COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 August 1888 vol 330 cc137-223

MATTER—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)

Mr. Courtney, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, for the present, I confine my observations to the usual formal Resolutions which I have placed on the Table, and to topics of a strictly financial character. I am informed that it is the intention of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) to raise some large general questions as to the policy of the Government of India, but I think I had better reserve any observations of a general character that it may be my duty to make in replying to the hon. Member until a later period of the debate. The greater part of what I have to say about the present financial condition of India has been submitted to the House of Commons in the form of an explanatory Memorandum, which was laid upon the Table of the House as long ago as the 20th of June. It was laid upon the Table at that early date, in pursuance of a promise made to the House last year when the usual annual complaint of the late period at which the Indian Budget was discussed was made in the House. Now, there are two reasons for the late discussion of the Indian Budget. One is that the Accounts and Papers necessary for the information of the House are generally not laid upon the Table till a somewhat late period of the Session; the other is that the House is not generally disposed to put aside, I will not say more important, but more interesting, Business for the purpose of discussing the Indian Budget at an earlier period. In accordance with the promise made last year, the Secretary of State determined that during the present year the Accounts should at least be ready for the House of Commons, even if the House of Commons was not ready for the Accounts. Accordingly a despatch was sent out to India in October last, directing the authorities to take such measures as would secure that the whole of the Papers necessary for the consideration of the financial condition of India by this House should be laid on the Table at the earliest possible period of the Session; and in accordance with those instructions which were carried out by the Government of India, I was able to place the Papers on the Table of the House as early as the 20th of June. But that followed which might have been foreseen. That is a period of our Parliamentary life when all the exciting and burning questions which agitate political Parties in this country are in full career, and the House of Commons is most unwilling to postpone any of those important and interesting topics for the purpose of entering on the consideration of Indian finance at an earlier period than that at which we have arrived. Looking back into the history of the past, I find that ever since the condition of Indian finance has been brought in this way under the consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons, it has almost invariably been brought forward about the last day, or almost the last day, of the Session, when time is at last found to consider Indian finance. Since 1880 there never has been an instance in which, although expostulations and regrets and lamentatations have been made by the House, it has been found possible to devote an earlier day to the consideration of Indian finance. Since 1880 the Indian Budget has never been brought on before the end of the Session. The precedents have not been encouraging. In 1879 it Came on upon the 22nd of May; but on that occasion the House was counted out. My first business, in addressing myself to my Financial Statement, is to correct the figures of my explanatory Memorandum in accordance with the more recent information received from India. The Committee will be aware that we have under our consideration three sets of Accounts; those relating to the year ending March 31st, 1887, which are now closed, and for which we have complete Accounts; those relating to the year ending March 31, 1888, for which we have the Revised Estimate; and, thirdly, the Budget Estimate for the year ending March 31, 1889, which is in anticipation. Of course, the Accounts for the first year are not altered. They were settled and fixed when I placed my Memorandum upon the Table. The Account for 1886–7 showed—Net Revenue Rx.44,735,940, and Expenditure chargeable thereon Rx.44,557,513, leaving a surplus, including the cost of special Defence Works of Rx.178,427. The Revised Estimate for 1887–8 shows—Net Revenue Rx.44,944,200, and Expenditure Rx.47,960,900, or a deficit of Rx.3,016,700. According to the Budget Estimate for 1888–9 the net Revenue is Rx.46,349,400, and the Expenditure Rx.47,047,400, leaving a deficit of Rx.698,000. These sums include the cost of Defence Works. Excluding that cost, the surplus in 1886–7 was Rx.504,053; in 1887–8 the deficit was Rx.2,457,800; and in the Budget Estimate of 1888–9 the surplus isRx.423,500. A question was raised last year as to how it is that, even in the month of August, it is impossible to get perfectly accurate figures as to the year which ends on the previous 31st of March. It may be asked, first of all, what the reason is why the Revised Accounts are not more nearly accurate than they are; and, secondly, why it is so long before the actual figures can be arrived at, and stated either to the House of Commons or the public. The answer is, that the figures are based on the actual Returns of 11 months, and on the estimate for the month of March. Formerly, the Accounts closed on the 30th April, and now they close on the 31st March. But, for Indian purposes, March is the most difficult month of all as to which to form an estimate. More than one-fourth of the entire Land Revenue is received in that month. The Railways and Public Works are also particularly active, and the frequent fluctuations cause immense variation. The gross receipts from the railways amount in that month to Rx.1,500,000, in addition to which it is the season in which the construction of Public Works is in most active operation. For those reasons it is most difficult to get an accurate estimate of the receipts for the month of March. As to the delay in getting in the Accounts, the Committee probably do not recognize all that has to be done before the Accounts for the year can be finally closed. The Accounts have to be collected and examined and settled for a country which spreads over 53 deg. of longitude and 27 deg. of latitude, from no less than 200 treasuries, and 800 sub-treasuries, 300 public works disbursing offices, 200 military disbursing officers, 40 railways, and 200 district boards, Accounts which involve debt and remittances, and advance and store accounts, with many cross transactions, all of which have to be considered before the Accounts of the past year can be finally closed. I will now, with the permission of the Committee, make a few observations on the Accounts of the three years I have referred to. The Accounts of 1886–7 closed with a satisfactory surplus of Rx.178,427, as compared with only Rx.500 shown in the Revised Estimate of last year. That was after defraying the charge for Special Defence Works, as stated last year to have been determined upon if the expected surplus were finally realized. The general improvement was due to an increase of net Revenue by Rx.856,240, owing to large receipts in March from Land Revenue chiefly, and also from Opium, Salt, and Excise. The net Expenditure increased by Rx.65,348, owing to heavy charges in March in Burmah, and to the inclusion of Rx.325,626 for Special Defence Works, while in the working of Railways and in other Public Works there was a reduction. Of the net improvement of Rx.790,892, the portion belonging to the Provincial Governments was Rx.612,965, so that the Imperial Account was better by Rx.177,927. In the year 1887–8 there was an anticipated Budget Surplus of Rx.16,700. In my Statement on 9th September last year, I stated that the position in India was believed to be worse by Rx.610,000, giving a deficit of Rx.593,300, to which it had been determined to add the charge for conversion of India 4 per Cent Stock, then estimated at Rx.1,097,000, and the charge for Special Defence Works, then estimated at Rx.474,600. The figures, therefore, stated in my speech, when I addressed the House on the 9th of September, would have given a deficit of Rx.2,164,900. The Revised Estimate in March last showed a deficit of Rx.3,016,700, but it is now thought that this will be reduced in India by Rx.635,000, and in England, including exchange, by Rx.120,900; and there is a further improvement of Rx.300,000, for exchange on the transactions of Subsidized Railways, for which the Government of India did not take credit. The deficit is, therefore, Rx.1,960,800, which is less than that stated last September by Rx.204,100. This alteration is mainly attributable to the transactions in March, the improved Land Revenue and the falling off in Railway receipts counter balancing one another. The Special Defence Works charge is reduced by Rx.115,000. The causes of the deficit may, therefore, be thus summarized:—Conversion of Stock (less by 5,100 than the Estimate) Rx.1,091,600; Special Defences, Rx.453,900; and I am sorry to say, Upper Burmah Military Charges Rx.1,550,000, making a total of Rx.3,095,800; against which is to be set an improvement of Rx.1,135,000 under other heads. Had there been no extraordinary charge for Upper Burmah, there would have been no deficit, for the Special Defence Works might fairly be charged against capital. Though, as a matter of account, they are treated as a charge against the Revenue of the year, it is quite clear that important works of that kind, which will only have to be done once, are not charges which ought, in estimating the financial position, to be made against Revenue. If your ordinary regular and necessary Indian Expenditure were not covered by the Revenue, you would be in an awkward and difficult and even critical financial position; but your ordinary necessary Expenditure is amply covered by the Indian Revenue at the present moment, and these charges which have caused the deficit, and have been charged against Revenue, are not ordinary charges, but are quite abnormal, and will not, we hope, recur in future years. I mentioned just now a sum of Rx.300,000, which I said the Government had gained by exchange transactions. I must explain to the Committee how that arises. The Committee are, no doubt, aware that the Government have contracts with certain Railway Companies—the Southern Mahratta, the Indian Midland, and the Bengal-Nagpur, by which the Government undertake to transmit to India the capital of these Companies subscribed in London, which is required for expenditure in India at a certain fixed rate of exchange. In the case of the Southern Mahratta, money is transmitted by contract at 12 rupees per £1 sterling; in the case of the Indian Midland at 12½ rupees per £1 sterling; and in the case of the Bengal-Nagpur at 13 rupees per £1 sterling. The Committee will see that, when exchange comes down below the rate named in the contract, the Government gain by the transaction. For instance, at the present time the £1 sterling is nearly equivalent to 16 rupees in India; whereas the Government would only have to pay the Southern Mahratta Railway 12 rupees; the Indian Midland, 12½ rupees; and the Bengal-Nagpur, 13 rupees; so that they gain so much by the transaction. They are not only able to fulfil their obligations, but they gain a considerable amount by the contract so long as the rupee is lower than the exchange rate of the contract, and this gain explains the sum of Rx.300,000, which I mentioned just now. In the year 1888–9, there is, according to the most repent estimate, a deficit to ac- count for of Rx. 1,925,000, which is more, a great deal than the estimate of Rx.698,000 made in India in March last. What has been the cause of that change? The chief cause has been the fall in exchange. The Committee is aware that the exchange value of the rupee has again seriously declined, and the fall since last January has added to the liabilities of the Government of India no less a sum than Rx.1,202,000. That will give hon. Members some idea of the difficulty with which this exchange question is attended. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, arduous and difficult as his duties in this country are, never has to meet such a steady drain upon his resources as Rx.1,200,000 coming upon him between January and July; but in India a very small fall in the value of the rupee puts most serious difficulties in the way of the Indian Government. But that is not all. Besides the fall in exchange, the effect of the fall is a consequent addition to the pay of British soldiers to the extent of Rx.65,000, and those two items, less Rx.105,000 gained on remittance transactions, make a total loss by fall in exchange of Rx.1,162,000. Final payments on account of Conversion of Stock amount to Rx.228,600, the charge for Special Defences amounts to Rx.1,121,500, and the Upper Burmah Military Expenditure to Rx.824,000. All these items together make a total of Rx.3,336,100, from which has to be deducted a surplus on all other heads of Rx.1,411,100, leaving a net deficit of Rx.1,925,000. There is also to be set against that a gain in the exchange transactions with the Subsidized Railway Companies, estimated at Rx.385,000, which reduces the deficit to Rx.1,540,000. Comparing 1888–9 with 1887–8, it will be seen that the deficit for the year ending on March 31 last was Rx.1,960,800. Let me take out of that the Conversion of Stock Rx.1,091,900, and the Special Frontier Defences Rx.453,900, which amounted together to Rx.1,545,800, and you have a deficit, apart from these two exceptional causes, of Rx.415,000. That is caused by the extraordinary fall in exchange, and by military expenditure in Burmah, which we earnestly hope and believe will shortly come to an end. If there had been no fall in exchange, there would have been no deficit at all, and if there had been no war in Burmah there would have been no deficit, notwithstanding the fall in exchange. The Budget for 1888–9, as modified, gives a deficit of Rx.1,540,000, of which there is due to Conversion of Stock Rx.228,600, and to Special Frontier Defences Rx.1,121,500, making together Rx.1,350,100. Thus, apart from these two exceptional causes, the deficit for 1888–9 is only Rx.189,900, showing an improvement in the Budget of 1888–9 over that of 1887–8 of Rx.225,100. That is due to the improvement in the Salt Revenue, which is estimated at Rx.1,429,900, and to a reduction in the Military Charges in Upper Burmah estimated at Rx.726,000, making a total improvement of Rx.2,155, 900. Against that there has been all increase in the charge for the Army generally of Rx.510,300, an increase in the loss by fall of exchange of Rx.1,011,100, and on other heads Rx.407,400, making a total of Rx.1,930,800, and making the net improvement Rx.225,100. As to the financial outlook in Upper Burmah, the net charges in respect of that country for the three years under consideration have been for 1886–7, Rx.2,068,700; for 1887–8, Rx.2,727,300; and for 1888–9, Rx.1,880,500. There is no doubt that it has taken longer and cost more to quell opposition and to restore order in Upper Burmah than was expected. The largest Revenue the Burmah Ruler ever got from the country was about Rx.1,000,000, of which Rx.350,000 were derived from Customs Duties, transit dues, monopolies, and imposts, which the British abolished immediately they entered the country. For two or three years before annexation, the King's receipts had decreased, and had eventually fallen below Rx.900,000. So we had about Rx.600,000 to Rx.650,000 we might collect. During the first year, we collected gross Rx.200,000; during the second year, 1887–8, we collected Rx.490,000, and during 1889–90 we may expect about Rx.700,000. By five years after annexation it may be possible to develop new sources of revenue, and in time we shall be able to impose a Land Tax, as in Lower Burmah, over a part of the country. Probably the revenue will rise by about Rx.100,000 every year for a time, and by the end of 10 years after annexation (about 1896), the revenues of Upper Burmah will have reached Rx.1,100,000, exclusive of the railway receipts. By that time the expenditure on Military Works will have been reduced to maintenance charges, or about Rx.40,000 only. The "extra charges" for the Army ought to have come down to Rx.300,000. The expenditure on Civil Works can be reduced to Rx.200,000, as in Lower Burmah; and the Police Charges by that time ought to be reduced to Rx.500,000. If these anticipations are fulfilled—and they are not particularly sanguine—then the account for Upper Burmah will stand somewhat thus—In 1896, gross Civil Expenditure, including Police, Rx.900,000; Civil Public Works Rx.200,000; Military Works Rx.40,000; extra Army Charges Rx.300,000; gross total Rx.1,440,000; while the gross Revenue may be taken as Rx.1,100,000; leaving a deficit of Rx.340,000. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member appears to be pleased with that condition of things. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He will see that that is the net yearly charge expected to stand against Upper Burmah 10 years after the war, and that all the improvements I have mentioned form a moderate estimate of what may be expected. Hon. Members will see that, taken as a whole, Burmah is not au insolvent Province, but will be paying its way, and, instead of being a burden, will ultimately contribute to the revenues of the State. The Lower Burmah yearly surplus is at present about Rx.700,000, after charging against the Province all military expenditure within its borders. The yearly surplus will have reached Rx.800,000 by the year 1896, so the united Provinces ought then to be yielding a yearly surplus of about Rx.460,000. The "extra" Army Charges only are shown against Lower Burmah; for, as yet, no increase to the military garrison of British India has been made on account of the new Province of Upper Burmah. It would be unwise to be too confident about the fulfilment of this forecast, which is liable to disturbance by unforeseen circumstances. If things go on as favourably as they are now going, the forecast will be realized. I must just call the attention of the Committee to a subject to which their attention has always been called on the occasion of the Budget. I should not be doing my duty to those who have the management of Indian finance if I did not refer to the enormous difficulties which the fall in the value of the silver rupee inflicts on the finances of the country. There is in my Statement a Table of the exchange, and I am sorry to say that even during the short time which has elapsed since the preparation of that Table, there has been a serious alteration, and I can no longer take the average value of the rupee as 16.9d.; but I must take it at 16d. In the Revised Estimate for 1887–8 it was taken as 16.9, and it proved to be actually 16.898. For the coming year, instead of taking it at 16.9, I must take it at 16, or nearly one penny per rupee less, the effect of which is to alter the Estimate materially. The net sterling Expenditure for 1887–8 is then £15,129,000, or Rx.6,357,000, taking the rupee at 16.898d. The reduction for gain by exchange in India on remittances is Rx.819,000, and the addition for soldiers' pay Rx.437,000; so that the total for exchange is Rx.5,975,000. In the coming year, for which I take the rupee as 1s. 4d., the sterling expenditure is £15,029,000; the exchange on that sum is Rx.7,515,000, the gain on remittances Rx.905,000, the addition for soldiers' pay Rx.522,000, and the total charge for exchange Rx.7,132,000. The Committee will see how difficult it is for a Finance Minister to arrange his Budget with an enormous uncertain charge of that kind hanging over the Indian Revenue. Certainly, those who are engaged in these transactions deserve the generous consideration of the House of Commons. There is another point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee. When the rupee is as low as it is at present, the fall of a farthing in its value involves a much heavier charge than when it is higher. The fall in that case adds to the charge no less than Rx.346,154, whereas when the rupee was at 20d. the fall was only Rx.222,223. If, however, we turn from the position of the finances to the present credit of India, I know nothing which the House can consider more satisfactory. The Conversion of the Four per Cents has been virtually completed; but of £53,261,820 Four per Cent Stock, the amount outstanding on the 31st of March last was only £4,403,807, which will be discharged on the 5th of October. Early in the Session an Act was passed authorizing the Secretary of State in Council to raise the money required for the purchase of the Oude and Rohilkund Railway; and, as soon as it became law, advantage was taken of the favourable state of the Money Market to invite tenders for Three per Cent Stock to the amount of £7,000,000, the instalments being spread over six months, as the money was not needed all at once. The Stock was subscribed at an average price of £96 9s. 7d. Part of the money has been used in discharging the Debentures, amounting to £1,885,000, which have already fallen due, and the remainder will be applied in the payment to the Railway Company on December 31 of £5,036,049, which is the value of their share capital under the contract. What may be the ultimate gain to the Revenue of India by this operation will depend somewhat on the price at which Stock may hereafter be raised in substitution for the remaining Debenture Stock; but on the basis of the price obtained for the recent Three per Cent Loan, it is estimated at £70,000 per annum. In India, the usual Public Works Loan for Rx.3,000,000 was raised at 4 per cent, at an average price of 99.79. The loan almost immediately rose to a premium. The Government of India thereupon made a beginning in the conversion of their Four-and-a-Half per Cent into a Four per Cent Rupee Debt. The amount of the various Rupee Four-and-a-Half per Cent Loans is Rx.23,250,000, and the greater part of it cannot be redeemed till 1893; but a loan of Rx.1,787,540, named the Transfer Loan of 1870, was redeemable on three months' notice at once. And, accordingly, an announcement was made on July 27, that this loan will be paid off on the 27th of October. Holders are, however, permitted either in India or in England to apply for a corresponding amount of Four per Cent Rupee Notes, and they will, in that case, receive in anticipation the amount of interest at 4½ per cent due to the 31st of October, and thereafter interest at 4 per cent. The saving of interest effected by this conversion will be Rx.8,937 a-year. With respect to the Civil Expenditure of India, some information is to be found on page 14 of my statement. It will be seen that the amount really chargeable as increase is only Rx.1,491,488 in 15 years, or Rx.100,000 a-year. Of course, every effort has been and will be made to keep down the Civil Expenditure; but I must warn the Committee that we cannot have improved administration in India unless we are prepared to pay for it. Good Government must to some extent be costly Government. It is idle on the one hand to say that the Government ought to do this, that, and the other for the people of India, and then to grumble at the expenditure entailed. It is an easy thing to get up in this House and denounce the Military, Naval or Civil Expenditure, but the only real, valuable financial criticism which can be applied to the consideration of the Accounts is where hon. Members will point to particular items of public expenditure which might be reduced, and show how with due regard to efficiency economy may be effected. I purposely name that without going further into it, because later on, and after the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has spoken, I may feel it necessary to trouble the Committee again. Therefore, in making this statement, it has been my desire to be as brief as possible.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1887, was Rx.77,337,134; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged to Revenue was Rx.77,158,707; that there was a surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.178,427; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and irrigation Works was Rx.5,670,484, besides a Capital Charge of £4,914,546 involved in the Redemption of Liabilities."—(Sir John Gorst.)

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, the Committee must be gratified by the very clear statement which had been submitted to them by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India; but there were some points involved in the Financial Statements connected with matters of general policy in India upon which he thought it would be necessary to trouble the hon. Gentleman for further explanation, and with reference to what he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was about to lay before the Committee, he would like that it should not be regarded in any way as a Party speech. He had to submit to-night certain grievances of the Natives of India—grievances in intimate relation to many of the details of the very able Financial Statement just made by the Under Secretary, and he would be ill fulfilling the task he had undertaken if he permitted the slightest prejudice to rise against the cause he advocated by its being treated as a Party matter. The Natives of India looked to the great Parties of the State to do them justice; they asked audience of the great Parliament of England, without reference to Party spirit on any side, and the allegations which it might be his duty to make were not intended as allegations against one Party more than another, but as allegations against a system which, if the forms of the House had permitted it, he should have gone into at length on that occasion. He thanked the Government and the Under Secretary for India for having given hon. Members the opportunity, which had not always been granted before, of a longer examination into the Statement submitted to the House with regard to Indian Accounts, which had enabled them much better to understand intricate points than otherwise they would have been able to do. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not think it right to say that the great improvement to which he drew attention in respect of the Income of India was a matter which he regretted rather than a matter on which he felt pleased; because, if he (Mr. Bradlaugh) were right, one of the grievances which he should have to lay before the Committee that evening was, that the improvement had been solely arrived at by means of a tax the most onerous and pernicious upon the people of India, some of them almost, if not quite, in a starving condition, and that Salt Tax which formed so rose-coloured a feature in the Statement of the Under Secretary for India, formed in the view of the Natives of India a shocking illustration of harshness and oppression, which they thought might be remedied, and they asked Parliament to inquire whether this might not be done. The forms of the House would not permit him to ask any decision of the Committee on the proposal; the proposal, if it could have been made, would have been that Parliament should order, either by Address to Her Majesty, Royal Commission, or otherwise, as in its wisdom should seem fit, that an inquiry should take place into the present system of our administration of Indian affairs; that Natives should be upon that Com- mission, who might bring their special knowledge to bear in the inquiry, and that it should take evidence in India as well as here. The Natives of India thought they had some right to ask that at the hands of the English Parliament, for they said they were guided by what Parliament used to do in the older times, when it was sometimes jealous of the great Company which then controlled our Indian Possessions, and they pointed out that at the time—before Parliament would extend the powers of that great Company—it insisted on making inquiries, which now, for a period of over 30 years, had never been made at all. The Natives of India asked that Parliament should direct such inquiry, and he hoped early next Session to submit the proposal in a form on which the decision of the House might be had. The Natives of India were asking for it in Congresses which had assembled year after year for three years—Congresses of Natives, not gathered together in any spirit of disloyalty or opposition to our Imperial rule, but Congresses of Natives whose education had been carried out under our rule, and who were alive to the civilization which that education had forced upon them—and they said that by giving them the advantages of higher education, they had been given, at the same time, a keener sense of the grievances under which they were suffering; they thought that in many instances they were able to lessen some of these grievances; they wanted to do it by institutions in which they thought they were fitted to take part, and they hoped that Parliament, if a reasonable case could be made out, would not be slow, at any rate, so far as inquiry was concerned, to initiate such inquiry. He had seen in The Times of that morning a statement by one signing himself "A Native of India," objecting to those Congresses, that the language used at them was the language of disloyalty, and speaking of those connected with the movement as men opposed to our rule in India. That he begged leave to say in the strongest fashion was not true. He would quote as his first witness the son of a man whose name occupied an honourable position in the records of that House; he referred to Mr. Allan Hume, the son of Mr. Joseph Hume, who, speaking on the 3rd June this year of the importance and objects of this Indian movement, told the English Parliament that by this movement the Natives were taught to recognize the many benefits which they owed to British rule, and also the hopes for the peace and prosperity of the country; they were taught that the hardships of which they complained were, after all, small in comparison with the blessings which they enjoyed, and that all those grievances might and would be redressed if they were to press their views and wishes unanimously and temperately on the Government at home and on the people of England. These Congresses had met, as he had said, for three years and made a statement of their grievances. There was no opportunity afforded by the Forms of the House to submit a statement on this subject before Mr. Speaker left the Chair, and there was much which, under the old system, he would have been entitled to say that he was now precluded from saying, except so far as it affected the financial position of India. But he thought it right, while admitting that undoubtedly there was that discontent which all the subjects of British rule must feel when they laboured under disadvantage and suffered from grievances which they thought could not be redressed, to say that there was no disloyalty. They wanted their grievances redressed by Constitutional means, and under the authority and with the sanction of that House. They only wanted—200,000,000 of them—that they should have more opportunities than once a year, late in the Session, with Benches almost empty, of submitting their case which they wanted the Parliament and the people of England to understand. He quite admitted the force of all that had been observed by the Under Secretary of State for India with reference to his position in bringing the Financial Statement before the House at the time at which it was always presented. But he was not intending to imply anything which needed any kind of answer from the hon. Gentleman from that point of view, and he appealed to him with the greater certainty of having a favourable auditor, because he remembered that when an hon. and gallant Member behind the hon. Gentleman brought forward a question a little while ago with regard to certain officials and their, grievances, the Under Secretary for India rose in his place and said it was his duty to defend the poor millions of India. He appealed to that advocate, believing that he would take up the same position to-night as he had taken on that occasion. Although, probably, the hon. Gentleman would answer him accurately enough, that the Forms of the House did not permit him to deal with this question, still he thought he would find it due to the Government of which he was a Member, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman himself would have already considered, and that the Government of India during the Recess would consider, how they would have met the Motion he had put on the Table of the House many weeks ago, and for which he had obtained the first place—how would they have met that Motion at the time, and how would they meet it when the time came for it to be made again? The Natives of India did not expect some sudden and hasty cure of their grievances, but they did expect, and he took leave to expect it for them, that some reasonable show of attention should be paid to their grievances, and that the House would not allow solid and substantial grounds of complaint to be passed without notice. They expected that they would be met half-way, and that we should not drive into a condition of disloyalty 200,000,000 of human beings who were now well affected, and who only came, as they had a right to come, to supplicate the High Court of Parliament for redress of grievances. Another witness, Mr. Soubramana Iyer, said that the rule of Great Britain had given India peace and security, and that the whole of that rule had been better in its result and direction than any former rule in India. That showed that the men who made such statements and the Natives who cheered them could, in no sense, be called men disaffected and disloyal. They were conquered by us, they accepted our civilization as inevitable; but they accepted it as bringing benefit with it, and they asked that, in cases where terrible grievances were associated with it, we should listen to the conquered, and that we should not drive them to the opinion that we had no sympathy with them. This gentleman said it was a matter of the deepest concern to the people of India that the matters of their own country should not be brought to the notice of the Parliament and the people of England and become the subject of free and open inquiry conducted by the best English politicians. It might, however, be said.—"Why should the Natives want inquiry? They have a splendid government in the Secretary of State in Council always watching over them." Yes; but even his small experience of the Secretary of State for India had shown him that, with every desire to rule well, he was sometimes deprived of the opportunity of doing so, because he was kept utterly ignorant of what was passing in India. Last year, for example, when he put a simple Question to the Under Secretary of State for India, it was his misfortune to be better informed than the hon. Gentleman himself; the succeeding answers which he gave completely differing from the answer he had given before. More recently, he had put Questions to the hon. Gentleman on the subject of Burmah. At first the hon. Gentleman knew nothing. Information had come by driblets, and one driblet had come that afternoon, which was essential in deciding whether Burmah was wisely and cheaply governed or not. He agreed that governments must be costly; but they need not be quite so costly, that they should pay for the hire of a flat for 12 months twice the sum it would have cost to build it, and in addition to paying demurrage, when they could get the delay for nothing. The answer of the hon. Gentleman conflicted a little with the hope he had expressed of an economical Administration. There was 60,000 rupees charged for hire and 33,000 rupees for demurrage. If that was a sample of the way in which the Indian Government sought cheapness, all he could say was that the bargain had turned out to be a bad one. He could only suggest that if information was to come by driblets spread over five months, with the best desire to do what was right, the Secretary of State for India had the best excuse in the world for doing what was wrong, for all the mischief was done before he got information. The Natives of India asked that there should be an abolition of the Secretary of State in Council for India and England. He should like the Secretary of State for India and the Under Secretary to cease to be Indian officials; he should like to have the pay of Indian officials upon the Votes of the House, and under the control of the House. At present they were almost powerless to deal with them. He should be the last to lessen the value of the prestige of the India Office; but why should the Secretary of State for India be in a different position from that of the Secretary of State for War, or that of the Secretary of State for the Colonies? Why should he not be under the control of Parliament, so that once a year they might be sure that they had got him, and that he would be sure to come down when Supplies were to be voted? Now, he came down when all the Supplies had been voted, and he knew that he was in no sense dependent on the House of Commons and that he might say what he pleased. The Native Indians asked that the Secretary of State in Council should be abolished, because they said the Indian Council had proved that they were inefficient. He would not trouble the House with the Report, which had been delivered to Members that morning, of the Committee sitting upstairs; but if Charles Dickens bad been alive, and if he had wanted to write another article like "How not to do it with red tape," he appealed to the Under Secretary for India to say whether he could have found a better illustration of the utter uselessness of the Secretary of State in Council than was given by the Report of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company Committee. It was complained, he thought justly, that the Indian Council in London made no effort to be acquainted with or to understand Native Indian opinion, and that the Members of the Council were not in sympathy with Native opinion. It might be asked why should they be? The reason was, that there were 200,000,000 of them. The Natives of India went further, and said that the Council in London even hindered inquiry into Native grievances. They pointed to the spread of education that had taken place amongst the population of India during the past 30 years; they pointed to the men who, at terrible inconvenience to themselves, had crossed the ocean to become acquainted with our manners, language, customs, and letters, who had taken degrees at our Universities, and had been admitted to our Bar, and they asked that these men might have some opportunity of utilizing the talents which they undoubtedly possessed and which we had helped them to develop. First, they asked for some kind of representation upon the Executive Council of the Viceroy in India, and some better representation on the various Provincial Councils; and, further, that the number of Members should be increased, and that the selection of Natives should depend not on the whim of the person who, for the moment, might be Governor General in India or Lieutenant Governor General of one of the Provinces, but upon selection by some process among the Natives. And in making that demand they proposed a system of selection surrounded by all kinds of safeguards. They only asked for Members of their own to be upon those councils. We have already put some there, but we had only done so on a system of selection depending on the whim of the high official who had the duty of making selection. However wise a selection might be made, it would not carry with it the confidence that would have attached to it if the selection had been made by the Natives themselves. They did not ask that the whole of the Council should be elected; they only asked that one-half of it should be elected, and that those who had a strong view of the grievances which they wanted to get redressed should by these means have an opportunity of communicating them to this Parliament. They asked that the House should appoint a Standing Committee, Session by Session, composed of gentlemen to be charged with the duty of receiving such communications and reporting upon them to the House. Surely that was not asking too much for 200,000,000 of people. The Government of India was constantly occupying itself with the defence of their frontiers against invasion. The best defence must be found in the contentment of 200,000,000 of human beings in our rule and in their knowledge that the Parliament of England did not treat them as mere subjects, but as citizens, upon whom they might gradually put the duties of self-government. They asked that there might be even on the Council of the Viceroy some expression of Indian opinion. It was suggested that that had already been thought about by some of the Viceroys, and that the late Lord Mayo himself had contemplated the possibility of a legal Member of the Council being elected from among the high Native Judges. It might be asked what was the need for all this? He would endeavour briefly to give the reason why. These 200,000,000 of human beings were miserably poor, so miserably poor that, at the best, they were only just outside starvation. He would show the House what happened when they were not quite at their best. There were records delivered to hon. Members by the Government themselves, and they would recollect the handsome maps delivered to them last year by the Government of India, which told them about the food, crops, and races of people in India, and other things connected with the subject. There was one of those maps which told them of the famines which had occurred. What must be the condition of things, and how desirable it must be, if possible, to remedy it, when it was necessary for the Government to inform Parliament that famines were so frequent that famine maps were necessary for the country over which they were exercising their rule? What was the state of the people? The average income had been stated at something like £2 per head per annum. An hon. and gallant Member not now in his place, but who had shown an intention to take part in that debate, and had himself occupied a position in India, had stated on distinct information in an official Report that the bulk of the people in the Madras Presidency were paupers, and in another Report by a Government official of Madras it was stated that in the best season the gross income of the labourer and his family did not exceed 3d. per day. And when the Government showed an improvement in their income, of which they boasted in their Financial Statement, by means of increasing the Salt Tax, which pressed upon these people most heavily, then he repeated that there was a serious matter which required some kind of answer on the part of the Government and some kind of consideration on the part of the House. He might pile up illustration after illustration, but he would not weary the Committee; he would leave the illustrations he gave to speak for themselves, and if any hon. Member doubted his statement, or considered it an exaggeration, he reminded him that in those valuable Papers which were submitted to Parliament every year, on the moral, material, and physical condition of India, he would find a statement of wage given, district by district, showing that what was said could be vouched entirely, and that the poverty of the people was almost indescribable. In that valuable treatise, issued by Trübner and Co., and written by Sir W. W. Hunter, they had the statement that there was always a huge number of the people on the verge of starvation. In 18 years, beginning with 1860, and coming down to this time, there had been 16 famines, in which no fewer than 12,021,000 of these unfortunate wretches had died of starvation. It might be asked whether that could be prevented? He thought it could be prevented. In the statement of the Under Secretary for India this evening he said that the Civil expenditure must not be exorbitant, because good government must be costly. But the Natives said—"You put square pegs into round holes; you put people in offices here who are unused to the climate and not always acquainted with the language, at a high rate of pay, while Natives would fill a dozen of those offices at the price you pay for one," and they said that if the money taken out of the country were expended in it, it would benefit the people and save them from that state of starvation. How did the Natives speak about the Salt Tax? He would refrain from reading more than one extract, because he did not want the Committee to think that he wished unduly to occupy their time. In a leading article of a Native paper, published at Allahabad, it was pointed out that an increase of 25 per cent in the wholesale price of salt would bring 50 per cent increase in the retail price, so that, if the yearly consumption were 8 lb., the average rate per head would be nine annas instead of six for a family. Let the Committee think what that meant with a gross income of 3d. a-day in the best time. It did not mean what it would mean in this country; but it was a very striking matter when looked at from the Indian point of view. It was pointed out that any man with a knowledge of India would know that millions of Indian people eked out their wretched existence with a scanty meal of three or four pice a-day, and an increase in the price of salt meant in their case that they should either do without salt or else four days' meals, so that the increase of the Salt Tax meant an increase in the famine rate, and although it might fill the Treasury of the Indian Government, it might also make real discontent and effective disloyalty and enduring mischief among those who saw their parents die of starvation, because the increase of the Salt Tax deprived them in this fashion of four meals. The writer he referred to said- That it could not be understood how, knowing these simple facts, any man whose heart was not altogether dead to the sufferings of the poor could approve of this increase of the Salt Tax, by which the poorest of the poor would be deprived of their four days' meals. It was suggested that they might employ the Natives of India usefully for the government of India in nearly all the departments of civil government. The Natives complained, and he thought justly, that all the highly-paid offices, which they could fill cheaply, were given to those who could not possibly live as they lived, and whose incomes, if distributed, would enable the people to live in plenty; and they complained that every day money was taken out of the country by those officials who could not stay there, which, if it were paid to the Natives, would be spent within the country, and they said that the English Government did that in direct breach of the promises made. They referred to the old Act, and to the Proclamation of Her Majesty, some years after the Government of India had been assumed by the Crown from the East India Company, and they reminded us that in that Proclamation Her Majesty was made to say that, "as far as may be" Her Majesty's subjects, of whatever creed and race, would be freely and impartially admitted to Offices in Her Majesty's Service for the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity; and then these words of wisdom were put in, that "in their gratitude would be Her Majesty's reward, and in their contentment Her Majesty's strength." He might quote the present Ambassador of England at the French Court, who himself had occupied the highest official position in India. Lord Lytton, in a Minute, which he believed had come within the official knowledge of the Secretary of State for India, speaking of an Act of Parliament which preceded the Proclamation which practically re- peated its promise, said the Act of Parliament was so indefinite as to the obligations on the part of the Government of India towards its Native subjects, that no sooner was the Act passed than the Government began to devise means for practically evading the fulfilment of it. Speaking of the right which every Native had when he entered Government employment to claim promotion to the highest posts in the Service, Lord Lytton said, that they all knew that those claims and expectations never could and never would be fulfilled, and that we had chosen the least honest course with regard to them. Why should the Government prohibit? The Native Indians had been utilized in many ways; their abilities had been utilized in Courts of Justice, and in circumstances of the greatest delicacy. The Indian Government were ready to boast, and were proud to boast, of the offers made to them by Indian Princes of their swords and means in aiding them to protect the Empire in India; but it would be better if they could boast, and their pride would be more becoming if they could boast, that they had knit together the huge mass of the people, and taught them by experience that their government was better than any other, and that this mass of people would resist any foreign encroachment, and would save them from the need of voting huge sums in imaginary and real panics in connection with Russia or any other country. They had no right to govern by the sword alone; especially when they boasted in that House of a higher aim than mere policy, and not only had they no right to rule by the sword alone, but they had no power to threaten, for the strongest Government would one day become feeble, the strongest arm would become paralyzed, and it was then that this people might turn against them because they had regarded themselves as a superior race and proved themselves unfitted to discharge their duty towards them.

MR. J. M. MACLEAN (Oldham)

said, he was sure that the Natives of India could not have had a more able and impassioned champion of their cause than the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had proved himself to be. The hon. Gentleman had taken that evening a long excursion into the area of Indian government, and like many other travellers he thought he had re- turned with his ideas only the more firmly established in his mind. He had asked the Committee to believe, with a view to benefiting the people of India, and for the purpose of improving the administration of the country and reducing expenditure, that it would be a wise thing for this Parliament to appoint a Commission of Inquiry—a wide, far-reaching Commission, which was to go out into India, and which was to be independent of the duration and the decease of the English Parliament, and which was to pursue its inquiries for a great number of years. What would be the effect of appointing a Commission of that sort? It would be to put the Government of India into Commission for an indefinite period, and to plunge the whole Government of India into a state of prolonged and incessant political agitation. The hon. Member for Northampton complained that when India was governed by the East India Company, it was the custom to appoint Committees from time to time to inquire into the working of the Indian Administration; he believed that for 20 years at intervals such inquiries had been conducted by Committees of that House, and he said that that beneficial practice had been discontinued since the Government of India had been taken over by the Crown. But the reason why such Committees were appointed at that time was because the Government of India was entirely independent of the British Parliament. The East India Company was not under the control of that House, and, therefore, it was natural that the people of England, who had delegated part of their authority to the East India Company, should have wished to make inquiry and find out how the Company was administering their powers in India; but the Government of India, since it had been taken over by the Crown, was subject to the House of Commons. He had seen it contended in the debates of that House that the Government of India was in the position of an independent Legislature, and that the House of Commons had no right to interfere with certain actions of the Government of India in the administration of the country. Now, he did not recognize that to be a true description of the Government of India, although he was aware it was used in a certain debate in that House with reference to a de- mand to inquire into some particular phase of Indian administration. But, practically speaking, the Government of India was only a Department of the State, like others which were controlled by the House of Commons, and they knew nothing, however small or great, which could be represented as a grievance of the people of India that was not immediately brought under the notice of the House of Commons. He would take the example which the hon. Member for Northampton had given the Committee from his own experience of such matters. The hon. Member told them that the Government of India had tried to make a lease of certain ruby mines to a Company, and that the unfortunate Secretary of State for India had fallen into a state of panic week after week, entreating the Government of India not to grant the lease at all. Could the Committee have a better illustration of the manner in which the hon. Member overawed the Secretary of State and the Government of India? But now the hon. Member told them that there was one patent remedy for all the grievances under which India suffered. The hon. Member was not satisfied with the authority which the House of Commons now possessed; but he said that we must have practically representative government in India. But representative government had always seemed to him (Mr. Maclean) to be a system of government of purely Western growth, and it was confined even now to very few nations. It might be suggested without exaggeration that the only countries in which it worked successfully were those countries in which English-speaking people had a distinct and decided predominance. ["No, no!"] If that proposition was disputed, he might take a definition given by gentlemen who had sent an account of the views expressed at the Congresses in India; by their own confession they spoke of transferring to that country the Constitutional idea which had hitherto been peculiar to England. Did anyone believe that a system of government of that kind could ever be worked in India? They were told that this demand had been put forward by 200,000,000 of people at National Congresses representing the whole of the people of India. Now, that was the first time that he had ever heard that there was a people of India; there were a great number of races, and a great number of distinct nations, but to say that there was an Indian people was to anticipate by at least 1,000 years a general cohesion of the inhabitants of that country, and when the hon. Gentleman talked of grievances which they felt under the English administration, he surely did not mean to contrast their condition at the present time with what it was in any former period of their history. The history of India went back 1,000 years.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, he had expressly quoted from speeches which admitted that our government had been better in many respects than any other government of their own. But that was no argument against the redressing of grievances which did exist.

MR. J. M. MACLEAN

said, he was aware that that statement was put forward by the speakers at the National Congress; but he wanted to point out that at no period in the history of India for 1,000 years had the people ever enjoyed anything in the nature of representative institutions. Since we went to India we had not taken away any liberties that the people possessed at the time we went there, although we were a foreign Governing Power there. We had found India in a state of almost desolation; during the decay of the Empire of the Moguls, it was then being ravaged by hordes of banditti, who carried on this work from one end of the country to the other; all along the sea coast different European nations were vieing as to who should obtain the greatest booty out of the country. England at last attained ascendancy, and secured lasting peace to the inhabitants of that great country. Now, that was a very great benefit to the people of India, who, during the whole period of their history, had never had any other than despotic government. It was quite true that our government was despotic also, and it was absolutely necessary in his opinion that it should be so. He had been reading lately an interesting essay by a brilliant writer upon the question whether England was likely to hold India, and the writer came to the conclusion that we might succeed in maintaining our hold upon the country for the next 25 years. But if the idea of the National Congress and of the hon. Member for Northampton were carried out, he was perfectly convinced that our term of occupation might be shortened to five years instead of 25, and he did not think, if power were placed in the hands of men who were the chief speakers at the National Congress, that we could possibly retain our hold in that country. The hon. Member for Northampton had laid great stress on the expressions of loyalty which had been made at the Congresses; but the important thing to observe was, not what was said by the delegates, but what were the subjects they really discussed and the aims they put forward. The hon. Member had dwelt at some length upon the claims of those delegates, and he pointed out that they represented 200,000,000 of people.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, his statement was that there were 200,000,000 of people, and that there had been three National Congresses; but he did not pretend that there had been any system of election amongst the masses which would entitle those Congresses to speak with authority.

MR. J. M. MACLEAN

said, their own friends claimed to represent only 1–10th of the population of India at the outside; he doubted whether they represented 1–20th of the people. He thought they represented simply the educated classes in the Bengal Presidency and the Mahrattas in the Western Presidency of Madras. They had had a letter from Bombay saying that the Mahommedans had refused to send a delegate to the Congress, because they disagreed with the views there put forward, and therefore they had an important race, numbering 60,000,000, who did not look with any favour whatever upon the so-called National Congress. What were the aims put forward? The one great idea put forward by the speakers at the so-called National Congress, and which they hoped to impress upon the British Legislature, was that, if Natives were placed in a position of authority, the cost of governing India would be very much reduced. Undoubtedly it would have that effect, because we should not have the privilege of governing India any longer. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the promise made to the Natives of India when the government of that country was taken over to the Crown. It was quite right of the hon. Member to read the significant clause—"So far as may be." What was the meaning of that phrase? It was explained in 1860 by a Departmental Committee of the India Office, which suggested that the Natives of India should be employed in the administration of its affairs to as large an extent as possible consistent with the maintenance of British ascendancy. There was no doubt that, at the time, the Natives of India were largely excluded from administrative positions; but year by year they had been admitted more and more to positions of influence, and they would be necessarily admitted more and more as time went on. But they could never get rid of this necessity of our position in India, that there must be a distinctly English element in the administration of the chief posts in the country. The great aim of the Congress was that Natives should be admitted to equality with Englishmen for all positions in the Administration. Now, that could never be so long as we held India. It was inconsistent with the very idea of an Indian Empire. What were the proposals which the Congress made? He noticed that very little was said about economy and developing the resources of India and improving its material prosperity; they thought comparatively little of these matters; but they dwelt entirely upon political questions relating to their advancement to coveted posts now held by Englishmen; they accepted without question all the extravagant ideas of that extremely ingenious statistician Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji, who availed himself of the slightest opportunity put in his power of setting the people of India against English influence and against English domination. He would give an interesting illustration of the way in which Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji pressed figures into his service, to show what calamities the English Government brought upon the people of India. Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji gave a list of 16 famines which had occurred in India in 18 years between 1860 and 1878, and which had resulted in the death of 12,000,000 of people. If that gentleman had been fair and well-disposed towards the English Administration, he would have pointed out that these were the only famines which had occurred through the last half-century, and that not one had occurred during the last 10 years. This gentleman took a period of years in which their was a cycle of famines in India, and he gave them as an illustration of the regular course of British government in India. He (Mr. Maclean) said that nothing could be more unfair than that, and he went on to say that this was the real feeling of the national orators at the Congress that— The late monsoon of the present year and the meteorological and cyclical conditions of Indian weather indicate that we are on the eve of a new era of defective rainfall and probably famine. He was happy to say that that sinister prophecy had not been fulfilled, because the accounts of the rainfall this year in India had been most satisfactory. That was the way in which the government of India was criticized by these national orators. There was another matter to which he might refer—namely, the question on which Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji had raised a discussion for many years, on the subject of the drain of wealth from India in consequence of foreign government there. Well, the figures he put in did constitute a very telling argument against the maintenance of that government, because he (Mr. Maclean) saw that morning that in order to make out the case against the English Government, he said that the English people carried away nearly the whole of the produce in indigo, jute, silk, &c., from the country; he reckoned the value of the property exported as if it belonged to the English planters, and was so much money in their pockets. But the very utmost they could obtain was a small percentage of this produce; he then said that the remittances of private people amounted to £12,000,000 more, which was reckoning the profits of Englishmen twice over. No doubt there were considerable remittances every year to England of money earned in India through British enterprize. That was well earned; it was the fruit of English capital or of English labour, and they ought not surely to grudge the English, who went out to India and set the Natives an example by starting new enterprizes and carrying them out, the small profit which they obtained by such enterprizes. Those were fair examples of the mode in which speakers at the National Congress dwelt upon the present state of India, and the way in which they were found discussing the poverty of the people, which had endured for ages, and was certainly less at the present time than at any previous period. They altogether ignored the fact that there was a better style of living and more widely diffused comfort among the population than there had ever been before, and yet these people spoke as if the so-called poverty of India was the result of British rule. Then they aimed at obtaining for themselves the highest posts in India, and they pointed to the administration of Native States by Native statesmen, and showed what would be the advantage to British India if it were governed in the same way. The hon. Member for Northampton actually had the audacity to quote the Report of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company Committee in support of the statements he had made that evening, saying that it was a great mistake that the representations of the people should be interfered with by the Secretary of State for India. He (Mr. Maclean) took it that the Report was directly the reverse of that, because they said at the end that the direct contact between Natives of India and promoters in London should be prevented by every means; so that the effect of that Report was to lay down the rule that English control should be made more effectual than had unhappily been the case in the past. Then they had another instance of the grievances of India, which he saw had raised the greatest enthusiasm at the National Congress, and that was the so-called disarmament of the people, and the desire of the Natives that they should be allowed to volunteer and offer themselves as a cheap defence in India against foreign invasion. He was afraid that if they trusted to a cheap defence of that sort against Russian invasion they would see an illustration of the old story of the eagle fluttering the dovecote; because he did not think that any man who knew anything about the people of India would say that they would themselves constitute a sufficient defence against foreign invasion. He believed the majority of the people were well-affected towards British rule—that was to say, that they were contented with their position; they were lightly taxed, and every man had perfect freedom for himself and his property. Those were advantages which they had never en- joyed under Native government, and he was sure they were appreciated; but to say that we could reckon upon them for active loyalty in the case of invasion by an European Power would be to say that which no statesman would assent to. [Mr. BRADLAUGH: You brought them over to Europe at a high price.] No doubt, we brought over some of the highly disciplined troops to fight for us if necessary. Whether that was a wise proceeding he did not know; but the Indian Sepoy under English officers had done many gallant deeds and done good service in building up the British Empire. That, however, was not what the delegates wanted. They wanted the people of India to be put under arms and to be perfectly independent of British control. The Natives were very well disposed towards our government; but no one would think that, if the English Army were to suffer a single defeat on the frontiers of India, we could rely on the Native Princes or on the people of India for 24 hours. Therefore, he said that all these demands put forward were for making India a nation, and that what they desired was not the extension and maintenance of our authority in India. He would like to say a few words on the subject of the Financial Accounts of the year, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, in his reply, to give the Committee some information as to when he expected that the Special Defence Works would be completed. There was no doubt that the general condition of Indian Finance was, on the whole, much more satisfactory than many critics were ready to admit. The Revenue had shown very considerable elasticity. During the last 20 years, they had had to deal in India with a very serious expenditure on the Afghan Wars, which had cost something like £20,000,000. They had had to deal with two famines, and the necessary increase of the British and Native Army, caused by the acquisition of a frontier which a foreign enemy could now attack, and they had also to go to a great expense in fortifying the North-Western Frontier, besides which a considerable sum of money had been expended on the fortification of strategical points around the coasts of India, points which it was very desirable should be fortified, and which would be of great service to the Empire. He thought they might congratulate themselves that, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to proceed with the fortification of our coaling stations throughout the world, by anticipating the revenue from the Suez Canal Shares for more than seven years, the Indian Government had sufficient funds at its disposal to pay for the works he had referred to out of the current Revenue. But he thought it would be more satisfactory if they could learn from the Under Secretary of State for India when those works would be completed, and when the finances of India would be relieved from this very serious strain. Another great cause of leakage in Indian finances was the extraordinary expenditure in Burmah year after year. The Under Secretary of State confessed that all the expectations formed a few years ago, when the conquest of Burmah was first undertaken, had been disappointed, and he now indicated that, perhaps, in the 10th year of our occupation, we should have a slight balance of revenue over expenditure. He (Mr. Maclean) would like to have a little more light thrown upon that subject, and to know how far the great expenditure was attributable to errors of policy. Of course they had a right to expect that the results would have been better now than they had hitherto been, and if it had not been for the hurly-burly of Irish politics, they might have been able to inquire more fully into this matter from time to time; but certainly the statement of the Under Secretary of State for India on that head was by no means satisfactory. Then the other great cause of excess of Expenditure over Revenue was the depreciation of the rupee, for which there appeared to be no remedy, and to which apparently there was not likely to be a speedy termination. He believed that several experts had given evidence before the Currency Commission, to the effect that, when silver dropped to 42s. per oz., a number of silver mines would be shut up, and we should then reach the last stage to which the price of silver would fall. Silver had reached that price, and there appeared to be no prospect of its rising again. One could not help being struck by the figures given by the Under Secretary of State for India showing how steadily the imports of India were increasing in proportion to the exports. The trade in most directions was developing very largely; but India got back more in proportion for her exports than she did in former years. He thought that was a proof of the prosperity of the country, and it would be accepted as such by the people of India, and their considerable gain would enable them more easily to bear the necessary taxation. These were the main features in the Financial Statement of the Under Secretary of State for India which appeared to him to call for remark. He did not think that, in considering the accounts of a great Empire like India, they could hope to do any good by paltry criticism of expenditure here and there and pettifogging cavilling about the salaries of clerks. They had to look to the great heads of expenditure, and he pointed out why that expenditure was now increasing. They had always a heavy burden on the finances of India, because of the very great amount paid for Non-Effective Charges. That amount was something appalling. He supposed that under those various heads there were no less than £6,000,000 sterling for Non-Effective Charges. In answer to some criticisms on the extravagance of Indian Government, he might point out that the Non-Effective Charges were really due to the extreme generosity of that House in listening to the grievances of Indian officers, represented as being due to the alterations in the Indian Army. He hoped that would be a lesson to the House of Commons not to be quite so ready in taking up grievances which it did not thoroughly understand. There was only one other matter to which he would refer for a moment, and that was to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton, that we might effect a very great economy by doing away with the Secretary of State in Council at Westminster. The hon. Member said that the Secretary of State for India and the Under Secretary of State were not responsible to Parliament. He (Mr. Maclean) thought that was carrying a technical objection a little too far; because, although the salaries might be paid by the Indian Government, they were very well aware that a Resolution of the House of Commons censuring them for their policy might, at any time, turn both those officials out of Office. Therefore, he thought that the control of the House of Commons in that re- spect was tolerably complete. Then with regard to the Indian Council. Mr. John Stuart Mill described the Secretary of State for India in Council as the most wonderful instrument of human legislative skill which had ever been devised. No doubt, the opinion of that philosopher was biased by his father's connection with India at the time he made that statement. While he agreed to some extent with those who doubted the perfect wisdom of that wonderful form of government for India, he would not go so far as to say that the India Council should be abolished altogether; but he certainly thought that the present term of holding the appointment was much too long, and that if it were shortened to five years, it would be a very great benefit to the country. Nothing was clearer, from the Report of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company Committee, than that the India Council, taking it as a body at Westminster, was deplorably and childishly ignorant of all Indian affairs, and that reform in that direction was, no doubt, urgently required. If the period was shortened to five years, there would be a continuous stream of fresh blood passing through the India Office, resulting in consequent benefit to the country; and if the number of Members were considerably cut down, there would still be sufficient prizes of the kind left within the reach of the Members of the Indian Civil Service.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

said, that Mr. Justice Cunningham, one of the ablest of the Calcutta Judges, commenced a recently published article on the finances of India with these words— The administration of the Indian finances is a topic in which Englishmen naturally and rightly feel a deep concern. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) ought, in fairness, to mention that Mr. Justice Cunningham was not only a distinguished Judge, but also a distinguished writer of fiction; and some people, when they observed the empty state of the Benches to-night, and when they reflected on the fact that Her Majesty's Government had postponed this great Indian debate, not only to an evening in August which was virtually a penultimate night of the Session, but also to the second Order in that evening, some people might think that Mr. Justice Cunningham, in talking of the interests of Englishmen in Indian affairs, was writing fiction rather than fact. And in this connection he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) felt bound to say that he himself thought—and he believed a good many others on that (the Ministerial) side of the House did—they also owed some amends to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). From many platforms in times gone by he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had called attention to the fact that Lord Beaconsfield was the only one of recent English statesmen who ventured to bring on the discussion of the Indian Budget early in the Session, and that it had been the habit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian invariably to postpone the discussion to the fag end of the Session. Well, the ingenious Gentleman who represented the India Office in this House had given them certain reasons to-night why it was almost inevitable in the present Session that the debate should be postponed so long. But he did feel, in the circumstances in which they had discussed this question to-night, that his hon. Friends in the present Government really had out-Heroded Herod; and he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) desired most emphatically to state his own humble opinion that those right hon. Gentlemen on one side of the House and on the other, had, in this matter, entirely miscalculated the wishes of the British public. He ventured to think that Mr. Justice Cunningham was right, and that the British public did feel a real interest in these questions, and would wish that they should be discussed when they could be fairly and intelligibly gone into. Therefore, he ventured to express a most earnest hope, notwithstanding the very clever reasons which had been given to the Committee to-night by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), that next Session would see the hon. Gentleman's Budget introduced at a much earlier period, at any rate, than the present. Hon. Members who would have the courage—he might say the audacity—to address the Committee to-night, would all of them feel that they were speaking, as it were, with a pistol at their heads. In discussing the grievances and the aspirations of 200,000,000 of their fellow subjects, they would all of them feel a sort of uncomfortable sensation that they were keeping some of their fellow-Members from enjoying their well-earned holidays. Therefore, in the few remarks that he would venture to address to the Committee, he should confine himself entirely to one point only, and that was, to the demand for an inquiry into the affairs of India to be conducted, not only here in England, but also in India—that demand which had been expressed in such eloquent language to-night by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) thought it necessary at once to say that he did not follow the hon. Member for Northampton in all that he had submitted to the Committee to-night. He thought, from the knowledge he had of the economic conditions of India, that the hon. Member's objections to the Salt Tax, for instance—to the recent infinitesimal addition which had been made to that tax—were not well-founded. He thought, also, that the hon. Member's idea of the great poverty of the large mass of the people of India was exaggerated—or, at any rate, exaggerated so far as his comparison of the relative poverty of the people of England and the people of India was concerned. But still, with all these deductions, it was a most remarkable and undeniable fact that every class in India, and every community which was in any way connected with India and Indian affairs, did, at the present moment, in a more or less earnest form, declare that some inquiry into Indian affairs and Indian administration was really urgently demanded. The Natives of India, with one voice, asked for an inquiry; the non-official English people, with one voice, asked for inquiry; the officials, too, suggested that in our management of the affairs of India there was a good deal that required looking into, and they felt that in their own administration of India out there they were struggling under difficulties to do their duty, as he believed they were doing their duty well towards the country, but they said the obstruction was the India Office and the hon. Gentleman's Council here at home. They expatiated on the enormity of those home charges which had been so aptly put before the House this evening by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean). They knew that on all questions where the interests of India clashed with the interests of England, on such points as the cost of soldiers to the Indian Exchequer, as the provision of stores, and as the protection of Native States and Native Potentates against London speculators, and similar questions, the interests of India were neglected in favour of the interests of England. Then, again, the whole of the Uncovenanted servants of India asked for inquiry. They declared that they were ignored by the Government of India, and that, although numerically superior to the Covenanted Service of India, they were unrepresented both in the Council of the Viceroy at Simla and in the Council of the Secretary of State here at home. The efficiency of the India Office had been spoken of by the hon. Member for Oldham in not very warm terms, and another hon. Member of this House had recently said that it was a sort of hospital for aged incurables. Even the India Office was inclined to look with a certain amount of favour at proposals to check the extravagances of the Simla people; and on all sides there was a certain amount of demand for inquiry; and what he wished to submit to the Committee to-night was that the present time and the present year afforded a particularly favourable season in every respect for this inquiry—favourable especially from the point of view of those timid persons like the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, who saw revolution in every inquiry of this kind. Just let them consider the present state of India and of Indian affairs. They had there a Viceroy who was by universal consent a statesman of quite exceptional reputation and ability, one who had, too, the invaluable advantage of being trusted alike by both Parties in the State. They had a Commander-in-Chief there who was the idol of the British Army and of the Indian Army—a Commander-in-Chief who was not only a Victoria Cross man, who had made the most famous march of modern times, but who was also a great administrator and a great strategist. Here, at home, they had a Secretary of State who possessed vast experience of public affairs, and was surrounded in the House of Lords by a wonderful gathering of Indian talent; and if his hon. Friend below him (Sir John Gorst) would forgive him for referring to him in his presence, they had in the House of Commons at the present moment a Gentleman representing Indian affairs who by universal consent was especially gifted in the art of tempering the wind of hostile criticism to the shorn lambs of the India Office. The House knew well enough that whenever any special request for an inquiry was presented to his hon. Friend he was always prepared immediately to prove three things. He first of all proved that the India Office was most anxious for the inquiry; he, secondly, proved that it was absolutely idiotic and impossible to think of such an inquiry; and, in the third place, he proved that the inquiry had been held over and over again. Well, in these circumstances, he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) certainly thought the most timid person must admit that an inquiry of the kind asked for by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton might be granted without the possibility of its doing harm to any person whatever. Then there was an additional advantage they had at the same time with regard to the possible personnel of a Commission such as that suggested. He would point out that at the present moment the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), though a Member of the House, was not burdened with any of the cares of Government. Many on that (the Ministerial) side of the House wished that he were so burdened with the cares of Government, but he was not, and he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) asserted, without hesitation, that all classes in India, Native as well as European, and officials as well as non-officials, would regard the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington as an ideal head of such a Commission as that which had been suggested. In India itself it was universally admitted just now there were a remarkable number of distinguished Indian statesmen who could admirably act with such an Englishman as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. There were such men as, in Bengal, the Maharajah of Darbhanga, and the Raja Peary Mohun Mookerji, who would, he was sure, be glad to serve with the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. In Madras there was Sir Madava Rao, in Mysore the Dewan, in Native States the Prime Minister of Hyderabad—not to mention many Feudatory Princes of proved ability who might possibly at the present moment be very willing to serve on such a Commission as that suggested. He ventured to think that recent events called trumpet-tongued for some such inquiry as that now asked for. Could anyone read the accounts which appeared in this morning's papers of the Report of the Select Committee into the Hyderabad (Deccan) Mining Company, which had been already referred to in debate to-night, without feeling that we, as a nation, were really grievously neglecting and ignoring our duties to the Princes and peoples of India. On the bare possibility of such a question being asked in this House tending in the same direction as that which was put this evening by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), he would ask the Committee to be good enough to remember that in citing these matters he was not speaking of things that he regarded as proved, or even as likely to be capable of proof, but he was asking simply that they should be examined; and let him tell the Committee that in every mail from India every week, every newspaper that was brought home contained charges against our officials in India which, rightly or wrongly, asserted the existence of a state of things hardly less discreditable than those which had recently been brought to light. It used to be said that these outcries were only raised by that portion of the Indian Press which was disloyal and disaffected to the British Crown—especially the Vernacular Press. But at this moment it was well known to any hon. Member who followed the Press of India at all, that the very ultra-official Press, such as The Pioneer at Allahabad, which was the organ of the official classes in India, had joined in this outcry and was foremost in denouncing abuses which were alleged in the administration of India. At this period of the evening he would not enter into details, but he would refer to one or two cases by name. There was the case, for instance, of the infant Gond Raja of Nagpur, a Petition from whose Representatives, addressed to the Secretary of State for India, was in the hands of hon. Members. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had studied this question, and it was his intention on some future opportunity to submit the case to the House. This evening he would not detain the Committee by referring to it further. There was even a worse case than that alleged, and he said "alleged" because he would remind the Committee that he was only relying upon ex parte statements, and as he had said just now, was only asking for an inquiry. There was a worse case in the case of the infant Raja of Mohrbhanj, in Orissa. It was stated most definitely that in that State the family of the Raja had been entirely set aside and superseded in favour of an European protègé of the Commissioner of a neighbouring district. Well, he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) believed, as one with some knowledge of India, that many of these cases, possibly the vast majority of them, were absolutely unfounded, and that probably in all of them the facts were very considerably exaggerated; but surely that very fact was a reason why the demand of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton for an inquiry into these cases should be granted. Why should the India Office not grant such an inquiry? He would appeal to Her Majesty's Government to remember what under very similar circumstances had been stated by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. He asked, for instance, that the case of Sir Lepel Griffin might be fairly compared with the case of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. He had the pleasure of being personally acquainted with Sir Lepel Griffin, and he could say that, to the best of his knowledge, this gentleman was one of the ablest and most honest of all our political officers in India, and yet he had been continuously, and still was persistently, libelled by a large section of the Press of India. That officer was——

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that we are in Committee on the Financial Accounts of India. The speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, no doubt, went over very considerable ground, but it was all connected with the economical side of the administration of India. Any inquiry into the general condition of India not connected with the economical side of the question, is foreign to the matter under discussion.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

said, that, of course, he would immediately bow to the decision of the Chairman. He would only venture, most respectfully, to submit this to the consideration of the Chair, that the course he was pursuing in his speech, so far as he had now gone, was to deal with the conduct of the political department of India, and the consideration of the question of how far the salaries contained in the accounts of this Department were earned—the salaries contained in the accounts now presented to the Committee. But, under the ruling of the Chairman, he would leave that point, merely noting, as he did so, this—that he ventured to submit that, in his opinion, it was utterly wrong and improper to ask honourable officers of the British Government quietly to sit down under such libels as those which had been published against Sir Lepel Griffin. In the case of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite he had stated the same thing of them, that they ought not quietly to accept libels; and he therefore said it still more strongly when the libels were directed against an officer who represented the majesty of the British Government in India. He must say a word or two, before he sat down, on the very increasing volume of complaints, not only of the expense, but also of many of the methods of our internal administration of India. These complaints were ever increasing, and they must, in his opinion, be over increasing until Parliament granted the inquiry which was asked for, because, in former years, before the administration of India passed from the East India Company to the Crown, such inquiries as this were periodically granted. But now, he must say, the tendency of the bureaucratic spirit of India was rather to burke such inquiries than encourage them. The sham Report, as he ventured to call it, of the Public Service Commission had been followed by an equally sham Report from the Finance Committee. These, he maintained, were the results of Departmental or purely official inquiries. He should like hon. Members in this House to read the pamphlet lately issued on this point by Sir Richard Garth, the Chief Justice of Bengal. He should like hon. Members to see what the Chief Justice of Bengal thought of these bogus inquiries. He should like hon. Members to read what this experienced official said about the secrecy with which the financial accounts of the Government of India were now passed every year in Calcutta without being submitted to debate or discussion in the Legislative Capital as in former times. When Sir Richard Garth dealt with the expenditure of the Judicial Department, of which he was the head—which he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) was sorry to say Sir Richard Garth was not allowed to reform—he there reflected on the manner in which judicial duties were now inextricably associated with the Executive duties—that the policeman who traced the alleged criminal and hunted up the evidence against him was one and the same man with the magistrate who weighed the evidence and with the Judge who convicted upon that evidence—the system was clearly one which could not result in justice being done to accused persons. Another point that Sir Richard Garth dwelt upon in his capacity as head of the Judicial Department was our stamp fee system as it existed in Bengal. At the present moment that system actually required stamps to be used which amounted to 50 per cent more than the total cost of all the Civil Courts in that Presidency. Now, this was prohibitive of justice in many cases. It was excused by Ministers on the ground that litigation should be controlled; but it really acted beyond that and absolutely denied justice to the people. And what interested him (Sir Roper Lethbridge) himself he confessed in Sir Richard Garth's pamphlet was the confirmation he gave to the plea to which they had listened to-night in the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton—the plea for extended representation and for an extended popular element in the Legislative Councils of India. The hon. Member for Oldham, in replying to this, told them that the English régime in India had not taken away one of the liberties of the people of India. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) was proud of that fact, and every Englishman must be proud of it; but he said that the time had come when they might feel that they might safely not only secure to the people of India such liberty as they had formerly possessed under Hindoo and Mahommedan rule, but add some of the liberties we ourselves possessed. Of course, if that were done it should be done with great discretion and with all safeguards. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) did not pin his faith to National Congresses, of which the hon. Member opposite had spoken, nor to any of the schemes referred to in this pamphlet, and he did not pin his faith to any scheme of electoral colleges such as were criticized by the hon. Member for Oldham; but he did say this, let them attempt—for the time was ripe and the Natives of India were prepared for it—let them attempt to extend to India some of the representative institutions on which we pride ourselves. He would like, for instance, to see the introduction in the Legislative Councils of the right of interpellation which was always one of the most valuable safeguards of liberty. And he could not conclude without noting in one or two words the hideous cynicism of our fiscal system in India. We forced India to sacrifice immense sums of revenue and to admit our cotton goods free of import duties, because, forsooth, of the immutable verities of Free Trade, and then we put heavy duties on every pound of tea that comes into this country from India, we tax Indian tobacco up to the hilt, and we laid upon the Indian silver industry such restrictive duties and regulations that that industry was in a fair way to be altogether destroyed. Then he objected to another part of the financial system—namely, the Excise Revenue of India. He would not enter into the merits of that question in detail, because it had already been discussed in this House. Our method of raising that revenue was objected to not only by every Native of India, but also by a large majority of the tea planters of the Darjiling district and other districts in Bengal. They saw it at work in the armies of coolies employed on these tea estates, and no wonder a conflict of opinion existed amongst the best authorities in the absence of that inquiry for which he was asking that night. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple) and the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell), both of whom had held the Office of Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, had, he was glad to say, publicly denounced the out-still system as "tending to increase the revenues of India at the cost of the great increase of drink." These were the words of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs, and he (Sir Roper Leth- bridge) knew that these words accurately represented the opinions both of that hon. Member and of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division. But the leading newspaper of India——namely, The Calcutta Englishman, commenting on these words on April the 10th last, said— Lieutenant Governors have evidently short memories. …. Nothing could be more misleading, as Sir George Campbell was originally responsible for it, and Sir Richard Temple professed to be pledged to carry out the views of his predecessor, whilst Sir Ashley Eden first put a check upon the increased number of out-stills. There was a discrepancy here which he was sure they could only clear up by inquiry—there was a discrepancy such as the inquiry for which he asked would clear up beyond all possibility of doubt; and therefore he did appeal to these hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to join with the hon. Member for Northampton in the demand he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had been supporting. And he hoped his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India would not treat this demand, as he had sometimes treated similar demands as this, as if it were meant in a spirit of hostility to his protégés at the India Office. He could assure the hon. Member that those who made the demand respected his official Colleagues, and were as keenly sensitive as he was of any aspersions on the character of the British Administration in India, and it was because they were so keenly sensitive in this matter that they appealed to him and to Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision, and to grant an inquiry.

SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.)

said, it seemed to him that there were three distinguishing marks in our Indian debates. First of all, they were conducted in a very thin House. When he looked round he saw that they had present about one Member for every 10,000,000 of inhabitants in India. Then it was also to be noted that there was a general concensus of opinion that economy was most desirable, and everyone on both sides of the House appeared determined to enforce economy wherever it was possible; and then came the last point, most singular of all, that nothing came of these expressions of opinion but long and protracted debates. On the present occasion he hoped to bring to a practical issue, at all events, the desire of hon. Members for economy, and before he sat down he should submit to the Chairman the Resolution to be discussed by the Committee. He was rather surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) that absolutely he anticipated what would be the results of any large admixture of our Native fellow-subjects with ourselves in the administration of India. A great call was made upon them by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) to accede to the natural desire and aspirations of the Natives of India, and to put them in the same position as ourselves, associating them with us in the work of administration. Now, he (Sir William Plowden) had had a long spell of administrative work in India, and one matter had always forced itself upon his attention, and that was the great capacity of the Native Hindoos for native work. He was quite certain that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who had taken any part in the administration of India would bear him out in that conclusion, and he especially addressed himself to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple), whom he saw was going to speak. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would agree with him that the Natives, so far as he had seen them associated with Europeans, had shown themselves most capable and efficient, and, starting from that fact, he should like to observe what had been the opinion with regard to the association of these men with him in the administration of India. It was more than half a century ago that by Act of Parliament and by declaration of the then responsible heads of the Government, every possible bar to the appointment of Natives to assist in the administration of the country was removed, but though that bar was removed the Natives had not been associated with us hitherto in the higher appointments they might have aspired to. He had seen in India men he should have been pleased to serve under, even though they occupied the highest positions in the official Departments. He would mention only one—namely, Sir Dinkur Ras, who was a most thoroughly capable man. This person had been an able administrator of the Province of Baris, but the Maharajah was firm, and he performed the work, not only of an efficient administrator, but of a most royal administrator, because it was through his action that Gwalior took up the position it did. That was at the time of the Indian Mutiny. It must be obvious to those who hold office in India that at such a serious time as that of the Mutiny this country had to depend a great deal on the assistance of Native fellow-workers. The hon. Member for Northampton had referred to a gentleman who had occupied such office as we allowed Natives to take in one of the Northern Provinces, in a district absolutely deserted by Europeans during the Mutiny. The individual in question remained at his post notwithstanding that it had been conclusively shown that offers had been made to him by his co-religionists in Delhi under the Emperor there—for at that time Delhi was not in our power—to give up the post he occupied and take part in the rebellion. His reply, however, had been that he had lent England his sword, and England only should use it, and, as a matter of fact, he remained in our service and died in it. He (Sir William Plowden) maintained that such men as this were most capable and of the highest value, and a time should come when we should see such persons placed, perhaps, high up in the administration of India; and he could not for the life of him see why they should not be. We saw them conducting their own affairs with the most admirable perspicuity and prudence in those cases where there were Rulers of large territories in India. On the point of economy it would be greatly to our advantage if we could secure the assistance of men of this kind, because they would accept office at a much lower rate of pay than that at which we could secure the services of European agents. He would pass from that point merely stating that his opinion was, that instead of our rule being shortened in India by an extension of administrative power amongst our Indian fellow-subjects there, it would possibly very materially prolong that rule by adopting the course he had pointed out. And he now came to the practical point on which he wished to deal. In 1879 a Commission was appointed in India with the object of securing larger economies and equal, if not greater, efficiency in our official administration. This Com- mission was composed of able and distinguished officers. It was presided over by the official who preceded the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire in the Governor Generalship of Bengal (Sir Ashley Eden), and one of the ablest assistants Sir Ashley Eden had on that Commission was the present Commander-in-Chief in India, Sir Frederick Roberts. Now, this Commission, amongst other things, made a recommendation which seemed to him a remarkably happy one. The Commission was anxious to do away with the commands in Madras and Bombay, held as they now were by several Commanders-in-Chief with separate and expensive staffs. The representations of the Commission on this point were thoroughly formed and taken up by the Government of India, but the Government of India in recommending this reform were met in an extraordinary manner by the Government at home, who entirely dissented from the recommendation and put a stop to action in that direction. From that day to this nothing had been done towards the removal of these Commanders in Madras and Bombay and taking up the more economical proposals in substitution for this appointment which were put forward by that Commission. Now, he had called attention to this matter before, and he had received, he must say, an extraordinary answer from the hon. Member opposite (Sir John Gorst), whose conduct to the "shorn lambs" had been so happily presented to the House by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge). In this case presumably he did not like to shear the lambs, and he (Sir William Plowden) quite understood that it must be extremely distasteful to remain in Office to cut down the area of their patronage; but he would be sorry to include any Member of the House in being actuated by such a consideration as that. He was sure they were all desirous of affecting the economies where it was practical and possible to do so, and he therefore trusted that the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Office, the Under Secretary of State, would see his way to use his influence on his friends in the India Office to see if this Company, at all events, should not be carried out. Then, again, there was another matter in which he (Sir William Plowden) thought that practically economy might be increased very much, and that was in the Civil Department. They had got their different systems still prevailing in the two Presidencies of Madras and Bombay to that they had in the newer and more unequal and awkward territory in the North. There seemed to be no argument that could be forwarded which would justify the different state of things which was allowed to exist in Madras and Bombay to that which prevailed in Bengal. The Presidencies in Bombay and Madras were each much smaller than the Lieutenant-Governorships of Bengal, and the population in the latter was as one to two. For the administration of the large territories of Bengal and of its very large population of 66,000,000 against the 31,000,000 in Madras, they had a Governor whom he believed received 10,000 rupees a month, besides certain other allowances, and who was assisted by a Council, the civil Members of which received 2,500 rupees a month, and a military Member who received even more than that, while in Bengal they had a Governor who was content with the more modest salary of 5,638 rupees a month. Upon that, if they put their Madras administration and Bombay administration on the same footing, so far as economy was concerned, as the administration of Bengal and the North-West Provinces of the Punjab, they would secure a large economy. He put it to the Committee, who were anxious frankly to secure economy in our Indian administration, whether it was not desirable that they should put forward their opinion that the time had come when the recommendations of the Indian Royal Commission should be acted upon and enforced by the bringing about of a certain amount of economy and, at all events, an equal amount of efficiency; and though these other recommendations which he was making were not made on the authority of the Commission, he was certain that it was one which would commend itself to common sense. He did not know how anyone could get up in the House and defend the system which existed, and he should like to see the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India taxed in defence of the existing system of Administration in Bombay and Madras. He begged to add to the proposed Resolution the following Amendment of which he had given notice:—

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Question, to add the words "But this Committee is of opinion that the economies proposed by the Army Commission in India should be enforced, especially those which would do away with the Commands in Chief in Madras and Bombay; and that the Civil administration of those Presidencies might be more economically conducted, but with equal if not greater efficiency, by making those Presidencies Lieutenant Governorships instead of Governorships."—(Sir William Plowden.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR RICHARD TEMPLE (Worcester, Evesham)

said, he had so much matter to deal with in the course of the observations he was about to address to the Committee that it would be impossible for him to follow the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir William Plowden) who had just sit down. He would endeavour to lay before the Committee a large argument in as compact and succinct a form as possible. Some of his points he would address to Liberal Members of a reforming turn of mind opposite, and other points he would address to hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House who may be of an Imperial disposition. In the first place he must assure the House that, with two great exceptions, the finances of India were in a thoroughly satisfactory position—that was to say, the Revenue was elastic, the expenditure was kept well in hand, the public credit was rising, and the fact of the long sustained surplus shown by the account showed the great sum that India had paid within the last few years out of her cash balances towards the cost of war and famine. But he admitted that there were two serious exceptions—two heavy thunder clouds were hanging over the prospects of our Indian finance. The first of these clouds was that of the Exchange. It was a fact that more than half-a-century ago we turned our old double standard into a single silver standard, under the belief that the value of the rupee would remain for ever as it then was, at the value of about 10 rupees to one pound. Since that time, mainly owing to the great War of the Mutiny and to the construction of railways in India, we incurred many sterling financial obligations. We found it hard to borrow large sums in silver on the spot, and we therefore resorted to the facile expedient of borrowing in sterling in the London Money Market. And now what had happened? These sterling obligations were immense, while our means of paying them had fallen. Within the last 15 years the exchanges had fallen at the rate of ½d. per year. And now we come to the tremendous fact that every six months we were losing to our Indian finance about £250,000 sterling. It was impossible to over-estimate the gravity of that situation, more particularly because there was no hope that we had as yet touched bottom. After all, let the House consider what was the cause of this fall. He would not detain the Committee by recounting all that had happened from the demonetization of silver on the Continent of Europe. He would only remark this—that one cause of the fall was the over production of silver. Every hon. Member who had travelled as he had done in the Western parts of the United States, especially in Nevada and Colorado, and who had seen the wonderful development of silver mining in those regions, would readily understand why the exchange was falling. The second cloud was that of the prospects of opium. There was a danger lest the Chinese Government should succeed in diverting into her own coffers part of that large revenue which we had hitherto secured for India. There was grave fear that in the development of the poppy culture in China that country would be able to supply all the requirements of the opium smokers themselves. The Committee might remember that these were points which in 1886 he ventured to bring forward before the House after a Motion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), who then sat on those Benches, as to the opium trade. But these facts, however formidable they might be, did, at all events, knock the bottom out of the argument then adduced as to the opium trade. It was then said that we were forcing opium on the Chinese, whereas it now seemed that the Chinese were taking measures to supply themselves with opium. Then the case of the Salt Tax was mentioned by hon. Members opposite. It was very possible indeed that with these heavy financial losses we might again be obliged to resort to fresh taxation. He did not intend to detain the Committee by answering again all that was said from the opposite Benches in regard to salt. The very same arguments were adduced against the Salt Tax earlier in the Session, and he slew them then. Now, if we did impose some slight extra taxation to meet the loss on exchange and on opium, we should, at all events, have to reduce the expenditure not here and there, but upon a large scale. It would be necessary to pick up not only the pins which were mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton, but to pick up pins throughout the length and breadth of the land. We should have, he grieved to say, to stay the progress of improvement, both material and intellectual; we should certainly have also to check the growth of obligations in sterling, and if possible reduce them; whatever obligations we incurred in the future must be in silver on the spot. He did not intend to detain the Committee more than a moment by alluding en passant to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) with reference to Cotton and Tea Duties, and the out-still system. Surely it would be in the recollection of all Members present that the Cotton Duties so long imposed in India were really taxes on British industry in the days of our depression; they also practically acted to the protection of rival native industries carried out with British capital, British machinery, and under British supervision. Was it likely that the manufacturers of our own country would endure this longer? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) knew too well that the Tea Duties were necessary for our national finance—[Cries of "No, no!"]—We imposed then on China tea, which was the greatest part of our tea importation, and how could we possibly draw a distinction in favour of India, or how long would we be able to discriminate between China tea and India tea? As to the out-still system in Bengal, he thought that it would be hardly becoming to enter into a controversy with a local newspaper—however influential—published 6,000 miles away. All he said was that he adhered absolutely to every word he stated in the House in the earlier part of the Session, and if any further reply was required he left it to his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), his predecessor in Bengal, who would vindicate his own action and his (Sir Richard Temple's) in this matter. Something was said by an hon. Member opposite in respect to famine maps, and it was asked why, with all the efforts we made when we poured out our treasure like water, we had not been able to save more life? He (Sir Richard Temple) commanded great famine relief operations in the field when millions of people were threatened, who were, however, all rescued from starvation. In another part of India a few years afterwards he had the honour to command relief operations in Bombay. On that occasion thousands of people perished, but not so much from starvation as from disease. He admitted that the main point about India was her alleged poverty. That was a specious allegation which had been adduced before, and which he ventured to whip with the scourge of argument. He would not trouble the House with a repetition of that process. He would now merely mention two undeniable facts which he thought would come home to the judgment of hon. Members opposite. First, there were no unemployed in India; and, secondly, there was not there, and there never had been in India, and there never would be, any Poor Law, for there was no need of it. Another great factor in the problem consisted in the contentment of the mass of the people. An hon. Member opposite said that we had no right to rule India by the sword; he (Sir Richard Temple) heartily concurred in that view. We did not, however, rule India by the sword. No doubt there were battalions and cannon in the background, but in the forefront of the administration was its benevolence, its thorough trustworthiness, and the general acquiescence of the people in it. In that acquiescence consisted the main element of our strength in India, financial and other. Now, it was impossible to overlook all that had been said this evening regarding the so-called "National Conferences." Too much must not be made of them; but, on the other hand, they could not be ignored. The Conferences had been held at several times and places in India during recent years. The movement was undoubtedly advancing; but what really was the object? In spite of all the "high falutin" language employed the object was practically financial. It was just this, that the delegates who attended the Conferences wanted better pay for the appointments they had got, higher posts than any which they had held hitherto, improved prospects, and more generous concession in respect to furlough and leave. Further, they wanted a larger share in the administration of their country and in the control of its finances, and they wished to escape from some of its fiscal burdens which had pressed upon the shoulders of themselves and their forefathers. But upon them the burdens were lighter compared with those borne by their ancestors. These were not unreasonable objects of ambition, though they were hidden in a mass of verbiage. They were like kites sent up in the breeze of popular enthusiasm, and they were like balloons inflated with the breath of high sounding phraseology. If they were carried to the extreme conclusion, or even to the logical conclusion to be deduced from the language used, the methods of the Conferences would require our abandoning all our Imperial position in India. In other words, if they were not exactly disloyal, or treasonable, or seditious, they were, nevertheless, inconsistent with the idea of British rule in India. But to a certain point he heartily agreed with the aspirations of these men; but then, again, he must insist upon certain limitations being imposed. In the first place, we could not possibly excuse the people of India from fiscal burdens. One would imagine that they ought not to pay any taxation; every tax we imposed was objected to at these Conferences; of every tax which had hitherto existed they demanded the abolition; but they suggested nothing in return except that we should give them everything and keep nothing ourselves, but virtually pack up, bag and baggage, and leave the country. As to their having financial control, let him remind the Committee that already the Legislative Council, in which they were largely represented, had considerable financial control, because no new taxation could be imposed without their sanction. But there was another thing. However anxious we might he to give the Natives high pay, higher posts, better positions, we must secure for our European countrymen those posts in which British firmness, energy, and loyalty to the death were required. It was all very well to say that these high posts could and should be filled by Natives at a lower scale of pay. Why, of course, they could be so filled in times of peace; but how about the day of danger? Were we to suppose there never would be danger in India, and were we to lay up for ourselves the embarrassments which would happen in the event of danger overtaking us unprepared, and with nothing but Native agency, and without that European strength upon which we always relied? A word must be said about the status of the delegates who attended at the Conferences. To hear some hon. Members speak one would suppose these delegates claimed to represent 200,000,000 of people. He understood that the allegation was not made in so many words; but it undoubtedly was the inference, from the speeches they had heard this evening, that these men did claim to represent 200,000,000 of people. He maintained that no greater statistical fallacy was ever uttered in this House. The delegates represented no one but themselves and a very limited class. He did not want to disparage that class; it might be morally and politically important, but numerically it was but the smallest fraction of the teeming millions of India. Of whom did they consist? They consisted of the educated Natives—that was to say, the Natives educated in Western civilization and in the English language. He did not mean to discourage them; they were what we had made them; they had been taught in our ways, in our tongue; they had looked at everything through our spectacles; they were intellectually our offspring; and he held that we ought not to be, and he was sure he, for one, was not at all ashamed of them. But they did not represent the people of India; the men of the sword, of the plough, of the loom, the factory, the counter, the hard-headed, strong-armed, horny-handed men, who really formed the mass of the teeming and industrious millions of that Empire. Why, if there came a revolution to-morrow, as these Conferences would bring about if we let them have their heads, so to speak—if such a revolution were to come to-morrow, these educated classes would unhappily be driven from one end of the country to the other till they reached the sea and had to plunge into the waves thereof. There was a great difference between demands made moderately and demands made immoderately. If it was said that we had done something for the Natives, but that more remained to be done, that was one thing; but it was quite another thing to imply, if not to assert directly, that we had done almost nothing for the Natives, that we had neglected their interests, that we did not attempt to perform our Imperial duties towards them. In that he did not agree. What he did agree with were moderate demands; when it came to immoderate demands, he protested for this reason particularly, that, whereas he and many other Europeans would be willing to meet moderate demands, they were obliged to take the other side and speak against demands and against all who ventured to put them forward in an extravagant manner. This brought him to the electoral point. It was urged that we should have electoral institutions in India generally, as we had already in the Indian Municipalities. He heartily agreed in that; but we must again remember what were the objects of the delegates. Those objects partly related to legislation and partly to local administration. If these delegates were to be Members of the Legislative Council, which alone could impose now taxation, then, he said, they ought to be there by right of popular representation, and by the votes of their fellow-countrymen enfranchised with the suffrage. Nothing would be easier than to substitute elected Members of the Legislative Council for the appointed Members we now had. If these people were to have a share in local administration involving local taxation, there, again, the right of representation was manifest. There were District Boards in such numbers as had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India this evening. But he was sorry to hear that the well intentioned efforts of the late Viceroy (the Marquess of Ripon) had not been so successful as was hoped. But we must preserve the ultimate control financially by means of a Governmental majority when needed. Of course, if men were to take an interest in voluntary work they must have some real power allowed to them; still the official check must be held in reserve. Another great factor in Indian finance was the cost of the Army and of the National defensive arrangements. That cost would greatly depend upon the loyalty of the Natives, and upon the question as to how far we could depend upon that loyalty. In what did that loyalty consist? He must respectfully warn the Committee that if they came to a comparison between British rule and Native rule, they could not depend upon the loyalty of the Natives. If they saw a chance or an opening for striking for their own Government, or for their own Sovereign, or for their own Chiefs, they would take the opportunity. If an Archangel administered the Government of India, he would have no chance whatever of striking into the hearts of the people. This fact was deeply impressed on our memory by the experiences of the Mutiny. If, however, a choice had to be made by the Natives between us and any possible European rival, say Russia or France, then, no doubt, we could depend upon the loyalty of the Natives. On such occasions they ceased to complain against us. Now, when there was no rival in the field, when we held the field, as it were, against all comers, they were too ready to find fault. But when it came to a question between us and someone else, then they recollected how good we were, how much we had done for them, how sorry they would be to lose us, and how bad the next comer might be. In all his experience in India he had never seen or heard such manifestations of loyalty as had been exhibited during the last few years in India, especially in 1885, when there was what had been called the Russian scare. It was the fear of Russia—no, he would not say the fear, but the apprehension of Russian hostilities, which made the Natives turn their hearts to British rule, which they had become to think rightly of. When any danger arose there would certainly be on our side every man who had money to lose, or advances out on good security, or property which had been secured to him and his heirs for ever, or had had his taxation fixed for a lengthened period, or who was in the enjoyment of good pay with prospects of a pension, or had industry based upon capital, or had lucrative employment. All these men constituted a majority; while, added to them, there was every Native Chief from one end of the country to the other who had had his status recognized, who had had his succession made sure by the recognition of the right of adoption, who had got his territories pacified, and who was fenced round about by the shield of England against every possible danger from without. All these Chiefs would be on our side, and they constituted, he believed, a great majority. We must recollect that there were some who would be against us. Every irreconcilable fanatic, every man with nothing to lose, every restless man without a career under a settled government, every person injured or dispossessed in any way—and there were, even under British rule, many necessarily of such cases—every member of the criminal classes was against us, bitterly opposed, and inalienably hostile to us; but they constituted a minority. Now, were the educated classes loyal? He held that the great majority were. He could not conceive how they could be otherwise; they owed everything to us in their intellectual culture, and he might almost say in their material resources. If they were wise, as he was sure they were, they must know that they would be nothing whatever without us; so they must be loyal. But that they were all loyal was more than he could venture to say. He feared that some of them in their hearts were deeply disloyal, and that they clothed their disloyalty with many smooth pretences. With all these chances in our favour—and he thought that they greatly outweighed all the chances against us—he hoped our position was strong. He quite admitted that European advocacy of the Natives of India and their claims in England, though it might be overdone, yet had its great advantages, for it showed that there were some men in the ruling nation who were fanatically in favour of the educated Natives. In former days the Natives of India looked up to the East India Company; now they looked up to a Gracious Sovereign, an Imperial Parliament, and an enlightened electorate. If there was to be a Parliamentary Inquiry into Indian affairs, there was nothing to fear in it, no reason to shrink from it. But he must protest against the manner in which the House of Commons was in the habit of running itself down. It was said that the House had neglected the interests of India. On behalf of the House of Commons he denied that statement. He affirmed that the House most conscientiously and industriously did its duty to that distant Dependency as much as to any other part of the Empire. Although the Indian Budget was brought forward late in the Session, he could call to mind that on three occasions during the present Session there had been debates on Indian affairs; on each of these occasions the whole evening had been given up to the discussion. On two other occasions portions of evenings had been given up. A Select Committee had sat upon an Indian case. If challenged, he would move for a Return of all the Questions put, during the Session and during this Parliament, relating to India, for he was quite satisfied that that would prove a most interesting Return statistically. They had, on the whole, he contended, given at least four evenings during this hard-worked Session to India, and that was more, according to the account of their Scotch Friends, than they had given to Scotland or Wales, and even more than was given to England last Session. He had noted the claim made on the opposite Benches for the appointment of a Standing Committee on Indian affairs; but that claim was of English, not of Indian origin. He recognized the Jupiter from whose brain that Minerva-like idea emanated, and that brain certainly did not belong to a Native of India. Then, the last factor he should mention as affecting Indian finance was that of Russia. The apprehension of Russia's advance had greatly added to our financial difficulties of late years. Certainly, Russia was entering into competition with us not only in regard to political organization but as regarded good work and charitable deeds done in the service of humanity. Russia had not only constructed railways in Central Asia, greatly menacing our North-Western Frontier, but had abolished the most frightful and cruel forms of slavery in that quarter. He wished we had shared in that good work; it was as much our business as Russia's, but Russia had done it, and in the name of suffering humanity he thanked her. No longer did the Turkoman hordes sweep over the inhabited and cultivated plains like the simoom of the Desert or the blizzard of North America. No longer were the wretched people of these regions carried off in miserable slavery to distant places, tied to the tails of horses and dragged on until they sank from sheer exhaustion. These things had been stopped by Russia; all this was done partly with a political purpose, partly from feelings of humanity, and partly also from what? It was commonly said Russia had designs upon India, but he doubted whether Russia had direct designs at all upon our Indian Possessions. [Laughter.] He was talking of a subject which he understood, and he repeated that Russia had no immediate design directly upon India; but in the event of any complications arising in South-Eastern Europe she might advance upon our North-Western Frontier by way of diversion or counter movement. This advance would be made for the purpose of crippling our resources and adding to our financial difficulties. But when that danger arose we might greatly rely upon all those elements of loyalty he had specified to the Committee. We should have a contented and prosperous people at our back on whom we could rely. But our chief reliance must be on ourselves in battle array within our own frontier, with our fortified posts, our bases of operations rendered impregnable, our border communications and mountain railways, our passes rendered impassable to an enemy, our girder bridges across mighty rivers. He knew, too, that in one respect we should follow the example of Russia, and find officers who would be as thoroughly loyal to our interests as Kauffmann, Skobeleff, Tschernaieff, had been loyal to Russian policy. He would conclude his speech by adapting the words of the poet to present circumstances, Britannus sum, Britanniœ nihil a me alienum puto.

MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)

said, he did not think he was called upon to apologize for intervening in the debate. He had long taken a very great interest in Indian affairs, and, circumstanced as Irishmen were at home, he did not think any Irishman who had a seat in the House of Commons ought to consider Indian affairs foreign to his province. As a matter of fact, Irishmen chose to take their part in the government of the Empire, and to accept their share of the responsibility; they wished, too, when there was any suffering in the Empire, to endeavour to alleviate it as far as they possibly could. As the Chairman had ruled, the question before the Committee was an eminently financial question; but he did not think he would be transgressing the Rules of the House if he spoke of the unfortunate condition of the people who had to pay the taxes of India. It was amusing, if it were not for the serious aspect, to hear hon. Gentlemen talk so lightly of the millions of taxation raised in India. To whom did those millions belong? They belonged to the poverty-stricken people of India. That night between £80,000,000 and £90,000,000 sterling would be taken from the pockets of the Indian people, and the only means of investigating the demands upon those people were the imperfect means offered by that debate. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean), who was able, like many Gentlemen he (Mr. Mac Neill) knew, to bear the misfortunes of others like a Christian, had opposed the proposed Commission of Inquiry, because it would be, as he called it, a roving Commission—too many things would be inquired into. Only three years ago the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who was then Secretary of State for India, came forward with a Financial Statement not a bit more able, than the Financial Statement made that day. The noble Lord then said— Her Majesty's Government have decided that, if they are in Office next year, or if by some unforeseen circumstance they are in Opposition next year, they will either propose themselves, or support a Motion for an inquiry into the system of government in India."—(3 Hansard, [300] 1311–12.) The noble Lord was interrogated as to the extent of that inquiry, and said, in reply— The inquiry will embrace the whole of the constitution of the Government of India."—(Ibid. 1321.) It was strange that, having had the whole responsibility of India on our shoulders since 1858, we had never had a Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of India. Before 1858 the financial affairs of India were thoroughly overhauled every 20 years. It was very fitting to inquire how far we were governing India for our own interest, or for the interest of the people of that country. The hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Temple) spoke very disparagingly of the Indian National Council. The Indian National Council at their very last meeting—in December, he believed it was—complained bitterly of the neglect of the Imperial Parliament in the management of Indian affairs. One gentleman quoted from the speech of an hon. Member of this House, who said— How could Parliament do anything, when these matters were only brought to its cognizance on one of the very last days of a weary Session, when only 15 or 16 Gentlemen had sufficient energy left to watch the proceedings—the debate was almost reduced to a farce—the discussion was begun at about a quarter past 6 o'clock, and in four or five hours from that time they would have settled the affairs of 200,000,000 of their fellow-subjects and sanctioned the expenditure of between £70,000,000 and £80,000,000 sterling? Surely, it would be better to delegate those duties than to continue doing that which was a mere mockery. Would it not be possible to appoint a Committee to overlook the affairs of India, in order that the people of that country might know that their interests were being cared for adequately by the Imperial Parliament? The hon. Baronet seemed to consider that in India nothing was known about this Commission. The Commission which was asked for would do all that now was done by that desultory discussion, and be able to inform the House, which was at present overburdened with work, as to what were the wants and interests both of the Natives and officials of India; for both classes were suffering from the present system of management. He had read very carefully the reports of the proceedings of the National Conference. In one circular which was sent to him, and which, no doubt, was sent to all hon. Members of the House, it was stated that any single voter in England had more direct control of the destinies of India than had the whole 200,000,000 of British subjects in that country. That was a terrible state of affairs; and he maintained that if hon. Gentlemen did not accept their responsibility, did not act up to it, and did not attend to the wants and wishes of the Indian people as they would to their own, they were unworthy of seats in the House of Commons. Now, it had been a common subject of complaint that the Natives, however great their ability, were practically Boycotted in the Civil Service. Owing to the dif- ference in habits, a Native was able to live in pretty much the same rank of life as a European for about one-third the expense, and, therefore, if the Natives were allowed to have proper management of their own affairs, there would be an enormous saving to the State. The Natives considered that they should have the full and equal privileges which were guaranteed to them—firstly, by Act of Parliament; secondly, by Her Majesty's Proclamation in 1858; and then by the declarations made over and over again by nearly every statesman who had governed India since the time of Lord Dalhousie. By the Act of 1833, it was expressly declared that no Native nor any natural-born subject of Her Majesty resident in her Dominions should, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment under the Government, and that every post was to he open to the Natives. How had we fulfilled that undertaking? Lord Lytton, speaking at the Delhi Assemblage on the 1st of January, 1877, said— But you, the Natives of India, whatever your race, and whatever your creed, have a recognized claim to share largely with your English follow-subjects, according to your capacity for the task, in the administration of the country you inhabit. That claim is founded in the highest justice. It has been repeatedly affirmed by British and Indian statesmen, and by the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. It is recognized by the Government of India as binding on its honour, and consistent with all the aims of its policy.' That was Lord Lytton's public declaration; but possession had been obtained of a confidential note written by Lord Lytton. He did not know where it came from, but it was read at the National Conference in Bombay in December, 1886, and it had been reproduced in a magazine article in this country. Lord Lytton wrote— Since I am writing confidentially I do not hesitate to say that both the Governments of India and England appear to me, up to the present moment, unable to answer satisfactorily the charge of having taken every means in their power of breaking to the heart the words of promise they had uttered to the ear. Lord Lytton also wrote with reference to the employment of Natives in the Public Service of India— We have had to choose between prohibiting them and cheating them; we have chosen the least straightforward course. They had chosen to cheat the Natives. There was something straightforward in saying "You shall have this, but you shall not have that;" but there was something very odious in saying "You shall have equal rights and privileges," and in then loading the dice against any man because he was a Native. He had read a secret and confidential statement of the Governor General, the head of the Indian Administration; let him now give a statement made in 1869 by the Duke of Argyll when he was Secretary of State for India. The Duke of Argyll said— I must say that we have not fulfilled our duty, or the promises or engagements that we have made. At that Conference, that objectionable Conference at Bombay in December, 1886, it was stated publicly that in the whole Settlement Department of Madras there were only three Natives holding Office, and that even in the Uncovenanted Service Natives of great ability were passed over. Latterly, the age at which men could compete for the Civil Service had been reduced to 19 years. That was only done in order to handicap still more unfairly the unfortunate Natives who came over here to compete with the highly educated European youths. During the last three or four years the difficulties placed in the way of Natives had been increasing, and fewer of the Natives had therefore been able to obtain places in the Civil Service. Everything was done to oust the Natives from honourable posts in their own country. Perhaps he might now be allowed to say a few words upon other points of our Indian Administration. Every single penny of the Salt Tax was raised on a vital necessity of a starving people. The Government of India were like harpies preying on the vitals of the poor. What was the position of the vast mass of the 200,000,000 people of India? They were steeped up to their lips in poverty. Lord Lawrence, one of the greatest Governors General India had ever seen, said, in 1873— The mass of the people in India are so miserably poor that they have hardly the means of subsistence. Sir William Hunter, describing the people as a steadily, underfed people, said— The remaining fifth, or 40,000,000, go through life on insufficient food. The misery of India was a disgrace to England, and he hoped the people of England, who had now got an extended franchise, and who had known, some of them at least, what it was to have their food taxed through the iniquitous Corn Laws, would rise in the majesty of their might and destroy the Salt Tax, come what would, which raised artificially the wretched subsistence of countless millions of people. Famine seemed to be the usual condition of the people of India; there was always famine somewhere in the country. [Sir JOHN GORST dissented.] The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India shook his head; but he (Mr. Mac Neill) would point out that it was shown by the Parliamentary Papers published in 1885 that out of 200,000,000 people 12,724,000 had died of famine within a period of 20 years. To tax salt in India was as bad as to tax potatoes in Ireland. Again, 115,000,000 of the population of India lived directly on the produce of the soil, and he would ask if any other country of the world could be pointed to, with the exception of Ireland, where agriculture was the staple industry of the people. Why was that? It was because the English people had destroyed every other industry in the country. He had the honour to know the gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) had referred as having written two articles on affairs in India. It was this gentleman who, on behalf of the Indian people, presented an address of welcome to Lord Lansdowne on his departure for India, and it was he who was now called a luckless student, because he wished justice to be done between man and man. Hon. Members had had cast upon them the heavy responsibility of seeing that at least justice should be done. If the Natives of India had the smallest share in the management of their own affairs, there would not be seen in that country a starving people to whom food was denied, although there was a plentiful supply in the country. There was no responsibility on the India Administration—the India Council had no responsibility to Parliament, and that meant that the officials were the masters of the people, and that they were the controllers of their destinies; whereas in England the statesmen who sat on the Treasury Bench were responsible to the people of England for their acts. He thought that a great deal of the mischief of our rule in India was owing to the division of responsibility. It was impossible even for a man of Indian experience to understand the various channels through which the Government agency went. There was one Administration at Madras, another at Bombay, and there were two Administrations at Calcutta, and then there was this hybrid Administration in London with its 15 wise men composing the Indian Council, who were irresponsible to Parliament, who each received £1,500 a-year, and whose functions he had never been able to understand. The hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Temple), whose speeches he always looked to with interest, because he liked to see clever men in difficulties, had spoken of Indians being represented on the Legislative Councils in India; but the men who were appointed to sit in those Councils did not represent the people because they were nominated by the Governor General or the Governors of the Provinces; they were men who liked to go to garden parties and who passed all their time with what, by an easy transition, might be called the "Castle lot." Bad as things were under the old system in India, he said of the Anglo-Indians that, with all their faults and oppression, their hands were infinitely lighter on the people of India than the hands of the present Government. They had at the present moment in India a set of men who did not care for and were not in sympathy with the people, who cared only to make money and to come home, and the drain from India from that source alone amounted to £10,000,000 a-year. The Indian people were kept out of the fruits of their toil in their own country, and they were denied the control of the expenditure of their own money. Why not admit the people of India to a share in the government of their country? Why should they not be entrusted with that? They owed their education largely to English rule, they had been educated in Western civilization, and was it intended to keep them in the bonds of old Eastern darkness? One of the speakers at the National Congress in India said that the British Empire extended over many countries; that many Colonies, Canada and the Cape, innumerable smaller Colonies, and oven some Crown Colonies, had all of them a measure, and some a good measure, of representative government, and he asked why that should be refused to India. The last great Commission to inquire into affairs in India was in 1853, and it ended in a measure of education by which the people were now benefited, and there were among them men as well educated as any Member in that House. Knowing that the people of India must sooner or later be educated to that point, why should it not be admitted that British government in India, however wise, had been a miserable thing in having now a starving population of 200,000,000 to deal with. Why not give the people of India higher powers of self-government, and enable them to work for this country a great and glorious benefit. India had special means for the development of self-government, and by granting that self-government, with reasonable safeguards, we should further the best interests of the Empire.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire (Sir Richard Temple), who always spoke with great breadth of view, and with great knowledge of all subjects relating to India, had mentioned a point which closely bore on the whole question of Indian finance, and which was one of the leading difficulties of the question. The hon. Baronet referred to the military policy in India as being regulated by what might happen in the South-Eastern corner of Europe. We, therefore, who taxed India largely because of the military armaments which we kept up in that country for its benefit and for our benefit as a nation, remembered, and were bound to remember at all times, and particularly in considering the Indian Budget, that a very large portion of the taxation of India, whether brought from salt, opium, or anything else, arose from causes created by our own foreign policy. It was on that account that the House of Commons, dealing with the question of Indian finance, ought to treat with peculiar kindness and tenderness the proposals which came from India for its own government and the regulation of its finances. There had been proposals made with respect to the better govern- ment of India which had been frequently referred to in the course of that evening, and which at that hour (11.15 P.M.) it was not his object to repeat. It was enough for him to say that he thought the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) who endeavoured, with much knowledge of the case, to answer some of the points brought forward with reference to the India Council had not answered the main points. The hon. Member endeavoured to make out a case, and, in some respects, no doubt, he had been successful, of some amount of exaggeration of facts or statement of claim made on behalf of the people of India. But the hon. Gentleman himself had admitted, what had also been admitted by the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Temple)—namely, that the great drain upon Indian finances arose from the payment of some £6,000,000 for pensions in this country. That was one of the real causes of complaint and a source of dissatisfaction which had been repeatedly mentioned and brought forward by the National Congress of India. There was another point with regard to which the Member for Oldham made no answer, or to which he gave an answer that he (Mr. James Stuart) ventured to say was beside the mark. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had referred to the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85. The 87th clause of that Act enacted that no Native of the said territories, nor any natural-born subject of His Majesty resident therein, should by reason of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them be unfit to hold any office or employment under the said Company. Now, one of the sources of dissatisfaction was the non-fulfilment of that clause, and when the Crown took over the government of India from the Company, it was felt advisable to insert in the great Proclamation issued at that time, a repetition of the assurance given in the clause, with the apparent determination that the past neglect should be remedied, and the words of the Act were accordingly inserted. The hon. Member for Oldham seemed to treat the words as if they were the main portion of the Proclamation; but if he looked to the number of Natives employed in offices of trust and emolument, he thought he would be bound to admit that the words "so far as may be" had been made not only operating and limiting words, but acted upon as if they were words of prohibition. It was that very point—the non-employment of Natives—which gave rise to the dissatisfaction which had been expressed at the Congresses in India to which his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had referred. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire said that nothing would be easier than to substitute elected for nominated Members of the Council, and he went so far as to suggest, along with the hon. Member for Oldham, to a nomination or kind of semi-election of what might be called the more exclusively educated classes in India. He (Mr. James Stuart) welcomed that sentiment of the hon. Gentleman, because he felt that they had found in it much of the description of the difficulties under which they laboured; and he noticed that the hon. Baronet stated that his idea was applicable, not only to the Legislative Council, but even to other Bodies, and he said that a number of those who were elected ought to have real power—as he (Mr. James Stuart) presumed—more immediately and directly over the finances with which they had to deal. The hon. Baronet would remember that the fundamental claim of the Indian National Congress was that that principle should in some way be adopted, and he, for one, would in no sense desire to adopt it in a more extended form than that of the nomination of the hon. Baronet. He did not understand that these Councils or Congresses called National in India made any other demand than that the Natives should have a voice in the management of Indian affairs, and if that were so they were much at one on both sides of the House in seeing their way to the great rectification of the difficulties which he now very shortly referred to. He rose, not immediately to make those remarks, but having been an attentive listener to the debate as it was proceeding, he felt called upon to offer his contribution in the direction in which the debate had mainly taken. But he wanted to call attention to the point he had given Notice of—namely, the relations of the India Office with and the control of the India Office over the Government of India itself, which was a point closely connected with that which he had touched. He was not such a fool as to intend, on the present occasion, to refer to the question which he brought before the House, or, at any rate, which he had taken part in bringing before the House at an earlier period of the Session, because the question to which he had referred had been decided by the House, and there was no necessity or desirability at all for departing from a firm position which the unanimous vote of the House had placed him and his Friends in. But, in connection with that action in the House, there had been a good deal said on behalf of the India Office, and on the part of the Government of India, which threw a good deal of light on the management, or, if he might venture to say so strong a light upon the administration of India. The first point he wished to call attention to on the matter was this—the very tardy method in which the Government of India obeyed any injunction which they received from the Government at home, and he could not see how any business could be conducted in which we had in India a representative, and in which we had also in England a representative, where the means of communication were so slow, and where the obedience to orders was so insufficient, as in the case to which he referred. The Committee would remember that it was so long ago as the 11th of August, 1887, that a request was made by the Secretary of State for a number of Papers to be sent home, and that that request was acknowledged by the Government of India four or five months afterwards, though the request was made by telegram. In the next place, although six months after he had asked in this House whether the documents were in the hands of the India Office, he was told they were not, and the other day, after all that had happened—after all the difficulties in which the India Office was driven by the non-production of these Papers—he again asked whether more recent documents which had been issued in the early part of the year, were in the hands of the India Office, and he was told that they were not. Well, that after more than a year, such carelessness and neglect on the part of the Indian Government to the orders of the India Office should exist was intolerable. Now, that was the only instance that he would take of neglect as regarded that state of the matter. But the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India and the India Office were themselves very much behindhand in the work they did as between this and the Government of India. That House was very much interested, there could be no doubt whatever, in the subject to which he had referred.

THE CHAIRMAN

I am bound to say I do not see how this is connected with the finance of India.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, with all deference to the Chairman, he would explain the connection. His argument, as he had begun by pointing out, was this—that the Government of India, however it was controlled, was the responsible Body for that principal matter in India, the finance, and he was now dealing with the Government of India as carried on. There was no other opportunity in that House of discussing the question of the Government of India than this Budget, and he submitted, with all deference to the Chairman, that some discussion of the methods by which the Government of India by the Secretary of State was carried on was a matter directly connected with the Government of India. He would put that briefly; but it was of great importance in considering the subject. He had asked the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State two Questions, one of them a week ago, and the other that day. These Questions were about the Cantonment Acts, in consequence of a Resolution of this House. He was not now going into details as to what had occurred; but the hon. Gentleman, on answering, said that a certain document dated the 17th of May, and issued by the Secretary of State for India, had been sent to the Indian Government containing orders, and he said what the Indian Authorities would do in consequence of that. That point was germane to the manner in which the Government of India was carried on. He was not dealing with that subject now, because it was a special case; but he desired to show the delay and the difficulty which occurred in connection with the Government of India, and he desired to go on from that point to this other one, which he thought was even more germane to the question. He confessed that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India was under a misconception as to what the powers and duties of the India Office were. The hon. Gentleman was forgetful of this—that a Resolution of that House was as binding upon him as it was upon any other Minister, and that a Resolution of the House was no mean matter. And he (Mr. James Stuart) submitted this—how were they to get at the Government of India unless it were by Resolution of that House to be conveyed through the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India; and yet when the Resolution was passed unanimously by the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman replied to his Question, asking what was to be done in consequence of that Resolution, by going behind the Resolution, and studiously referring only to a despatch of the Secretary of State, of which the Resolution was largely condemnatory. And now he desired to come to his last point of mismanagement by the Government of India and by the Government Office in these matters. He (Mr. James Stuart) had asked two days ago for a despatch which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had sent out to India in consequence of the Resolution of the House. He found that the hon. Gentleman looked upon the Resolution of the House as of so little importance that the hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to act upon it sooner than nine days after it was passed. And, lastly, when he (Mr. James Stuart) said, two days ago, that the House had a right to know what that document was, and that it should be in the hands of hon. Members, seeing that it was not in the Library, neither he nor anyone else was able to obtain it. He submitted that the Government of India as conducted by the India Office was dilatory in the extreme, that the hon. Gentleman who represented it in that House was to blame for its dilatory nature, and that the hon. Gentleman was badly served from India. These statements affected the character of the Government of India, and there was no other opportunity of discussing such matters than the present. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had argued—and he (Mr. James Stuart) should like to know whether he did so at the present moment or not—that he had no right to give orders as Under Secretary of State for the Government of India with respect to any particular law or Bill which it might be desirable that they should pass. He (Mr. James Stuart) contended himself that the hon. Gentleman maintained an entirely unconstitutional opinion in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman desired to get up and tell him (Mr. James Stuart) that he did not maintain that position, then he would say no more; but if he was not prepared to do that, then he (Mr. James Stuart) should persist in concluding what he had to say, and in laying down what he believed to be the Constitutional relations between the Secretary of State for India and the Indian Government in the matter of legislation. On that matter he should be as brief as possible, because, in the first place——

THE CHAIRMAN

The question the hon. Gentleman has been hitherto discussing—that of the extreme difficulty of getting the Government of India into action, and the subject of organization in India—is scarcely relevant to the Question before the Committee. And, certainly, the question he now proposes to examine—namely, the Constitutional Government of India, is altogether irrelevant.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he submitted to the hon. Gentleman's ruling; but he put it to him whether this was not abominable—namely, the misunderstanding of the Constitutional relationship between the Secretary of State and the Government of India, which at present existed on the part of the Under Secretary of State, which the Under Secretary of State had not dealt with, although he (Mr. James Stuart) had invited him to do so?

SIR JOHN GORST

I did not get up when the hon. Member invited me, because I thought that the question was out of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

That question cannot he discussed at all.

SIR JOHN GORST

Hear, hear!

MR. JAMES STUART

said, that the hon. Gentleman need not cheer that observation. That was the only opportunity they would have of discussing the question, and the matter was not a Party one; so far was it from being a Party question, that the arguments he (Mr. James Stuart) had used be should be prepared to address to any Government; even to one formed from his own side of the House. He had never been backward in blaming his own Party when he thought they deserved it in these matters. Bowing to the ruling of the Chairman, he desired to say that it was a serious matter, if in the course of this debate, which was the only one which could take place during the Session on Indian matters, they were necessarily by the nature of the case precluded from discussing the Constitutional relationship, or rather the understanding of the Constitutional relationship, of the Under Secretary of State for India between the Indian Government and the Home Government. He believed that the India Office had laid down erroneous views.

SIR JOHN GORST

I wish to know if the hon. Member is in Order in discussing the views that the Under Secretary of State entertains as to the Constitutional relationship between the Home Government and the Government of India?

THE CHAIRMAN

That is a question which I have already said cannot be discussed.

MR. JAMES STUART

I suppose I should be called out of Order in asking whether there will be any opportunity of discussing that question?

THE CHAIRMAN

The fact that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to discover any opportunity for entering into that question does not entitle him to go into it now.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman, and took that as an illustration of the extreme disadvantage to which the 200,000,000 of people in India were necessarily put through the present method of Indian Government; because he took it that the relations existing between the Home Government and the Indian Government and the character of the connection and the method of carrying out everything which was resolved upon in the House of Commons, was a matter of the deepest importance to the whole of the people of India.

SIR JOHN GUEST

said, he really must say that the strictures which had been passed by the hon. Member who had just sat down, on the Secretary of State for India and on himself, fell on them quite easily, because they were based entirely on ignorance of the facts of the case. He would just take one instance as an illustration The hon. Member had blamed the Secretary of State because, as he said, the formal despatch which related to the Resolution passed by the House was not sent out till nine or ten days after it had been passed. Now, the Resolution was passed on a Tuesday. The Council of the Secretary of State met every Tuesday; and, therefore, this meeting was held before the Resolution of the House was passed. The next weekly meeting was on the following Tuesday, and then the formal despatch was approved. That was done, therefore, on the earliest possible day, and the despatch went out on the Friday by the first mail after it was passed. Therefore the despatch was sent out on the earliest possible day, and there was no need of any complaint on the part of the hon. Member. As to the Government of India, what could be more unreasonable than the complaint made? On the 17th of May a despatch was sent by the Secretary of State giving directions to the Government of India for dealing with most important and delicate matters relating to the Cantonment Acts, and putting an end to certain practices condemned by this House. On the 9th of June a Resolution of this House was sent out on the subject. There had not been time to do more than to receive from Simla an answer by return of post to the despatch, and yet the hon. Member complained because he (Sir John Gorst) could not tell him and the House all the different measures which the Government of India intended to adopt in order to deal with that extremely difficult subject. When the matter was discussed, he remembered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) saying that he agreed with him, that in this matter the Government of India ought to be treated with consideration and courtesy; but if the Secretary of State were to do as the hon. Member would have him do, and telegraph to India every day asking them what they were doing as to extremely difficult matters, it would not be treating the Indian Government either very considerately or very courteously. Let the hon. Member wait until the mails arrived, which would give him all the information, and then would be the reasonable and sensible time for going into the discussion of these subjects. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) asked how long it would take to complete the Special Defence Works. He (Sir John Gorst) believed it would take three or four years—that was for the works at present sanctioned. The Amendment before the Committee was that proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir William Plowden). That Amendment dealt with the two subjects of the separate Presidency commands and the Presidency Governors. As far as the question of the separate Presidency commands were concerned, it was not at all a financial question. The hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that the Commission was a fruitless Commission. It was not fruitless. [Sir WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I did not say that.] The hon. Gentleman said it was fruitless so far as economy was concerned. There were several departmental savings recommended, and these had all been effected; but he was informed that if the separate Presidency commands were now abolished, it would not effect any further pecuniary saving. It might increase the efficiency of the Indian Army by centralization; but it would not effect a reduction of expenditure. Then, as to the Presidency Governors, he had made what inquiries he could, and he believed, on the best information he had been able to obtain, that the total saving by the abolition of the separate Governorships for Madras and Bombay would be Rx.42,000 per annum. But the question was also a political question, and one of a magnitude which he did not think he ought to be called upon to discuss without notice at five minutes to 12 o'clock on one of the last days of the Session. The effect of such a change in regard to the treatment of the numerous Native States within the Bombay Presidency would have to be considered. The abolition of the Governorship of Bombay would throw on the Governor General an immense amount of work in connection with those States, which was now done by the Governor of the Presidency. Whether that would be an advantage to India and to the Native States was a point worthy of more consideration than it could receive that night. Another objection which he had to make to it was, that it was a reactionary measure altogether. The object of their policy in India ought not to be to centralize, but to decentralize as much as possible. The people of this country had now learnt that India was an aggregation of a great number of nationalities; and any step that tended to centralize in India was a weak one. The Presidency Governments of Madras and Bombay, being in the direction of decentralization, were institutions which ought not to be done away with, at all events, without much more consideration than it was likely to receive at that hour. He now turned to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), which raised issues of such importance that he felt quite unable to answer it in the limited period within which, with any regard to the time of the Committee, he must confine his remarks. The hon. Member for Northampton practically suggested an inquiry; but let him (Sir John Gorst) remind the Committee that there had recently been two great and exhaustive inquiries in India—one into the finances, conducted by the Finance Committee, and another called the Public Service Commission, which investigated the very subject which the hon. Gentleman and others had so strongly pressed on the Committee that night—namely, the employment of Natives in the Public Services. Both of those two inquiries had been very extensive and very exhaustive. Their Reports had been laid on the Table; but he ventured to say that very few Members indeed had read or looked at them. He advised hon. Members to study the Report of the Finance Committee, and that of the Public Service Commission and then let them have a discussion in the House, and after that, if they found that those inquiries were insufficient, or if any point required to be supplemented, let there be further inquiry.

MR. MAC NEILL

Will the Government give it?

SIR JOHN GORST

said, that no one knew better than the hon. Member for South Donegal that the claims for inquiry were not made with a view to information. The fact was that hon. Members were in possession of all information. India was not now a remote and hidden country. It was a country with which there were improved communications, where half the Members of Parliament spent the winter. Everything which went on was well known, and there were no secret and hidden facts which required to be inquired into. Inquiry was claimed only to disturb and discredit, if possible, the Government, and to unsettle people's minds by leading them to think that through the efforts of Members of that House some progress could be made in the direction of the revolution in India desired by the hon. Member for South Donegal. If, after discussion, further inquiry were wanted, neither the Government of India nor that of England would shrink from it. As he was speaking about inquiry, might he say one word about the Council of India? He had listened attentively to what had been said, because he was anxious to see whether there was anything tangible concerning the Council of India of which he could lay hold, and to which he could reply. As a matter of fact, those who had found fault with the Council of India had found fault with it in such vague and general terms that there was nothing he could say in answer; there was no charge he could lay hold of. All he could say was that, judging from his personal experience, the Council of the Secretary of State was an extremely valuable Body, which it would be difficult to replace, and that it conduced largely to the good government of India. The proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton was that legislation for India should be handed over as he said to the people of India—not, however, to the people of India themselves, but to a set of persons who were thought to be men of superior education and intelligence. The hon. Member proposed to create in India a kind of Venetian oligarchy. The duty of governing the people of India, that we had exercised for the last century, was to be transferred to this Body of educated gentlemen from Bengal, and of Mahrattas from Bombay and Madras, who were not in any sense the people of India. These persons were an urban class; the people of India were agriculturists. The people of Great Britain had no right to hand over their responsibility to other people. It was by the power of Great Britain that India was governed. So long as it was governed by the power of Great Britain, the British Sovereign and people were responsible for the good government of the country, and it was a responsibility they could not shake off on anyone else. We had no right to keep India under, in order that we might subject her to the domination of educated Baboos. He now passed to a subject which had been much spoken of to-night—namely, the employment of Natives. He would not enlarge upon it at length, but invited hon. Members to study the Report of the Public Services Commission. But he would like to observe that, while 30 years ago there were 962 Covenanted civilians in India, there were now only 964. Notwithstanding the enormous progress and increase which had been made in the administration of India, the Covenanted civilians had only increased by two. And while 30 years ago there were no Natives in the Covenanted Service, there were now 58, 10 of whom had entered by open competition, and 48 under the operation of statutory conditions. Thirty years ago there were no Natives in the Sudder or High Courts; now there was not one of those Courts in which there was not a Native Judge. Out of 2,624 inferior Judges and magistrates 2,473 were Natives, and in 1879 it was laid down that Europeans could not be appointed to such positions without the express sanction of the Secretary of State. There were five Legislatures under the Indian Councils Act, all of which bad Native members. There were hundreds of Town Councils and Local Boards, many of them elected by the ratepayers, for the management of education, sanitary matters, public works, and local taxation. On those Boards most, and in some cases all, the members were Natives. A great deal had been said in the debate about the poverty of the Natives of India, and the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) had talked as if their poverty was a new thing, a mischievous invention of the British Government. Though, no doubt, the people were poor, every sign pointed to the conclusion that they were better off than they were 30 years ago, and that they were continually advancing in prosperity. He would not talk about the increase of population; but he might remind hon. Members that there had been an extension of cultivation, of irrigation, and of railways, about which he would speak in a moment a little more at length. He was informed the standard of living had risen, the selling price of land had risen, the number of carts and draught animals employed by the peasantry had greatly increased; the baked earthenware vessels, which were formerly in universal use, had been largely replaced by brass vessels; and articles of luxury, such as sugar, clarified butter, silk fabrics, and umbrellas, were used in much greater quantity. There was one thing which was some test of the wealth of the country, and that was imports and exports. The exports in 1856 were Rx.25,500,000 and the imports Rx.14,250,000. In 1887 the exports were Rx.90,500,000 and the imports Rx.65,000,000, and during the last 30 years there had been an absorption of gold and silver at the rate of £11,500,000 per annum. A good deal had also been said about salt. They had a discussion about salt at an early period of the Session, and he thought that everything that could be said on the subject was said. Certainly, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple) had already said enough to answer the remarks of hon. Gentlemen. Had the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) reflected on the fact that, notwithstanding the small increase of the tax on salt which had been found necessary that year, the price of salt at that moment in Bengal, the Punjab, the North-Western Provinces, Oude, and Central India was lower than it was some years ago. Improved railway communication had done more to pull down the price of salt than the slight addition to the tax had done to increase it. Of course his statement did not refer to Bombay and Madras, where, no doubt, the price of salt had increased. But he did not think that those charged with the defence of the administration of the Government of India ought to be content with merely answering the objections that might be raised. He had said often in the House, and he believed it, that there was nothing of which the Sovereign and people of this country had more reason to be pround than of their administration of India. He hoped the Committee would pardon him if he once more drew attention to some of the chief improvements which had been effected in the last 30 years. The State was a great landlord, and it was in the administration of the land and Land Revenue, a subject which no one had mentioned to-night, that the welfare and well-being of the people of India mainly depended. During the last 30 years the survey of the whole of India, including the Native States, with the single exception of the district of Upper Burmah, recently annexed, had been completed. Outside the permanent settled estates there were now cadastral surveys, showing every field, of so improved a character that the revision for the purpose of re-settling the Revenue, which used to cost eight annas per acre, could now be done for three annas, and the operation could now be completed in between two and three years, whereas formerly it took five; and that reduction of time, be it noted, was an immense boon to the agricultural population. The rates of land revenue had been reduced in many parts of India, with the result that the cultivated area had enormously increased. In Lower Burmah, the increase of cultivation was more than 100 per cent. In Berar and Assam it was from 35 to 60 per cent; in Oude, 30 per cent; and 25 per cent in Madras, Bombay, and the Punjab. It might be safely said that over the whole of India the cultivated area of land had increased by 25 per cent, while the population had only increased by 15 to 18 per cent. How, then, could it be thought that the cultivators of the soil were poorer than they were 30 years ago? Prices had risen and were steadier; proprietors were guaranteed against enhancement, and petty occupiers in Bombay, Madras, Burmah, Berar, and Assam had been made proprietors. But one of the most extraordinary advances that had been made was the recognition, by Statute, of tenant right in Bengal, the North-West Provinces, Oude, the Punjab, and the Central Provinces. There was no doubt that some such tenant-right existed in ancient times, but 30 years ago Mr. John Stuart Mill wrote:— The rights of the Bengal ryots had passed away sub silentio, and they had become to all intents and purposes tenants at will. That was the state of things 30 years ago, and what was it now? A recent cadastral survey in the populous part of Behar showed that 91 per cent of the small cultivators were in possession of tenant-right. Now as to the Customs duties. All the Inland Custom line had been abolished from the Sutlej to Sumbulpore—a line of 2,000 miles; the inland duties on sugar had been taken off; and all import duties had been abolished except those on salt and arms. ["Oh, oh!"] He observed that some Liberal Members sneered at the abolition of import duties, quite forgetting their doctrine, as members of the Cobden Club, that the reduction of the import duties was, as he believed it to be, a boon to all consumers. All the export duties, with the exception of those on rice and opium, had also been abolished. He had not a word to say in defence of the Rice Duty, and the moment it was possible to do without the export duty on rice it certainly ought to be repealed. Now, might he point out some other marks of progress in India which were most striking? He would first take the Post Office, which was generally considered a good illustration of the progress of a country. Thirty years ago there were 700 post offices and pillar boxes in India, and there were now 17,000; while the letters and newspapers, &c. sent, which 30 years ago were 28,000,000, were now 259,000,000. Besides that, savings' banks, money order offices, and parcels insurance, and other offices conducing to the benefit of the people, had been established. So cheap now was the postal system of India, that a letter could be sent from Quetta on the borders of Afghanistan to Bhamo on the frontiers of China—3,000 miles—for a halfpenny. Thirty years ago there were 3,000 miles of telegraph lines, now there were 32,000 miles. Thirty years ago there were but few telegraph offices, now there were 1,837, and the number of messages sent, exclusive of railway messages, in 1886–7, was 2,500,000, making 4½ per cent profit on the capital, Rx. 4,000,000 invested. Great progress had been made in legislation and in judicial establishments. During the last 30 years Codes had been passed for the Criminal Law, the Civil Law, and the Law of Civil Evidence and Procedure. When the House recollected that they had never been able themselves to pass any Code at all, they must admit that there was some little merit in the Legislature of India. These Codes had been translated into all the important languages of the country. Many of the Judges in the advanced Provinces and all the Judges and most of the Magistrates of first instance were Natives. Corruption was now almost unknown amongst the Judges in the advanced Provinces, and even inferior Judges or Magistrates, such as the Tahsildars and Mamlatdars, had attained a much higher standard of rectitude than was dreamed of some time ago. One of the most remarkable improvements in the judicial administration of India was the institution of honorary magistrates, who, without pay, administered justice in very many parts of the country. Then with regard to hospitals, 30 years ago there were 142 civil hospitals and dispensaries, and there were now 1,411. And that occurred under a Government which the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neil) denounced as cruel and barbarous. Thirty years ago the number of patients treated annually was 700,000; but now it amounted to 10,300,000. Vaccination had extended greatly, and in some places the yearly vaccinations were equal to the number of births. There were 25 towns which had a supply of pure water, and there were many others in which the supply had been greatly improved. All that sanitation had been carried out under the direction of Local Bodies, mainly, and very often exclusively, composed of Natives. In 1865 there were 26 Colleges, in 1886 there were 110. In the former year there were 1,582 students, and 10,538 in the latter. In the number of schools there had been an increase in the same period from 19,201 to 122,227, and in the number of scholars an increase from 619,260 to 3,314,542. The girls' schools had increased from 2,105 to 5,586, and the girl scholars from 42,327 to 99,510. It was calculated that there were now at school 19½ per cent of the boys of school age. He did not say that was final. He did not say that was a satisfactory condition of things to stop at, but he maintained it was progress during 30 years for which they might be thankful, and which might encourage them to proceed in the course they had adopted. Now as to Public Works. In 1857 there were 400 miles of railway; in 1887, 14,382; the passengers in the former year numbered 895,000, in the latter, 95,500,000; the goods traffic had increased from 77,000 tons to 20,000,000 tons. The railway receipts in 1887 were Rx.13,468,000, and it had been calculated that it would have cost four times as much to move these goods and passengers without railways, and that, therefore, the Government of India might be said to have saved the people of India Rx. 54,500,000. These railways had, no doubt, cost the Government of India Rx.1,000,000 a-year; but by this time, if it had not been for the extraordinary fall in the rate of exchange, they would cost the Government nothing. Great advantages had also been secured by Irrigation Works, which, in the North of India, yielded a return of 4 per cent, and in the Madras Presidency gave very much larger profits. Trunk roads had been made, and turnpikes and tolls had been abolished. With regard to Local Government, he might point out that in 1858 there were scarcely any municipal towns, whereas now there were 462 of such towns, spending Rx.3,480,000 annually, and controlling the sanitary and local interests of a population of 14,250,000 persons. There were also Rural Boards and Port Authorities which provided for the education and sanitation of the districts, and for the improvement of commercial facilities at seaports, and these Boards and Governing Bodies consisted mainly of Natives. Reference had been made to the fact that certain Indian fabrics had been displaced by English goods; but that was the natural result of India coming into contact with a great manufacturing country which could manufacture more cheaply than themselves. But there was a great deal to be said on the other side. If some Indian industries had been displaced, there were other industries which had been developed, by contact with Great Britain—namely, railway labour, which employed 225,000 men, steamboat labour, indigo manufacture, cotton manufacture in Bombay, and jute manufacture in Bengal, and the timber and rice trades. There were 89 cotton mills with 2,250,000 spindles in Bombay; there were 24 jute mills, nine paper mills, and a number of timber and rice mills. The exports of cotton yarns and fabrics amounted in 1887 to Rx.4,250,000, and the manufacture of tea, coffee, jute, and cinchona employed 400,000 men, and the trade in these articles, which had not existed before the British occupation, now amounted to Rx.12,250,000, besides the Indian consumption. He thought that when it was possible to point to a record of that kind as the result of 30 years' administration of the Government of India, we had no reason to complain. He repeated, without fear of contradiction, that there was no national achievement which afforded greater satisfaction to the Sovereign and the people of this country than the just and noble administration of our Indian Empire.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

said, he desired to make au appeal to the Committee on behalf of a class of men who had no means of expressing their opinions except through Members of that House. He alluded to the non-commissioned officers promoted from the ranks and afterwards promoted to commissions in the Indian Army. The grievance of which they complained was as follows:—That the Statement made in January, 1884, by the then Secretary of State for India to the effect that the usages in the Indian Army and the English Army should be assimilated, had not been carried into effect. He did not want to multiply details or mention too many instances, and he would, therefore, refer to one or two only in which it had failed. One was that the non-commissioned officers promoted in the English Army were allowed £100 for outfit, whereas those in the Indian Army received nothing. Again, in case of the death of officers in the English Army, their widows had pensions of £80, whereas in the Indian Army the corresponding pensions were cut down to £36. He wished to call attention to the fact that the men on whose behalf he was speaking were, all of them, of many years' good and honourable service, who had been promoted in consequence, and, therefore, deserved all they were entitled to get. They were really hardworking, practical soldiers; they were not men who counted their 10 years' Indian service, with five years' in a Volunteer battalion, two years at a depôt, and one year's leave, but men who had gone regularly through their period of service in India. He regretted that no hon. Member of higher standing than himself could be found to take up the cause of these deserving officers. That, however, was their misfortune, and not their fault; and he hoped his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) would give a favourable consideration to the few words he had said in their behalf.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

said, he sincerely hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India would pay attention to the case which had been urged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken. Most hon. Members had listened with interest and attention to the harangue which had been pronounced by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India in support of the many injustices which had been perpetrated in India. The hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the railways had increased in that country, and implied that the Natives had at least sufficient confidence in their Rulers to embark in the railway carriages which were provided for them. The fact had been brought before him in the course of the last few days that on some of the railways passengers had to wait while a ticket was being written out. That was simply absurd; and he maintained that if they really wanted to promote the railway system in India, which had furnished the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary with some plausible arguments that evening, they should remedy such grievances as this. The position taken up by the hon. Gentleman appeared to him to be founded on the supposition that railways were never known before; but, as a matter of fact, progress had taken place all over the world, and because it had taken place in India the hon. Gentleman took advantage of the natural progress made as a set-off against the claims of hon. Members on behalf of the people of India. He had asked the hon. Gentleman a fortnight ago what the Government were going to do in connection with the India Medical Service, and he was good enough to put him off, maintaining at the same time that it was for the benefit of the Medical Service in India that it should be educated in India, instead of as heretofore. The subject was not, of course, one which would generally interest the Committee, and he should, therefore, be as brief as possible in the remarks he had to make. It was in the knowledge of the House that medical officers in India had been educated at Netley, at which place also the Army medical officers were educated, and great economy had resulted from that system. It should also be borne in mind that the officers belonging to the Army Medical Staff, serving as they must in India, were likewise educated at Netley. What was now proposed to be done? It was, he believed, that candidates for the India Medical Service would have to be examined in London by practically the same staff as that which examined for the Army Medical Service at the present time. Those gentlemen who satisfied the Examiners would have then to proceed to India to three or four medical schools which were not at present in existence, and for which no provision had been made. The hon. Gentleman had told them that there were hospitals in India, but he had on two occasions distinctly evaded answering his Question as to whether those hospitals were provided with the necessary means and resources for bringing the students to the state of efficiency to which they had hitherto been brought at the medical school at Netley. He was speaking in the interest of a very large class, whose grievance if not attended to would result in the supply of really qualified men, when they were wanted, being conspicuous for its absence. The Government by this course were proposing to relieve themselves of a very moderate expense, and transferring it to the people of India; they were trying to carry out a very unwise proposal, and in confirmation of what he said he had only to refer the hon. Gentleman to one of the leading medical newspapers of the country. In this matter, although an Irishman, and there were many Irishmen in the India Medical Service, he was speaking as a medical man. The proposal of the Government implied a certain amount of contempt for the Medical Profession, because they seemed to think that because there were doctors now there would always be doctors. He recollected that in the Queen's University, Ireland, which was a Government institution, placards were put up telling gentlemen who were becoming qualified members of the Profession not to join the Indian or Army Medical Service. The Government had on that occasion to cry "peccavi," and they might have to do so again. He asked the Government to pause in time, and look into this matter with the seriousness which it demanded.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

said, he rose to call attention to a case of injustice done to a medical officer of his acquaintance (Deputy Surgeon General Joynt), who had been retired on a lower pension than he was entitled to receive. This gentleman had served 26¼ years in the India Service and received a pension of £500, although it was the general practice to give a pension of £700 after 25 years' service; he appeared to have been known throughout his career as an excellent officer, and to have been complimented by his superiors. He had also been refused the opportunity of serving longer to complete his term. He brought this case before the hon. Gentleman, because he thought it undesirable that the repeated complaints of this officer should remain unanswered.

SIR JOHN GORST

said, he regretted that he had not received Notice of the circumstance which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward, because he was unable to give any reply upon it. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would put a Notice on the Paper, or if he would communicate with him, the subject should be inquired into and a reply given.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 105: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 272.)

Main Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1887, was Rx.77,337,134; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged to Revenue was Rx.77,158,707; that there was a surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.178,427; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.5,670,484, besides a Capital Charge of £4,914,546 involved in the Redemption of Liabilities.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.