HC Deb 02 March 1883 vol 276 cc1327-49

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

Sir Arthur Otway, it is my duty on this occasion to address to the Committee a few words with reference to the Supplementary Estimates of expenditure in connection with the Egyptian campaign. The Committee will, perhaps, allow me to remind them of what took place in reference to that matter during the last Session of Parliament. On the 24th of July last, a Vote of Credit was proposed by the Government, and was agreed to by the House on the 27th of July, for strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean; and this Vote amounted to £2,300,000, of which £900,000 was for the Army, and £1,400,000 for the Navy. The Vote was in the words I have quoted—"For strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean." At the same time, the Government of France proposed a Vote of Credit in connection with their Naval operations in Egypt; but that Vote of Credit was rejected by the French Chamber on the 28th of July, and in consequence the French Government resigned, and on the 31st of July the French Fleet was ordered to withdraw from Egyptian waters. We thus became alone charged with the task of sending, under a Vote of Credit, a special Expedition to the Eastern part of the Mediterranean. Our Fleet and our transports conveying the Expeditionary Force were instructed to call at Malta for orders, and on their arrival at Malta they were ordered to Alexandria, and at that place to undertake certain operations, partly there and partly on the Suez Canal. Those operations, as I need not remind the Committee, terminated on the 15th of September in the complete success of the Expedition and the ending of the war. The charges in connection with the Expedition continued however, beyond the 15th of September to the 1st of October, and those relating to the transport of troops which were not left in Egypt continued also until the greater part of the troops were brought back to this country. After the 1st of October the troops remaining in Egypt were no longer at the expense of this country, but remained at the expense of the Egyptian Government; and if hon. Members will refer to the present Estimates they will see that the sum of £279,000 is credited in respect of the troops remaining in Egypt after the 1st of October last—namely, £209,000 for the Army, and £70,000 for the Navy. These figures are calculated on the average of £4 per head—that is to say, £3 per head for the Military, and £1 per head for the Naval expenditure. And now I will explain what has been the estimated additional cost beyond the £2,300,000 voted for strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean. With regard to the estimated expense of the troops sent from this country, from the garrisons in the Mediterranean, and from India, if reference is made to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in November last, hon. Members will see that besides the Estimate of £2,360,000 voted in July for troops sent from England, the Estimate for the Indian troops was £1,880,000, making altogether a total cost of £4,180,000. My right hon. Friend informed the House that the revised Estimate for the troops sent from this country, including their transport, was £3,360,000, and that the estimated cost of the troops sent from India would be £1,140,000. So that it was estimated in November, as against the original Estimate of £4,180,000 for the charge against this country and India made in July, that the total expenditure would amount to £4,500,000. Now, since November last we have had experience of rather more than three months, and we are able to correct, although in a very small degree, the Estimate which my right hon. Friend then gave to the House. As against that Estimate of £4,500,000, we now estimate that the total expenditure of every kind on account of England and on account of India, including a small Civil Estimate for the transport of refugees from Egypt to Malta, is £4,575,000, showing an increase of £75,000. Of the charge against this country, there is a small sum of £ 12,000 in respect of the Army, and of £26,000 in respect of the Navy, which will not become payable in the course of the present financial year; and there remains to be voted in discharge of the balance due in respect of the charge for the Egyptian War, deducting the sums voted in July last, on account of the Army, £728,000, on account of the Navy, £350,000, and on account of the Civil Service, £17,500. And now, Sir, I come to the Vote in connection with the expenditure incurred by India. The total expenditure incurred by India is, as I have said, £1,140,000, and out of that sum Her Majesty's Government propose that £500,000 should be paid by this country to India, leaving £640,000 at the cost of the Indian Government. Adding that sum to the figures I have already stated to the Committee, the whole amount which the Committee will be asked to vote to-night will be £1,595,500, including the sum of £17,500 in connection with the Civil charges. Now, let me say a few words with regard to the proposed contribution from this country towards the charge on the Indian Revenue. I may remind the Committee that this subject was discussed at some length on the 31st of July last, when, under the terms of the Statute, a Vote had to be taken approving the employment of Indian troops in the campaign, and that the expense, in the first instance, should be defrayed out of the Indian Revenue. As was then explained in the course of the debate, the formal Vote did not bind the House to the Resolution that the Indian Exchequer should bear the whole burden of the charge, but left it open to the House, by a subsequent Vote, to relieve, if it was thought necessary, the Indian Exchequer from a portion of the amount. It was in order to make this proposal perfectly clear that I moved to insert certain words in the Resolution put from the Chair, and perhaps I may be allowed to refer very shortly to the words I then used, which were— The Government 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."—(3 Hansard, [273] 305.) We then inserted the words, "subject to any future decision of Parliament," after that part of the Resolution, by which the House consented that the Revenues of India should be applied for the purpose. The Resolution fully expressed the opinion of the great majority of the House. There was a minority who voted against the Motion, altogether disapproving of any arrangement under which India would bear any part of the charge; but I have carefully looked through, the debate, and I find that, although there were several hon. Gentlemen who voted in that minority, the weight of authority was with those who thought that India should bear a portion of the charge. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who had been Under Secretary of State for India, stated that— He had come to the conclusion that India might be fairly asked to contribute something towards the cost of the operations to be carried on in Egypt."—(Ibid. 289.) And, in another part of the House, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), who spoke at some length, with knowledge of the subject, voted for the Resolution on the ground that— India had a very solid and substantial interest in the maintenance of the Suez Canal."—(Ibid. 300.) And that some portion of the expenditure should fall upon India in consequence. Well, Sir, the Resolution, as it was amended on my Motion, was carried by a majority of 140 to 23; and the question now to be decided by the Committee is whether the sum of £500,000 which we propose should be credited during the present financial year to India leaves a fair proportion to the charge of India of the total cost of the Expedition. It is only right to say that while we propose this arrangement it is, of course, in the power of the House, not by increasing the Vote, because that could not be done under the Rules of the House, but by Address to the Crown, or some other Constitutional method, to bring about an increase of the contribution. We, however, should resist any such proposal. I may add that practically it will be impossible, under any circumstances, to add to the payment to India during the present financial year. To-day and Monday are the last days upon which a Vote of this kind, to fall within the current financial year, can pass the House. Therefore, if the House should overrule the Government and express an opinion in some Constitutional way that a larger contribution should be made to India—a proposal to which we should be opposed—the payment would not come in the present financial year, but would have to enter into the financial arrangements of 1883–4. I would say one word as to the amount we propose should be contributed by India. The language of the debate from which I just now quoted was something to this effect—I moan of those who voted—that India should bear some part of the expense analogous to the assistance she rendered. Roughly speaking, the force from home which was actually engaged—whether in the advance on Cairo or the defence of Alexandria—amounted to some 27,000 men, of which India contributed 6,200 men. That proportion would justify us in asking India to bear a larger proportion out of the sum total expense we propose to ask India to bear; but I think we may fairly take into account that part of the Naval Force which contributed to the results of the war, and add them to the 27,000 men. That would make the Indian Force something like one-seventh of the whole Expedition, and £640,000 is just one-seventh of £4,500,000. I do not propose now to go over again the arguments put forward in July last for and against India bearing any charge whatever. The real argument for making a demand on her was her interest in the Suez Canal, the protection of which was the ultimate aim of the Expedition; and a Parliamentary Paper has appeared within the last few days on the subject of the trade through the Suez Canal to which I will refer. That Paper was evidently not written with the view of magnifying the importance of the trade or the amount of the traffic; but the figures show that, even according to the depreciatory calculations made by the writer, half the Indian trade passes through the Suez Canal. If, then, at the lowest estimate, India has such a pre-eminent interest in the Canal, the very moderate proposal we now make is reasonably justified. Before I sit down, allow me to show to the Committee what will be the financial result of our proposal. The Estimates of last year, with the Supplementary Estimates, passed in the last Session, authorized an expenditure slightly in excess of the then anticipated Revenue. The anticipated deficit was very small, so that you may practically say that the Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure about balance the Estimates of Revenue. The present Estimates for additional expenditure in Egypt, including the grant to India, will add between £1,500,000 and £1,600,000 to the expenditure of the year. There is also a Paper of Supplementary Estimates for the Civil Service relating to a great number of items, and amounting as usual, I am sorry to say, to a considerable sum; but we do not expect that these Supplementary Estimates will do much more than balance the savings which will be made upon other Votes. On the whole, then, the estimated expenditure for the current year, including the Votes which we now ask the Committee to take, is not likely to exceed the original Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates of last Session by more than £1,600,000. On the other hand, I must say there is not a large, but a sensible improvement in the Revenue as compared with the Estimates of Revenue made last year. I do not think it would be extravagant to say—speaking, of course, with caution and in general figures, for we are still a month from the end of the financial year—that that improvement in the Revenue will amount to something between £500,000 and £750,000. If these figures are compared—and hon. Gentlemen will have been able to compare them as I have given them—it will be seen that the result of the financial arrangements of the current year may probably be a deficit of something between £750,000 and 1,250,000. Of course, the Committee is aware that against that deficiency it would be out of the question that in the month of March we should propose any further taxation. For the moment we must leave that deficiency to be paid out of the balance at the end of the year; but it will be my duty, when making the Financial Statement rather more than a month from now, to deal with that deficit, as well as with the Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1883–4. I think that the Committee will agree with me that more than that I ought not to say on the present occasion. I hope I have made my statement perfectly plain to the Committee. I beg to move— That a sum, not exceeding £500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, as a Grant in Aid of the Expenditure incurred by the Government of India upon the Expedition to Egypt. After this is adopted, it will be the duty of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), and of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, to move the Votes in connection with this Estimate for the Army and the Navy, and to give any explanation that may be needed as to the details of those Votes.

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, as a Grant in Aid of the Expenditure incurred by the Government of India upon the Expedition to Egypt."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

MR. ONSLOW

said, that, of course, it was not his intention to oppose the Vote on the present occasion; for, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, no doubt there would be an opportunity later on for those who held strong views on the subject to discuss the whole policy of the Government. Hon. Members were aware that the Indian Budget was generally taken during the first or second week in March, and the Viceroy in Council must be anxious that the Vote should pass. The right hon. Gentleman wished them to pass the Vote and leave the question of its policy for the future decision of Parliament. At the close of the debate in last July, he (Mr. Onslow) had voted with the Government on the question of the employment of Indian troops, and he had understood that the financial part of the question was left for the future consideration of the House. It was merely on the question that the Native troops should be employed that he, for one—and he thought many others had done the same—had given his vote. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he thought this a comparatively small sum for India to pay for the benefits she had received. That was rather a controversial matter, and it was not his (Mr. Onslow's) intention on that occasion to go into that part of the question; but, at the same time, he would make this remark—that he could not see why India had gained more advantage from the action of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt than had Australia or New Zealand, and some other of Her Majesty's Colonies. His contention, of course, was that if India had to pay any part of the expenses of the Egyptian Expedition, that Australia, New Zealand, and other Colonies should also be called on to pay a part. His idea was that the interests of the Suez Canal was an Imperial matter. It was not only for India, but for the whole of our Colonies, or those which required guarding by way of the Mediterranean. But he did not wish to go into these matters at this time. Half a loaf was better than no bread; therefore, he could not object to the proposal. They had agreed to give £500,000 towards the Indian expenses, and he should support the Vote; but his contention was—and he hoped in the future that he would be able to stick to his guns—that this war in Egypt had nothing to do with India, which had never been consulted about it from start to finish. It was not so much on financial grounds—though, of course, that was a matter of grave consideration—that he took exception to India paying any of these extraordinary charges, but as a matter more of principle—namely, that she had never been consulted throughout all these transactions. As he had said, it was not possible, at the present time, to discuss the matter thoroughly. When they had seen the Papers promised by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) to-day they would be better able to argue the question. They would then know what the Indian Government had from the first intended to do, and from the Viceroy's despatches what objection, if any, he and his Council had taken to paying anything at all. It was said that the Viceroy in Council agreed with the proposition of Her Majesty's Government; but he (Mr. Onslow) hoped he was not using un-Parliamentary language when he said it appeared to him that, if that was the case, by some means or other the Viceroy in Council had been "squared." The noble Marquess had told them in August that a telegram had come from the Viceroy objecting to the proposition of the Government, which at that time was that India should pay the whole of the cost—but, as he had said already, this was not the occasion to go into these matters of principle. They had not the Papers before them; but he felt that this Vote, as regarded India, was, at all events, a matter of emergency. It depended on the Vote given to-night what the Indian Budget should be. The result would be telegraphed to India at once, and he should be sorry to throw any obstacle in the way of Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion. He would cordially support the Vote.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he was one of those who held the same view as the hon. Member who had just sat down, as to the undesirability of asking India to pay any part of the cost of the Egyptian War. He had never yet been able to understand that perversity of mind and intellect which had insisted that the Afghan was an European War, and the Egyptian was an Indian War. In the discussion which took place last year, it was understood that no decision would be arrived at until the House had had a fresh opportunity of expressing some opinion on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now came forward and said the Government were prepared to give India £500,000, and that any proposal to make a further grant must meet with their opposition and that any Address for the purpose of increasing the payment in aid of India, would have to be moved in a subsequent financial year.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I said that any further payment would have to be made out of the funds of the next financial year.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, that was tantamount to saying that no payment at all would be made to India, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he would have a deficit of between £750,000 and £1,250,000 for the present year; and, as the prospects for next year were not very encouraging, he did not think the Government would consent to put increased taxation on the people of these Islands for the purpose of increasing the payment to India. They were in this position now—that if they did not raise the question of the policy of paying this £500,000 now, they would never have another opportunity of raising it. He must say he thought this contribution towards the finances of India a very paltry one. No one could pretend that this war in Egypt was in any way initiated or promoted on account of Indian interests, but solely on account of European interests; and it was his firm belief that if Her Majesty's Government had not wished to negotiate a Commercial Treaty with France they would never have found themselves in the position they were in now. So much as regarded that particular Vote, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to other Estimates. Perhaps, before he entered into these, the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to congratulate him upon having attained the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he had just addressed them for the first time on the subject of the Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had attained his high position under very disadvantageous circumstances, because what was the position in which they found themselves? And he would recommend this to hon. Gentlemen who were economists, and who sat on the Ministerial side of the House below the Gangway. They had already voted this year £87,700,000, and they were now asked to vote a sum of £2,300,000, which would bring up the total to the enormous amount of £90,000,000, which, he believed, was by far—by many millions—the highest amount ever voted by this country in time of peace. [Cries of "This was a time of war."] The Prime Minister had informed them that it was not war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed them that making all allowance for saving on Votes already passed, and for increase of the estimated Revenue, there would still be a large deficit. There were certain facts which he felt himself bound to mention on this occasion, late as was the hour, as he was afraid if he did not do so now he might never have another opportunity. One of the main claims to Office of individuals who composed the Government was that they would economically administer the finances; and what was the result of three years of economical administration? He did not suppose there was a man in the country who did not wish, so far as finance was concerned, the old Tory Administration back which the Prime Minister so strongly denounced in Mid Lothian. He (Lord George Hamilton) had in his pocket a copy of the great financial speech which the right hon. Gentleman had made in Mid Lothian, and he would recommend it to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he would find in it a number of admirable principles laid down, every one of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had infringed from the time he came into power to the time he had given up the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first principle laid down was that there should be as few Supplementary Estimates as possible. Well, how many Supplementary Estimates had they had this year? He (Lord George Hamilton) had gone into the Library to get them, and had been presented with a huge volume, from which he found that there had been a great number of Supplementary Estimates. There was one for Cyprus. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, hon. Members seemed to imply that the Government were not responsible for that. He did not blame them in that particular matter, and he believed that if they had been wise and had spent a little more they would have found a good return. He believed that ultimately they would be compelled to spend more money. There were now no less than six Supplementary Estimates before them—namely, for Civil Service, Army, Indian Civil Service, Aid to India, the Navy, and the Transvaal. How was it that all this increased expenditure had become incurred by a Government pledged to economy? How was it that ever since they had been in Office they had been compelled to increase taxation? There were some hon. Gentlemen who laboured under the delusion that the increased expenditure in question was caused by the unpaid debts of the late Government, and that if they could only get rid of the debts of the late Government they would have no Supplementary Estimates, and would be able to reduce the expenditure by many millions. That, he believed, was an entire delusion. Not only had the Government increased their expenditure, but the Prime Minister, when embarking on a policy of military adventure, had adopted the Napoleonic theory, which was that always when they made war against a country they had a right, if they could, to tax the country. We, now, having made war against Egypt, were about to make Egypt pay a considerable sum for the pleasure of having been subjugated by us. The Secretary to the Treasury would not deny this, because he was trying to reduce his Estimate for this year by making Egypt pay a considerable sum. Before they passed these Estimates, they ought to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of the Treasury to tell them a little more about how they intended to provide for Ways and Means. There was already a deficiency of £200,000 between the estimated Expenditure and estimated Revenue. Well, was it not a bold thing for the Government to ask the Committee to grant these Supplementary Estimates when there was already a deficiency of £200,000? No doubt it was; therefore he hoped that, before the Estimates were assented to, some Member of the Government would give them an indication of the Ways and Means by which it was proposed to meet the expenditure. Of course, it was impossible, in the absence of the Prime Minister, for any Member of the Government to go against any part of the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, the main principle of which was that it was improper to meet any deficiency by raising Exchequer Bills. He hoped, however, that the Committee would not assent to the Vote without a clear understanding as to what were the Ways and Means by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to meet the deficit.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, the noble Lord who had just sat down blamed the Government because there was a nominal deficit of about £1,000,000, and they must all agree that that was an unfortunate result. But the noble Lord forgot that when his own Friends were in Office, they had deficits for the last three years, amounting in 1880 to no less than £2,800,000, which was a much larger sum. Moreover, the reduction of debt in 1882 would be far larger than in 18S0. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained that it was impossible to impose fresh taxes just at the close of the year. There were various other sums paid this year which did not belong to it, but to the years under which the administration was in the hands of the late Government. If these sums were deducted from the whole, the expenditure would be reduced to £81,500,000; and that, upon the noble Lord's (Lord George Hamilton's) own showing, was considerably less than the amount spent by the late Conservative Administration. While he very much regretted that the Expenditure was so large, and that there was a deficiency of £1,000,000, he must give credit to the Government for one thing—namely, that when they spent money, they raised money to pay the bill. It was proper that the public should feel that if they had wars, they had to meet the expenses out of the finance of the year. He commended the Government in this respect, and thought it would have been well if the late Government had adopted a similar plan. He considered the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) had put a colour upon the figures which they did not bear out.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had listened with some interest to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock); and he agreed with the hon. Baronet that it was of great importance they should know from the Government that it was their intention that the expenses of the year should fall upon the year. He did not gather from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) that that was his intention. The right hon. Gentleman simply informed the Committee that there would be a deficit on the year of something between £750,000 and £1,250,000; but he made no indication as to the way in which he proposed to deal with that deficit—he did not say whether the deficit was to be a charge on the balances—that was to say, the amount allocated for the payment of Debt—or whether it was to be dealt with in the ensuing financial year.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that what he had said was that in the beginning of March it was impossible to propose any taxation to meet a deficit, whatever the amount might be; and that they would, therefore, for the moment, pay it out of balances, which were in a satisfactory state. He also said that in the Financial Statement, to be made a month or more hence, he would explain exactly how the deficit would be dealt with.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that was precisely what he had said—namely, that the Government gave the Com- mittee no information whatever as to the way in which they proposed to deal with the deficit. He found no fault with the right hon. Gentleman on that account. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), however, assumed that the whole cost of the year would be borne out of the Revenue of the year, and he referred to the operation of the Terminable Annuities. The hon. Baronet must know very well that the Terminable Annuities were set up by Parliament, that they were automatic in their operation, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who preceded the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had no more to do with them than the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being had to observe the law, and make provision in the Estimates of the year for the Terminable Annuities set up by his Predecessors. The hon. Baronet must also know very well that the operation of Terminable Annuities was that towards the end of the period for which they were set up a larger amount of Debt was paid off than at the commencement of the period. A certain provision, year by year, was established and required, and, no doubt, the effect in this year was that a larger portion of Debt was paid off than last year. No Chancellor of the Exchequer could hesitate to make the provision which the Act of Parliament required. There was one remark he wished to make with regard to the observations which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said that the provision which was made by Egypt towards the Army of Occupation was at the rate of £4 per head per month; but he failed to give the Committee any information as to the period in respect of which the payment of £4 was made—the right hon. Gentleman simply said that £3 per head was to be paid in aid of the Army Estimates and £1 per head in aid of the Navy Estimates. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) did not realize or understand whether the payment had been received, or whether it had been undertaken to be paid, or whether it was simply intended it should be demanded from the Government of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not explain whether the sum was received, or whether it was only a sum acknowledged as due, or when it was to be paid. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information on the point. There was one other point to which he wished to refer, and that had reference to the contribution towards the expenses of the Indian troops recently engaged in Egypt. It was, he believed, understood that the excess of the cost of the Indian Expedition over the ordinary pay of the troops should be met by this country. He wanted to know whether the sum of £1,142,000 was the sum in excess of the ordinary cost to the Indian Revenue of the troops serving in India—that was to say, their ordinary pay—or whether it included the ordinary pay of the troops serving in India? There was, as he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would realize, a great distinction. It would appear to be perfectly reasonable that they should not relieve India of the pay of the Indian troops who were employed in Egypt; but it was a great question whether they had a right to call on India to pay £642,000 in excess of the expenses of the Army she employed for her own protection. Were the Committee to understand that the £1,142,000 was a sum in excess of the ordinary cost to India of the Indian Contingent of 6,200 men employed in Egypt, and which India would not have been required to pay if the troops had remained at home, or did it include the ordinary pay and allowances of the troops sent by India to Egypt?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he would answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) as clearly as he could. The Estimates of the cost of the troops proceeding from this country and of the troops proceeding from India were based on exactly the same principle—that was to say, they showed the excess upon the ordinary expenditure provided for in the Budgets of the two countries, so that the expenditure, in addition to the Votes taken last Session, was about—he was speaking now in round figures—£3,400,000 in the case of the English troops, and about £1,140,000 in the case of the Indian troops. Of the £1,140,000 the Government proposed to pay out of the Exchequer £500,000, so that India would have to pay £640,000 more than was provided for in her ordinary Army Budget. He hoped he had made that quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman then asked him about the contributions from Egypt. He could only repeat what he had previously said in regard to this question. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Army Supplementary Estimate, page 2, he would see that the contributions from the Egyptian Government, from the 1st of October, 1882, to the 31st of March, 1883, in respect of the Army, was, roughly, £209,000. In the Navy Supplementary Estimates it would seem that the Egyptian Government contributed £70,000. The meaning of that was that the Egyptian Government had to contribute in respect of the Forces which were doing their work, from the 1st of October, at the rate of £4 per head per month, or, in all, £279,000. His right hon. Friend asked him if that was only a claim, or would it be paid? He was happy to inform the right hon. Gentleman that, on the 28th of this month, the money would be paid into the Exchequer.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had not the slightest intention of assisting in defending the extravagant Estimates of the Government; but he would express his sympathy with what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) regarding the propriety and expediency of paying or meeting the expenses of the year out of the taxation of the year. He must express some regret that even the present Government did not altogether practice what they preached; for he need not hardly remind the Committee that it was not only this £1,000,000 which had to stand over in the present year, but there was a sum of several millions in respect to the Afghan War which was not paid out of the taxation of the year. He was afraid the present Government had, to some degree, followed the bad example of their Predecessors. Reverting to the Vote now before the Committee, he must accept the settlement which had been made, and which, he understood, had been accepted by the Government of India. He could admit that that settlement was consistent with what passed in July last. He thought it was a fair and liberal settlement, if it was the fact that India had any interest in the affairs of Egypt, either financial, commercial, or administrative. But he denied that. He wished to put in a word of protest. India had really nothing to do with the affairs of Egypt. If she had not, he (Sir George Campbell) did not think it would be fair that India should contribute more than a small sum towards the expenses of guarding the navigation of the Suez Canal. He admitted that India had a commercial interest in the free navigation of the Suez Canal; and if he thought the war was undertaken in the interest of the Canal, he should consider that India ought to pay her share of the cost. He believed there were other interests involved, and in which India had no part whatever; and he believed that under Arabi the navigation of the Suez Canal would be quite as safe as under the Khedive. If it should be the case, some day or other, that Egypt should be reduced to such a state of anarchy as to endanger the Suez Canal, it seemed to him that a small force of gunboats, which might be contributed by England and other countries, and, to a certain extent, by India, would amply suffice to protect the Canal. It was with a certain amount of protest that he accepted the arrangement that had been made by the two Governments of England and India.

MR. GORST

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), made so clear the manner in which Her Majesty's Government were treating the finance of India, that he could not help regretting very much that the Postmaster General was not present, because, if he were, no one would more eloquently protest than he against the injustice the Government were doing to the finance of India in this matter. He (Mr. Gorst) was never able to reconcile the duty of the Government in Office with the course taken by individual Members of the Government in Opposition; and he should think that a large majority of the Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench found it perfectly impossible to reconcile to their intellects and consciences the particular course taken by the Government on the present occasion, with the principles which they, in common with the Postmaster General, laid down in the last Parliament and supported by their Votes, because it was quite clear that the Government not only took away from the service of the Indian Empire its troops, which were charged upon the Indian Budget for the purpose of the Indian Empire, but they had saddled the finances with a further sum of £640,000. Firstly, they deprived India of her troops; and, secondly, made her pay an additional sum for those troops; and, at the same time, did not condescend to inform the Committee of the precise benefits which that expenditure conferred on the people of India. In the debate last year, and in the present discussion, the Government confined themselves to generalities—they simply said India was interested in Egypt, and in sending Indian troops to Egypt they did not show how they had benefited the commercial interests of the people of India. Unless they could point out clearly and specifically, and not in general terms, how the people of India were benefited by these military operations, they had no right to saddle them with this immense charge, and he was quite certain that if the Postmaster General wore in the House he would toll them so. Another thing which he wished to observe was that the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) must have been extremely unpleasant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because nothing was so unpleasant as undeserved praise. The hon. Baronet praised the Government for their steady adhesion to the financial principle which was laid down in Mid Lothian—namely, that all expenditure must be provided for in the Revenue of the year. That was exactly what they were not going to do; but in the coming year they were going to make some unknown arrangement by which to meet the expenses of the year. They were asking the Committee to vote a Supplementary Estimate of upwards of £1,000,000, when, by their own showing, there was a deficit to that amount upon the year. It was, therefore, evident they were not going to meet the expenses out of the taxation by at least £1,000,000. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in saying it was now too late to cure the evil. He (Mr. Gorst) supposed the Government were going to raise the money by Exchequer Bills or by something of that kind; therefore, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House of Commons at the very end of the financial year, and asked for a Supplementary Estimate of upwards of £1,000,000, he ought not to put off the House of Commons by saying that in a month's time they would hear how he was going to meet the deficiency. It would be only respectful to the Committee of Supply, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out to the Committee the particular mode by which he meant to raise the Revenue necessary to meet the Supply which he asked them to vote. He supposed, of course, no one could dispute the present Estimate. In the first place, they must regret that the Government had laid this charge upon India without any explanation of the reason why the people of that country should bear it; and, in the second place, they could only lament the financial degradation of the present Government, in raising by the taxation of the year a sum less by £2,000,000 than that which was necessary to defray the expenses of the year.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was perfectly at a loss to understand the perversity of intellect which could justify the taxing of the people of India to the extent of £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 to defray the expenses of a purely aggressive war—a war devised and planned in London, entered into in defiance of the wishes of those best calculated to speak on behalf of the Indian people—but could resist the proposal that the Indian Exchequer should pay a very small sum towards the expenses of a war which he ventured to say was, in the main, if not entirely so, for the benefit of our Indian Empire. ["No!"] He was quite aware the opposite opinion was the popular opinion in the House at the present moment; but that would not deter him expressing his opinion that, unless they had had an Indian Empire to protect, no Government would have ventured to propose, and he was quite sure the country would never have sanctioned, a war in Egypt at all. Every argument used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, indeed, every argument advanced in the House in favour of the Egyptian operations, or war, or whatever the recent events could be called, culminated in allusions to the Suez Canal and the danger to our Indian Empire, and he thought it only fair, just, and right that India should bear the small sum which Her Majesty's Government proposed to impose upon her in respect of the war. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) had raised the question of the general Expenditure, with special allusion to hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and others, did object to the large Expenditure of Her Majesty's Government; but, at the same time, in discussing questions of this sort they should be fair in stating the figures. The noble Lord had said it was a delusion to suppose that any material part of the Expenditure of the present year was necessitated in order to defray the debts of the Predecessors of the present Government.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

denied having said that.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he understood the noble Lord to refer to the Expenditure of £90,000,000, and to say that that was the most enormous Expenditure ever incurred either in time of peace or war. He would only just ask the noble Lord to remember two sets of figures whenever he contrasted the Expenditure of the present Government with that of the late Government, He would ask him to remember that just before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) left Office in 1880, he stated that the net aggregate deficit of his tenure of Office was something between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. In order to meet that deficit he created Terminable Annuities, which were to run five years, and were to bear a payment of £1,300,000 a-year. To that the present Government had added £500,000 towards the contribution of India for the Afghan War; to that also had to be added the Terminable Annuities to defray the £2,000,000 which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer lent to India without interest; and these sums altogether represented an increase since the present Government had been in power of £2,000,000 to their Expenditure specifically to defray the obligations incurred by the late Government. That was the first set of figures he would ask the noble Lord to remember; and the second set of figures he desired the noble Lord to bear in mind related to the administrative Departments of State. In the Expenditure of the country provision was made for the Post Office and Telegraph Service, and the expenditure under these heads was nearly £1,000,000 more than it was during the administration of the late Government. Therefore, when they were contrasting the Expenditure of the two Governments—although he did not justify the Expenditure of the present Government, and he hoped that when they challenged the Government in regard to it they would have the support of the noble Lord and his Friends—they were bound to deal with the present Government fairly, and see what portion of the Expenditure really belonged to them and what belonged to their Predecessors.

SIR HENRY FLETCHER

said, there were two questions he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, connected with the troops sent from India. It would be satisfactory to the House and the country to know whether it was not the fact that Indian troops immediately they left their own country received double pay; and also whether the European troops sent from India to Egypt received the Indian pay, or whether, on their arrival in Egypt, they were placed on European pay? He believed there were only two European Infantry regiments which were sent from India—namely, the 72nd, who were now called the Seeforth Highlanders, and the 63rd, who were now called the Manchester Regiment.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, he did not wish to draw the House into an Indian debate, and, therefore, should only refer very briefly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Even granting the truth of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, which he could not—assuming that the hon. Member was right in saying that the late Government left a deficit to the present Government of upwards of £2,000,000—they were justified in complaining that the present Government had, irrespective of the legacy of debt, very largely increased the Estimates. The country had now to provide for a much greater Expenditure than had ever had to be provided for before. He might also complain, as a taxpayer, that he had to pay a considerably higher scale of taxation than he had ever been required to pay before. These, however, were points which ought rather to be discussed on the Budget than on Supplementary Estimates. He rose principally, as a new Member, to remark upon the re-casting of the Estimates since he had anything to do with finance; and he ventured to offer, though rather late in the day, his protest against the present system of taking the extra receipts in aid of the Votes. He confessed he had some belief in the soundness of the old system; in his opinion, under the old system a better control was exercised over the great spending Departments than could be exercised under the present system. Not having been in the House for two or three years, he could not say whether the question had been threshed out and settled after considerable discussion; but he could not acquiesce in the change of system, although his opinion might perhaps differ from that of some of his hon. Friends around him. He was disposed to think the sum of £500,000 which had been ageed upon between the two Governments of England and India was an approximately fair sum for the Indian Government to pay; and, under the circumstances, he should not offer any opposition to this Estimate.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I only rise to answer a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher). He asks whether the Indian troops received double pay when serving beyond their own Frontiers? I do not recollect at this moment what the exact regulations are, but, no doubt, they received increased pay when they served out of their own country, though I do not think it was precisely double pay. As to the British troops taken from India to serve in Egypt, they, of course, received the same pay as the troops sent from this country to Egypt. It would obviously be impossible to have British troops serving together under the same circumstances, but under different rates of pay.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

regretted the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) respecting the £500,000, for it seemed to him that this country ought not to impose on the people of India, who were not represented in that House, and had no opportunity of making their grievances known in Parliament, any taxation they could possibly avoid. In former years no one had more earnestly advocated the cause of the people of India than the Post- master General, whom he was sorry not to see in the House at present, for he apprehended that that right hon. Gentleman would hardly agree with his Colleagues in the Government when they proposed a Vote diametrically opposed to the principles he advocated before he sat on the Treasury Bench. In former days he had always supported the right hon. Gentleman in his earnest advocacy of the interests of the people of India. He knew that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) intended to raise this question at the proper time, and he thought it was incumbent on every hon. Member who felt that that House owed a duty to India in looking after the interests of that country, to raise a protest against the proposal of the Government. He thought the Government would admit his right to say this much, because he, differing with some of his hon. Friends, had supported their proposal for a contribution from this country for the Afghan War. Question put, and agreed to.