought about by the Government which preceded them in Office, who commenced this system of confiscating the Indian Revenues. He did not propose to take up the time of the House further than to make a protest on behalf of the Indian people against the principle, that the Indian Revenue should be played with for the advantage of this country.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he fully admitted the importance of the question raised by the hon. Member; but it was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the Quixotic view of the case which was taken by the hon. Member. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, with his present obligations, dare to establish Free Trade by taking off the Custom duties on Indian produce.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the free import of manufactured cotton into India, and of Indian tea into this country, had really no connection with each other. The hon. Member had taken advantage of this clause for the purpose of raising the question. He did not say that the hon. Member had in the slightest degree gone beyond his right. What the hon. Member contended was that the Government had no right to enforce upon India

    221
    the abolition of Customs duties upon English manufactured goods unless they also abolished the import duties in this country upon Indian tea. Now, as far as the tea duties were concerned and the tea trade of India, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it was one of the most astonishing developments of modern times. He had not the figures precisely in his mind, but probably the best mode of referring to the wonderful development of the trade which had taken place, was to say that we now imported from India a greater weight of tea than was imported from China 40 or 45 years ago. These were remarkable commercial facts, and still more remarkable when it was borne in mind that the export of tea from India was more valuable now than that from China, and had been so enormously increasing, notwithstanding the enforcement of tea duties. So much in regard to the abolition of the Customs duties of India which had taken place during the existence of the present Administration. The hon. Member was correct in stating that the abolition took place under no pressure whatever. He (Mr. Gladstone) was not cognizant of any pressure or effort being made by the Government at home; and he was convinced that if any had been made in the Indian Department, he would have become aware of it. The abolition of these duties took place in consequence of the free and spontaneous action of the Indian Government itself. Although he believed there had been some pressure in other times from the Lancashire cotton districts, he thought the Indian Government was sufficiently enlightened to know that, by abolishing the duties, they were conferring great advantages upon themselves, and that it was a proper and legitimate object to attain, apart from the abolition of any duties upon Indian commodities in this country. He would be very glad, when the proper time arrived, to give further facilities for the introduction into this country of any articles manufactured in India.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Repeal of customs duties on vegetable matter other than chicory) agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Prohibition of imitations called by names of or mixed with chi-
    222
    cory or coffee, 39 & 40 Vic. c. 36), agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Repeal of excise duty on vegetable matter other than chicory, 35 & 36 Vic. c. 20).
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, leave out "called by any name of coffee or chicory."—(Mr. Magniac.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he should like to have some explanation from the Government of the extraordinary position in which the coffee question had got. From the words of the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, it appeared that he proposed to do one thing, and now in the Bill before the Committee he proposed to do something totally different. No explanation had yet been given from the Treasury Bench of the reason why this great alteration was proposed; and he confessed that the idea of introducing every horrible mixture under the name of coffee was so obnoxious that he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman if the Ministry were responsible for this alteration, and if he would give the reason why, when his mind had been made up, he now considered it necessary to alter it. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was one of those who had always opposed this arrangement, not because he was connected with the coffee trade, but because he was strongly opposed to adulteration in every shape and form. He remembered some years ago hearing the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), when President of the Board of Trade, make a very strong speech in favour of adulteration, and he believed that was the only thing the right hon. Gentleman ever did while he was at the Board of Trade. Unfortunately, Birmingham was still connected with the Board of Trade, and he always looked upon everything that came from the right hon. Member for Birmingham with very great suspicion, especially in this matter of adulteration. There was always in the Birmingham policy in this matter a ring of the buttons they had heard so much about in former times, and which produced so bad an effect upon the industry of the country. It was under

    223
    the right hon. Gentleman who was now President of the Board of Trade, and who also represented Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that we had the extraordinary change in the policy of Her Majesty's Government now proposed. As one of the public, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was most desirous that the poorer classes, instead of obtaining the horrible and abominable mixtures now sold under the name of coffee in the coffee palaces, should have an opportunity of obtaining pure coffee; and he was anxious to learn if the Secretary to the Treasury was able to give any explanation on the subject.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had somewhat misconceived the position taken by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the statement be had made. Really no change whatever had taken place in the policy of the Government, which was the same in the original statement of his right hon. Friend and now; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), if he referred to the Budget Speech of the Prime Minister, would find that the policy now pursued was exactly the same laid down in that speech. It was found that the revenue from coffee did not produce what it ought to produce; and it was believed that this was largely owing to the fact that some untaxed beverage resembling coffee was substituted for coffee itself; and, by way of protecting the Revenue, his right hon. Friend in his Budget Speech proposed to prohibit the introduction of the untaxed substitutes. This prohibition was conceived in the interest of the Revenue; but on re-consideration it was found that it would be a better way of benefiting the Revenue to admit these substitutes, and at the same time to tax them. That would enable the Government to recover the revenue they were now losing. The present proposition was really identical in spirit with that contained in the Budget Speech. The Government were anxious to obtain the money which ought to be obtained upon these beverages. They proposed to get it by taxing the articles used as substitutes for coffee equally with coffee itself. At the same time, it was proposed to make the purchaser fully acquainted
    224
    with the nature of the article he was buying. In that way they would protect the purchaser against any deceit in the nature of adulteration, and, at the same time, would secure the full amount of money which ought to go into the Exchequer; and he thought this explanation fully met the appeal which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was desirous of entering into a crusade against the coffee taverns; but, if so, he (Mr. Courtney) was afraid he could not assist him, because, upon the whole, he was desirous of promoting the operations of the coffee taverns, which he considered to have had a very beneficial effect upon the community at large.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he thought it might save the time of the Committee if he were to mention that he had been in communication with the Government in regard to the Amendments which stood upon the Paper in his name; and he had had to pass through the ordeal of three Public Offices—the Treasury, the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board. The result of those transactions was the Amendments now upon the Paper, with the exception of one slight alteration to protect the public against adulteration. He believed these Amendments would be found to meet the case, when he came to move the second Amendment, which provided that each packet containing, or purporting to contain, coffee should have a label upon it denoting the substances of which the mixture was composed, and the percentage of coffee contained in it.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was mistaken in supposing that he desired to enter into a crusade against the coffee taverns. On the contrary, he wished to protect the coffee taverns. He wished that the customers of the coffee taverns were 10,000 times as many as they were; but, at the same time, he was desirous that, as far as possible, they should be supplied with a pure article. It had once been his misfortune to be behind the scenes, and to have witnessed the preparation of what was called coffee for the coffee taverns. He had been so horrified and astonished at what he saw, that he thought it was necessary to do all he

    225
    could to secure that a pure article should be supplied to every customer.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he confessed that he did not understand the attitude taken by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He had expected the hon. Gentleman to repeat the arguments he had used on a previous occasion against adulteration; but he found that the hon. Gentleman regarded the whole question as one of money, and all that he put before the Committee was money and mere money. Everything the hon. Gentleman talked about was the loss to the Revenue, and the best means of making it up. He seemed to care nothing whatever about the morality of the transaction, or the health of the people. He cared nothing whether what they drank was good or bad for them, provided the money was obtained for the Imperial Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had quoted one of the aphorisms of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) in connection with Free Trade. That aphorism expressed a Free Trade principle that the people were to drink bad coffee so long as something was to be got out of it. He (Mr. Warton) certainly did not understand the morality of that kind of teaching.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that there was a substitute for coffee which was very much used in some parts of the country. It was a beverage called dandelion coffee, and he believed that it was not only extremely wholesome, but that some people liked it very much. He, therefore, desired to move an Amendment if he were in Order. The clause provided that these mixtures should only be sold by weight from half-a-pound upwards, and the Amendment he desired to move was that a quarter of a pound should be the limit.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought the hon. Member was too late. The Committee had already passed the words "half-a-pound."
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, they had only disposed of the clause down to line 14,
    226
    and the Amendment he desired to move would apply to line 18.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that as the words "half-a-pound" occurred in line 13, the Amendment of the hon. Member was too late.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he hoped he would be allowed to move the Amendment on the Report. He thought he should be able to show the Government that it was one of some importance; and perhaps he might be allowed to state his object now. He believed in many parts of the country large quantities of dandelion coffee were sold; but they were sold in very small packets, generally containing less than half-a-pound. This description of coffee was bought by the poorer classes of the population out of their weekly wages, which left but a very small sum at their disposal for the purchase of coffee. Indeed, many of them were so poor that they were not able to buy as large a quantity of this dandelion coffee as half-a-pound at a time. He had been communicated with by some very respectable people at Swansea, who said that the adoption of the limit of half-a-pound in weight would, to a very great extent, shut out practically the use of this article among the poorest classes of the community, who were not able to buy as large a quantity as half-a-pound. The object of his Amendment was to reduce the quantity authorized to be sold from half-a-pound to a quarter of a pound; and the words to which his Amendment applied occurred both in the 5th and 6th clauses. His object was to provide that a quarter-of-a-pound packet might be sold with a halfpenny stamp attached to it. This would place dandelion coffee within the reach of the poorest classes; whereas the Bill, as it stood, would exclude a good many of them from any chance of obtaining it.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that before the Committee proceeded further in this matter, he wished to take an objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), which he believed would be fatal to it. It was this—that what was called dandelion coffee was not coffee at all. He held in his hand the results of the analysis of various descriptions of so-called coffee purchased in different shops.
    THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the point now being discussed had better be

    227
    raised on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the remarks he desired to make would come in very well at the present point. He held in his hand the result of the analysis of various kinds of coffee purchased at different shops. There were altogether 37 samples of different descriptions of coffee submitted to the analysts in order to ascertain how much real coffee was contained in each, and among them was a sample of dandelion coffee. Dandelion coffee stood No. 37 on the list, and the report of the analyst was as follows:—"Dandelion coffee, No. 37, estimated percentage of coffee, none at all." There was this further remark attached to the report, "that it was composed of dandelion root, and probably of some other substances;" but it was not stated what those other substances were. It might be that the substances were of a most deleterious character. Instead of enacting a law to facilitate the sale of this and other compounds to the poorest classes of the population, he should like to see the Government propose a law to prohibit their sale altogether. If the Prime Minister would do that, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), for one, would give him his best support.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not see the force of the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). Many representations had been made to him, showing that there was a wide difference between many of the decoctions sold as coffee, and dandelion coffee, which was thoroughly understood not to be coffee at all; but which was, nevertheless, found to be an agreeable, a cheap, and a nutritious beverage. Under these circumstances, he should object to see the sale of it prohibited.
    Mr. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had brought before the Committee a very strong argument in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), because he had proved that dandelion coffee was entirely free from the objection of assuming a false name. In point of fact, dandelion coffee was what it was represented to be. It was composed of dandelions only. As far as he was able to
    228
    go back into his earlier life, he believed it was always understood that dandelion root was wholesome. In the South of Europe it was very largely made use of among the poorer classes of the people. It was said to be highly nutritious, and to have an agreeable taste. He saw no reason whatever for excluding dandelion coffee from the breakfast preparations which were to be introduced in the new Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. He was, therefore, in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, which he thought altogether reasonable, especially in regard to reducing, in the interests of the smaller class of purchasers, the quantity they would be able to buy.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that, as his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea had raised the question of reducing the quantity to a quarter of a pound upon this clause, he wished to say a few words upon it. His hon. Friend would be aware that this new scheme for the sale of these substances under the name of coffee was introduced to meet the wishes of persons engaged in the preparation and sale of them, and half-a-pound was fixed as the lowest weight to be sold, because it was represented to the Government that the persons engaged in the trade would be perfectly satisfied with the fixing of such a limit. And, although the proposition had been before the public for some time, he had not heard of any serious objection being raised to half-a-pound being the limit. At the same time, he admitted there had been applications asking that the limit should be fixed at a quarter of a pound. With respect to the proposition to substitute a quarter of a pound for half-a-pound, there were some technical difficulties to overcome in regard to the Rules of the House. The Resolutions had already been passed authorizing the duty to be levied upon half-a-pound packets; and he was not quite satisfied that it would be in the power of the Committee to alter that Resolution without introducing another Resolution authorizing the duty to be levied upon packets of a quarter of a pound. He would therefore request his hon. Friend to leave the matter in his (Mr. Courtney's) hands, and between the present time and the Report he would consider whether it might not be right to allow the sale of quarter-of-a-pound packets

    229
    of the mixture in question, instead of half-a-pound packets. If consumers desired that they should be so sold, the Government would do right to fall in with their wishes. It would, of course, give a little extra trouble; but the Government were desirous of meeting not only the convenience of the trade, but the wishes of the consumers.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he thought that very strong reasons indeed had been given why packets of a quarter of a pound should be sold. He believed that grocers sold mixtures of coffee and chicory to ten times greater extent than pure coffee.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the clause would not apply to coffee and chicory, which would still continue to be sold under the same conditions as at present.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the right hon. Member for "Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had talked sound common sense. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. Dillwyn) seemed to be supporting the interests of the grocers rather than that of the inhabitants of Swansea. As far as he was able to understand his hon. Friend, there was an article called dandelion coffee which was sold very extensively by the grocers of Swansea to the inhabitants of that town; but it appeared that that dandelion coffee contained no coffee at all, and the grocers might sell it by the ounce if they chose so long as they did not endeavour to persuade their unfortunate fellow-townsmen that it was coffee. There was nothing whatever to prevent them, continuing to sell it in what quantities they chose as dandelion coffee.
    MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the hon. Member was mistaken, and that there was a prohibition.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman assured the Committee that there was a restriction the circumstances of the case were entirely altered.
    MR. COLMANsaid, he thought that in regard to articles of this sort the consumers should have the power of buying the smallest possible quantity. There was, however, one other matter upon which he wished to make a suggestion. As the Bill now stood, it provided that the provisions in regard to the imposition of this duty should come into operation on the 1st of August. As to-morrow was the 1st of August, it was
    230
    absolutely impossible that the labels could be prepared or the necessary steps taken to carry out the provisions relating to the imposition of the. duty; and he would, therefore, suggest that the 1st of August should be altered to some future date, so as to give sufficient time for arrangements to be made in connection with the preparation of stamps.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. He would be glad to see his hon. Friend before the Report, and he thought he could make a case out that would satisfy the Government in regard to the necessity of making this alteration.
    MR. MACLIVERwas able to confirm what the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had stated, that the article of dandelion coffee was in great demand among the poorest class of the population, and that it was very extensively consumed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Provision against sale of imitations of coffee, cocoa, or chicory).
    THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) intended to propose the Amendment to leave out "half-a-pound," and insert "a quarter of a pound," of which he had given Notice in reference to this clause?
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not. He presumed his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the question in connection with this clause, as well as with the previous clause.
    MR. COURTNEYreplied in the affirmative.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, the Amendment he was about to propose had been placed upon the Paper by an arrangement with the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Local Government Board, and the President of the Board of Trade; but he had slightly altered the terms of it as it stood upon the Paper. The Amendment would now read—
    "Provided that each such packet containing or purporting to contain coffee, with any other article or substance mixed therewith, shall have affixed thereto a label in manner hereinbefore provided denoting in letters of not less size than the largest letters affixed to or imprinted on such label the proper name of the several articles or substances of which such mixture is composed."

    231
    The alteration consisted in inserting, after the word "coffee," the words, "with any other articles or substance," and in striking out the words, "requiring to be specified in the case of coffee the percentage contained in the packet." He believed he had described the other night, to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite, the necessity for an Amendment of this kind, and the cases which it would probably meet. It was not necessary to repeat the same details over again, as the facts of the case were thoroughly well known. He trusted that the Amendment, having been accepted by the Government, would be accepted by the Committee. In support of the view he took, he might mention that there was a general feeling throughout the country that people ought to know what it was they were buying. The Agricultural Commission, in their recently-presented Report, stated—
    "We also recommend that steps should he taken to insure that all agricultural products, whether manufactured at home or abroad, for consumption by the public or for use by the farmer in his business, should be sold under such designations as will accurately indicate their true composition."
    That applied to all articles of trade, and he quite agreed with the Commission that all persons ought to know what it was they were buying, and, in his opinion, it was the duty of the Government to secure that result.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 10, after "visible," insert— "Provided that each such packet containing or purporting to contain coffee, with any other article or substance mixed therewith, shall have affixed thereto a label hereinbefore provided denoting in letters of not less size than the largest letters affixed to or imprinted on such label the proper name of the several articles or substances of which such mixture is composed."—[Mr. Magniac.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the passage which had been read from the Report of the Agricultural Commission contained a very valuable recommendation; but he was afraid that at the present moment, owing to past legislation, persons were not able, in any case, to distinguish between coffee, and coffee and chicory, and in some cases they might be purchasing, under the impression that it was coffee, an article that contained no coffee at all. Of course,
    232
    as this legislation took place some years ago, the present Parliament was not responsible for it. He would, however, propose to amend the Amendment by adding the words which originally appeared, upon it, requiring the packet to specify the percentage of coffee contained in it.
    MR. LABOUCHEREwished to put a question to the Government, and said that a great deal would depend on the answer he received. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury told him just now that if there was no coffee whatever in the mixture, that mixture, nevertheless, would have to pay duty, because it was a substitute for coffee. Now, supposing, for example, that he took the substance termed dandelion coffee, did his hon. Friend mean to say that if a person who had to sell the powdered root of dandelion, or dandelion beer, it would be charged as coffee, because it was a substitute for coffee?
    Mr. COURTNEY: Yes.
    Mr. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend assured him that that was so. Then, what was meant by the words "a substitute for coffee?" Was beer a substitute for coffee? They all believed at present that coffee was a substitute for beer. Where did the hon. Gentleman draw the line? What beverage might be sold without being liable to pay the duty? He had hitherto thought that the distinction was where the word "coffee" was used; and he thought the public ought to know what the distinction was between the article itself and the substitute for it.
    Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, it seemed to him that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), in striking out the last part of his Amendment, had run away from the best part of his proposition. He was told that a substance called "French coffee" was very largely sold, and particularly among his own constituents. Now, this French coffee frequently contained as much as 90 per cent of chicory, and perhaps only 5 per cent of real coffee. It was, therefore, very desirable that persons who bought French coffee should be aware of the amount of chicory it contained, because the relative prices of chicory and coffee made a difference of considerable importance, the highest price of chicory being 10 d. a-pound, whereas good coffee was worth 2s. a-pound.

    233
    Consequently, it was the very essence of any legislation upon the matter that every packet purporting to contain a mixture of coffee with any other article should state the exact percentage of coffee contained in it. It, therefore, seemed to him that his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had left out the most important part of his Amendment, and that the only security the public would have as to the honesty of the dealer depended on the relative proportions of the various substances contained in the packet being specified on the label.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    To insert at the end of the foregoing Amendment, the words "and in the ease of coffee the per-centage thereof therein contained."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he had had, as representing one of the Departments concerned, occasion to consider the Amendments; and he had come to an agreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) as to what was desirable and what the Government ought to accept in fairness to the dealer on the one side and the public on the other. It appeared to him that the words now proposed to be added, and which had been struck out of the original Amendment, carried the matter beyond what they were entitled to require. He did not think it fair to require the seller to guarantee the percentage of coffee contained in a packet, when the packet itself professed to be only a mixture; because if the dealer said there was 10 per cent of coffee, and it should subsequently appear that there was only 9½ or 9¾per cent. he would be liable to a penalty, although he might have acted perfectly honestly in declaring it to contain 10 per cent. Especially might this happen in the case of a retail dealer. It appeared clearly to him that everything that could be reasonably demanded for the protection of the public against adulteration was secured by the words of the Amendment already passed. It declared that any packet containing or purporting to contain coffee with any other article or substance mixed therewith should have affixed thereto a label
    234
    in manner before provided denoting, in letters of not less size than the largest letters affixed to or imprinted on such label, the proper name of the several articles or substances of which such mixture was composed. The effect of the present Amendment would be to require that in addition each packet should specify the percentage of coffee contained in it. It might not always be so simple a matter to determine this accurately, as to preclude some differences of opinion and obviate disputes. Moreover, the Amendment was so vague that it did not say whether the percentage was to be measured by bulk or by weight. On the other hand, the ingredients of such a mixture—certainly the fact of its being a mixture—admitted of being demonstrated beyond doubt. By the Amendment already agreed to, when a person purchased a packet which did not contain pure coffee, but simply a mixture, he would see at once the nature of the compound, whether it was coffee and chicory, or coffee and malt, or coffee and acorns, or whatever the mixture might be. He would have the fact clearly before his eyes that it was not coffee, but a mixture of two, three, or four different substances. That would be quite sufficient to put him on his guard. He would receive notice of the nature of the compound he was buying, and that was all the Legislature ought to require. The addition proposed would simply lead to a good many prosecutions, and the result would be not so much to protect the public or to do good to the dealer as to bring grist to the mill of the attorney.
    MR. E. N. FOWLERsaid, his right hon. Friend only required that the bulk or weight of coffee should be stated on the label, and he thought it would be very easy to carry out such a stipulation.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was afraid that, in altering the Amendment from the form in which it was originally placed upon the Paper, his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had rendered the matter somewhat involved, and that some further explanation was required. The proposition, as it originally stood, was plain enough —namely, that each packet was to declare conspicuously on the label what the contents were; but his hon. Friend now struck out a portion of the proposal, and

    235
    in so doing he rendered the declaration of the contents of the packet simply illusory. They might say—"This is a mixture of dandelion and coffee;" but what advantage would that be to the purchaser unless the proportion of each was clearly stated? Surely, the purchaser was entitled to know whether the coffee contained in the packet was 1 per cent in 100 or 1 per cent in 10.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, the matter had been very carefully considered by those who were interested in it; and it was felt that if this system of labels were honestly carried out, and sufficient prominence given to the nature of the compounds, nothing further was required. It was distinctly understood that a specification on each packet of the nature of the substance of which it was composed would be quite sufficient to warn the public that they were not buying a pure article. The sufferer, if anything further was demanded, would be the unfortunate retail dealer. The same thing occurred every day in the case of milk. The unfortunate milk seller, who bought the milk to sell again, had no means of ascertaining whether the milk was pure or not, and he was fined if the slightest adulteration could be traced. In the same way, the grocers had no means of ascertaining the precise composition of the goods they sold; and, under those circumstances, it would be sufficient for the packet to say what it was the purchaser was paying for. The Amendment already adopted carried that requirement out, and the Government were of opinion that it contained all that was necessary for the protection of the public.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that hon. Members cared very little for any bargain between the Government and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac). They only cared for the interests of the public, and their only desire was to secure the health of the public. He could not understand upon what principle the hon. Member for Bedford was running away from his original proposal. He (Mr. Warton) would certainly support the addition of his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). What was the position in which they found themselves? They had struck out from the 5th clause all the words applying to a mixture of chicory and coffee. The hon. Member for Bedford did that as part of the bar-
    236
    gain; and yet the hon. Member, in the Amendment just passed, used the words "each packet containing, or purporting to contain, coffee," after having struck out the words "coffee and chicory." Then, what was the result of the bargain as it came down to the Committee? It was that they were to have something put before the public purporting to contain coffee which might not have more than 1 per cent of coffee in it, and that fact was to be concealed from the public on account of the bargain between the hon. Member and the Government. He thought that was a very wrong bargain indeed. His right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) proposed that, in the case of coffee, the percentage contained in the packet should be specified; but, as the public bought by weight, he would propose to add to the Amendment the words "in weight." The public who bought this coffee, or mixture of coffee and other substances, whether it was contained in a half-pound packet or in a quarter-pound packet, bought it by weight, and they would like to know whether it contained an ounce of coffee or not. They knew nothing about any metaphysical questions of bulk or weight, but they bought so many pounds of something called coffee, and they would like to know whether in the purchase they made they got an ounce of coffee, or a quarter of a pound, or how much. He thought it would relieve the matter of some difficulty if after the word "percentage" in the Amendment his right hon. Friend would consent to add the words "in weight."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "percentage," to insert the words "by weight."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'by weight' be there inserted."
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEapprehended that the object of the Government in submitting the Bill was to add to the Revenue of the country, because the Bill proposed to tax articles which had never been taxed before. Therefore, it became the duty of the Government to take extra care to protect the consumers. They bad to look to the consumer more than to the dealer or the manufacturer, because, as had been stated by his hon. Friend behind him

    237
    (Mr. Magniac), when goods were sold by the wholesale dealer to the retail dealer, the retail dealer had no means of testing the purity of the goods he bought, but had to trust to the honesty of the wholesale dealer from whom he bought them. Then how could the purchaser tell what he was buying, when he had to depend entirely on the label, or the statement made to him by the retail dealer? A man bought a packet purporting to contain a mixture of coffee and other substances—perhaps coffee and dates, or coffee and acorns, or coffee and horse beans, which was at one time a famous mixture. He did not see how the purchaser would be in the slightest degree protected by the Bill as it stood, although he did not dispute that the Revenue would be protected. At the same time, he thought that it was of far greater consequence to protect the consumer even than the State. The Government could always find out the means of protecting themselves; and he, for one, thought that no packet ought to be labelled as coffee which did not at least contain 50 per cent. or a third per cent of pure coffee. If they passed the Bill as it now stood, and allowed the dealers to include in a mixture of coffee and other substances any small amount of coffee they chose, they would soon find the wholesale dealers underselling one another, and reducing the quantity of the genuine article. The retail dealers would have no means of testing the nature of the compound, and the purchaser would certainly have no means of testing it, unless the percentage of coffee was clearly stated on the label. He thought it unfair to leave the public to get over the difficulty themselves. His own impression was that the Government ought to prohibit the use of the word "coffee" upon every mixture whatever, unless it contained 50 per cent. or at least 30 per cent. of coffee.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who frequently discoursed eloquently in that House upon the evils of grandmotherly legislation appeared to have turned round, and to have insisted upon advocating great-grandmotherly legislation in supporting the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member complained of the unfairness of the Government when they were dealing with liquors calculated to produce in-
    238
    toxication; and yet he seemed in this ease to consider that the people of this country ought to be treated as if they were so absolutely deficient in the power of self-management as not to know, or be able to test, what they were buying. He advised the Committee to consider what had been the nature of the arguments addressed to the Committee by several hon. Members. He was surprised that Gentlemen sitting upon the Liberal Benches, who had accepted Mr. Cobden's doctrines, should be found supporting the Amendment, and treating the people of this country as if they were totally deficient in all the powers of self-management and self-control. They were asked to provide that a person, on going into a shop to purchase a mixture, should be told not only of what articles the mixture consisted, but the proportion of every article contained in the mixture.
    MR. COLMANsaid, he wished to point out what he considered to be a fallacy in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). The right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it was necessary to state the proportions of every article contained in the mixture. Now, it would be all very well to state the proportions if, at the same time, they could state the quality as well. The proportion of gold in a sovereign could be very easily stated; but when they came to deal with raw material it must be borne in mind that it differed very extensively in quality. They could not, therefore, state the proportions or value without stating the quality. He might give this illustration. Suppose an hon. Member went into the Lobby and asked for a cup of tea, and suppose it took an ounce of tea to make a cup, the tea might be worth 1s. a-pound, or 4s. a-pound, so that the proportion of tea contained in the cup would give no indication of the value.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, that coffee was the article the purchaser expected to buy, and coffee was the article every grocer was to sell. It was not, therefore, too much to ask how much coffee was being sold in a particular packet. It might be great-grandmotherly legislation; but it was legislation for the benefit of the public, whose interests it was their duty to protect.
    Mr. LABOUCHEREsaid, he strongly objected to hon. Members putting down

    239
    Amendments upon the Paper, and having made private arrangements with the Government to emasculate them, then asking the Committee to pass them in an emasculated form. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury asserted that if they differed from the proposals of the Government they differed from the principles of Mr. Cobden. He was as thorough a Free-trader as any man; but if Mr. Cobden's principles were against the Amendment, then he did not agree with Mr. Cobden. What would be the real and practical effect of the Amendment? Their object could not be to protect the grocer against the public, but to protect the poor against the grocer. What the grocer did was this —and he happened to know something of the matter practically. The grocer wanted to make as much as he possibly could out of what he sold. If he sold coffee, he made, perhaps, 1d. or 2d. a-pound; but if he sold one of these mixtures, in which there might be a fractional part of the best article, and a large proportion of fig-dust, or beans, or chicory, he gained 4d., 5d., or 6d. a-pound. Thus the way in which it worked out was that, whereas the grocer gained a small profit by selling a genuine article, he got a much larger profit by gelling a mixture containing 75 per cent of chicory and 25 only of coffee.
    MR. COURTNEYwished to remind the hon. Gentleman that a mixture of coffee and chicory was dealt with in a different manner.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the principle was just the same; but to satisfy his hon. Friend he would take a mixture of coffee and dandelion, or of coffee and dates, or of coffee and acorns, which would be worth about the same as a mixture of chicory or coffee, or, perhaps, even less—that was to say, 3½d. a-pound. Seventy-five per cent of dates, or fig-dust, or acorns, or dandelions would, therefore, cost about 2¼d., and 25 per cent of coffee 5d., so that the mixture would cost 7¼d. a-pound, and by selling it at 1s. a-pound the grocer would obtain a profit of 4¾d. a-pound, whereas if he sold the genuine article he would not get more than 1d. a-pound. It was, therefore, to the interest of the grocer to pass off a mixture whenever he could. His hon. Friend asked why, with the views they entertained of great-grandmotherly legisla-
    240
    tion, they had assented to the clause at all? The clause told them that the articles sold were adulterated, and what the Government now declined to tell the purchaser was the extent of the adulteration. He could understand the Secretary to the Treasury standing up and saying that if a man liked to purchase dandelion coffee he must take the consequences; but when he consented to state what the mixture contained, he (Mr. Labouchere) certainly could not understand why his hon. Friend should refuse to say what the amount was. He hoped that the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would stick to his Amendment; and, so far as the proposal to add the weight to it was concerned, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would accept it. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was acting entirely in the interests of the public and the poorer classes of the population, and he would therefore support him.
    MR. MACFAELANEasked the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) whether, if a man purchased a mixture of these substances, as described in the Bill, and had reason to suspect the existence of excessive adulteration, it was not essential, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, that he should take a sample to the public analyst and pay a fee of 10 s. as a preliminary to the analyzation? If that was the case, it was a sufficient barrier against any poor person availing himself of the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. He thought the poor ought to be protected, and he supported the Amendment, because he was of opinion that it was required for the protection of the poor. Hon. Members of that House were not likely to be poisoned by coffee of this description; but he stated, without the smallest hesitation, that the poor would be continually cheated by adulteration, and poisoned, by it as well. He did not see how the adoption of this Amendment would affect the Government or the Revenue in the slightest degree. He should like the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) to confirm the statement he made, that a poor person, suspecting adulteration, was obliged, as a first step, to pay the prohibitive fee of 10 s. to the public analyst.
    Mr. DODSONsaid, there was no doubt, if a person bought an adulterated article and suspected the article to be adulterated, that, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, if he took it to the public analyst, in order to have it analyzed, he would have to pay the fee mentioned; but he wished to point out that the clause as it now stood, instead of tending to facilitate adulteration, as some hon. Members seemed to think, was really an extension, with respect to this one article, of the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, because it required that wherever a mixture was sold the substances of which the mixture was compounded should be distinctly specified. Every substance with which coffee was mixed in any particular packet must be mentioned on the label affixed to the packet in letters as large as the word coffee itself. Now, that was an advance upon the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in regard to this particular commodity. Did hon. Members, not satisfied with this extension of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, want to have the exact percentage of adulteration specified on the label? He had listened very attentively to the arguments which had been advanced in favour of the proposition; and he must say that the more he had listened to them the more he was of opinion that it would be unwise to attempt to adopt so subtle and so refined a distinction. Surely it was for the consumer to judge whether he had got a good or bad mixture. If he found he had got a bad mixture, he must go where he could get a better one. All that could reasonably be required to be done the Government proposed to do. The tradesman had to notify to the consumer that it was a mixture, and what were the ingredients of the mixture he was selling.
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he could not help thinking that the difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) was absolutely imaginary. How could the ingredients of the mixture be described except by way of percentage? He thought that this was not a question of bulk, but of weight.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he pointed out that under the Amendment it was not stated whether the percentage was intended to be one of bulk or weight.
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he could not understand why the Government, having
    242
    made up their minds to take a very good step in the right direction, should not make that step positively effectual, and that could be done by the adoption of the Amendment.
    MR. BUXTONsaid, that last winter 21 samples of coffee, or samples of what was sold for coffee, were obtained from the same number of shops in London. One sample was found to be pure coffee, 18 were more or less adulterated, and two contained no coffee at all. Under such circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that the consumption of coffee had very much diminished. He trusted the Government would take every possible means to protect the public against such a state of things.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had asked how they could expect the retail dealer to guarantee a certain percentage of coffee. He did not see why he could not declare that that which he sold was made up of certain materials. He was dependent upon the wholesale dealer just in the same manner as he would be for the percentage.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was not in favour of grandmotherly legislation; but it seemed to him that if they sought to protect the poor man the protection must not be a sham.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said—"Let the consumers be their own protectors." But the hon. Gentleman did not follow up his own proposition. The Government had in this matter interfered in a very remarkable manner; they charged a very heavy tax upon an article which might be absolutely valueless, and all that was asked of them was that the public should know what they bought. It was obvious that the test could not be by price, but that it must be by weight; and weight, he believed, was mentioned in the clause. When percentage was spoken of, what was meant was that in every pound of mixture there should be so many ounces of this material and so many ounces of the other. If the Government accepted the Amendment they would discharge a public duty, and would relieve themselves of the charge of throwing a false character over some of the trades of the country. Personally, he should prefer to see no mixture at all.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was glad this subject had cropped up, because it had been a common remark of the poorer classes that for years past it had been impossible for them to get good coffee. The complaint was not altogether confined to the poorer classes. Hon. Gentlemen who had households must know how difficult it was to get good coffee, so that, in this matter, both the rich and the poor required protection. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Colman), who had addressed the Committee, sold a compound which was most delightful to the palate; but he did not tell them the exact proportions of the ingredients. They all knew that mustard pure and simple could not be eaten. It had been argued that it would be unfair to come down upon the retail dealer if he sold a compound, the proportions of which were not specified. He did not approve of such an argument. This was a matter which affected the health of the people, and it was incumbent upon the Legislature to see they were not cheated. The clause as it stood really formed a premium to fraud. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the appeals made from both sides of the House, and, even at the eleventh hour, do something to prevent the poorer classes of the country being cheated.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken did not seem to give the working classes any credit for common sense. The working people of England were very well able to distinguish between a good and bad article, and it was not at all likely they would be cheated. He wholly objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it set up an entirely new principle with regard to trade. He did not know a single article to which such a restriction as was proposed applied. He doubted whether any hon. Member could mention a single article sold by grocers or others in respect to which there was any obligation to declare the exact proportion of the component parts. Deleterious mixtures were not contemplated. [An. hon. MEMBER: Horse beans.] He did not consider horse beans were at all injurious. It seemed to him that in a very short time the public would be able to discriminate between the establishments in which coffee was sold, and they would trade with the man who sold the best article.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the discussion had lasted a long time, and he wished to do all he could to bring it to a close. He thought it better to withdraw the Amendment, in order that the sense of the Committee might be taken on the proposition as it originally stood. He did not wish to occupy time in answering the last speech. He did not think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Slagg) had read the Amendment, or else he would have found that the objections he had raised to the Amendment existed to the clause itself. His (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) experience of the habits of poor people was that they would always buy in the cheapest market; regardless of the quality, they were buying tea at 1s. 8d. a-pound in preference to that at 2s. or 2s. 6d. a-pound. Parliament, by grandmotherly, or grand-fatherly, or by some legislation or other, ought to do its best to protect the poorer classes. One point had been raised which the Government had not attempted to answer; and that was that there was no guarantee that the mixtures would contain coffee at all. There was not that distinction between coffee and chicory which ought to exist. He had been an anti-chicorist all his life, and he was most desirous there should be some specification of the ingredients of the mixture sold as coffee. He was sorry hon. Members had not attended in large numbers upon the present occasion; but he trusted that as the speeches had proceeded from influential Members of the House the debate would make some impression on the Government. If a division were taken by those who had heard the debate the division would be all one way; but, unfortunately, the bell would be rung, hon. Members would flock in, and they would be told which way they were to go, and he and his hon. Friends would find themselves in a minority. Nevertheless, they had right on their side; and he hoped that, sooner or later, right would prevail.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had stated that this was a new departure, and it was sought to establish a new principle. It was certainly a new idea to levy taxes upon adulterated articles. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said it was impossible for the consumers to protect themselves. It was quite possible

    245
    for the people to protect themselves against adulteration if they would only use a coffee mill. There was another argument more important than that of the hon. Member for Guildford. The House was very much occupied with the question of the sale of intoxicating drink. Motion after Motion was made to prevent people drinking intoxicating liquors. To advance their cause the advocates of temperance ought to do all they could to secure that the non-intoxicating drinks were not only harmless, but good and nourishing; and they could do this, in some measure, by supporting the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he felt inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) in that matter. It was very difficult indeed to define the exact proportions of the ingredients in the mixture. He contended that if people knew what they were going to purchase the House would not do wisely if they were to endeavour to decide the exact compounds of the mixture. He should support the original Amendment, because lie considered it was a very proper one, and one which would meet with the approval of the public generally.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 114: Majority 41.— (Div. List. No. 302.)
    On the Motion of Mr. MAGNIAC, Amendment made, by adding after Subsection (3)—
    "(4.) Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall in any way affect any Act or Acts now in force relating to the Adulteration of Food."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Penalty for buying, &c. labels before used) agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Repeal of Section 5 of 43 Geo. III. c. 129) agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Grant of duties for carriages) struck out.
    Clause 10 (Provision as to return of increase of duty to coachmaker lending during repair of carriage) struck out.

  PART II.

    INCOME TAX.
    Clause 11 (Grant of duties of income tax).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 39, leave out "fivepence," and insert "sixpence halfpenny."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question proposed, "That 'five pence' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that before this Amendment was agreed to he wished to say a few words upon the subject of the Income Tax. This tax, amongst its other inequalities, had this special one—that it favoured wealth and oppressed poverty, it favoured capital and oppressed industry. Its incidence was often very unjust and anomalous. It might be fairly said that a very large proportion of the landed and house property of this country was heavily mortgaged. Let them suppose that any given house or piece of land was of the nominal value of£2,000 a-year. For the purposes of local rating it might be assessed at£1,800; but the Income Tax would be charged upon£2,000. If the property were mortgaged for£1,600 the owner would, to that extent, recoup his Income Tax; but he would still be chargeable on£400, having a residue of£200 only. This was an anomalous state of things, and he had hoped that something would have happened to have induced the right hon. Gentleman to place this very important subject under the consideration of the very able administrators of the Inland Revenue, and of the Local Government Department, and that measures would have been introduced to mitigate the inconvenience attaching to the present law.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman would be more pertinent if made upon the whole clause. The Question now before the Committee was simply the substitution of the words "sixpence halfpenny" for "fivepence."
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. MAGNIACproposed to insert, in page 4, after line 39—
    "Provided, That in the case of any Company established in the United Kingdom with the object of carrying on business wholly or in part abroad, Schedule D of the said Acts shall apply only to such proportion of the annual profits or gains

    247
    of such Company as shall be actually received and distributed in the United Kingdom."
    He proposed this very reasonable Amendment with the consent of the commercial community. If a Company were established in England, but carried on business in a foreign country, and if the only operation connected with the Company in which English people were concerned was the transmission of the necessary money to pay dividends to the English shareholders, it had been lately held that the whole of the profits of the Company were liable to pay Income Tax. There might be very good reasons for it; but those persons who were concerned did not understand them. Foreign shareholders asked why they should pay Income Tax to the English Government; and, on the other hand, the few English shareholders asked why their profits should be diminished in order to pay the Income Tax which was levied on the foreign shareholders? A Judge who lately tried a case of the kind made some very strong observations. He said that, with excessive reluctance, he felt bound to decide against the Company and in favour of the Treasury. If there were good reasons why the Income Tax should be exacted under such circumstances, the mercantile community would be found, as in the past, perfectly ready to bear the burden.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 39, insert—"Provided, That in the case of any Company established in the United Kingdom with the object of carrying on business wholly or in part abroad, Schedule D of the said Acts shall apply only to such proportion of the annual profits or gains of such Company as shall be actually received and distributed in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Magniac.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid it was impossible to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend; indeed, he thought that, on examination, there was very little to be urged in its favour. The words of the Amendment were—
    "That in case of any Company established in the United Kingdom with the object of carrying on business wholly or in part abroad,"
    —he would give his hon. Friend (Mr. Magniac) the benefit of the doubt, and say that business was carried on wholly abroad—
    "Schedule D of the said Acts shall apply only to such proportion of the annual profits or
    248
    gains of such Company as shall be actually received and distributed in the United Kingdom."
    The Company was formed here, and the Company and the foreign shareholders acquired the position of shareholders in an English Company. The protection and advantage a foreign shareholder had in being a shareholder in an English Company made up the whole case. The foreign shareholder might be an Englishman who had lived abroad, but who sent home his capital to a Company here. Was that Englishman to be relieved of the taxation which he ought to pay because he lived abroad? Whether an Englishman or foreigner, it made no difference. A Company which was domiciled here was protected by the English law; it depended upon its domicile for the maintenance of its position; and, therefore, the shareholders must pay a fair share of taxation.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the case was not altogether as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated. He knew a Company which carried on business in the Mauritius, where local shareholders resided, on whose local profits a tax was levied in England, though these shareholders were taxed in the Mauritius for the Island Revenue; thus, though only a portion of the profits were sent home, all the profits of the shareholders living in the Mauritius had their incomes taxed at the same rate as the shareholders living in England. His hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) drew a very proper line. Whatever money came to England ought to bear a fair amount of English taxation; but not so with the other portion of the profits of a Company which never came to England, but were distributed locally where created.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford had raised an exceedingly interesting question. It was one which was worthy of the consideration of those who had the arrangement of the incidence of the Income Tax. His hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) had omitted to say that the legal position of the taxpayers was simply this—whether it was a firm or an individual, it made no difference; if the individual or firm were located here, domiciled in the United Kingdom, they were under the protection of the Government; and they were, therefore, subject

    249
    to the taxation of the country. There was another portion of the question which was alluded to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Sir George Balfour), and in respect of which some legislation would be requisite—he referred to those institutions and firms which were not located here at all. They were not English firms, but firms which, from vanity or other motives, desired the name of London establishments. They inscribed their names upon their doors and in the Trade Directory, and the consequence was they were called to account, and challenged to pay Income Tax. They pleaded, perhaps with truth, that all their profits were made abroad, and that all their accounts were kept abroad. Their case was a problem which the Commissioners had not as yet been able to solve. He thought the only solution of the question was that such a portion of the profits made by such institutions should be charged as would equal the commission they would pay to competent and authorized agents in this country. He thought his hon. Friend must agree that if Companies were domiciled here, they must be subject to ordinary obligations, and make a return of their profits, and be taxed accordingly.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, the Companies he had in view were not governed by the English law, but by the law of the country in which their operations were conducted. He would not, however, press his Amendment. The question would grow, and attract public attention at another time.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Amendments made, in page 5, line 4, by leaving out "two pence halfpenny," and inserting "three pence farthing;" in page 5, lines 5 and 6, by leaving out "one penny three farthings," and inserting "two pence and three-eighths of a penny;" and in page 5, after line 6, by inserting—
    "Provided always, That, where any dividends, interest, or other annual profits or gains are due or payable half-yearly or quarterly in the course of the said year, the first half-yearly payment and the two first quarterly payments shall be deemed to have been or be chargeable with the duty of five pence, and the other half-yearly payment and the two other quarterly payments shall be deemed to be chargeable with the duty of eight pence,"
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had asked them to grant 3d. in the pound extra Income Tax, and the whole of the money was to be charged upon the last half of the year, so as to enable the right hon. Gentleman to raise£2,300,000 for the war expenses in Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman had stated very clearly and distinctly that if, unfortunately, affairs should go on in Egypt, and the condition of things there should not be settled during the next three months, he would have again to come to the House and ask for a further Vote of Credit with which to carry on the war. He would like to know how the right hon. Gentleman meant to raise the money? It had been stated by the Prime Minister, and by the Secretary of State for War, that they did not like to ask for more money at one time than was required. If it was necessary for the Government to come to the House in the month of October and ask for more money, the question he wished to put, and which he hoped the Prime Minister would fairly consider, was that in view of the fact that the Income Tax was paid by a very small proportion of the people of the country—especially by a very small proportion of those who now had great political power—he would not see whether all, or, at any rate, some portion of the money to be raised might not come from some other tax, so that all the people of the country might be called upon to bear their fair share of the burden of the war. He put the question to the right hon. Gentleman in order that it should not be said that no warning was given him by anyone with regard to the taxation in respect of the war.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that since the question as to providing the means for meeting the expense of the Egyptian Expedition had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he (Mr. Newdegate) would, with the permission of the Committee, avail himself of the opportunity of correcting an error into which he had fallen on Friday last, during a discussion on the taxation of luxuries in this Committee. He had then stated, in answer to the Secretary

    251
    to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), that£16,000,000 of Customs duties, exclusive of those imposed upon prime necessaries and the principal materials for manufacture, had been repealed or reduced up to 1861. At the time he stated this he was speaking from memory without the means of reference; and his memory, he regretted to find, had betrayed him as to the date, but not as to the amount. He begged to apologize to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and to the Committee, for the error into which he had lapsed. He had now in his hand the calculations to which he had intended to refer; they were all taken from the Statistical Abstracts of 1870 and 1878, and he found that these constituted the amounts of Customs duties repealed or reduced more than imposed during the several periods to which he would now refer. From 1840 to 1854 inclusive,£10,092,719; from 1855 to 1869 inclusive,£9,255,526;from1870 to 1874 inclusive,£6,924,245;total diminution,£26,272,490; so large was the amount of annual revenue abandoned in deference to the dogma of free imports; but he would cast out of his statement the first period, that from 1840 to 1854 inclusive, when the amount of Customs duties abandoned was£10,092,719. He abandoned, in his present statement, the Customs duties abrogated during this first period, because the duties abandoned during that period included the repeal of the principal Customs duties formerly imposed upon prime necessaries, and upon the principal materials for manufacture. He should, therefore, take the two subsequent periods, that from 1855 to 1869 inclusive, when£9,255,526 of Customs Revenue were abandoned; but with the above period he should take the period from 1870 to 1874 inclusive, during which£6,924,245 of Customs Revenue were abandoned. These two periods taken together formed a period from 1855 to 1874, wherein an aggregate of£16,179,771 of Customs duties was abandoned. This was the aggregate period to which, on Friday last, he had intended to refer as that during which£16,000,000, in round numbers, of Customs duties had been abandoned, although a very small portion of those Customs duties were imposed upon prime necessaries, or upon materials necessary for manufacture. He
    252
    (Mr. Newdegate) begged to call the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to these facts, because if this country should become exposed to the demands of a heavy war, it should not be forgotten that other resources than an increase of the Property and Income Tax were available; it would be neither just nor politic to limit the taxation necessary for the maintenance of such a war to the direct taxation levied upon property and income—the burden ought to be more generally distributed, for then it would be more easily borne. He thanked the Committee for having allowed him to call its attention to these important facts.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE)said, it would be a great calamity if we should ever be driven into a position in which it would be necessary to re-impose charges upon articles that had been liberated from taxation. But the question put to him by the hon. and gallant Baronet was a very fair one; and in answer to that he had to observe that the Income Tax, as at present constituted, undoubtedly fell upon a very limited portion of the population of the country—in his opinion, upon too limited a portion. The tax was at first imposed upon all incomes of£150 and upwards, and in 1853 a proposal was made and accepted by the House that the sum subject to taxation should be£100. Reflection confirmed him in the belief that this was a wise proposal; and he had to confess, with some regret, that during the existence of a Government for which he was responsible, retrogression was made from that position, which, to his mind, was distinctly a step in the wrong direction. But a still wider measure—not a step, but a stride—was adopted by the late Parliament when, to his great astonishment, and in spite of the best protest he could make, it immensely restricted the number of persons liable for the tax. He regarded it as extremely doubtful whether the time would come when this would be retrieved; but he hoped it might come. Although it had happened on more than one occasion, and might happen again, that when a sudden emergency like the present arose, recourse should be had to the Income Tax on the ground that it produced the minimum amount of disturbing effect, yet he perfectly agreed with the spirit of the

    253
    hon. Member's remarks—that it would not be right for any Government or Party, in the event of the prolongation of the present operations or of the aggravation of the burden of cost, to look to the Income Tax alone, and not to other sources of Revenue.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had a strong conviction that by far the greater number of wars in which the country had been engaged were brought about by the class of persons who paid Income Tax. All recent wars, at any rate, had been made by this class. Who were the people who supported the newspapers that cried out for war; who supported the "Jingo" policy and raised the cry that British prestige was being endangered all over the world? It was certainly not the working-classes of the country who did all this; and he believed there was no more effectual means of checking this tendency to create war than by throwing the cost of war upon the class who paid the Income Tax
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had no wish to detain the Committee for any length of time upon the present question; but he was afraid if he allowed this clause, as amended, to pass without any comment, his attitude with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government might be mistaken. To the original clause he should have had no objection; but the clause, in its amended form, made provision for a condition of things which had been brought about, in his opinion, by the fault of Her Majesty's Government. The House had, however, endorsed the action of Her Majesty's Government—at least, the great majority of Members had done so. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, following, with a fidelity that was extraordinary, the foreign policy of his Predecessors, which he once denounced as confiscation, had consented to the bombardment of a large commercial city without any declaration of war, and was now prepared to go as far as his political opponents in the way of aggression. He did not wish for a moment to appear to agree with the majority of the House with regard to the present war—on the contrary, such protest as he could make he desired to offer against the aggressive conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell)
    254
    said he believed that the wars of this country had been brought about by the class of persons who paid Income Tax, and he argued that, if possible, the cost of those wars should fall upon that class; but he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) went further and said—
    "Let those who make the quarrels
    Be the only men to fight."
    He was inclined to think that if this principle were applied there would be very few wars. For his own part, he should be glad to see Her Majesty's Ministers sent out to settle the Egyptian Business with an equal number of Egyptians; and he would be more inclined to vote for the impeachment of the Ministry than he was for the application of public money in support of a policy which he regarded as ignominious and cowardly.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he was sure the hon. Member for Queen's County, whose remarks were always so fair, could not wish to convey, in an absolute sense, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government intended to have a commercial city bombarded.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could not discuss this point on the Question before the Committee, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he submitted, of course, to the ruling of the Chair, although he had been under the belief that Members were allowed to make personal explanations.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties hereby granted, 44 & 45 Vic. c. 12) agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Provisions as to duty on dividends, &c, paid prior to passing of this Act).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Amendment made, in page 5, line 18, by leaving out "hereby granted," and inserting" at the rate of five pence;" in line 26, by leaving out from "in" to "deduction," in line 27, and inserting—
    "Or have made an insufficient deduction in respect of income tax, he shall be authorised to make the deduction or a sufficient deduction to make up the deficiency;"
    and in lines 30 and 31, by leaving out

    255
    "hereby granted," and inserting "at the rate of five pence."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties to be granted for succeeding year) agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report this Bill, as amended, to the House."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, lie would not detain the Committee by moving the new clause of which he had given Notice with reference to the maintenance of main roads; but he would be glad to learn whether a Supplementary Estimate would be presented before the end of the Session extending the amount which the Government intended to assign to local authorities?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE)said, that there would not be a Supplementary Financial Estimate; but a redistribution would take place in the current financial year.
    MR. WARTONpointed out that, through what appeared to be an arithmetical error, the occupiers in Scotland and Ireland would be charged four-fortieths of a penny more than was their correct proportion under Schedule B.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday.

  EAST INDIA (EXPENSES OF MILITARY EXPEDITION TO EGYPT.)

    RESOLUTION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th July],
    "That, Her Majesty having directed a Military Expedition of Her Forces charged upon the Revenues of India to be despatched for service in Egypt, this House consents that the Revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on by such Forces beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, as this Resolution has as yet only been formally moved, perhaps it will be convenient if I begin the remarks which I shall have to make by
    256
    repeating the terms of the Resolution itself—
    "That, Her Majesty having directed a Military Expedition of Her Forces charged upon the Revenues of India to be despatched for service in Egypt, the House consents that the Revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on by such forces beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions."
    Although the form of this Resolution is financial—although the Resolution itself is only an assent to the charge on the Indian Revenues for the expenses of this expedition—I conceive the purpose with which the Resolution is moved is not mainly, or, I may say, at all, of a financial character; but it is rather of a political and Constitutional character. The necessity for the Government to move this Resolution is contained in the 55th section of the Indian Government Act, with which Members of the late Parliament are perfectly familiar, and as to which there has been, at different times, a good deal of controversy. The terms of the section are as follow:—
    "Except for the purpose of preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, or in other circumstances of urgent necessity, the Revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to any military operations to be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions by forces charged upon such Revenues."
    Sir, but for this section it would be possible—I do not say it would be probable, or even conceivable—that a Government might carry on its military operations through the agency of the Government of India, by means of troops maintained on the Indian Establishment, and at the charge of the Indian Revenues, without having to come to Parliament for its consent at all. I do not say such, a case is probable under any circumstances. But if it were not for this section, such a contingency would be possible. But it is not only to prevent such a contingency as that, that the section of the Act was framed. This section has the additional effect of reserving to Parliament the power of deciding upon the question whether, in the case of operations, or of a policy which has been assented to, or in principle decided upon, by Parliament, such a policy is to be carried out by means of the agency of

    257
    Indian troops, or only by the agency of troops on the British Establishment. It is quite conceivable that cases might arise of wars carried on in Europe, or even in Asia or Africa, where Parliament might be ready and willing to assent to the policy of the Government, and might signify that assent by means of a Vote of Credit, or whatever other Constitutional method might be adopted; but, at the same time, might be of opinion that, for political or military reasons, that policy was not one which ought to be carried out by the agency of Indian troops. A case somewhat in point arose in the time of the last Parliament and the last Government in 1878. Parliament had given a general assent to the polic3' of the Government; but when, without asking for the previous assent of Parliament, the late Government advised Her Majesty to order the expedition of a certain number of Indian troops to be sent from India to Malta for the purpose, if necessary, of taking part in military operations to be carried on in Europe, many of those who accepted the general policy of the Government objected to that measure being taken by the Government. We raised, on that occasion, Constitutional questions of some importance. But the question suddenly became more involved, and turned ultimately on the point whether an additional number of troops not voted by Parliament might be employed within the Dominions of the Queen. In this case there are no circumstances of that kind. But, over and beyond that Constitutional question, many of us thought that it was an error of policy to employ or contemplate the employment of troops of the Indian Establishment, more especially of Native Indian troops, in a European war, and when the question was one of European policy. Now, it appears to me that this section reserves to Parliament full control over all cases in which it may be possible to employ Indian troops beyond the frontiers of India. On this occasion, there can, I think, be not the slightest doubt, both legally and Constitutionally, that it is necessary for us to come to Parliament. As to the question of the general policy of our intervention in Egypt, as it was debated at great length last week, it is not necessary that I should say anything. The decision of the House was, I think, finally and con-
    258
    clusively given by the Vote taken on Friday morning. The only question, it seems to me, we have to decide is whether, having adopted the general policy of intervention in Egypt recommended by the Government, this House assents to the employment of a portion of our Indian troops for the execution of that policy. Sir, I must say I know of no reason why the employment of Indian troops should not take place on this occasion. On the contrary, it appears to me that there are many political as well as military reasons for the course which we are adopting. India is, in my opinion, more greatly interested, both, directly and indirectly, in the policy which has been recently under discussion than she has been on many previous occasions on which her troops have been employed. It may be desirable that I should state shortly to the House on what former occasions Indian troops have been employed beyond the frontiers of India. At the beginning of the present century an expedition of Indian troops took place to Egypt, in circumstances and at a time about which it is not necessary that I should say anything to the House. Indian troops were employed beyond the limits of India in the China Wars of 1839–40, in the second China Expedition of 1856–7, and in the third China War of 1859. They were similarly employed in the Persian Expedition of 1856, and presently I shall ask the House to bear in mind that the Persian Expedition was carried out entirely by means of troops on the Indian Establishment. Indian troops were also employed beyond the limits of India in the Abyssinian War of 1867–8, and nearly the whole of the troops engaged in that campaign were on the Indian Establishment. Again, they were employed in the Perak Expedition; moreover, they were brought to Malta for the purpose of taking part in military operations in 1878; and again very recently they had been employed beyond the frontier of India in Afghanistan, although, of course, that was an operation of a different character, and might be considered as a frontier war. Sir, my contention for my present purpose is simply that India is more interested in the policy involved in the Egyptian intervention than she has been on many of the former occasions when Parliament has approved the employment of her

    259
    troops beyond the frontier. I need waste very little time in pointing out in what manner India is interested. It is impossible to separate the interest of the people and the interest of the Government of India. The Government of India are indirectly interested in this policy, because, ruling as they do over many millions of Mahomedan subjects, it is of the highest importance that in a country like Egypt, in which Mahomedans take a deep interest, and in which we have for some time past exercised a great influence, that influence should not be summarily destroyed by the pretensions of a military adventurer, relying on the support of the Army alone, or, as he erroneously supposes, on the fanaticism of the Mahomedan world. It is of very great, though perhaps indirect, importance to the Government of India that pretensions such as these should not be admitted, but should be summarily suppressed; and, therefore, the Government of India has, in my opinion, a very strong interest in this policy. Then it is of great importance that we should be able to proclaim to the world that we can trust our Indian troops, whether they are composed of Mahomedans or of adherents of any other religion. It is important besides that we should be able to proclaim to the world that our Military Forces in India are maintained not solely as a garrison, but that they form part of the Forces of the Grown, and are able to support the policy of this country, at all events in all cases in which the interests of India are concerned. Then the Government of India is also directly as well as indirectly concerned in what has occurred in Egypt. The relief of the British portion of our troops in India is carried on through the Suez Canal. Different opinions, I am aware, are held as to the importance of that Canal as a means of maintaining our military communications with India. Whether we may, at some time or other, revert to the former system of relieving our garrisons viâ the Cape of Good Hope, at all events the fact remains that at present our military communications with India are made by means of the Suez Canal. But it is not only from a military point of view that the Canal is important as the highway between this country and India. A great part of our commerce, our postal communication, and part of our tele-
    260
    graphic communication with India depend on the Canal. Again, the Suez Canal is the channel through which the ruling class of India proceed to that country, and by means of which all the intimate relations between that ruling class and the country at home are maintained. In these ways the Government of India is greatly interested, both directly and indirectly, in the internal affairs of Egypt. It may, perhaps, be said by some that the interests of the people of India are not in any way concerned with those of the Government of India. Those who think that our Government do not rule India for the good of the Indian people may be entitled to hold that opinion, and they may seek to establish some difference between the interests of the Government of India and the interests of the people of India; but those who, like myself, and I believe the great majority of the Members of this House, believe that our rule in India has conferred and is conferring great benefits and prosperity on the people of India, know that it is impossible to draw any such distinction between the interests of the Government of India and the interests of the people of India. But even those who may be disposed to draw such a distinction must admit that there is one point in which the people of India are deeply interested in the free navigation of the Suez Canal and in the internal condition of Egypt. Whatever may have been the commercial effect of the Suez Canal upon the trade of this country—and I believe there are some who maintain that although we have made great use of the Canal, it has not been altogether an unmixed advantage to our commerce—whatever, I say, may have been the effect to this country, it is undoubted that the opening of the Suez Canal has been an unmixed benefit to India and its trade. In the year 1880–1, the last year for which we have a Return, out of£143,000,000, the total trade of India,£88,000,000 passed through the Suez Canal. Therefore, considering how deeply the people of India are interested in its prosperity, it cannot be denied that the people of India are directly interested in the condition of Egypt. Then, if the Indian Government and the Indian people have a strong and direct interest in our policy in Egpyt, I think it may also be shown that there are dis-

    261
    tinct and clear military reasons for the employment of Indian troops in Egypt. It will be a distinct advantage in putting us in possession of a double base of operations, be that we shall not be forced exclusively to rely on our base of operations in this country. Again, one of the chief difficulties which we are called upon to contend against is not the formidable character of our opponents. I do not wish to disparage any of the difficulties which may be opposed to us; it would be very unwise to undervalue the enemy we may have to contend against; still, I think our chief difficulty at first will be found in the nature of the climate of the country in which our operations are to be conducted. It must be evident that the British troops who have been on service in India, who have been inured to a climate not very dissimilar to that in which they will now be called to serve, and that the Native troops, to whom that climate is a natural one, will be admirably fitted, in a military point of view, for the service which is now contemplated. Now, as regards the question of cost, that, as I have said, is not raised by the present Resolution. When a similar Resolution was moved by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), in the case of the Afghan War, he said that his Resolution did not in the smallest degree prejudge the question of the cost, and that if the House should think fit at any time to declare that a portion of the expense incurred in the war, or even the whole of it, should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, there was nothing in the Resolution which would place any impediment in the way of the adoption of such a course. The statement, it seems to me, is perfectly true, and applicable to the present case. If it was the view of the Government and the House that every sixpence of the charge should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, nevertheless it would be necessary, in our view, that this Resolution should be moved, because it is necessary that the previous assent of Parliament should be obtained, and that, in the first instance, that charge should be temporarily borne by the Indian Government, even though it were the intention that the whole charge should be ultimately repaid. Referring again to former precedents, I may point out to the House that dif-
    262
    ferent courses on different occasions have been followed. In the case of the China Expedition, the ordinary charges—that is to say, the ordinary pay of the troops—was on two occasions borne by the Indian Government, although on one occasion the whole charge was defrayed by the Imperial Government. The extraordinary cost of the two expeditions to which I have referred was defrayed by the Imperial Government; and the general course in these expeditions has been that the ordinary charges have been defrayed by India, and all the extraordinary charges by the Imperial Government. In the case of the Persian Expedition, in which the interests of India were more directly concerned, all the ordinary charges were defrayed by the Indian Government, and one-half the extraordinary charges. The effect of that is that more than one-half the whole cost was borne by India, because all the military operations were conducted from India. In the Abyssinian Expedition, where the interests of India were not directly concerned, the ordinary expenses only were charged to India, and this country bore all the extraordinary charges. In the case of the Malta Expedition, the interests of India were not held to be directly affected, and the whole cost, ordinary and extraordinary, was borne by this country. In Perak, the ordinary charge was borne by India and the extraordinary by the British Government. These are the recent precedents which are applicable to this case, and, as I have stated, they show that a considerable variety of practice has prevailed; but the rule apparently has been that, where the interests of India were not directly concerned, India bore no charge, and, in other cases where they were concerned, there was a division of the charge between the Indian and the Imperial Governments. In such a matter, it is evidently necessary that the opinion of the Government of India should be taken, and that it should have great weight. In this case, the Government of India have been consulted; there has not been time to obtain a detailed expression of their opinion; but I should not be dealing frankly with the House if I were not to state that the Government of India have informed me by telegraph that they object to India bearing the charge of her contingent, and that they are sending

    263
    home a despatch upon the subject. I had stated, a fortnight ago, by telegraph that the view of Her Majesty's Government was that India should bear the whole charge of her contingent, including both ordinary and extraordinary expenditure.
    MR. ONSLOW: Will the noble Lord read this telegram and the answer?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not got them at hand, but the facts are as stated. It is very necessary, before the House comes to a final decision, that it should have before it the grounds on which the Indian Government bases its dissent. It would also be necessary to know what the amount of the charge will be. I have asked the Government of India to provide me with an estimate of the cost of the despatch of the troops from India; but they have not been able to provide me with that information. It will also be necessary to know in what way the Indian Government propose to raise the Ways and Means for this unexpected charge on the resources of the year. These are elements in the consideration of the question, without which it is impossible to come to a final decision; and the Government do not ask the House to come to a final decision by this Resolution, which only sanctions the employment of Indian troops. It is the Amendments which have been placed on the Paper which ask the House to come to a final decision opposed to the view of the Government. They wish, without waiting to hear the opinion of the Government of India, without knowing what charge will be thrown upon the resources of India, to decide that in no case shall any charge at all with respect to the Indian Contingent be thrown upon the Indian taxpayer. The proposal of the Government is, that from India there ought to be a contribution in aid of these operations. If India is to make a contribution at all it can be made in only one of two ways. India may be called upon to pay a certain share of the total expenses, or she may, as we propose she shall, be called upon to pay the total expenses of her own share of the operations. Whatever opinion may be entertained by the House as to the justice of calling upon India to make any contribution at all, I have no hesitation in saying, as Minister for India, and in some degree responsible for Indian financial matters, that if India is to be
    264
    called upon to make a contribution in any shape or form, it is greatly to her interest that she shall be called upon to make it in the latter of the two ways, for this reason—the share of the work that can fall upon India must, from the circumstances of the case, be limited. India can only be called upon to contribute from her military resources such a part of the expedition as may be convenient and safe as regards her internal condition. She cannot, under any circumstances, be called upon to make great sacrifices in this undertaking. The primary object of the maintenance of a large force in India is the security of our rule in India. It is not conceivable that in any circumstances the security of that rule could be allowed to be endangered or imperilled by calling upon her to move an undue portion of her garrison for any purpose whatever. Therefore, the share which India can be called upon to take in the actual operations, and consequently in the cost, can only be very limited, while for this country no such limit is possible. The share which this country will have to bear in this undertaking will only be limited by what may be necessary for the requirements of the successful completion of the operations. The share, in fact, of this country will be only limited by the necessities of the case, while the share of India will be limited by her convenience and her own need. Therefore, it is fair and advantageous, if India is to make any contribution, that she should bear a certain proportion, and that she should pay the charge for that limited part of the undertaking which we are asking of her. The only question that remains is, whether India should be called upon to make any contribution at all; it is raised, not by the Resolution, but by the Amendment. If it is necessary that it should be discussed at any length on this occasion, I prefer to reserve any detailed observations until I have heard by what arguments the proposition is going to be supported that India on such an occasion shall be asked to make no financial contribution at all. The proposals which we make, subject to the consideration of the opinions of the Indian Government, are based upon our view of the great and vital interest of India in this question. If it was just that India should pay, as was proposed by the late Government, the whole cost

    265
    of the operations in Afghanistan, amounting to£20,000,000, without receiving any contribution from this country; if it was just, as we proposed, and as Parliament has agreed, that£15,000,000 of the expenditure shall be paid by India, and only£5,000,000 by this country, we consider it is infinitely more just that she shall be called upon to make that limited contribution from her resources which is involved in the part she is called upon to take in the expedition. It would not be desirable that I should state in detail the actual amount and composition of the forces coming from India. The call we have made is a very slight one; the number of men under orders does not amount to 5,000, with a reserve of about 1,500. It is not likely that the number of men will be greatly increased, and the proportion of charge for that limited contingent will be comparatively small. We consider it is not unjust that India should bear a burden financially so limited. We call upon her to bear this because it is an expenditure incurred in defence of a policy in which the honour and interests of the whole Empire are involved, and in which, in our opinion, the honour and material interests of India are still more directly and enormously concerned. For these reasons, I have to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
    MR. ONSLOW,in rising to move, as an Amendment—
    "That the whole charges which may he thrown upon the Revenues of India by the Military operations proposed to be undertaken in Egypt should be repaid out of the Revenues of this country,"
    said, he must disclaim any wish to impede the Government in the prosecution of their policy to restore law and order in Egypt, and to guarantee the perfect safety of the Suez Canal. A month ago, foreseeing that Indian troops would have to be sent to Egypt, he asked the Prime Minister whether India was to pay any portion of the expenses of the war; and now they were told that the Viceroy and his Council objected to India doing so. The Government, foreseeing that a necessity would arise for the employment of Indian troops, ought to have asked the Indian Government whether they would sanction the requisite expenditure for the force which the Government might think proper to order from India. The noble Lord had made an
    266
    appeal that they should not come to a final decision until a despatch had been received from the Viceroy; but, in his opinion, it was rather late in the day for such an appeal. If India were to pay, he maintained that it ought long ago to have been consulted in this matter. He (Mr. Onslow) personally held strong opinions with regard to the payment by India of troops for Imperial purposes. To a certain extent, he thought the Government had hoodwinked the House, because it was unquestionable that if the war went on the£2,300,000 would have to be augmented; and he supposed that few Members of the House for one moment thought that that sum would be sufficient even for the expenses of the English portion of the expedition, putting altogether on one side any portion of the re-payment to India for the necessary expenses incurred by that country. He had no hesitation in accepting the statement of the noble Lord, that the interests of India were undoubtedly wrapped up in the Egyptian Question; and, that being so, the Indian Government should long ago have been consulted on the subject. He did not wish to traverse the noble Lord's remarks about the necessity of sending Native troops to Egypt. Indeed, he believed the Mussulman and Hindoo troops would be found loyal to the Crown, and they would gladly assist the Government of the Empire and fight its battles. The policy was that of the late Lord Beaconsfield; and, though strongly disapproved of at the time, yet they now saw Her Majesty's Government following out that policy to the letter. with regard to the Amendment, no one, he hoped, would think that he wished India to make any profit by the employment of these troops; he only thought that their transport and similar charges ought to be defrayed out of the Revenues of this country, but that the ordinary pay for officers and men, and the ordinary payment for victualling the various regiments—a payment which the Indian Government would have incurred had the regiments remained in India—should be met from the Revenues of India. There was no analogy between the present case and the Afghan War. In the former every despatch was known to the Viceroy and his Council. That was a purely Indian war, undertaken

    267
    for Indian purposes—as he maintained, for the integrity of the Indian Empire; but this was a war undertaken for European and Imperial purposes. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not, on the strength of the imagined resemblance, lay down the doctrine that India and the Colonies ought to be called upon to pay for Imperial wars. He might notice the manner in which the Prime Minister's opinion on this subject seemed to have changed since the year 1878. In that year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) moved an Amendment to the proposal of the then Government, somewhat similar to that which he (Mr. Onslow) was now moving; and the ground the right hon. Member for Hackney took was that, as the late Afghan War was, in his judgment, a European war, undertaken in furtherance of the Imperial policy of Lord Beaconsfield, India ought not to be charged the cost of it. The right hon. Gentleman was seconded on that occasion by the present Prime Minister, who declared that the Indian people had had nothing to do with the war—
    "That they were wholly guiltless, and had washed their hands in innocence as far as that war was concerned."
    Whether that was right or wrong he did not now challenge; but he asked the right hon. Gentleman how he could come back on his words, when he was defending a policy which the Indian people knew nothing about, and a war in regard to which they had not been consulted? On December 16, 1878, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Those who make war for purposes, whether they he or be not Indian purposes, are the right persons upon whom should rest finally the charges."—[3 Hansard, ccxliii. 904.]
    ["No, no!"]
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is nonsense.
    Mr. ONSLOW: Nonsense or not, he was quoting from Hansard; it might be nonsense, but that was the only record they had to go by; and, for the purposes of his argument, he was justified in assuming the correctness of the words.
    MR. GLADSTONEagain said the words as quoted were nonsense.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was aware of the dexterity of the right hon. Gentleman in explaining away his own words; but here they were recorded in Hansard, and without, so far as he could see, any-
    268
    thing in the context to modify them. Again, in the course of the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman had said—
    "I am not surprised that there is a difference of opinion upon this subject. It is a very puzzling one."
    That seemed to be still the Prime Minister's opinion, for these words appeared still to be very puzzling to him. The right hon. Gentleman continued—
    "We have made our protest against the war, and, having done so, we will not now proceed to place the burden of it on the people of India."—[Ibid.]
    The hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) also spoke as strongly as possible against India paying anything for the Afghan War, because the finances of India were in an unsound state. But he failed to see that they were in a more unsound state than they were now. The Amendment was supported by the present Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Lyon Playfair), by the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and, in fact, by the whole strength of the Liberal Party. If they called upon India to pay for this, which he contended was a European War, they ought to call upon Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, and the Straits Settlements to contribute, for all these Colonies were much interested in the maintenance of that great international highway, the Suez Canal; at the same time, he did not deny that India was more interested in the free passage of the Canal than, perhaps, any other Colony. When the Control was established in Egypt, India was not consulted any more than Australia, Ceylon, Singapore, or any other of our Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman had also delivered among his memorable speeches in Mid Lothian one at the United Presbyterian Church at Penicuik, in which he talked about the acquisition of Cyprus.
    Mr. GLADSTONEinquired whether the hon. Member was quoting from an authorized report?
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, it was impossible to tell what was an authorized report of the right hon. Gentleman's words—he seemed to object to Hansard, which was generally considered an authorized report. This particular extract was from a pamphlet which was distributed very largely throughout the country, and which was also circulated one evening at a meeting at Exeter Hall

    269
    to denounce Her Majesty's late Government, and presided over by a Gentleman whom the Prime Minister, no doubt, knew very well. The right hon. Gentleman said then that the only way to maintain the position of the Suez Canal was by supremacy at sea. He supposed he did not deny that he made use of that remark. It was in a speech denouncing the then Government for the acquisition of Cyprus, and he used these words—
    "There is no greater folly than to suppose that it is by multiplication of your garrisons and your islands that you guard the road to India."
    But that was what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do at the present time. He was going to garrison the whole of the Suez Canal; and, in fact, the policy of the Government was to have garrisons from Gibraltar right away to Aden. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to deny the truth of that assertion, for they knew that Her Majesty's Government had been in correspondence with the French Government for the joint occupation of certain strategic positions along the Canal. He was not saying anything against that policy; but he pointed out that, to use a common expression, the right hon. Gentleman had not only eaten his own words, but had taught his Party to do the same. When he was talking about these garrisons, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "More double-distilled nonsense could not be administered to a set of idiots."
    [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head, but he was quoting from his own speeches. In another speech the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "The road to India is perfectly safe so long as you retain the command of the sea."
    But were we not now sending an expedition to Egypt to fight on the mainland? The noble Lord said that India was to pay only a very limited sum. He hoped that might be the case; at present, however, the House had not the slightest idea what that limited sum was to be. But were they sure that when they defeated Arabi they would be able to withdraw their troops? Many months would elapse before this country would be able to withdraw a single soldier that she was sending out; and were they to call
    270
    upon India to pay for the Indian troops for an indefinite time? The noble Lord had somewhat startled the House by the telegrams which he said had passed between him and the Viceroy. It was a very serious thing for the Government of this country to ignore what the Viceroy and his Council had said against being compelled to pay anything towards the expenses of the war. It might be the case that Her Majesty's Government, with their numerical majority, might overrule the decision of the Viceroy and his Council; and it was because he (Mr. Onslow) thought that such a course would be perilous to the interests of India, and to the authority of the Representative of the Queen there, that he wished to make this strong protest against the decision of Her Majesty's present Advisers. In conclusion, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.
    MR. PUGHsaid, he rose to second the Amendment. He could not agree with the noble Lord that the House had endorsed the policy of intervention in Egypt. The affair having gone so far, the House could not have refused to vote the money which the Government had asked for in connection with the operations in the Mediterranean; but with regard to the general policy of the Government the House had expressed no opinion, and he, for one, was anxious to guard against it being thought that he sanctioned the policy which had preceded the war. The noble Lord had reminded them that Her Majesty the Queen ruled over a large Mahomedan population. He could not agree to the argument which the noble Lord had founded upon that fact, believing that if it should become necessary for us to wage war against a Mahomedan population it would be unwise to ask the Mahomedans over whom we rule to contribute to the expenses of that war. The late Lord Derby had said that in the case of a war which was chiefly or solely an Indian war the charge ought to be borne by India. The present, however, was neither solely nor chiefly an Indian war; and, that being so, India ought not to bear a large share of the expenses. Under the Resolution which the Government wished the House to adopt the whole cost of the expedition might be thrown upon India when the£2,300,000 voted by the House should have been exhausted. It would,

    271
    in fact, be in the power of the Government to recall the English troops, and to carry on operations with Indian regiments only. It would be said that to suppose such an eventuality would be absurd. It ought, however, to be borne in mind that when the actual war should have been brought to an end, it would not be at once possible to withdraw our men. Troops would be required for police or protection duty, and the Government might possibly not be disinclined to employ Indian troops for that purpose. The Afghan War afforded a pertinent illustration. He was always averse to India's bearing any portion of the expense of that war; and he thought the war was unjust. But there was much force in the arguments used in support of the Government. We were told that from every part of India a cry arose against our inaction, and offers of assistance were made by every Native Prince. It was said in India on all hands that steps ought to be taken to vindicate the honour of the country. But nothing of the kind had been urged on the present occasion, and it could not be said that there was any such feeling as was then described in India. During the late Government there was no point upon which there was so much unanimity among the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. Was it reasonable that there should be such a partnership between this country and India, that India had no means of guessing what would be the limit of liability to he finally imposed upon her? We had not heard from India. He could understand the noble Lord's asking the House to stay its hand until he received a despatch from the Viceroy. As he understood, the noble Marquess had sent a telegram to the Viceroy to ask if the Viceroy approved of throwing the burden on India, and the Viceroy had said that he did not approve of it, and there was no reason to expect that there would be a single word in that despatch which would justify the Government in that matter. During the late Government the Postmaster General had been the Mover and the Prime Minister the Seconder of a Resolution adverse to the Government. The Prime Minister on that occasion said—
    "I think we are entitled to know whether, so far as the Government are concerned, this is a definitive proposal to lay the expenses of the
    272
    war upon India, or whether it is a proposal to hold over the whole question until they may find it more convenient to make some final proposal on the subject. I say it ought not to be held over; there is no reason for holding it over. We ought to decide, and decide now, whether India or England is to bear this charge."—[3 Hansard, ccxliii. 902.]
    If it was right that the House of Commons should make an immediate decision then on the question, it was so on the present occasion. The Secretary of State for War, in the same debate, had expressed himself in the same sense, and said that the Natives of India were entitled to know what their real position was. Similar language was used by the Postmaster General, and Lord North-brook denounced the proposal of the Government in strong language. Lord Lawrence took the same view. He could only add one word as to how the money was to be provided. The noble Lord had said that there was no need of coming to a conclusion on the subject at once. But he, on the contrary, thought that the question ought to he immediately dealt with in Ways and Means. Although India was in a better condition than formerly, and was improving, she was not in a position to bear the charge of any portion of the expenses of the operations in Egypt. To make India bear such charges was not only unjust to her; but lowered this country in the eyes of other Powers. In fact, he might say, as the Postmaster General had said at the time of the Afghan War, that it made England appear, "a mean, grasping, and selfish Power." Not only were we now driven to raise money from opium and salt; but we derived a large revenue in India from the administration of justice. It was a fact not generally known to the people of this country that every man in India who was sued for a debt had not only to discharge the liability to his creditor, but had to pay a certain amount to the State over and above the costs incurred in the litigation. Under these circumstances, they ought to hesitate before imposing an additional burden on the heavily-taxed people of India, and he appealed to the House to do justice in this matter, regardless of Party considerations altogether. Let India send the number of troops required, pay them at the same rate as if they remained in India, and bear the responsibility of any steps that might be taken

    273
    to reinforce the Native Army in that country. That would be a substantial contribution, and as much as could reasonably be expected from India; but any extra expense incurred ought to be paid by England. The hon. Member concluded by seconding the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the whole charges which may be thrown upon the Revenues of India by the Military operations proposed to be undertaken in Egypt should be repaid out of the Revenues of this Country,"—(Mr. Onslow,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
    "That the expenses of an intervention in the internal affairs of Egypt cannot be justly charged on the Revenues of India, which has absolutely no concern in the internal affairs of that country,"
    said, he understood that the Forms of the House prevented his moving the Amendment which stood in his name; but he should like to make a few observations in the sense of that Amendment. Unlike some hon. Members, he did not take a highly sentimental view of the position of India with regard to this country, nor did he go so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General used to go with respect to the rights of the people of India; but, steering a middle course, he thought it would be very unfair to the taxpayers of India that the cost of war—undertaken to support the policy of the Government— should fall upon them. He was one of those who wished they had never gone to war in Egypt, as he thought it would have been much better to have left Egypt alone, and certainly not to have taken isolated action; but having gone to war, he did not object to the employment by the Government of Indian troops. Instead of objecting to that, he was rather in favour of the proposal; but the question raised was, who should pay the expenses of this expedition, and in that respect he was of opinion that the Resolution before the House placed an unfair burden upon the Indian taxpayer. For his own part, he objected to placing any burden on the taxpayers
    274
    of India, except so far as the object of the war was the defence of the Suez Canal. This, however, was not the object of the expedition. It was to secure payment to bondholders through the Control, and to establish good government in Egypt; and these were matters in which India had no concern at all. In fact, so far from India being concerned in the question of the good government of Egypt, it was just the opposite, because Egypt was in some sense the rival of India in regard to cotton, corn, and other commodities; and, therefore, if she were crippled and hampered it would be to the benefit of India. In regard to the establishment of good order in Egypt, India had absolutely no concern, and for that reason it would be unfair to call upon her to contribute one farthing of the expense. Putting aside the Suez Canal, he was wholly unable to find in the speech of the noble Lord any reason why England should be interested in the internal affairs of Egypt. The noble Lord said that England ought to interfere in this Mahomedan country because she ruled over 40,000,000 Mahomedans in India; but that appeared to him to be a very singular argument for carrying fire and sword into Mahomedan Egypt; indeed, he altogether failed to see why India should be taxed for such an object. India might, no doubt, be properly called upon to contribute towards the expense of guarding the Canal; but who had threatened the Canal? It was unquestionably not in danger when the Government resolved to employ Indian troops. If they took the whole history of this question, they would find there was no real question as to the danger of the Suez Canal until the bombardment of Alexandria took place, when the question became prominent. The interest of India in Egypt was, he thought, infinitesimal; and it seemed to him that as regarded the present war, if we had had no Control and no bombardment we might have had no Arabi and no question which might have occasioned the war. Arabi himself had given us no reason to suppose that the Canal would be threatened if we left him alone. Admitting that the Canal was, to a certain extent, endangered by the operations incidental to the war we had now undertaken, he would ask what was a fair share of the cost of that war which India ought to pay? Under the Resolu-

    275
    tion before the House the effect would be that the control of this expedition from India would pass away from the House; and it would be in the power of Her Majesty's Government to send not only 5,000, but 50,000 troops from India to Egypt, and to maintain them at the expense of the Indian Exchequer, not for three months, but for three years or 30 years. This country was embarked in a policy which might lead to terrible consequences, and the difficulties were not only great in bringing the war to a conclusion, but greater in dividing the chestnuts which we might pull out of the fire. It would be a grave mistake to regard the war from an Indian standpoint, and to ignore the experience of the French in Tunis, where the invaders had had to contend with very great difficulties. One word as to the Canal, the safety of which was at once the object of the Government, and their justification. Of its great commercial importance he was well aware; but he was not equally ready to admit that its possession was a thing of absolutely vital consequence to the country. It was not so long since it was believed that if the Suez Canal were made it would ruin this country. That was the view of Lord Palmerston and others of the "Rule Britannia" school of politics. We had survived the making of the Suez Canal, and if the Suez Canal were stopped we should survive that too. But the interests of Europe in the Suez Canal were too great for the Government in Egypt, whether that of Tewfik or Arabi, or anyone else, to stop the Canal. As the interests of India in the Suez Canal were in some respects involved, he thought she might on that account bear some small portion of the expense; and, therefore, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). The Secretary of State for India had told the House that they were not to take the question as finally decided that the whole of the cost would be thrown upon the Indian Revenues in the first instance; but that arguments were coming from India which might induce the Government of this country to repay the charge. But why should not this country bear the whole of the cost first, and afterwards the Government might consider whether India should repay any portion of it? The Secretary of State was in the habit of drawing bills upon
    276
    India every month for large amounts. Why should he not, by buying his own bills upon that country, supply it with the means of sending the Indian troops to Egypt? He would suggest that some words should be inserted in the noble Lord's Resolution to show that the cost was not finally saddled upon the Revenues of India; but that the matter would remain open for consideration. If the Resolution were not amended in that way, he could not vote for it.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he had not the experience of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but he would undertake to be more brief in his observations. He would pass over the legal questions, turning upon the proper construction of the Act of Parliament, which had been referred to by the noble Marquess; and he would not discuss the question whether the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government was right or wrong. He entirely agreed with the noble Marquess that the employment of Indian troops in Egypt was highly desirable. Those troops were thoroughly acclimatized and accustomed to the kind of work which would have to be done in Egypt. But the simple question before the House was, who was to pay for the troops? Now, in considering this point, the first questions to be asked were those asked in 1878 by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), then Under Secretary of State for India— namely, What was the real interest of India in this matter? Was India vitally interested in the results which it was hoped to obtain by the present war? To which questions he (Sir Henry Holland) would venture to add a no less important one—namely, Whether India had taken any part in commencing hostilities, or had, by any action of her Government or people, led up to the present hostilities? Now, he thought no one could contend for a moment that India had in any way by her action created, or even added to, the present difficulties. The war was the direct consequence of a state of affairs in a country quite removed from India, and it had not arisen from anything directly or indirectly connected with the Indian Empire. Of course, he (Sir Henry Holland) would not take up the time of the House by attempting to prove this by pointing out in detail the origin of the

    277
    present hostilities in Egypt; but, briefly, it might be said that Arabi Bey, having gradually gained power, used that power and influence against the Anglo-French Controllers, who had set themselves, amongst other things, against the increase of the Army, and of the salaries of officers and men, which he advocated; that, ultimately, he managed practically to defeat the Controllers and the Khedive, and revolted against the authority of the latter. This short statement showed that the war was not connected with the Indian Empire, but arose from strictly local causes. He might, therefore, cite Lord Northbrook and Lord Derby, and, indeed, other Members of the present Government, as authorities against laying the charge on India, as proposed by the Resolution of the noble Marquess. Lord Northbrook, in December, 1878, spoke as follows:—
    "It would have been just and generous to have decided that no portion of the expenses should fall upon India. I consider the war to be the direct consequence of the state of affairs in Europe, and not to have arisen from anything immediately connected with the Indian Empire. For that reason India should not be called upon to bear the cost."—[3 Hansard, ccxliii. 478.]
    And Lord Derby said, on the same occasion—
    "If this is an Imperial war, the charge ought to be borne by England; if solely or chiefly an Indian war, the charge should be borne by India."—[Ibid.]
    No one could assert that this present war was solely or chiefly an Indian war, and, therefore, the charges proposed should not be borne by India. The second question he (Sir Henry Holland) would ask was, How far India was interested in the result desired? He would, however, in passing, observe that if India had not commenced the war— that was, if the war was not commenced solely or chiefly on her account—the result desired, though favourable, in fact, to India, could not properly render her liable to pay any part of the cost of the hostilities which led to that result. Her liability was not to be tested by the result of the war. This point he would venture to press strongly on the House, as he had heard it frequently argued that India ought to pay some part of the charge, because she would benefit by the result of the war. The results desired were peace in Egypt, and the suppression of the military revolt; but as
    278
    India had done nothing to disturb the peace which formerly existed, and did not excite the military revolt, the restoration of peace in Egypt could not make her justly liable for any charges connected with the proceedings which had secured that peace. Moreover, India was not vitally interested in the result of these hostilities. Her interest could not be put higher than this—that the stoppage of the Suez Canal would affect her trade with this country, and render the transport of troops more difficult. Well, a temporary stoppage of the Canal would not seriously affect that trade; and, indeed, a permanent stoppage of the Canal would only affect the trade temporarily, though for a time the loss might be considerable. He did not at all desire to underrate the importance and advantage of the Suez Canal, and he thought that it had been unduly diminished a few nights ago by the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone); but it must be remembered that the trade would find its way by the old route round the Cape of Good Hope, and that, as a set-off against the loss of time consumed in the voyage, we might fairly consider the extraordinary improvement in steamships, both in their speed and carrying powers. But, again, it appeared to him (Sir Henry Holland) questionable whether any danger to the Suez Canal need be anticipated. It was against Arabi's interest to damage it; and, if the papers might be believed, he had engaged with M. Lesseps not to do so. There appeared also to be some hopes that the Canal might be neutralized under the protection of the European Powers. He (Sir Henry Holland) trusted that he had shown to the satisfaction of the House that India had in no way, by the action of her Government or people, led up to the present state of things in Egypt; that, therefore, although the result of the war might be favourable to India, that fact alone would not make it just or equitable to call upon her to bear any portion of the expenses beyond the pay of the troops, whom she would have had to pay in India if they had not been summoned to Egypt; and, thirdly, that India was not so vitally interested in Egypt, and the result of the war, as to make it just to lay the proposed charges upon her. He would now only refer very briefly to the case of the Afghan War in 1878, which had been more than

    279
    once referred to in the course of the debate. There was then the question of a safe frontier for India. There was then the question of the peace of India, for it was not unnaturally feared that troubles in Afghanistan, unless speedily quelled, might lead to troubles in India itself. There was then the question of staying Russian intrigue and Russian interference, which might cause the Ameer to become a hostile neighbour, and which might dangerously extend over the Indian frontier. And, lastly, there was direct action on the part of the Viceroy and Government of India in the different negotiations, and in sending the Mission to the Ameer, the repulse of which might be said to have been one of the direct causes of the war. Such, rightly or wrongly, were the views of the late Government; and it could hardly be denied that the grounds for charging India in 1878 were far stronger than those now put forward in support of the present Resolution. But the course pursued by the late Government was declared by the present Postmaster General to be—
    "A course characterized by meanness and the absence of anything like generosity, and he believed it would be repudiated by every constituency in the Kingdom." — [3 Hansard, ccxliii. 894.]
    He had seen the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General in his place during the evening, though he was just now absent; and he hoped that the House might have an opportunity of learning from the right hon. Gentleman whether he still adhered to the opinion which he expressed with reference to charging India for the Afghan War. He hoped the Postmaster General would have the courage to state his opinion, and that the possession of Office—an Office in which he (Sir Henry Holland) gladly recognized the excellent work he had done—would not keep him silent. He especially hoped this, as no one had more earnestly fought for India than the right hon. Gentleman; no one had done more to resist the inequitable imposition of charges upon the Revenue of India for Imperial purposes. He (Sir Henry Holland) would venture to read to the House some words of the present Prime Minister in the debate in 1878, although the exact accuracy of some part of his speech on that occasion had been impugned. He was reported to have said—
    280
    "The Indian people have had nothing to do with this war; they are wholly guiltless; they wash their hands in innocence, so far as this war is concerned.… Can I bring myself to vote that the expenses of this struggle, which, is wholly our act, shall be placed upon India? I say 'No,' and I will go freely into any assembly of Englishmen and tell them I say 'No,' and appeal to them whether they will not say 'No' also. Nay, I am…persuaded that when they thoroughly understand the facts of the case, they will say distinctly that those who make the war should pay for the war."—[Ibid., 904.]
    But he would not attempt to ask the Prime Minister to reconcile his present conduct with his past words. The Prime Minister was the very Proteus of politics. He readily changed into fire, and from fire into water, and no chains would hold him. He (Sir Henry Holland) felt bound to support the Amendment, unless some concession was made by Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he was surprised that three speakers who had preceded him, having extensive knowledge each of portions of India, from official connection with it, had not touched at all on the most important point involved in the Resolution—the capability of the people of India to bear a share in the expenses of the war in Egypt. He contended that they were not able, and, therefore, should not have any portion of the cost imposed on them; and to that part of the subject he would confine his remarks. He regretted very much that the Secretary of State for India, in addition to the high qualifications he possessed for his Office, did not add a personal knowledge of India—as he had little doubt if he had travelled through it he would arrive at the same conclusion that he (Mr. Blake) had come to from personal observation—that so miserable was the condition of the great body of the people that it would be an injustice, even a cruelty, to add anything to their present burdens. He could furnish the House with most harrowing recitals of the wretched state of the ryots as a rule; but as his experience in India was under a year he would prefer to give the statements of gentlemen who had been a much longer time in the country, and had been officially connected with it. Had the Prime Minister allowed him to proceed with his Motion a week ago, calling attention to the condition of the peasantry of India generally, and especially those of Oudh and Behar, he would have produced a large

    281
    mass of official evidence, in the way of Reports of Commissions and the utterances of officials, regarding the wretchedness of the people, which would, he believed, have gone far to convince Parliament that he was correct in his assertions. He would not now trespass on their patience by going so deeply into the matter, and would confine himself to a very few quotations from the statements of Indian Civil servants. Amongst the pamphlets which lately appeared on the condition of the people was one from a distinguished Indian official, who recounted, in feeling and eloquent language, the wrongs and sufferings of the ryots of Behar, in a pamphlet entitled The Ruin of an Indian Province, addressed to the noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for India. He would read a few extracts showing the present state of things in Behar. [Cries of "Name, name!" "Who is the author?"] The author was Mr. Charles James O'Donnell, Justice of the Peace for the Province of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He was not surprised that the mention of that name elicited great dissatisfaction from certain quarters; but it was that of a man who still held an important official position, which he had won by his ability, and who had the courage, independence, and humanity, at the risk of disadvantage to himself, to stand up for the unfortunate Natives, and to recount, in telling language, the inhumanity and injustice to which they were subject in Behar. Here is what he says—
    "It would be no impossible task to prove that Indian progress, such as it is, has not been attained without much cruel suffering on the part of our Native subjects, and that from various causes English government has, in some instances, inflicted an amount of misery that is almost incredible. The condition of the agricultural classes in Bombay will immediately present itself to your mind. Permit me to lay before you a description of that condition as given in the pages of a journal the most favourable in India to every form of Governmental action. The Pioneer, in 1877, felt that any further cloaking of the facts and causes of agrarian discontent in Bombay fell not far short of the act of a disloyal citizen, and that it was wise, and necessary, and just, to tell the truth, and the whole truth. Its vigorous, candid language in this instance is an honour to Anglo-Indian journalism. 'Worried by the revenue survey,' it wrote, 'for heavily enhanced public payments, enslaved by his private creditor, dragged into Court only to have imposed upon him the intolerable burden of fresh decrees, without even the resource of flight which was
    282
    open to his forefathers before the kindred scourge of Holkar, the Deccan ryot accepted, for the third of a century, with characteristic patience and silence, the yoke of British misgovernment, For 30 years, as we now learn from the Papers published, he had been at once the scandal and the anxiety of his masters. Report upon Report had been written upon him; shelf upon shelf in the public offices groaned under the story of his wrongs. If anyone doubts the naked accuracy of these words, let him dip into the pages of Appendix A (Papers on the indebtedness of the agricultural classes in Bombay). A more damning indictment was never recorded against a civilized Government. From 1844 to 1874, successive Administrations have been appealed to, have been warned, or have been urged. Each, in its turn, has replied—as the present will doubtless answer to the late Committee's importunities— with a suave sigh of non possumus. The hospitalities of Dapooree or Ganeshkhind—the Palaces of the Bombay Governor—have for 30 years been lavished in graceful and generous profusion; while the ryot, who paid for them, lay hard by in enforced and ruinous idleness, a debtor in the Poona gaol; or ate at their gates, in the field of which the fruits had once been his own, the bitter bread of slavery.' It is true that this seems the language of exaggeration; yet, after making every allowance for the influence of a just indignation, it is impossible to assert that the history of this century presents many more fearful pictures of maladministration by a European nation than does this paragraph from one of the most Conservative journals in the Empire. 'So,' it continues, 'the survey officers (of the land revenue) came and went, adding each his thousands and tens of thousands to the public assessments. Marwaris (money lenders) swarmed up, in ever-increasing flights, from the far North-West, and settled down on the devoted acres. Honourable Justices visited India, to carry off after a while to their homes, also, some trifle from the ryot's hands, leaving him in exchange their precedents and their rulings; leaving also, in a thousand desolate homesteads, a monument, to those who sought it, of the wisdom of the system over which (always, of course, at the ryot's expense) it had been their pleasure to preside. Decrees of the Courts flew like arrow-flights into the thickest of the population, striking down the tallest and the most notable. Stupidity, blindness, indifference, greed—inability, in a word, in all its thousand forms— settled down, like the fabled harpies, on the ryot's bread, and bore off with them all that he subsisted upon.'"
    There were other important testimonies besides The Pioneer quoted by Mr. O'Donnell. He said—
    "Truly and piteously did Sir George Wingate, a distinguished Bombay officer, exclaim—
    'What must be the state of things which can compel cultivators, proverbially patient and long-suffering, accustomed to more or less of ill-usage and injustice at all times, to redress their wrongs by murder, and in defiance of an ignominious death to themselves? How must their sense of justice have been violated? How

    283
    must they have been bereft of all hope of redress from law or Government before their patient and peaceful natures could be roused to the point of desperation required for such a deed.'"
    Sir George Campbell, late Governor of Bengal, declared—
    "Nowhere have the rents of a peaceable, industrious, and submissive population been more screwed up than in Bhagulpore. It was the same action of the zemindars that was leading to rebellion in the Sonthal pergunnahs."
    According to the same authority—
    "The result of Mr. Kemble's—he being-magistrate of the great district of Burmah— inquiries on the Nepaul frontier is discouraging, in that, after very fairly weighing the respective advantages and disadvantages of both, he comes to the conclusion that the condition of the Nepaul ryot (peasant) is, on the whole, better than that of the British ryot. Although the smaller rent taken from the former by the Nepaulese Government is supplemented by forced labour and the purveyance system, on the other hand the illegal cesses and exactions of zemindars, middlemen, &c, and other vexations, turn the scale against the British cultivator."
    He (Mr. Blake) would now quote an authority which he expected the House would regard as important, that of Sir Richard Temple, formerly Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, a man more accustomed to depict everything relating to India in a roseate hue than otherwise—
    "Was forced to admit that 'undoubtedly the condition of the peasantry is low in Behar—lower than that of any other peasantry, with equal natural advantages, in any Province in which Sir Richard Temple has been in India. A system of rack-renting prevails in some parts of the division; the zemindaris (great estates) are let either wholly or in part to farmers or lessees, who are thus middlemen, standing between the landowners and the actual cultivators of the soil. It is reported that the object of the rent receivers is to exact from the ryots as much profit as they can. Bents, including therein the innumerable cesses by which they are supplemented, are limited in the case of the majority of agriculturists by little else than their inability to pay more.'"
    Sir Richard Temple was succeeded in 1877 by Sir Ashley Eden, who occupied that position up to March of the present year, and was now a Member of the Council of the Secretary of State for India. Soon after his accession the following, issued from his Secretariat, in the shape of a Besolution:—
    "The majority of the zemindars in Tirhoot are unfavourably mentioned, being described as grasping and oppressive to their tenantry. In the present Report of the Commissioner of the
    284
    Bhagulpore division a lamentable account is given, by the sub-divisional officer, of the state of things in the Banka sub-division, two-thirds of which are leased out in farms to non-resident speculators, while in the remaining one-third at least half of the landlords also are nonresident. The farms run usually for seven years, and are only renewed on the payment of a heavy and increasing premium, which falls entirely on the ryots. The tenants are said to have no rights, to be subject to the exaction of forced labour, to illegal distraint, and to numerous illegal cesses, while the collections are made by an unscrupulous host of up-country peadahs—bailiffs of the fierce races of Northern Hindustan. There can be no doubt whatever that the combined influence of zemindars and ticcadars (land speculators) has ground the ryots of Behar down to a state of extreme depression and misery."
    In a speech to the nobles and zemindars of Behar, in Durbar assembled, he subsequently said—
    "It seems to me that the time has come when Government must come forward and endeavour to take substantial measures for ameliorating the condition of the Behar peasantry."
    The Lieutenant Governor had then occupied for nearly a year the high position which he still held; and he declared that, having devoted much attention to Behar administration, he had come to the conclusion that it was his clear duty to interfere on behalf of the tenantry of Behar, whom, in language of honest and temperate indignation, he described as—
    "Poor, helpless, discontented men, driven about from village to village by the extortion of underlings or the exactions of irresponsible under-farmers—tenants who never know whether they will possess next year the land they occupy this, and who feel that any attempt to grow more profitable crops will only end in increased demands from the ticcadar."
    A short time before the delivery of this speech, in rebuking the evils of indigo planting as carried on by Europeans, he had denounced the farming system of holding land—known as the ticcadari system, on which their industry depends —as "the great curse of Behar," adding—
    "It is this mainly which makes the ryots of the richest Province of Bengal the poorest and most wretched class we find in the country."
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Waterford should confine himself more to the subject immediately before the Chair, instead of making a statement, as he was doing, of the condition of the peasantry of India.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he considered that, in quoting authorities to prove the wretched and impoverished condition of

    285
    the people of India, he was strictly keeping himself within the subject of the Motion before them, which was to charge on the finances of India a portion of the cost of the war in Egypt. His contention was that the people were so poor that they could not bear any more imposts, unless at the cost of being deprived of the means of providing themselves with the bare necessaries of life—the late famine being due, to some extent, to the impoverishment caused by high rents and heavy assessment for taxes. Of course, if the Chair ruled against him, he could not help submitting. He would, however, venture on one more quotation from a most important authority to prove that the people should not be taxed for carrying on this war. It was from the pen of Mr. W. G. Pedder, in The Nineteenth Century for September, 1877. Mr. Pedder had occupied a high position in the Revenue Department of India, and was now, he believed, in something of a similar position in the Indian Office here, having been transferred to it owing to his great abilities and knowledge of India. In the concluding portions of his interesting and important article he says—
    "It is to be hoped that the Report of the Deccan Commission will receive the most serious consideration of the Indian Legislature before a Revised Code of Civil Procedure becomes law. It is not too much to say that British honour, and the character, if not the stability, of our Empire in India are at stake. We justly reprobate Ottoman misgovernment, and pity the unhappy peasantry of the Turkish Provinces. It is a serious reflection that almost equal misery is being inflicted over a far wider area under the best meaning of Governments and through the most scientific of systems."
    Now, there was the testimony of the condition of things in India from a most trustworthy source. He was very sorry that he would not be allowed to quote other authorities in the same direction. He would have much wished to have read a few extracts from a work of great ability by Mr. Irving, a most distinguished Indian official, published last year, entitled The Garden of India, dealing with the wrong-doing of the Talukdars of Oudh, and showing the state that the peasantry of a Province designated the Garden of India were brought to by bad landlordism. As he had been through the principal part of Oudh himself, he would also bear testimony to the deplorable condition of its peasantry,
    286
    notwithstanding the fertility of their country, and their inability to bear further pressure, as the last coin was wrung from them, sometimes by torture, by their hard tax-masters. He had ample materials with him to prove that what he stated with regard to the portions of India he had been allowed to deal with held good with regard to nearly the entire of the country. Within a few years 4,000,000 had perished from famine, which would not have happened if they had been in anything like the state of prosperity they ought to have been in; and fully 40,000,000 were at that moment in a state of chronic starvation. Notwithstanding this, they had put on them nearly the entire cost of the Afghan War. And now it was proposed to saddle them with a contribution for the Egyptian War, the extent of which could not be measured, and against which, as they had heard from the noble Marquess, the Government of India had protested. Twenty years ago England was startled by the dreadful revelations contained in the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the effects of indigo planting in Eastern Bengal. The sufferings of the ryots to gratify the greed of the planters were shown to be so dreadful, that indigo planting in that part of Bengal was killed; but the evils that existed then were still in force elsewhere, and resulted in misery to the Natives. There were some in that House ready, he believed, to defend even the planters of Behar; but when opportunity came he was prepared to show up the iniquitous system they defended. He had been over India, from Afghanistan to Mysore, and, taken as a whole, he never beheld in all respects so poverty-stricken a people; and it was on these that, directly or indirectly, for the most part, the cost of the war would come. Many of the tenants held under the Crown, and were in numerous instances rack-rented. If India became liable for part of the expenses of a costly war, what little chance then would there be for those poor people to seek a reduction? One way that probably would be resorted to, to meet the quota of India for the war, would be to stop much of the public works that had been contemplated to aid the peasantry to recover from the effects of the late famine. What a deplorable expedient that would be. He most earnestly

    287
    besought the House to pause before it affirmed the principle of adding to the burdens of a people who were already so oppressed that their toil, with rare exceptions, gave them scarce enough to keep them alive of the poor food on which they subsisted. So satisfied was he of the inhumanity, injustice, and impolicy involved in the Resolution proposed for their acceptance, that if the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) went to a division on his Amendment he would support him; and, if not, he would vote against the Government in the, he was sorry to think, vain effort to defeat the Resolution of the noble Marquess.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought that the Government was very much inclined to under-estimate the importance of that debate. They seemed forgetful of the fact that a similar Motion was brought forward four years ago. The discussion on that occasion lasted for three nights, and the same discussion came on again after the original Motion was disposed of. Yet the Government were now quite willing to push that debate to the end of the night. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: A quarter past 7.] He was referring to what the Prime Minister said about bringing the debate on at any hour of the night. The Resolution of the Government seemed to contain two propositions of great importance. First, it committed the House to the employment of Indian troops in conjunction with the English forces of Her Majesty; secondly, the Resolution gave the assent of the House to the application of the Indian Revenue, temporarily or permanently, for the expenses of the expedition. With regard to the first proposition, he thought he was expressing the views of most hon. Members on his side of the House in giving it cordial approval. The employment of Indian troops in conjunction with those of England on proper occasions was an advantage to both countries. But he could not but listen with astonishment to the speech of the noble Lord, for every proposition contained in it was in direct contradiction to the statements made by him four years ago, and to statements made since that time by his Colleagues now sitting on the Treasury Bench. It was also true that the main question then raised in opposition to their proposal was the Constitutional
    288
    one, whether they were entitled to bring troops to Europe from India without first obtaining the assent of Parliament? Yet no one could deny that that was only one of the many questions which were raised. Every charge that human ingenuity could suggest was hurled at their unfortunate heads, and the greater part of the objections had no reference whatever to the employment of Indian troops in Europe. One objection was as to whether the Articles of War followed Indian troops when they were employed out of India. Another was whether Indian troops could, without certain formalities, be legally employed outside the territorial limits of the old East India Company. The opposition raised to their proposal was carried beyond that House, and was to be found in the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the country. He would not now go through them, but would rather direct attention to some remarks made by the Prime Minister. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little hard on the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) when he told the hon. Gentleman he had quoted from an unauthorized report. As the Prime Minister apparently objected to the quotations from Hansard and his Mid Lothian speeches, he would refer, not to speeches delivered, but to articles written by the Prime Minister in The Nineteenth Century. The passages he was about to quote applied to the employment of Indian troops in any part of the world out of India. The Prime Minister wrote—
    "It is quite impossible to work out this strange outlandish project of employing the Indian Army in common stock with our own, and yet to maintain the present distribution of charge between England and India. It would be a depredation and a swindle—a swindle perpetrated by a guardian upon his ward, whose interest he is specially bound to protect. England must prepare to assume a sensible, a just, a handsome share of the enormous charge of the Indian military system, and it could hardly be counted in less than millions."
    Yet the righthon. Gentleman came down to the House to-day, and, by the mouth of the Secretary of State for India, asked for permission to perpetrate what he formerly called a swindle. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on—
    "The number of subsidiary questions which come up in connection with this headlong operation is already great, and must hereafter multiply. Will it be extravagantly costly?

    289
    Is the Suez Canal equitably available for such a purpose? Will it not be a mercenary system, and is a mercenary system safe? Who and what are these 'followers' of the Native troops carried in their train at the public charge, and allowed for in the expenses of the expedition?"
    He did not desire to dwell upon this for the purpose of making an attack on Her Majesty' Government; but he did wish to express their satisfaction that the arguments they used on a former occasion had converted right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India told them, as if it were a new discovery, that they could trust our Indian Army; and hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed also to have discovered that the co-operation of Indian and English troops might, in certain circumstances, add strength to our military system. He now came to a much more important question—namely, if the House sanctioned the employment of Indian troops in Egypt, what proportion of the charge ought India to pay? As he understood the matter, the object of the war was two-fold—to establish a good and stable Government in Egypt; and to do that for the purpose of securing the safety of the Suez Canal. But for the Suez Canal the internal affairs of Egypt would be of comparatively small concern to this country, and of no concern at all to India. The construction of the Suez Canal altered the whole position of affairs. The maintenance of that highway was of the utmost importance to this country, and nobody could reasonably doubt that it was also of the greatest possible importance to India. His hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had cited certain words which he used in the course of a debate in 1878. One of the tests lie then desired to apply was whether India was vitally interested in the matter. He thought he should now go so far as to say that India was vitally interested in the maintenance of the Suez Canal; and, therefore, he came to the conclusion that India might be fairly asked to contribute something towards the cost of the operations to be carried on in Egypt. Consequently, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). There was another objection to the Amendment that ought to be stated. It was that if it was carried it would defeat the Resolution of the Government.
    290
    He, for one, could not be a party to defeating that Resolution, because it was important that at a crisis unexampled in our time the Government should be armed with the fullest powers for which it asked. As to the proportion of the cost that ought to be contributed by India, that was a much more difficult question. The proposition of the Government appeared to him to be one of the shabbiest ever brought forward in that House, considering the quarter from which it proceeded. Indeed, he was not surprised to hear that the Indian Government had put down its foot and declared that proposal to be entirely inadmissible. He might here observe that the proposal made by the late Government in 1878 was urged upon them by the Government of India, which desired the Home Government to adopt it. But the present proposal was to charge upon India the whole cost of their part of the expedition, whatever the duration of the campaign, and however extended its operations. For his part, he thought that at the present stage they could not possibly come to a final decision as to the proportion of the cost to be borne by the Government of India. One argument, which went strongly to support this view, was that we did not know to what extent, in what quarter, or by what means the Suez Canal might be threatened in the contemplated operations. All the more, therefore, did he say that it was quite impossible to foretell what was the real extent of the interest of India in the war; and we ought to wait before we arrived at a final decision, so long as it was certain that the question was really left open. Did the Resolution really leave the question open? It would be easy to raise a doubt by arguing from former speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had then contended that the question was absolutely concluded by the use in the Resolution of the word "defray;" and the word "defray" was in the present Resolution. What the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War had formerly said was that the word "defray" almost necessarily implied not a temporary but a permanent charge, and that, therefore, a Resolution identical with this imposed a permanent charge on India. When it was urged that the matter ought to be postponed for further consideration, right hon.

    291
    Gentlemen opposite said—"No; we will decide it now; we expect an absolute decision at once as to the proportion India is to bear." He was glad that to-night the Secretary of State had made a declaration which was satisfactory; he understood him to say that the question was not to be prejudged by the passing of the Resolution. Unless they had a perfectly distinct declaration that the House was in no way committed, he should submit an Amendment to the Resolution; but upon the distinct understanding that they reserved entirely their freedom of action, and did not give the smallest countenance to the absurd proposition shadowed forth by the noble Lord, he would give his support to the Resolution. The noble Lord had told them that the Resolution was not a financial, but a political one, hoping, no doubt, to avoid the necessity of discussing the cost of the expedition; but, in 1878, the Government was pressed for an Estimate, and gave it as nearly as they could. An hon. Member asked—"Do you call that an Estimate?" In reply he would say it would have been an insult to the Government of India not to have accepted the Estimate which it sent to this country; and he might add that the estimate of the cost of bringing the Indian troops to Malta was singularly accurate. He hoped that before the discussion of the Indian Budget, some details of the cost to be incurred would have been obtained by telegraph from India. In 1878, it was said that the assent of the Opposition to the Resolution depended upon the condition of Indian finances, and they called upon the Government to declare at once how the proposed expenditure was going to be met. When they came to discuss the Indian Budget, he should be prepared to describe it as courageous, but as leaving much too narrow a margin. The surplus was£285,000, and all experience suggested that it ought not to be less than£500,000. A small extraordinary expenditure upset the framework of the Indian Budget, while in England a screw of the Income Tax, or an ingenious financial operation, would provide what was required. In India increase of taxation was very difficult, and could only be accomplished with caution and by slow degrees; and it was utterly impossible to look to increased taxation to provide any additional sums which might
    292
    be required. Therefore, the amount had to be raised either by loan or by a reduction of expenditure. Three years ago the view of the House was strongly expressed in favour of wholesale reduction. Three years ago, a large reduction was made, and the only criticism made by Members of the present Ministry was that it was not large enough. The Home Secretary, speaking in the country, said that a reduction of Indian Expenditure was accepted by all Parties in the House, and that Indian Revenue was inadequate to meet Indian Expenditure. With that statement he was not disposed to quarrel; but the Government had largely reduced the income of India, and had enormously increased the Expenditure. Since 1880, the expenditure had been raised£3,500,000. This increase was alarming; and the first stop the Government must take, if they asked India to pay any part of the cost of this war, must be to apply the pruning knife with no unsparing hand. When the Indian Budget came on the noble Lord ought to tell them how the expenditure was going to be met. He had not made any quotations from the speeches of the Postmaster General, whose pluck and courage he had always admired; but he believed the right hon. Gentleman would be glad to be able for a few minutes to speak from an Opposition Bench, and criticize the speeches of his Colleagues.
    Mr. CROPPERsaid, he thought there were others interested in Egypt besides England and India who might contribute to the cost of the war—the bondholders, for instance, the speculators in Egyptian funds, the Sultan, and the Lancashire cotton spinners. His fear was that war would become popular in England if others were made to pay for it; and, of all whom it concerned, those who were wholly unrepresented, the Indian taxpayers, ought to be the last to be called upon to contribute. For these and similar reasons, therefore, he was unable to support the proposal of the Government.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that although very few hon. Members were in the House when the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India moved his Resolution, all must have admired the equanimity with which he had to-day supported that remarkable proposal. In his present position of responsibility, the noble Lord seemed to be fully alive to the force of those reasons which, when

    293
    in Opposition, he had ignored. He had now given very cogent reasons for the employment of Indian troops in Egypt, and had also expressed the deliberate opinion of the Government that the whole cost of the expedition should be defrayed out of the Revenues of India. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the noble Lord had stated that it would be in the power of the House, after the passing of the Resolution, to decide how the expenditure should be distributed between the two countries. It was very easy to say this; but hon. Members knew well what was the present fixed intention of the Government. The Vote, it was said, was to be applied for a certain number of troops during a period of three months. But if the Resolution were passed any number of troops might be employed for any length of time, and the moment the Government obtained the assent of the House to their proposal they might legally impose an unlimited amount of expenditure upon the people of India. The Indian Government might protest against this, but they would protest in vain, because it would be in the power of the Government to override their objections; and, that being so, it was simply throwing dust in the eyes of the House to say that if the Resolution were passed, it would still be in the power of the House to decide upon the distribution of the expenditure between the two countries. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had alluded to a number of speeches made by Members of Her Majesty's Government when they were in Opposition; and he was, therefore, unwilling to trouble the House with any further quotations. The noble Lord, as he had already remarked, had given very good reasons for the employment of Indian troops at the present time; and all these, with one exception, would have applied with equal force in 1878. The analogy between the position in 1878 and that at the present time was in one respect incomplete, because if the soldiers and taxpayers of India were to be consulted and asked which object more roused their sympathy and enthusiasm—the collision averted, by Lord Beaconsfield's foresight or the contest provoked by the Prime Minister's timidity and blindness— there could be no doubt that their reply would be that they were more deeply
    294
    interested in the events of 1878 than they were in those that were now taking place. The noble Lord, however, admitted that he had been wrong on the former occasion.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: When?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In 1878.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In the Spring or in the Autumn?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONventured to say the noble Lord's admission related to both the Spring and Autumn. If he were to recapitulate the reasons given by the noble Lord for the employment of Indian troops in Africa, it would be found that the whole of them hold good with regard to Lord Beaconsfield's despatch of Indian troops to Malta in 1S78, of which the noble Lord complained.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I never complained of the Indian troops being brought to Malta.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the noble Lord was at that time the Leader of a Party nearly all the Members of which had objected to the despatch of Indian troops to Malta. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had objected in the strongest possible way; and although he had said he was unwilling to trouble the House with further quotations, if hon. Members desired it he would read a passage from an article by the right hon. Gentleman in The Nineteenth Century. In that article the Prime Minister said—
    "All this is radically changed by the recent proceeding. A force has been brought beyond the old Eastern limits, and brought to assert, by way of earnest, that we possess in India an Army such as will make good our numerical deficiencies in Europe. This is not a question of five, or seven, or ten thousand men; if it were, the case would fall, for the purpose of my argument, mainly within the ancient categories. But the whole meaning of the measure is that India, with her scores and her hundreds of thousands, is to be introduced into partnership in our European wars. In and upon this view of the matter a multitude of questions will arise, of which I will now specify two. In this partnership the effusion of blood will fall largely to the Indian share. But the policy will be ours. The command ours. The reward and the promotion ours. India will be as much at the beck of our will as the elephants whom, perhaps, with the aid of a little winter clothing she may send us. We shall use her as we use a steam engine, and shall consult her just as much. She will have just as large a control over the expenditure of her own blood as the

    295
    locomotive over the consumption of fuel; at least, this alone will he her share unless and until she explodes. In the disasters of our wars she will he involved. In their successes she will have no concern. We may conquer territories, but not for her."
    And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
    "Is it possible that this can work? Will India be content? In distant and, to her children, ungenial climes, in lands of usage, tongue, religion wholly alien, the flower of her youth are to bleed and die for us, and she will nave no part but to suffer and obey. This is injustice, gross and monstrous injustice; and those who are parties to its perpetration must prepare for the results to which injustice leads."
    A little further on the right hon. Gentleman added these words—
    "We are to bring them from their homes, associations, kindred, from all that ever makes life to be truly living; in order to exhibit them to the nations of Europe, be these allies or be they enemies, as a soldiery of an inferior order to whom every high reward for valour is denied, every avenue of hope for eminence and fame jealously and irremediably closed. But were this financial question ever so liberally disposed of, and the British taxpayer already fitting his back as best he might to his burden, this would not in the least degree meet the political, social, and military grievance of India, nor requite her for the blood of her children drunk up by foreign lands, in foreign quarrels, and under alien command."
    Now, he asked, would not every one of those statements apply even with greater force to the present situation than they did to the situation in 1878? The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had said that, as the Vote of Credit had been sanctioned, the policy for which it was asked had also been sanctioned; but he (Lord George Hamilton) did not understand that by sanctioning the Vote of Credit the House had endorsed the action of Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, he understood the position to be, that in a great national emergency the House had consented to place funds at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government in order to extricate them from the difficulty in which they were involved, without expressing any opinion as to the policy which had led to that difficulty. If they were now asked to pass this Resolution upon the understanding that Indian interests were involved to an extent which would justify that action, they would be bound to investigate more closely the cause of the quarrel. The noble Lord, amongst the
    296
    precedents to which he referred, had cited that of the Persian Expedition in 1856. When that dispute arose between the Persian and Indian Governments with respect to the possession of Herat an expedition was sent from India which was attended with success, and a Treaty was eventually negotiated between the two Governments, the Imperial Government defraying a considerable portion of the cost. But here the noble Lord proposed that in an expedition for purposes totally outside Indian policy India should bear the whole cost of every soldier which the Home Government might ask the Indian Government to send into Egypt. The Government of India, as he had before mentioned, might protest; but the fact remained that although we had created a Government in India it was in the power of that House to overrule or even to ignore their opinion. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government did not fully estimate the variety of interests involved in Egypt. We had enormous interests in the East, not because we were an European, but because we were an Asiatic Power. We had two great interests in the Eastern Question—one in common with the other European Powers, which consisted in a desire to promote commerce and good government in the territories of the Sultan, and the other, the paramount interest arising from our possession of India. But was it fair or right, on the one hand, to employ in this expedition Indian troops and. Indian money on the ground that the interests which those troops defended were so purely Asiatic as to justify their employment, and yet, when the expedition was brought to a conclusion, to submit the whole result to an European Congress? The European Conference, as Lord Beaconsfield contended, was not a fitting Assembly for the settlement of questions affecting countries outside Europe. The only Power interested in the East besides England was Russia. The interests of these two Powers were antagonistic, and, therefore, he said it would be absurd to subject our interest in the East to an European Conference; and if Indian troops and Indian money were asked for by the Government the result gained by their employment ought not to be subjected to the control of such a Conference. The Prime Minister had alluded the other

    297
    night to the great change effected in 1879 in the position of the officers who exercised the control over Egyptian finance. But the really great change in their position was made in December, 1881. He was sorry to go at length into this matter, but he felt it directly affected the question before the House. The reason why he came into such immediate collision with the leaders of the Egyptian Army and Chamber of Notables was that M. Gambetta was determined to alter the position which our Agents and our Controllers General had up to that time occupied in Egypt; and he put them into an exactly similar position as that which in India an English Resident occupied at the Court of a Native Prince. Now, that system was known as the subsidiary system. It was one under which the Resident was partly Minister and partly Ambassador; he had the right to interfere in internal affairs of State, and to make his interference effective he had always a force behind him. But the Government had allowed M. Gambetta to entrap them into such a position as brought their Representatives into direct collision with the National Chamber and the National Army at a time when they had no force behind them. Would anybody contend that this was done in the interests of India? It was done, as they all knew, for a very simple purpose —namely, in order to obtain, if possible, a renewal of the Commercial Treaty with France. Hon. Members were aware of the result of those negotiations. As soon as the official news arrived that the French Government had backed out of their position, the Government came down and put India in the place which France had occupied in relation to Egypt. Her Majesty's Government were now in this extraordinary position. They took isolated when they ought to have taken concerted action with the Powers of Europe; and when they ought to have taken separate action, they submitted their proposed action to a Conference. The result of this was that we had failed diplomatically in almost everything we desired to succeed in, and succeeded in everything in which it was desirable we should fail. He was bound to say that the difficulties in which we were involved did not arise from our possession of India. They arose, in his opinion—first, from our desire to get a Commercial Treaty from France; and,
    298
    secondly, because, having been entrapped into a position which we ought not to have taken up, the Government had not the courage to act decisively, owing to a certain number of Mid Lothian speeches which stood in the way, and a certain number of Liberal Members who were opposed to intervention in Egypt. If he were right in his view, then it seemed to him a most unfair thing to propose to burden India with the results of a year's vacillation on the part of the English Government. Everyone would admit that India had a great and direct interest in the maintenance of the Suez Canal; but it would also be admitted that the present warlike operations in Egypt were operations against Arabi Bey. In those operations the French Government had from the first declined to take any part; but they did propose to take part in the operations for the protection of the Suez Canal. These two objects were, therefore, perfectly distinct from each other, and in the latter only had India any interest. Therefore, it seemed to him fair and legitimate to suggest that Indian troops and money should be employed in the defence of the Suez Canal. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had said it was necessary to effect such a state of things there that Egypt should cease to be a Military Power, and upon that point two important questions presented themselves. First, would the Vote of Credit be sufficient for the purpose the Government had in view, seeing that it was to cover a period of three months only— that was to say, would Egypt cease to be a Military Power in three months? If not, what troops would be best fitted to continue the operations in Egypt? The Indian troops, undoubtedly; and this the noble Marquess had himself admitted. That being so, he repeated that if the Resolution were passed in its present form, there would be nothing to prevent the Government sending Indian troops into Egypt when they pleased, and charging the whole expense upon the Revenues of India without obtaining the sanction of Parliament. But there still remained the question—What was to be done? And on this point he was bound to say that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) did not, in his opinion, quite meet the case. He was sure that no one

    299
    in that House would wish to deprive Her Majesty's Government of the money or the forces which they declared to be necessary to extricate the nation from its present difficulties; but the Amendment of his hon. Friend would, as he understood it, prevent this Resolution being carried at all; and, therefore, it seemed desirable to add to the Amendment some words which would make it perfectly clear that the House, in giving its consent to the Resolution, did so on the distinct understanding that a certain number of soldiers on the Indian Establishment were to be temporarily employed in Egypt, and that the question as to whether the Imperial or Indian Revenues should bear the cost would be again brought before the House. His own opinion was that a proposal in that form would meet with general approval. If some Amendment, such as that of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Pugh), could be substituted for the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he believed it would meet the wish of the great mass of hon. Members on both sides of the House, which was that in this emergency Indian troops might be employed in Egypt, but that the question as to the apportionment of the cost of their employment should be considered hereafter. He believed he had shown that this quarrel, which was entered upon in defence of English and French interests, was one in which primâ facie India was not concerned; and it only remained to him to apologize to the House for the length to which his observations had extended.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he should not enter upon the wide subject which had been discussed by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), but would direct his remarks towards another aspect of the question. He had held for a great many years that the best thing that could happen to this country would be that the Suez Canal should be silted up, and that the next best thing would be that it should be left open. The question, however, which they had to consider was not the creating of the Canal, but the maintenance of it as it now existed. And they had to consider whether the Indian Exchequer should or should not bear the expense of that maintenance. Now, it seemed to him a fair question for Members of that House to raise, whether the Im-
    300
    perial or the Indian Exchequer should bear the expense; because, if Her Majesty's Government had correctly stated their position, they had not invaded Egypt for any other purpose than that of restoring order. And if, through the default of the Porte, we had undertaken the task of restoring order in Egypt, he considered that upon the Porte and upon Egypt jointly the cost of that undertaking should fall. That, it seemed to him, was a self-evident proposition. But the question, in its present form, was whether the Indian Revenues should bear an undefined proportion of the expense; for the Resolution of the noble Marquess had this serious defect—that it neither limited the number of men, the amount of money, nor the length of time over which the operation might extend. He repeated that he should not go into the political question; but he desired to say a few words with regard to the policy of employing Indian troops in the operations in Egypt. He had heard many dispiriting prophecies made in that House and elsewhere as to the danger of employing Indian troops in Egypt; but the experience gained during his residence in India convinced him that Mahomedan troops were quite as ready as Christian troops to cut Mahomedan throats—that Mahomedan troops who remained loyal had no greater pleasure than to cut up their disloyal brethren. It was a very important fact to be remembered that only one-fifth or one-sixth of the population of India was Mahomedan, and that for every Mahomedan we had under our rule in India five Hindoos. With regard to the justice of charging India with the expense of preserving the Suez Canal, unless it could be shown that we ruled India solely for selfish purposes, and not for the benefit of her people, then, he said, India had a very solid and substantial interest in the maintenance of the Canal; because, after many years' experience in that country, he believed that, in spite of blunders, there was never a Government in the world that ruled with better intentions towards the people it governed than the Government of India. An hon. Gentleman who had spoken in the course of the debate had condemned the Government of India because the people were poor. But he reminded the House that poverty was the normal condition of the people of India, although, in this

    301
    respect, their condition was better now than it was before; and he took that opportunity of repeating that, in his opinion, no Government had ever ruled a people with more conscientious and disinterested motives than the Government of India. He had observed that the noble Lord who spoke last was much more anxious to prove the Prime Minister in the wrong in 1878 than he was to prove his country in the right in 1882, Notwithstanding this, he was quite sure that the noble Lord had no objection, either in principle or in practice, to the employment of Indian troops in Egypt. He was not sure whether a Conservative Government was in power at the time of the Abyssinian War; but he remembered that the Government of the day charged India with the ordinary expenses of the troops employed, and that the Imperial Exchequer was only charged with the extraordinary expenses. There was another case which occurred to him; and here, again, be did not remember what Government was in Office. A few years ago the Sultan of Turkey paid a visit to this country; his arrival was celebrated by a grand ball, and the cost of his entertainment was put upon India, on the ground that he was the head of the Mahomedan Power. As he had stated, the noble Lord was very anxious to prove the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the wrong; he bad alluded to certain speeches of the right hon. Gentleman; but hon. Members all knew that it was impossible to get through any debate, be it short or long, without a reference to the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman at Mid Lothian. Those speeches seemed to him like the Apocalypse—you could make anything of them if you went to them with a preconceived notion. He did not suppose, however, that the right hon. Gentleman in 1879 considered himself a prophet, or that he was able to say then what the Government would do in 1882. He was dealing with matters quite distinct from those now under consideration; and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would bear in mind that speeches made in Office and speeches made out of it were totally different things. His object, however, in rising, was to state emphatically his opinion, founded upon considerable experience, that the theory advanced by some hon. Members that it was dangerous to employ Indian Ma-
    302
    homedans to cut Egyptian Mahomedans' throats was a complete delusion.
    MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have listened with great attention to most of the speeches which have been delivered since my noble Friend moved his Resolution, and especially to those delivered by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House in Opposition—I may say, not so much to the intention as to the wording of that Resolution. I paid careful attention to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and I am bound to say that I considered it very ingenious, inasmuch as the noble Lord has discovered as many mare's nests in this Resolution, in the course of a few minutes, as are generally discovered by many hon. Members in the course of a whole debate. Starting from the assumption that there was something in the Resolution proposed to-day connected with the action of the French Government a few days ago, he carried us back to the Dual Note, and what happened about that time; and he seemed to have connected the policy of the Government with something proposed by M. Gambetta, which Her Majesty's Government did not accept, and with the negotiations relating to a Commercial Treaty with France which took place about the same date. Now, I must say that all this imaginary connection has nothing whatever to do with the case itself. The present proposal of the Government is entirely unconnected with the negotiations with France during the last week; it stands on its own basis, and has been supported by arguments, one of which I will venture to repeat in the course of the observations I shall have to make, and which, I think, will have great weight with the House. There has been a great deal said—very much indeed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope)—as to the events of 1878 in connection with the discussions in Parliament, during that year, upon the subject of the employment of troops out of India for the benefit either of India or of this country. But I noticed— and no one who was in the House at the time could have failed to notice—that two quite distinct transactions were mixed up in the argument of the hon. Gentleman. It would have been the impression left on the mind of anyone who on that occasion heard the subject dis-

    303
    cussed for the first time, that but one question was involved—namely, the employment of and the charge for troops outside India; whereas there were two distinct questions raised with reference to the Indian troops in 1878. But, Sir, the question of the despatch of Indian troops to Malta, and the charge connected with them, is one thing, and the question of the employment of Indian troops in Afghanistan is a thing totally different. As to the first, the question which was discussed at some length, and with some degree of warmth, was the Constitutional question—that is to say, under what circumstances Indian troops could be employed in Europe, and also under what circumstances Indian troops could be employed outside India. The question of expense did not occur, because the cost was defrayed by this country. But the question was raised subsequently as to whether the expenditure for the Indian troops employed in Afghanistan should be borne entirely by the Indian Exchequer; and those who now appear before this House and the public as the friends of India, and anxious to maintain her credit by refusing to charge the cost of the troops sent to Egypt upon her Revenue, should remember that it was the Liberal Party who, in spite of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who represented the late Government, that this country should bear its fair share of the cost of the war in Afghanistan. And we did this because the war in Afghanistan was waged, to a great extent, on account of Imperial interests—because it was not purely an Indian war, the cost of which should fall upon India. It was on the ground that the war was, to a great extent, ours that we insisted, when we took Office, in charging a large portion of its cost upon the Imperial Revenues. That being the case, let me speak of the present position with regard to Egypt. We are now engaged in operations of a warlike character, though not, strictly speaking, of war, for a special purpose, in which, we say, both India and this country are concerned. We say that these warlike operations in Egypt are the result of a policy which has for its object the maintenance of the great line of communication between this country and our Eastern Possessions. We maintain that there should be in Egypt, which is, perhaps, the most important part of that line of
    304
    communication, a stable Government, and one not subject to military despotism, which shall keep that line of communication open; and we say that India may properly bear a certain share of the cost of securing that result. If we go back to 1840, when this country took an active part in a war in connection with Egypt, we shall find the case to be quite different. The object of that war was the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire against the ambition of Meheme Ali; and if we had on that occasion brought Indian troops to Suez, and used them in Naval operations in the Mediterannean, it would have been altogether unjust to charge the cost of them upon the Indian Revenues, because it was not an Indian war. But we are now engaged in operations in which the interests of this country and of India are involved; and we therefore ask Parliament to determine that India, being interested, should bear a certain share of the expenditure. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) have both, over and over again, spoken of the Indian Revenues being charged with "the whole expenditure" on account of the Indian troops to be employed in Egypt. But let me remind the House what the proposal is. We are sending from this country— speaking in general terms—something like 24,000 men, while from India we are getting a force of between 5,000 and 6,000 men. The proposal, then, is that India should bear about one-fifth of the expense, whereas the Imperial funds are about to bear four-fifths of it. If we were to do what many have recommended—that is to say, carry on these operations in Egypt solely with Indian troops— and were then to call upon India to bear the whole expense, that, I venture to say, would be unjust towards India. But we are only asking India to bear a small proportion of the cost of the troops acting in Egypt, and we say it is not unfair to charge her with that proportion. The House, I trust, will clearly understand that there is no idea in the mind of Her Majesty's Government of overcharging India in respect of these Egyptian operations, in which she is interested. We are only asking her to bear a fair proportion of the charge. But the noble Lord and other hon. Gentlemen who have criti-

    305
    cized the Resolution say that it is not sufficiently definite. They say that— "Under these words you may carry on an unlimited expenditure, and employ any number of men for any number of years"—that Her Majesty's Government might, for instance, withdraw the whole of the European troops from India; that, after a short campaign, they might be under the necessity of occupying Egypt with troops, and that Her Majesty's Indian Forces were most suitable for such an operation. "We have no intention of acting upon any device of that sort. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for India has stated plainly what the Government propose. They propose that, assuming the duration of this campaign to be such as they have declared to Parliament, India shall bear that proportion of the expenditure which is represented by her troops, and that our Exchequer shall bear the rest. We propose, after the words, "this House consents that the Revenues of India," to insert "subject to any future decision of Parliament." That will establish the fact that we consider that India ought to bear a share of the expense, and will express the opinion of the great majority of the House.
    Mr. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that he had supported the Government on the proposal to put on the Imperial Revenues a portion of the expense of the Afghan War. India was a very overtaxed country; and, under these circumstances, he had a great objection to anything which would add to the taxation of that country. The people of India were not represented in that House; but they were taxed by a despotic Government; and he thought it was not desirable that that House should exercise such power as was now proposed in making India pay the expenses of her troops. As this was an Imperial war the expense ought to be borne by this country, and he should vote for the Amendment.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it seems to be quietly assumed that I have departed from, or am ready to depart from, speeches I have previously made; and the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) makes the charge that I consider that Gentlemen out of Office are entitled to make all sorts of speeches. If there is one view which I more thoroughly abhor than another, it would
    306
    be that view. Therefore, I wish to say that I adhere to what I have written and said on this matter. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) said he had quoted from Hansard. I have great respect for Hansard, but no man is to be bound by Hansard when he has no connection with reporting his own speech. The hon. Member said, it was nonsense, but still it was my speech. What I say is this—unless I am very much mistaken my contention was that the Afghan War was an iniquitous and guilty war, and I wish I could in any degree efface the language I used in disapprobation of that war; but I cannot do it. It was monstrous to charge that upon India. That is a contention which I still maintain, and the whole question is whether this is a right and justifiable proceeding. The second question is whether it is one in which India has a substantial interest. If India has a substantial interest, then, as has been explained by my right hon. Friend, we make a proposal which, if effected, comes to this—that India shall pay one-fifth of the charge, so far as we can estimate that charge, subject to what we may hear from India. We hold ourselves perfectly free to alter our view; but we do not wish the House to commit itself to the extent to which we hold ourselves committed. All our anxiety is to obtain from the House that which will give to our position and action full legality. We are compelled to proceed upon what we believe to be the law, and to defray the charges under the sanction of Parliament; but without committing Parliament to the ultimate charges to be met. With respect to the most fanciful connection established by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), between the Egyptian Correspondence and the Commercial Treaty with France, there is an old story of a connection between Goodwin Sands and Tenterden Steeple. People did say there was a connection, though remote, between the Sands and Tenterden Steeple, because the monks were so busy building the steeple that they forgot to fence in the Goodwin Sands. The two things are totally disdinct. In the Egyptian Correspondence there are complications and difficulties, but in the Commercial Treaty we had nothing to do but to take our stand upon principles and abide by them. While the Egyptian Question is one of the

    307
    most involved we ever had to deal with, the Treaty Question is one of the most simple. I have been glad to repeat these admissions, as they are called, but they are not admissions; and what we would desire to put forward is that, in view of our future action, Parliament shall give us legal powers and place beyond all doubt the perfect legality of our proceedings.
    Mr. ONSLOWsaid, he had not used a word as to the legality of the position of the Government. He had agreed to the employment of troops, and he would accept the proposed Amendment. He was perfectly prepared to withdraw his Amendment, on the condition that the Resolution adopted by the Government did not pledge the Indian Government ultimately to spend one halfpenny towards the expenses of the war. The Amendment proposed by the Secretary of State for War would not pledge the House to call upon the Indian Government to pay an iota of the expenses of this expedition; and, therefore, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, after the word "shall," to insert the words "subject to any future decision of Parliament."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 28: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 303.)
    Resolved, That, Her Majesty having directed a Military Expedition of Her Forces charged upon the Revenues of India to he despatched for service in Egypt, this House consents that the Revenues of India shall, subject to any future decision of Parliament, be applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on by such Forces beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  LAW AND POLICE—THE LATE MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES AT WEST HAM.—RESOLUTION.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he would not detain the House many minutes; but
  308
  the Motion to which he desired to call attention had been so long on the Paper that he proposed to take this opportunity of calling attention to it. The question was one of a local character; but it had caused a great deal of feeling in the part of the country which he represented. Rather more than a year ago, a young girl named Eliza Carter disappeared from West Ham under somewhat extraordinary circumstances. She was a child of 15 years of age, and she left home for the purpose of visiting a sister, and never returned. He wished to give every credit to the police authorities for the exertions they had made to discover the child, although, hitherto, those exertions had been entirely without success. A reward at first of£5,and then of£25,was offered, and since then it had been raised to£50;but all to no purpose. This was, of course, a very alarming occurrence in the East of London; but within a year a second disappearance of a similar kind had occurred. Another child about the same age had disappeared in the same mysterious manner. Every possible effort had been made to discover the whereabouts of these children—their bodies had never been found—nothing had ever been seen or heard of them by those conducting the inquiries. These two occurrences had caused a wide-spread feeling of alarm in West Ham and the Eastern part of London; and that alarm had been heightened, for not only had these disappearances taken place, but also a considerable amount of insecurity had existed for a long time amongst the young people of the neighbourhood, especially amongst the young females of that part of London. There was a large open space at West Ham purchased by the City, and kept as a park for the recreation of the inhabitants, and it was near this open space that these occurrences had taken place. He thought that probably the main cause of this state of things was the inefficiency of the police—he did not mean the inefficiency of the police who were on duty in that part of London, but their inefficiency so far as regarded numbers. They were not sufficient in number for the protection of the largely increased and increasing population. The population of West Ham in 1871 was 63,000, and the police force was 99. In 1881, the population had increased to 127,000,

  309
  but the police force had only increased to 162. He did not wish to trouble the House at that time of night by going into particulars of many of the occurrences which had caused the alarm to which he had referred; but he believed the Home Secretary was fully aware that there had been a considerable amount of almost consternation caused by the insecurity of the streets in and about that part of the Metropolis. He (Colonel Makins) wished to tender to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the thanks of the inhabitants for the way in which the police had endeavoured to assist those who had unfortunately suffered from this insecurity; and, no doubt, it was only necessary for attention to be called to the fact in order to have the matter still further looked into. He would simply, therefore, take this opportunity of moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice, for the purpose of enabling the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with the matter. The Resolution was—
  "That, as the population of West Ham and the adjacent parishes has been and is rapidly increasing, it is desirable that the police force should also be increased, so as to maintain its relative proportion to the population."
  He bad letters from people of West Ham detailing assaults, alarms to servants—young girls and others—but, as he had said, at that late hour he would not trouble the House by going into them. He would leave the matter, with confidence, in the hands of the Home Secretary; and he would only say that the reason he had so long delayed bringing the question forward was, because, on the one or two occasions on which he had had the opportunity, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not been present, and he (Colonel Makins) had not thought it right or desirable to trouble the House with the subject in the absence of that Member of the Government.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as the population of West Ham and the adjacent parishes has been and is rapidly increasing, it is desirable that the police force should also be increased, so as to maintain its relative proportion to the population,"—(Colonel Makins,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for having called attention to this subject; but these questions on Supply are very uncertain, and frequently come on without our being prepared for them. I have a box containing documents and references in regard to this subject; but as I was not aware that the question was likely to come on tonight, I did not take the precaution to provide myself with it. However, these matters are not controversial, and it is not necessary that I should enter into minute details upon them. Of course, in dealing with such a vast population as that of London, we experience an immense difficulty in apportioning the police—unless we were to increase the numbers to an extent that would be burdensome to the population, we should experience great difficulty in apportioning the police exactly to meet the requirements of all districts. There are I some districts that require a larger proportion of police than anyone would, at first sight, calculate that the Metropolis needs. There are parts that are comparatively thinly populated in the outskirts of the police district, and these require a larger number of police than do the other parts of the town. All these things are matters of great difficulty. As the hon. and gallant Member will easily understand, the character of the population has a great deal to do with the question. Some districts are more disturbed than others, and a district may be more disturbed at one time than at another, consequently there will I always be places and times in which the number of police will appear inadequate; and it is almost impossible always to reach the exact proportion in order to meet the wants of a district. The circumstances to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred are matters well deserving of attention, and I have already called the attention of the police to them. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that his Motion will not be without fruit; therefore, I hope he will not think it necessary to go on with it further. I can promise him that it shall receive the careful attention of the Government.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he was satisfied with the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.)£353,450, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, there had been some Resolutions passed by the Public Accounts Committee this Session, at the instigation of the head of the Stationery Department, which he hoped would be productive of a very beneficial effect. There were also points on which Resolutions had been proposed; but it had been considered advisable to leave the Department to further consider these matters. The main question had been whether it would not be possible very largely to lessen the supply of Blue Books and other Papers.
    MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the matter was under the consideration of the Government.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he thought it might be inconvenient to lessen the supply of Blue Books and Papers to hon. Members. Some hon. Members took an interest in one subject and not in another, and probably all the Blue Books were interesting to one section or another of Members of the House, and he should be sorry to hear that their circulation was to be stopped.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he thought great expense would be saved if the Blue Books in print were named in a schedule, so that hon. Members could ask for those they wanted.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.)£15,187, to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, &c. Office.
    (3.)£30,480, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.
    (4.)Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£13,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was a time-honoured custom for Irish Mem-
    312
    bers to oppose this Vote, and he did not think they should depart from the custom on the present occasion. He was afraid a good deal of Secret Service money had found its way to Ireland during the past six or 12 months. He did not suppose the Secretary to the Treasury—the only Representative of the Government on the Front Ministerial Bench—was responsible for the manner in which this money was employed, or was aware that the Government were, at the present moment, employing a man who was known to be an assassin for the purpose of prosecuting men and getting them sent to penal servitude, for if the hon. Member was acquainted with this circumstance he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought that even he would hesitate to countenance the voting of this money. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) knew perfectly well, from what had happened on other occasions, that no information would be vouchsafed the Committee as to the precise manner in which this Secret Service money was expended; but he thought the Irish Members had a right to know how much was spent in Ireland, and whether any of it was used for the purpose of suborning perjury. How, he should like to know, could the Secretary to the Treasury or any honourable man take part in voting this money when the questionable purposes to which it was put were so well known? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not say that Secret Service money was not a necessary adjunct to Government. Some of it, he supposed, was required in Egypt to produce evidence to enable the Government to make out that a foreign invader like England was more pleasing to the Egyptian people than a chief of their own country; but what he and his Friends did object to was that part of this money should be spent in Ireland for the demoralization of the people. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could assure him that none of the Secret Service money was spent in Ireland, his opposition would cease. He invited the hon. Member to make some declaration on that point—to say whether or not, since he had been in Office, large sums of this Secret Service money had been spent in Ireland, as it had been in the time of his (Mr. Courtney's) Predecessors. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) begged to move the reduction of the Vote by£5,000, which, to hazard a conjecture, he should say was about the sum which

    313
    had been spent within the past year in Secret Service money in Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£8,000,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.—(Mr T. P. O'Connor.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished, in a few words, to support the Motion made by the hon. Member for the City of Galway. The hon. Member had necessarily been under a difficulty in moving the reduction of this Vote, for the reason that no such information was afforded the Committee as would enable the hon. Member to gauge the amount by an accurate knowledge of the facts. If the Committee had been placed in a position to know for what purpose the money had been spent in Ireland, they would have been able to form some idea as to how much of the amount of the Vote had been spent legitimately, and how much had been spent for purposes of demoralization; and they would have been able to say with greater certainty by how much the Vote should be reduced. There was no Vote ever presented in such a vague, shadowy, and unsatisfactory form as this. They were told it was for Secret Service, and though they were informed that it was required for "Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services," the Government did not give them, such information as enabled them to see how much was given for Foreign Secret Service, and how much was given for Secret Service at home. There were circumstances connected with politics in Ireland which rendered it desirable that they should understand this Vote a little, and which increased the obligation on the part of the Irish Members to make inquiries into the subject, with a view of ascertaining, as far as possible, how the money was spent. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Chief Secretary for Ireland a Circular was sent round to the Constabulary, offering money rewards for information of sums ranging from£10to£100.It had been said that this had led to a system of spying, and to taking people into public-houses and making them drunk for the sake of getting information from them. He was not aware of any valuable results to the Public Service which had sprung from
    314
    these vile and discreditable practices; but he knew that, in two instances at least, shameful perjury had been caused. He should like to know how the Government defended this system, and he should like the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to tell them whether or not, in his opinion, such expenditure of public money had been attended with useful or beneficial results? He (Mr. Sexton) was inclined to think that such had not been the case—that it had resulted in demoralization of the individual character, but not in any useful consequences to the Public Service. It was a serious thing for the Government of a country like England to embark in an expenditure of public money which induced the baser characters in a political conflict to depart from the ordinary sources and fields of information, and to debauch people and make them drunk in order to obtain information. Such expenditure, even if it did nothing more than demoralize individuals, must be put a stop to. He (Mr. Sexton) would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any of this money now to be voted was used for shameful purposes of that kind? They had heard of the departure of Colonel Brackenbury from Dublin, and had heard that it was because, when he had been appointed to his office, he had used the public money for purposes of which the Lord Lieutenant did not approve—in the employment of Belgian and French detectives, for instance, in the use of lady spies, and in the adoption of all the features of the Continental police system. It was a source of gratification to him (Mr. Sexton) to see that Lord Spencer had declined to agree to such a scheme, and that Colonel Bracken-bury had found himself under the necessity of precipitately abandoning his post. It would be useful if the Secretary to the Treasury would inform them what were the arrangements Colonel Brackenbury proposed, and whether, under the present system of Secret Service in Ireland, any such arrangements were adopted? Such things had been held to be abhorrent to British opinion and sentiment. The question at the present moment was one of special and significant importance in face of the rumours they had heard of late; therefore, he thought the hon. Member for Galway had raised a timely opposition to the Vote.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had always been opposed to this Secret Service Vote,

    315
    holding that it was one with which no Liberal Government should have anything to do; but here they were asked to vote for an arbitrary reduction of the Vote by£5,000,which sum hon. Members thought might probably be spent in Ireland. Hon. Members, without attacking the principle of Secret Service, simply wished to offer opposition to that which they considered about the amount expended on Secret Service in Ireland. It did not appear to him (Mr. Anderson) that that was at all the proper thing to do; therefore, he was obliged to decline to follow those hon. Members in their opposition. If they had adopted the other course, and had gone against Secret Service altogether, he should have supported them.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was sorry to say he was not in a position to give any very satisfactory answer to hon. Members on the subject of this Vote. As had been before stated, when questions of this kind had arisen, this sum for Secret Service was distributed amongst the heads of Departments, who gave no vouchers for the amounts they received, the money being left to be spent at their discretion. It was perfectly impossible for him to say how any amount given to the head of a Department had been expended by that Gentleman; and as to what had been said about Earl Spencer and Colonel Brackenbury, the fact was, as had been stated by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Colonel Brackenbury had left his post for a personal reason having no connection whatever with the Public Service. That, he (Mr. Courtney) thought, was a sufficient answer to the scandal the hon. Member had referred to.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hardly thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) could be right when he said that no vouchers were rendered by the Secretary of State as to the manner in which they expended the moneys received under this Vote. As a matter of fact, last year there was an item of£110first of all granted under this head, and then returned to the Exchequer. This sum came before the notice of the Controller and Auditor General, and was certified by him as having been refunded; therefore, there must have been a voucher as to the expenditure of the money. He agreed with the course taken by his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in moving the reduction of
    316
    the Vote by£5,000.The adoption of this Motion would not prevent the Government from making use of this iniquitous fund in Ireland, because it was well known that the sum voted was more than was needed, and was not always expended. Besides the£23,000voted in the Estimates, there was a fixed sum of£10,000,which the Government obtained for Secret Service from the Consolidated Fund. That sum they always used; but the amount claimed from the Estimates was not always expended, and in the year 1881 there was a balance of between£7,000and£8,000 left, which was returned to the Exchequer. Unless the plan of proceeding of the Government was getting worse from year to year, it was reasonable to suppose that there was a sum of at least£7,000by which this Vote might be reduced, without in the least curtailing the power of the Government to manufacture witnesses, or do anything else they wished to turn their resources to. There was one point connected with the fund upon which he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give him some information; and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was not in his place to put the question instead of him. The right hon. Member concerned himself with the question of public morality in a very remarkable manner, and that not only in regard to the people of this country, but in regard to people living in such a place as Hong Kong. A charge had been made—supported, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) believed, by official Correspondence which no one seemed to be entitled to make public—that some of this Secret Service money was used for most infamous purposes in Hong Kong—for purposes that had seriously to do with the question of morality. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give the Committee an assurance that no money from this fund was being employed in the dissemination of immorality in Hong Kong, and also whether he could give an official disclaimer that the Secret Service money was then being employed in Ireland by the police for the manufacture of evidence. At a trial which had taken place recently in Ireland, a person, whose evidence was not shaken in cross-examination, testified that a constable named Dalton told him that a constable was authorized to offer£1,000for evi-

    317
    dence to convict persons falsely accused. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give a denial to the statement that the police were authorized to offer Secret Service money to Crown witnesses in Ireland.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, although he rose to reply, as far as he could, to the questions of the hon. Member who had just sat down, he was really in a position to add little, or nothing, to the answer he had given to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He had already explained that he had no control over, or any knowledge of, the way in which the Secret Service money was disbursed by the heads of the various Departments of State. From his knowledge, however, of the Departmental accounts, he was perfectly confident that no such sum as that of£1,000 had been paid by any Department for the purpose indicated by the hon. Member. The manner in which the Secret Service money was disbursed was known to the responsible officer at the head of each Department alone, and at the end of the year that officer made a declaration, which was sent to the Office of the Controller and Auditor General, in this form—
    "I hereby certify that the actual amount expended by myself or under my direction in the year ending on the 31st day of March,—was£—."
    The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had also referred, to supposed transactions with the Secret Service money in Hong Kong. With regard to that, he believed the hon. Member was under a misapprehension, because it had been proved that the money spent in Hong Kong had reference to the Revenue only, and could not have been applied to purposes which he need not further particularize.
    MR. SEXTONwished to draw attention to the case of the two brothers Flanagan, tried for firing into a dwelling-house. The chief witness against them was a young farm servant named Malony, 17 years of age, who swore that he saw them firing into the house. The Judge who presided at the trial told the jury that the case rested on the evidence of Malony alone; but the jury found the prisoners guilty. One of them was released; but, upon the evidence of this wretch Malony, the other was still suffering penal servitude. He asked whether it was by the use of the Secret
    318
    Service money that the Government had been able to get the evidence of this man, and whether it was also out of that fund that he had been maintained in England, and finally sent to America?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, as he had always a desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members, he would, after having I brought the objectionable nature of the Vote before the Committee, ask permission to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by eave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes; 77; Noes 12: Majority 65. — (Div. List, No. 304.)
    (5.)Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£4,171,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that this Vote had been the subject of much discussion in former years, on account of the objectionable character of some of the items included in it. In the first place, it was most objectionable that the large sum of£500a-year should be paid as salary; to the Lyon King-of-Arms. This money was really thrown away, for it was perfectly well known that the office was a sinecure, and that whatever was done in connection with it was of no public utility. He hoped, therefore, the Government would give an assurance that when the present occupant of the office I died, they would not fill up the vacancy. Then there was the items of Queen's Plates, which included the plate to be run for at Edinburgh, the plate for the Caledonian Hunt, and the plate for the Royal Company of Archers as the Queen's Body Guard. Now, the money asked for under this head was practically for no other purpose than the encouragement of gambling, and he had always objected to this portion of the Vote, because he entertained the belief that the encouragement of gambling by any Government was in itself thoroughly immoral. They were quite aware of the general argument put forward in support of this practice of offering plates to be run for in different parts of the country—

    319
    namely, that it tended to improve the breed of horses; but it was notorious that its tendency was rather in the direction of injuring the breed of horses than improving it. He was so satisfied in his own mind that the practice of horse-racing ought not to receive encouragement from the Legislature, for the reasons he had given, that if no Member of the Committee moved the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the item in question, he should do so himself, and should, in that case, certainly divide the Committee unless some satisfactory statement were made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that an assurance was given in Committee on the Estimates last year, by the noble Lord the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the office of Historiographer to Her Majesty in Scotland, which was charged for in this Vote, should not be filled up after the next vacancy occurred. The gentleman who held the post having since died, according to the engagement he had referred to, the charge of£184 ought not again to have made its appearance in the Estimates; and he therefore begged to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£3,987,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. COURTNRYsaid, he had personally no knowledge of any statement made by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the office of Historiographer of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's County. He was bound to say that the office had not been abolished; on the contrary, the vacancy caused by the death of the late Historiographer had been filled up, and hence the charge for the salary in the Estimate.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the promise was certainly made last year that when the office of Historiographer became vacant it should not be again filled up. It was not to the amount of salary, but to the absurdity of the office
    320
    that he objected. It really ought not to continue in existence. It was upon these grounds that he opposed the Vote last year, and opposed it now.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not, as a rule, take any part in the discussion upon Scotch Business. He thought that those who claimed Home Rule for Ireland might very well concede the principle to Scotland of managing their own affairs. However, the application of public money under this Vote called for some remarks on the part of his hon. Friends and himself. He regarded it as a disgraceful thing that such an office as that of Secretary to the Bible Board should be allowed to exist any longer. The Lord Advocate, he remembered, had last year given the Committee to understand that the office would, after this year, be abolished. Notwithstanding that, the charge appeared in the Estimates.
    Question put, and negatived,.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he rose again with reference to the question of the Secretary to the Bible Board. He had no wish whatever to misrepresent the statement made last year in Committee by the Lord Advocate; but after paying close attention to the discussion which then took place, the impression left upon his mind was that this was to be the last year the office would be held. He was, therefore, somewhat surprised to find that it was not intended to abolish the office, but simply, as was expressed in the Estimate, to revise the salary on the next vacancy. He was at a loss to understand why the Government did not commute the salary, and, by the payment of a certain sum, get rid of the Secretary and the office altogether. As he understood the statement made last year, the duties of the Secretary consisted in correcting proofs. It appeared that a certain number of Bibles were produced from stereotype plates, and that some slight errors were occasionally met with—a circumstance that raised some serious reflections with regard to Scotch Orthodoxy. However, he now asked whether it was right that the office, with the large salary attaching to it, ought to be continued, seeing that the holder of it could probably be got rid of by the payment of five or six years' salary?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that since the Estimate was presented to which the hon. Member for Galway had just called attention, inquiries had been made as to whether the office of Secretary to the Bible Board could be abolished. The result of those inquiries was that the office would be abolished.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government were going to do something in the direction of economy. He trusted they would carry their intention a little further, and abolish also the office of Lyon King-at-Arms.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he should not trouble the Committee by repeating the arguments against the Vote for Queen's Plates; but he felt it his duty to discourage the system of subsidizing gambling, and should, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of£218for Queen's Plates. In making this motion, he trusted he should receive the support of some of his Scotch Friends, even if his Colleagues were not disposed to vote with him.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£3,953,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the amount given for Queen's Plates was really very small. There were a number of Scotch Members present, and if they saw no objection to the Vote he should not feel justified, even from the point of view of the severe moralist, in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, it had been acknowledged that this mode of spending money was not a good one, and that so far from improving the breed of horses, it had a contrary effect. The late Government had, moreover, said that they would endeavour to find out some other way of spending the money which would really tend to improve the breed of horses. But nothing had been done up to the present time, and the objectionable system which encouraged a low class of country platers was allowed to continue. He hoped the present Government would change this iniquitous
    322
    system, and get rid of the Queen's Plates.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, it was not often that he found himself in accord with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but if he went to a division he should vote with him on the present question.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that the first speech he had had the honour of making in that House was in defence of the Vote for the Queen's Plate for the Archers of the Queen's Body Guard. He explained on that occasion that this money was for a prize given to the Royal Body Guard, which had existed in Scotland for four centuries; that the Guard in question turned out on all State occasions, and that they did, in fact, good service to the country under circumstances sometimes of considerable hardship. He thought it would be a great mistake to take away the only token given by the country to this old historical association; and, therefore, he trusted the hon. Member for Cavan would withdraw his opposition to this portion of the Vote, which he begged to assure him had not the slightest connection with gambling.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had been for many years Chairman of the Royal Veterinary College—an institution which had never cost the Exchequer sixpence—and he was unacquainted with any better means in England of encouraging the breed of horses of power and endurance than that of offering Queen's Plates. He should, therefore, continue to vote for them until some better means of promoting the breed of horses could he found.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in 1870 the majority of Scotch Members induced the Government to strike out the portion of the Vote which related to the Queen's Plates, and accordingly in the Estimates of 1871–2 the charge was not included. But in the next year, 1871, the Government were asked by the Scotch Members to continue the Vote, which since 1871–12 had been included in the Estimates as before.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) was strongly in favour of retaining the Queen's Plate as a national token to the ancient Company of Archers of the Queen's Body Guard, he was willing to withdraw the present

    323
    Motion with the intention of moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of£198,which represented the charge for Queen's Plates at Edinburgh, and for the Caledonian Hunt. This proposal would not interfere with the item of£20for a Queen's Plate for the Royal Company of Archers.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£3,973,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Sootland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 54: Majority 29. —(Div. List, No. 305.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£9,807,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers and Quays."
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the subject of beam-trawling. He did not believe in that mode of fishing; many other people were very much opposed to it, and even the President of the Board of Trade had expressed a strong opinion against it. There had been extensive cod fishery within three miles of the Scotch shores, but that had been destroyed by this beam-trawling. A few years ago a Commission, consisting of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Buckland, was appointed to consider this matter, and they reported that a strong case had been made out against beam-trawling, and that they thought the Legislature should give power to the Board of Trade to offer protection against it. He brought this question before the Committee last year, when the late Lord Frederick Cavendish expressed his regret that there was no Scotch Member present; and what he would now ask was, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) had been able to con-
    324
    sider this question, and whether the fishermen might expect any relief? His constituents felt very strongly upon this point, as they saw their fishing utterly destroyed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to follow the example of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander), who, a few days ago, on an English Vote, procured an advance for Scotch interests of£10,000.This present Vote related to Scotland; but he wished to secure for Ireland what had been half promised—namely, cutter and boat services for Ireland similar to that provided for Scotland. Year after year the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries had reported that the fisheries suffered very much from the want of guard which cutters would afford; and the late Financial Secretary promised last year that if, on inquiry, he found their representations were well-founded, he would endeavour to obtain from the Admiralty the same cutter services for Ireland as were already provided for Scotland. Since that time the Inspectors had repeated their representations that there was a necessity for this service.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he should support the views of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander). There was no doubt that a great amount of injury was done by beam-trawling, and there ought to be some protection given to Scotch fishermen.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was known that trawling was an evil, and in 1878 there were representations to that effect, giving the different opinions expressed by persons of technical skill and knowledge; but at present no final determination had been arrived at. He did not remember the discussion of last year.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped that attention would be given in respect to the request for protection to the Irish Fisheries. If it was useful to Scotland to have cutters, it was the duty of the Government to yield to the request for cutters for Ireland. A pledge was given last year by the late Financial Secretary; but it sometimes happened that Members of the Government were succeeded by Gentlemen who did not enter so liberally into their views, and he did not think the present Financial Secretary was as generous as his Predecessor, who,

    325
    he believed, would to-night have supported the pledge he gave last year.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, with reference to the observations of the Lord Advocate, that he did not remember what took place last year, he found by Hansard that Lord Frederick Cavendish said it was unfortunate that the Lord Advocate was not present, and he could only say that the facts would be brought before the Lord Advocate. Therefore, he (Colonel Alexander) hoped the Lord Advocate would make some inquiry into this matter and see whether the Report of the Commissioners did not make out a strong primâ facie case against beam-trawling.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, several Commissions had reported that beam-trawling was the proper method to be adopted. There were certain districts—Ballantrae, for instance—in which strong complaints had been made of the adoption of beam-trawling as injurious to fishing; but what he wished to say at this time was that the vessels now referred to were employed chiefly as the police of the sea.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman declined to give him any satisfaction, he must propose to reduce the Vote by£5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£4,807,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers and Quays."— (Colonel Alexander.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, this subject had been under the consideration of the Board of Trade at various times. The matter was one of great interest and importance, and he confessed that there was some inconvenience in raising it upon a Vote of this kind. It would have been better raised by a separate Motion upon which the whole matter might be examined by the House. Although Ballantrae was specially dealt with by the Commission, yet the facts which were brought out in regard to Ballantrae were alleged in regard to a great number of other fishery grounds, and it would be a mistake to come to the conclusion that Ballantrae only was affected. The question was, whether the House should interfere with a great fishing which affected the food of the people in
    326
    favour of another method of fishing which was also legitimate, but not so successful as the beam-trawling? He thought the House could only do so if it was of opinion that the beam-trawling unnecessarily interfered with other methods. Whether that was the case or not was the matter in dispute; and although the Commission reported that a case for further consideration had been made out, yet a very exhaustive inquiry was held some years previously by a Committee, of which Professor Huxley and the present Chairman of Committees were Members, and that Committee decided that it was not proved that beam-trawling was the cause of the failure of fishing in Ballantrae or anywhere else, but that failure was due to other causes. There the difficulty lay; and, however much might be said on either side, he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied that the matter should have the careful consideration of the Government.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORdesired to enforce what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The question he referred to was raised last year, and Lord Frederick Cavendish stated that if, on examination, it appeared that the representations were well-founded, he should be glad to do everything in his power to promote legislation on the subject. That promise was made in August last year; but nothing had been done, and it was not apparent that the matter had been brought under the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (7.)£3,994,to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
    (8.)£4,737,to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
    MR. BUCHANANasked the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation as to the delay in issuing the Census of Scotland?
    MR. COURTNEYwas unable to explain the delay.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he thought it very unsatisfactory that no information could

    327
    be obtained with regard to the Census of Scotland. He thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have made inquiry long ago, and that some Member of the Government should have been able to say when the information might reasonably be looked for.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.)£23,621, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERwished to know whether it was to be understood that a Supplementary Vote of£10,000 for medical relief in Scotland would be proposed?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, this Vote included that amount.
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, they were told the other evening that this amount was promised, and that the English Vote had gradually increased, whilst the Scotch Vote had not. It seemed to him that 100 per cent was a large amount to put on the English and Irish taxpayers without more full reasons. If the increase had only been£1,000 or £2,000 he should not have minded so much; but the sum had absolutely jumped from £10,000 to £28,000, and was, consequently, a most serious matter. He had heard the matter discussed before in this House, but had never dreamed that the Scotch Members expected to get 100 per cent addition.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the hon. Member evidently had not attended to what had been said in the course of the discussion, or he would have heard a full explanation. Scotland had for a long time been very much aggravated at not receiving a larger proportion of the total amount granted for medical relief. Whilst Scotland had only had the small sum stated, England had received£200,000.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he would supplement what had fallen from the hon. Member by saying that the amount voted to Scotland was fixed 40 years ago; and whilst no addition had ever been made, the amount voted in the case of England had been from time to time increased until it reached the present enormous sum.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [28th July] reported.
  Resolutions 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Resolution 8 read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was not in the House when this Vote came on in Committee, otherwise he should have opposed it. He was always ready to object to it on principle, as having reference to one of the offices which had really become obsolete. There were no real duties attaching to the office; and he thought that if they wanted an extra or a special Minister they should have one, giving him a proper name instead of that which was a mere cloak for a sinecure office. The public ought to know that there were duties to be performed, and they ought to have some indication as to what those duties were. As he (Mr. Dillwyn) was in the House, he felt it his duty to express his objection to the Vote, his hostility to it remaining undiminished. It was well understood why he objected to the Vote. It was not because he in the slightest degree objected to the person who held the office, but because there were no duties to be performed in it. He begged to move the rejection of the Vote.
  MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he had nothing to say personally against the worthy Nobleman who now occupied the office of Lord Privy Seal. He was Lord Lieutenant of the county with which he (Mr. Baring) was connected, and performed his duties well; but he (Mr. Baring) had always opposed the Vote— in a former Parliament as well as in this. They were very much in want of another Cabinet Minister. The House had already passed a Vote recommending that there should be a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, and if they did not desire to increase the number of Cabinet Ministers, they could easily do what was wanted by abolishing the office of Lord Privy Seal. There was hardly a Member of the Cabinet who was not at this moment double-shotted—everybody seemed to be doing somebody else's work besides his own—and if, in the present condition of affairs at home and abroad, they found no difficulty in getting on with so few Cabinet Minis-

  329
  ters, it was a proof that they could do without the office of Lord Privy Seal for the future.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he would support the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn), not so much because he objected to the office of Lord Privy Seal as because he thought that there should be a Minister for Scotland. Scotch Affairs were singularly neglected in that House. They found when they were discussing Scotch Fishery Boards that the English Ministers in the House knew nothing at all about them. He (Colonel Alexander) was, therefore, in favour of doing away with the sinecure office of Lord Privy Seal.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 19: Majority 24.— (Div. List, No. 306.)
  Resolutions 9 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
  Resolution 16 read a second time.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he begged to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to an exceedingly important question—namely, the adulteration of butter. There was a discussion on the subject of adulteration the other night, and it was decided that in cases where coffee was mixed with other ingredients the fact of the mixture should be stated on the labels outside the packages. They knew that publicans had been prosecuted for selling gin containing more than a certain por-portion of water—that was to say, gin below a certain proof strength—and he did not see why the Local Government Board should not take care that the consumers of that which purported to be butter were protected in the same way as the consumers of coffee. The adulteration of butter cost the public an enormous deal more than the adulteration of coffee, and did a great deal of injury to the producers. It was of the utmost importance to the agriculturists of the country that that which was not butter at all should be allowed to compete with butter. It had been urged that the difficulty was that in cases of adulteration the retailer or small dealer had no means of knowing what the substance he sold as butter was composed of, having no opportunity of testing its component parts. But that was no argument, because the re-
  330
  tailer should get a guarantee from the wholesale man; and if the article turned out to be different to what it had been represented to be, the wholesale man could be proceeded against; and he, if the adulteration had not been of his doing, would be able to fall back on the person who supplied the article in the first instance. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the retailer to protect himself. At the same time, the consumer had no protection, as he was obliged to go to the public analyst before he could get any redress. The persons who bought the articles were not likely to have competent examiners, and to know what it was as well as those persons who were continually dealing in it, and knew its nature and quality. He would ask the Government to try to protect the consumer and the English people from foreign adulterations, for the great bulk of that stuff sold as butter in England was made in foreign countries, and foreigners got the benefit at the expense of the English consumers. He was very much disposed to move the reduction of the Vote, as he believed the officers of the Local Government Board did not do their duty in connection with this important question.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had an explanation to give the hon. Member which he would, at all events, admit was conclusive, if not satisfactory; and it was that the Local Government Board had neither duties nor power in regard to this matter. The question was entirely under the general law of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and unless that law were altered, the Local Government Board had no power in the matter.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Subsequent resolutions, 17 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

MOTIONS.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PAY).

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That this House will, this day, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the increase of pay of certain officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force, and of amending the Acts regulating the same."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. BIGGARdrew attention to the fact that 40 Members were not present.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question having been put, the House could not be counted.
    Queen's Recommendation signified.
    The House divided:— Ayes 25; Noes none: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 307.)

    MERCANTILE MARINE FUND (CHARGES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to amend the Law with respect to the charges on and payments to the Mercantile Marine Fund, and to expenses of prosecutions for offences committee at sea, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. JOHN HOLMS.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.