Commons Sitting of 14 August 1890

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Police Bill, London County Council (Money) Bill, Reserve Forces Bill, Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (South Clare Railways) Bill.
Amendments to, Education of Blind and Deaf-mute Children (Scotland) Bill [Lords]; without any Amendment.

METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c.
That they do communicate Copy of Report, &c., from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships in the present Session of Parliament, on Metropolitan Hospitals, &c., as desired by this House.

HOP INDUSTRY, TOWN HOLDINGS, AND INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
That they do request, that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships, Copies of the Reports, &c., from the Select Committees appointed by this House in the present Session of Parliament on Hop Industry, Town

947
Holdings, and Infant Life Protection Bill.
Lords Message considered.
Ordered, That printed Copies be communicated.

ROYAL ASSENT,
Message to attend the Lords' Commissioners.
The House went;—and being returned;—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to the Bills mentioned on page 929.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON STREETS (REMOVAL OF GATES) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [12th August] on consideration of Lords' Amendments, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendment, page 3, line 19, as amended, as followeth:"—
  "Provided that if any lands shall be taken or injuriously affected by anything to be done under or by virtue of this Act without the consent of the owner thereof compensation shall be made for the same by the Council in the manner provided by 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' and the Acts amending the same, the provisions of which Acts so far as relates to lands taken otherwise than by agreement and to compensation for lands injuriously affected shall be deemed for that purpose to be incorporated with this Act. The words 'injuriously affected' shall have the same meaning as in the said Act. Provided also that no claim for compensation under this Act shall be made after the expiration of six months from the date of the notice served upon such owner under the provision of this section and duly published."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I moved the adjournment of the Debate on Tuesday last at the suggestion of those around me, as it seemed to us, after what had taken place and the confusion in which the Amendment before us had got into, that the Government ought to re-consider the Amendment in concert with the London Council. The President of the Local Government Board has asked the House to agree to the Lords Amendment; but, at the same
  948
  time, he has admitted that it is not in a satisfactory shape, that it is possibly open to a construction which will let in the London Council to a multitude of claims from leaseholders and others affected by the removal of the gates, whom he does not think entitled to any compensation whatever, and whom it was not the intention of the Lords to include within the purview of their Amendment. He supported an Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bucks which would have prevented this interpretation of the clause. It is clear that the Division which took place on the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend was under a misunderstanding. If hon. Members had understood at the time, as they did later, that the President of the Local Government Board had consulted the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister on the subject, and that both of them had said that it was not the intention of the Lords to secure compensation to the leaseholders, and that they approved of the Amendment desired by the London Council, if hon. Members had also understood that the Solicitor General was not speaking as Law Officer of the Crown, but in his private capacity as one personally interested in the question, and who had headed the Petition against the Bill on behalf of the leaseholders, I think the Division would have been very different. Under these circumstances, I think it was to be expected that the Government would, before asking us to agree to the Lords Amendment, make an effort to put it into a shape in which its meaning would be quite clear and certain. I understand, however, that the President of the Local Government Board feels himself unable now to amend the Amendment; this being the case, I think we have a very strong claim that the Government should not pass the Lords Amendment, but should allow it to be negatived, and should repudiate the claim of compensation to any one, be it the ground landlord or the leaseholder. The case against the Amendment on its merits seems tome to be a very strong one. Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament have, after long inquiries, come to the conclusion that there is no valid claim for compensation on the part of any one for the removal of these obstructive gates. The Committee of this House

  949
  was presided over by one of its most experienced and able Chairmen, the hon. Baronet the Member for Herefordshire. The Duke of Bedford was heard before it. He said, through his representatives, that he did not care about the gates personally, that he was not interested in wanting the gates, that he appeared only on behalf of his tenants. The evidence showed evidently that his only interest was that of a reversioner, and that his reversion would be improved in value rather than the reverse. The leaseholders were also heard by counsel. It was shown that there was no precedent whatever for any compensation being given to mere leaseholders for any diversion of traffic, either for increase of traffic or diminution of traffic, caused by street improvements. The Committee was unanimously of opinion that there was no claim for compensation for the removal of the gates, either on the part of the Duke of Bedford or of the leaseholder. Before the Lords Committee the case was again gone into. The Duke of Bedford did not appear; he acquiesced in the decision of the Commons Committee—he no longer asked for compensation. The lease holders were again heard by counsel, and, after a long inquiry, the Lords Committee again decided that they had no claim whatever to any compensation, but the Committee inserted a clause requiring the London Council to lay down a noiseless pavement in the streets leading to these gates—a requirement which will cost the Council £13,000. On the Third Reading of the Bill, the House of Lords adopted the unprecedented course of inserting a clause giving a claim of compensation to the Duke of Bedford. It does not appear that the Duke asked for it, or desired it, or would act upon it. It is quite certain, also, that the Amendment was not intended to apply to leaseholders. We have the opinions of Lord Selborne, the Lord Chancellor, and of Lord Herschell, that the leaseholders are not entitled to compensation, and that it was not intended to secure to them compensation by the clause. Whether the clause will have that effect I cannot confidently say. We have the legal opinion of the Solicitor General that it will have this effect; but the Solicitor General is not very sound on the subject of compensation. He is apt to be sanguine on the subject when
  950
  publicans are concerned, and he may be excused for being over sanguine when he is personally concerned. What is certain is that the clause will lead to protracted litigation on the parts of hundreds of leaseholders, though probably the ultimate decision will be against them. If the Amendment should only secure compensation for the Duke, it is superfluous and unnecessary, for he does not ask for it; and the evidence is conclusive that his reversionary interest is not in any way damaged. On the other hand, if the Amendment is worded so as not to carry out the views of the framers, but to have the wider sense which some people fear it will have, and which the Lords certainly did not mean it to have, it will entail endless litigation, and costs, and claims against the London Council, and would make it absolutely impossible to deal with the 250 other gates which now obstruct and impede the traffic of London; and it would form a most dangerous precedent, which would in effect make any street improvement which diverts traffic by increasing it in one direction and diverting it in another absolutely impossible. I hope, therefore, that the Government will now see their way to reject the whole of the Lords Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: The simple answer to the bogey which the right hon. Gentleman has conjured up is, that the clause creates no new precedent, but simply follows the lines the Legislature has laid down in all similar cases from time immemorial. It does not say that the Duke of Bedford shall or shall not have compensation, nor that compensation shall or shall not be awarded to the leaseholders, or tenants, or, as the right hon. Member for Wolyerhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), with a laudable desire to throw dust in. the eyes of the House, said—the lodgers. All that it says is, that if property is injuriously affected there shall be a claim for compensation, and that the words "injuriously affected" shall have the same meaning as in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. This clause decides nothing as to who shall have a right to claim; but it says that if there is any person whose lands are injuriously affected then he shall be entitled to compensation. Why should the London County Council, for whom I have the

  951
  greatest respect, be excepted from this provision of the law? I have no desire to throw a stone at the County Council, but rather to protect them against the predatory instincts of some of their leaders, and I say that there is nothing more here than would apply to any Public Department of the State—even the War Office, if it proposed to take lands in order to prevent an invasion from being rendered easy. The next bogey which has been conjured up is, the tremendous number of lawsuits which the clause will inevitably give rise to. Not so, if claims do arise there will be a test case tried, which will govern the whole. Are we to deny the owners of property their legitimate rights because the London County Council may have to pay the costs? If the parties fail to substantiate their claims they will be cast in the costs. It is said that the Duke of Bedford waived his claim by declining to carry his Petition to the House of Lords. As a matter of fact, the Duke never petitions the House of Lords; he thinks it would be unworthy of his position as a Peer to do so, and he never has petitioned the House of Lords against a Private Bill. If the leaseholders can show, under the Bedford Paving Act, that these gates ought to be kept up, they ought to be entitled to compensation if they are removed, and it can be shown that their interests are in consequence injuriously affected. It has been said that the clause does not represent the view of the House of Lords in inserting it. I must say that I prefer to take the clause itself to any statement as to the views of the noble Lords who voted for it. I do not believe that the House of Lords passed the clause without knowing what it was they really meant. I prefer to believe that Lord Selborne, who drew it up, knew perfectly well what the clause meant. I hope the Government will not consent to the proposal to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and I think if they do they will not be supported by many of their followers.
  MR.H.LAWSON: I regret that the time which has elapsed since the adjournment of the Debate has not convinced the hon. Gentleman opposite that the proposal contained in the Lords Amendment is both unreasonable and
  952
  unworkable. I should prefer that there should be a definite liability imposed upon the London County Council rather than this large and uncertain burden, which it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess, and in regard to which the lawyers themselves are much divided. I have here a letter from Lord Selborne to the Parliamentary agent. I imagine when they opposed the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks, on Tuesday, that hon. Members were of opinion that they were confirming some right enjoyed by the leaseholders on this estate. [Cries of "No!"] If that were not so, a good many Members voted under a misconception. Lord Selborne says that practically the owner of the gates and bars is the only person entitled to claim compensation under the Lands Clauses Act.
  MR. GAINSFORD BRUCE: Will the hon. Member read the whole of the letter?
  MR. H. LAWSON: The noble lord says that there was no intention in the Amendment of entitling any person to compensation except those whose cases would come under the Lands Clauses Act. He thinks that everyone whose lands are taken away, and who are in that sense injuriously affected, ought to be compensated. He adds—
  "Practically, I take it the freeholder who is the owner of the bars and gates is the only person in the situation."
  Lord Herschell, in conference with two other Law Lords, has come to the same conclusion as to the meaning of the words, but opposed to those noble Lords are the opinions of the Solicitor General and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn (Mr. Gainsford Bruce), and if there is this division among lawyers as to the construction of the words there will inevitably be a serious litigation and heavy expense entailed upon the London County Council. I can say that, as a matter of fact, there will be litigation, and it is the intention of the leaseholders to test the case. I am sorry that the learned Solicitor General is not present, because I was anxious to point out to him that he has violated the customary usage of the House, that no hon. Member who has petitioned the House against a Bill should take part in the Debate upon it. I find that the very first name to the Petition is

  953
  that of Sir Edward Clarke, who asks for compensation in the event of any deterioration of the value of his property. I can only assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman in thus departing from the practice of the House had forgotten the position he occupied. These gates were put up on the Bedford estate to prevent the Skinners' Company and the owners of the Mortimer estate from using roads for heavy traffic towards the maintenance of which they contributed nothing. The Duke of Bedford has never inserted any covenant in his leases giving his tenants or lessees a right to claim compensation in the event of the gates being removed. The gates were erected for a special purpose, and the necessity for them disappeared when, in 1855, the ratepayers of the district took on themselves the cost of repairing and maintaining the streets and roads. Surely, then, it is a vicious principle to set up a new claim for compensation, based upon an entirely new ground. It has never been held that the increase or the diminution of traffic forms a ground for compensation. Before the Committee of the House of Lords the learned counsel engaged in the case admitted that the citizens took the burden or the benefit, whichever it might be, and it is contended that the Duke of Bedford's estate will, in reality, be greatly benefitted by the abolition of these gates and bars. Why should this House force upon the Duke of Bedford compensation which he does not want or ask for? I fear the result will be to perpetuate a useless, senseless, and irritating anachronism.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: In addressing the House upon this subject I wish it to be understood that I speak as a private Member, and not as a member of the Government. I hope I may be able to remove the impression created by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the London County Council will run any risk by the retention of this clause. I am acquainted with the Debate which occurred in the House of Lords, and I cannot imagine anyone entertaining any real fear that leaseholders will be able to obtain compensation under this section, except in one special case. This case is where a house has, in fact, been injured
  954
  physically by increase of traffic, and it is to meet that case that I think it is right that the words should stand as they are. I have had the opportunity of taking part in hundreds of these inquiries, and in a claim for compensation a man must either prove that his land has been taken, or that it has been injuriously affected. It is not contended that the land of the leaseholders would be taken unless in removing one of the bars the railings or some of the land should be taken away, in which case the leaseholders might have reason to claim compensation. But it is said that hundreds and thousands of claims might be let in by allowing these words to stand, and that, therefore, the County Council would be afraid to act. I say, without the slightest reservation, that increase of traffic or the removal of traffic per se has never yet been allowed to give a claim for compensation for injurious affection. There have been cases in which the removal of traffic has been allowed to come in as an element where there was, in fact, physical interference. I remember a case of a public house which, from the letting point of view, was injuriously affected by the access to it being obstructed, and the traffic being diverted owing to the building of a rail way bridge near, and other alterations connected with the level of the roadway Giving, therefore, to the House the benefit of my 20 years' experience in these cases, I believe the suggestion that there is any risk whatever to the County Council by accepting this Amendment is a bogey. It is said that the leaseholders would rush into Court and endeavour to engage the County Council in litigation.
  MR. LAWSON: The Solicitor General said so.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not know what the Solicitor General said in this matter, but I have heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Bradford, and I say that the clause is intended to apply to cases in which de facto there is land taken, or in which it is injuriously affected. I think it would be unjust, in these circumstances, to strike the words out of the Bill in view of the cases which have to be met.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I rise for the purpose of suggesting one or two considerations which I think can hardly have been in the mind of the Attorney General

  955
  when he formed his opinion. It is perfectly true that under the Lands Clauses Act no compensation for increase or decrease of traffic, has been awarded, but this Bill makes anything done by virtue of it the subject of consideration for compensation. How can it be said that property "injuriously affected by anything done by virtue of this Act" shall not be taken into consideration and shall not be entitled to compensation? I merely mention the point for the consideration of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. I defer to him, for he is the head of the English Bar, and he has at his right hand an eminent and distinguished lawyer (Mr. Matthews) thoroughly capable of forming a sound opinion. In the Times newspaper of to-day I noticed an advertisement in which the legal representative of the Bedford Lessees Defence Committee distinctly expresses his satisfaction on behalf of the leaseholders and occupiers with the clause which the Lords have inserted. He says—
  "The leaseholders of the Bedford estate claim that under the present operation of the Bedford Paving Act and their leases they have an indefeasible right as against the freeholders and the whole world to the maintenance of the gates."
  He goes on to say that the leaseholders are perfectly satisfied with the clause introduced by the House of Lords, and that they object altogether to the omission of that clause. Therefore the lessees contemplate claims under the clause. The London County Council, and I presume they are supposed to know something of their business, have had the matter under their serious consideration, and they anticipate, if this clause is allowed to remain, very heavy claims being made against them for compensation. They, therefore, ask the House of Commons to deal with the matter one way or the other—to recognise compensation or exclude it—and not to retain in the Bill an obscure clause which is certain to lead to expensive litigation. Personally, I am strongly opposed to compensation altogether. I do not think that the meaning of the vote the other night has been altogether accurately represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. It simply meant
  956
  that the House would not give the Duke of Bedford, to the exclusion of others who might have better rights, a claim to compensation. The vote which is now about to be taken is upon the broad question whether we are to give compensation or not. I am sorry that the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras, simply to disagree with the Lords Amendment, was not put; we should then have avoided the difficulties which have arisen since. My opposition is altogether to the introduction of the principle of compensation as applicable to increase or decrease of traffic in connection with a street improvement in the public interest. The Attorney General admits that hitherto there has been no claim for compensation in such a case.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: What I said was that the simple removal of traffic had never been made the subject of compensation, but that where physical injury is done to the property by a particular course taken a claim for compensation would lie.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: Apart from any special injury to land or property, as a subject for compensation this Bill, if it does anything at all, introduces an entirely new principle. I object to this principle: but, in any case, I say that this House has no right to leave a question of this kind in a state of uncertainty that is calculated to lead to a considerable amount of litigation.
  MR. GAINSFORD BRUCE: I do not agree with the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton). So far as the meaning of the clause is concerned, I think we are all agreed that it means that if the property of any person is injuriously affected, the person whose property is so injuriously affected shall be entitled to compensation. Upon that point there can be no difference of opinion. It is agreed that there may be a difference of opinion as to whether the leaseholders may be persons injuriously affected. I do not say that that is not a question of law, but I maintain that this House is not a tribunal to decide such a question. When works have been sanctioned by Act of Parliament, the Legislature has always introduced a clause to say that if any person is injuriously affected he shall have the

  957
  ordinary legal remedy, and that it shall be left to the Courts to decide whether he has been injuriously affected or not. All that I ask the House is, that it will not interfere with the ordinary course of law. The Attorney General's opinion is entitled to much weight, but it is a question not for this House, but for a Court of Law to determine according to the facts of the case. When the right hon. Member for Bradford said there was no precedent for this House recognising increase or diminution of traffic as a ground for compensation, he probably was not aware of the Midland Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1882, which gave power to alter certain roads and streets, and which enacted that compensation should be given for loss or injury sustained by reason of deprivation of frontage or access to the Sharpness Company, and to the other owners of property in Birmingham. This Bill, however, does not go so far; it does not direct that compensation shall be given, but simply provides that if a person is injuriously affected he shall have the ordinary remedy.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The Attorney General has endeavoured to convey that there will be no litigation under this Act if it passes. Now, everything which falls from the learned Attorney General is entitled to the greatest weight and the highest consideration, but on this occasion I trust the House will not forget to contrast the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman with those of his own Colleague, the Solicitor General, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It has been said that, in removing these gates, no land will be taken, but it is clear that the land upon which the gates are erected will be taken—small in quantity, I admit—but an appreciable quantity, and, as I read the law, the effect will be to give a larger operation to the words "injuriously affected" as applied to other land not taken, but held along with the land which is taken. As a Metropolitan Member, I certainly entertain the greatest possible apprehension as to the amount of litigation to which this clause will give rise, not only in the central but also in the more remote parts of London. Only yesterday a case was decided in the
  958
  North London Police Court which showed that in other parts of the Metropolis there are avenues of houses enclosed by similar gates, which, although the property receives the benefit of the main drainage and other works, to which the ratepayers generally have contributed, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the London County Council. I maintain that the effect of adopting this Amendment will be to establish an Alsatia, the existence of which will be antagonistic to the public interests.
  MR. ADDISON: There are two cases in which compensation may be given under the Lands Clauses Act—one is where the land is injuriously affected, and the other is where structures erected upon it are injuriously affected, without being absolutely taken. When the Attorney General speaks of taking land I presume that he means injuriously affecting the land of a particular owner.
  MR. H. LAWSON: May I point out that no land is taken under this Bill at all.
  MR. ADDISON: If there is no land taken I cannot conceive how any claim for compensation can arise, although that may cut both ways.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I think that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn (Mr. G. Bruce) was conclusively against the Lords Amendments. We have had a statement from the Attorney General giving us what, in his opinion, the scope of the law is. The hon. Member for Holborn was not satisfied with that statement; but he as good as said that the Attorney General might be quite right as to the general law, but that he had not taken into consideration that in this case there are Private Acts of Parliament, which, in their bearing, would alter the scope of the law. That means that we are going to give to the freeholder and lessees of this property a distinct power of litigation as against the London County Council. I do not think that that is a position in which this House should place the County Council. We might have accepted the position of the Attorney General, but, now that we are able to see where we are going, and are able to put the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn against that of the

  959
  Attorney General, I think we ought to hesitate before we inflict on the County Council the crop of litigation which will, undoubtedly, be the fruit of this clause. Either these gates and bars should be removed, or they should not, and if the House believes that the County Council should remove them it should have the courage of its opinions, and give the County Council the power of doing so. We are all prepared to admit that there will be increased traffic, but, with that exception, there can be no injury whatever to any of the property in the neighbourhood.
  MR. CREMBR: The other day, when this question was submitted to the House, three and a half hours were occupied in discussing it. We have now been discussing it again, for an hour and a half, so that five hours of the precious time of the House have been taken up with a proposal which comes from the House of Lords, and is directly antagonistic to the decision of their own Committee and a Committee of this House. I hope that the country will take a note of that fact when it is asked to consider what the real causes of the obstruction of public business are. When we are engaged in discussing important measures submitted by the Government we are taken to task and accused of obstructing the useful legislation of the country. I think the country will understand from what has occurred to-day that the obstructionists are not in this Chamber, but in another House. Where are we on this question? On the one side we have the Local Authority pronouncing strongly in favour of the Bill, not in its amended form, but in the form in which it went to the House of Lords. I have lived for the last 12 or 14 years within a stone's throw of one of these gates and bars, and I know that during the whole of that time the Local Authority in the district have been doing their best to get these obstructions removed. Men of all shades of political thought have united in bringing the influence of the Local Authority to bear on the Duke of Bedford to induce him to listen to reasonable proposals, but he has persistently defied them. The London County Council is promoting the passage of this Bill, and I believe that, if a poll of the inhabitants of
  960
  London could be taken on the subject, 95 per cent. of the people would be found favourable to the removal of these obstructions. On the other side we have the Duke of Bedford, the landowner. His attitude is only natural, indeed I suppose that if I were the landowner I should adopt the same course. We have him resisting the removal of these gates and bars. Then we have a few leaseholders who consider themselves deeply interested in maintaining these gates and bars, and who consider that if these obstructions, are removed they are entitled to compensation. I do not blame them for fighting their battle, but I think that when they were beaten in the Committees they ought to have taken their defeat gracefully. But, not satisfied with being defeated in two Committees, they induced the House of Lords, or a number of the Members of that distinguished Assembly, to aid them in setting up a claim to compensation. Then we have another small body of men who are supporting the landowner and the leaseholders, and they are the champions of the rights of property, of whom the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) is such a distinguished leader. [Cries of "Divide!"] It is all very well for hon. Members to cry "Divide!" but the question is whether we are to allow a handful of men sitting in another place, and who have never received a mandate from the people, to over-ride the decision of the County Council and two Committees who have seriously considered the subject. It is not our fault that the time of the House is taken up in discussing these Amendments. We did not introduce them, but have opposed them throughout. [Cries of "Divide!"] I am quite aware hon. Members are very anxious to get away, and if they had used their influence to induce their friends in another place not to introduce these Amendments, they might have got away by this time. I only desire now to draw attention to the conflicting opinions which have been uttered by various Members of the Government, and by legal gentlemen sitting opposite. Some of them say that without these Amendments the property owners and leaseholders will be entitled to claim compensation if any injury is done them. Others say they will not be so entitled, and it is necessary these Amendments

  961
  should be introduced in order to make the law quite clear. The Lord Chancellor adopts the latter view. He is a clear-headed man, and knows quite well what he is about. If there were no other reason, I would strongly resist the Amendments on the ground that the Lord Chancellor supports them.
  MR. M'LAREN: As I am probably the only Member in the House who has read or heard the evidence, I desire to say a few words as to two matters of fact. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn (Mr.Gainsford Bruce) has misled the House—no doubt, unintentionally—as to two important matters of fact. He said that under the Bedford Paving Act the tenants have a right to the maintenance of these gates.
  MR. GAINSFORD BRUCE: I said that that was a question to be decided by a proper tribunal.
  MR. M'LAREN: I thought he gave the House to understand that under the Bedford Paving Act there was some right.
  MR. GAINSFORD BRUCE: I stated that it would be one element in the determination of the legal question.
  MR. M'LAREN: If I have misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman I apologise. But, as a matter of fact, under the Bedford Paving Act of 1855, the Duke of Bedford has an absolute right to remove these gates at any time he chooses, and the tenants have no right to object. If the Bill were rejected, and the County Council could induce the Duke of Bedford to remove these gates, not one of the tenants could claim sixpence in compensation. By these Amendments, therefore, we shall put the tenants in a different and better position than that which they occupy at present.
  MR. MORTON: The question of these bars and gates has been before Londoners for nearly 30 years, and, therefore, it is high time it was settled. But, as far as I can see, it will not be settled if this House allows compensation to anybody whatever. As I understand the matter, all we have to consider is whether these
  962
  people are morally—I do not trouble myself about law at all—entitled to any compensation. There cannot be the slightest doubt that they are not morally entitled to one penny of compensation. This is a question between the classes and the masses. As Brown, Jones, and Robinson were not allowed to have gates and bars, I do not see why Lords, Dukes, and Solicitor General should be allowed to have them. The classes are beginning to see that they will have to give up their privileges, but, in doing so, they want to get as much plunder out of the ratepayers as they can.
  (4.42.) The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 58.—(Div. List, No. 251.)
  (4.50.) Clause 4a (Noiseless pavements to be laid down before the removal of gates or bars in pursuance of this Act), the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  MR. LAWSON: I should like the Government to consider whether it is not necessary, in consequence of Amendments just agreed to, to make an addition to Clause 4a, which appears in the Bill as Clause 5. The clause deals with noiseless pavement, and it was introduced by the Lords Committee out of consideration for the leaseholders and other persons who felt they were interested in the quiet of the area within these gates and bars. I would suggest the correction of the words—
  "The laying down of such asphalte or other noiseless pavement may be taken into account in estimating the compensation which the leaseholders or other persons on either side of the street might otherwise claim under Clause 4 of the Bill."
  The tribunal ought to have the opportunity of taking into account the laying down of noiseless pavement, as the County Council will have to pay for laying down the pavement, and may be charged for doing so. They ought not to pay compensation twice over.
  SIR. R WEBSTER: I sincerely hope the House will not agree to this. For the last 40 years there has been but one rule, and that is to take the state

  963
  of things before the alteration, and after the alteration, and to ask the question whether the property has been injuriously affected. I think the proposal of the hon. Member is unwise, and I could not myself be a party to it.
  (4.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 49.—(Div. List, No. 252.)

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Dublin Corporation Bill, returned by the House of Lords with an Amendment, the Standing Orders be suspended, and that the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendments be considered forthwith.—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  Lords Amendment considered.
  Question put, after Clause F, inserted by the Commons, insert the following Clause:—
  "If at any time it appears to the Lord Lieutenant after investigation that the expenses specified in Section 27 of 'The Collection of Rates Act, 1849,' in relation to the rates for the time being collected by the Collector General, regard being had to due and reasonable economy, are such that the limit of two pounds ten shillings in the said section mentioned will not be sufficient to discharge such expenses, the Lord Lieutenant may by order made by and with the consent of the Privy Council direct that the said limit shall, for a period to be named in the order, be such amount greater than two pounds ten shillings as shall under the circumstances be necessary to discharge such expenses, and thereupon the said section shall with respect to such period be read and construed as if the amount specified in the said order were inserted in the said section in relation to the rates in this section before-mentioned, instead of the amount of two pounds ten shillings."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  MR. HASTINGS: Sir, it is within my knowledge that a statement was made in another place which reflects somewhat on the character for efficiency of the Police and Sanitary Committee of this House. That Committee consists of 11 Members, and it was said that not more than six Members as a rule attend, and by implication that no more Members were present when we decided
  964
  that the Dublin Municipal Corporation were to collect their own rates. It is only this morning that I had the opportunity of referring to the Minutes of the Committee, and I find that on every occasion during which the Police and Sanitary Committee met on the Dublin Corporation Bill, ranging from the 29th April to the 21st May, there were only three occasions on which the numbers came as low as six. On all other occasions the number ranged from eight to ten, and on the particular occasion on which the Committee arrived at a conclusion with regard to the collection of these Municipal Rates, out of the 11 members 10 were present. They were present from the beginning to the end; the whole matter was most thoroughly and exhaustively discussed; and the conclusion was unanimous.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to confirm what the Chairman has said. There were present 10 members, representing the four Parties in the House, and they were unanimous.
  MR. COURTNEY: I ought to mention to the House that a question of very great gravity has arisen upon this Amendment. It is the fact that the collection of the rates in Dublin was fixed by a Public Act in 1849, and it is a question whether the Lords can interfere in any way with a Public Act. We have in a Private Bill abandoned the collection of rates under the Public Act, and it becomes a question of considerable difficulty whether the Lords Amendment is an infringement of the limitation laid down by a Public Act, and is an action on the part of the Lords which we ought to disallow. The matter is one of considerable doubt, and I have not had very much time to give it consideration. But those who advise me entertain the very strongest doubt whether it is not an infraction of our privileges. At the same time, there can be no doubt about the propriety of the Amendment. On further consideration, it appears to me that what the Lords have done has been to call attention to certain things omitted by this House, and which are

  965
  necessary and consequent upon the action taken by this House. Under these circumstances, we must allow the Amedment to be accepted as a necessary consequence of our own acts, and not as something which originated in the Lords. I think it would be well that a note should be entered in the Minutes, to show that we did not admit any infraction of the privileges of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: Of any infraction of the privileges of this House I should be the first to take notice. I have considered the subject, and I have given directions that if this Amendment is accepted a special entry shall be made in the Journals of the House, to the effect that this House, while disapproving of any infraction of its privileges or rights by the other House, in this case waives its claim to insist upon its privileges. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will admit that no harm has been done to the privileges of this House, and that this Amendment is a Consequential Amendment on the Amendment of the Commons, and only carries out the full intentions of this House. I hope on those terms, and with that full explanation, that the House will allow the Amendment of the Lords to pass with this note entered in the Journals.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not rise for the purpose of

  POST OFFICE (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered—

  Showing, for each year since 1869–70, inclusively, the Revenue Expenditure and Net Revenue of the Post Office in the following form:—

  Year.

  Revenue.

  Expenditure.

  Net Revenue.

  Net Revenue after deducting Columns 5 and 6.

  Postal Receipts.

  Extra Receipts.

  Estimated value of services to other Departments.

  Total.

  Sites and Buildings.

  Superannuations.

  Packet Service.

  Other Expenditure.

  Total Expenditure.

  Purchase.

  Erection.

  Under Post Office Vote.

  Under other Votes.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  8.

  9.

  10.

  11.

  12.

  13.

  making any opposition, but only to observe that had this clause been added to the Bill with the Amendment now proposed by the Lords there would have been no further opposition.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member having given evidence on the Committee still continues irreconcileable.
  Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL. (No. 385)
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.—(No. 375)
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 404)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No 398)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 167)
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith: considered, and agreed to.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered—

  Showing, for each year since the Purchase of the Telegraphs, of the Revenue Expenditure, and Net Revenue of the Post Office Telegraphs in the following form:—

  Year.

  Revenue.

  Expenditure.

  Net Revenue.

  Net Revenue after deducting Columns 6, 7, and 8.

  Interest on Stock created for purchase of Telegraphs.

  Telegraph Receipts.

  Extra Receipts.

  Estimated value of services to other Departments.

  Total.

  Sites and Buildings.

  Telegraph extension.

  Superannuations.

  Other Expenditure.

  Total expenditure.

  Purchase.

  Erection.

  Under Post Office Vote.

  Under other Votes.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  8.

  9.

  10.

  11.

  12.

  13.

  14.

  1870–71

QUESTIONS.

  GIBRALTAR DOCK.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information as to the Report of the Committee on the Gibraltar Dock?
  A LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD BARTLETT,: The Committee have, after a thorough investigation, completed their Report, which is in the printers' hands. The Report will be presented to the Admiralty and the other Departments interested in a few days, but I am unable to give the House any information as to the proposals of the Committee until the Government have come to a decision upon them.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman that he cannot say whether the Committee are in favour of a dock or not?
  MR. ASHMEAD BARTLETT: The question as to the desirability of a dock was not directly submitted to the Committee. The Admiralty had already come to a decision that it was desirable that the dock should be built.

  INDIAN FACTORY LEGISLATION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Secretary of State in Council approved the submission by the Government of India to the Indian Legislature of the Factory Law Amendment Bill now before that Legislature; and whether the Secretary of State has now required the Government of India to report their views regarding the resolutions of the Berlin Conference, in order that the question how far those resolutions should be applied to India may be decided by the Secretary of State rather than by the Government of India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: The reply to the first paragraph is, Yes. To the second, No. I will take this opportunity of repeating a statement which I was instructed by the Secretary of State to make in reply to the hon. Member for South East Lancashire (Mr. Hoyle), which, I understand, has been inperfectly reported, namely, that the principles affirmed at the Berlin Conference are being, and will be, observed in India.

  NEW FOUNDLAND LOBSTER FISHERY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet ascertained whether the embargo placed on Mr. Baird's lobster factory in Newfoundland, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement for a modus vivendi with France, is maintained or has been withdrawn under stress of proceedings in the Newfoundland Courts?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The embargo has not been withdrawn, but the factory has been dismantled by the proprietor, and the men employed have gone to work elsewhere.

  RETIRED OFFICERS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state in brief, or will lay before the House, the existing terms on which officers of the Army, not compulsorily retired on account of age, are allowed voluntarily to retire with a money bonus or pension for life; what is the amount of such bonus or pension; and whether the liability of officers so retired to serve when required, extends to service with the Militia or other Forces of the Crown, or only with the Regular Army?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: When voluntary retirement is permitted, a combatant officer of 15 years' service and upwards may retire on £120 a year if below the rank of lieutenant colonel, or on £250 if he has been three years in that rank. After 25 years' service, a major may retire on £200 a year; after 27 years, a lieutenant colonel can retire on £300 a year, and after 30 years' service, on £365. A lieutenant colonel or colonel, after completing his term of service in that rank, may retire on £420 or £450 a year, according to the arm of the Service in which he has served. A general officer may retire at any time on the retired pay of the next lower grade, and a major general may retire at 60 years of age on £680 a year; a lieutenant general at the age of 65 on £830; and a general at the same age on £980 a year. A captain or lieutenant up to the age of 50 years, a field officer up to 55 years, and a
  970
  general officer up to 67 years of age, is liable in a time of emergency to be recalled to service in the Regular or Auxiliary Forces.

  IRELAND—THE DUKE OF LEINSTER'S TENANTS.
  MR. LEAHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the report in the Freeman's Journal, of the 9th instant, of a meeting of the Duke of Leinster's tenants, who purchased holdings under the Ashbourne Act, called for the purpose of discussing the advisability of memorialising the Government to have the time extended for the payment of the annual instalments of the purchase money, say, from 49 years to 80, and thus enabling the tenants to meet the instalment now due, and for which, in some cases, writs have actually been issued, from which it appears that, amongst other things, it was stated that most of those who purchased their holdings are now unable to pay the present rent or interest, and that many of those who consented to purchase were considerably in debt at the time, and consented to purchase because it afforded them temporary relief; and that a resolution was unanimously adopted, authorising the preparation of a suitable Memorial to Parliament, in accordance with the views held by all present, to be presented by the county Members, asking to have the time extended for payment of the purchase money, so as to reduce the present and future instalments to such a reasonable amount as the people would be able to pay; if he will state the terms of the sale, how many years' purchase, and what pressure was brought to bear on them to induce them to buy; and whether he can now hold out any prospect of relief to these people?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,:The Land Commissioners report that the question appears to refer to 83 applications from tenants of the Duke of Leinster, lodged in August, 1886. The total areas were 6,580 acres. The Poor Law Valuation was £3,967. The total rents were £4,029, all judicial. The advances were £76,366. The annuities are £3,054 (being £975 less than the judicial rents, or a reduction of 24·19 per cent., and £912 less than the Poor

  971
  Law Valuation). The average rate of purchase was about 19 years. The average price of the fee simple was less than £12 per acre. The average annuity is less than 10s. per acre. Most of the tenants were stated to be respectable and comfortable farmers. Most of the purchases were completed in December of the same year, each of the tenants having executed his conveyance in conformity with the then existing law. No complaint appears to have been made of duress or unfair pressure on the part of the landlord, either then or subsequently, until now. The negotiations were conducted on behalf of the tenants by the late very Rev. Dr. Kavenagh, P.P, who, in August of the same year, wrote to the Commissioners that the tenants were free contracting parties; that they had made excellent bargains; that their rents were low; and that the purchase would reduce these rents by 25 per cent. Besides the above sales, which seem to be those referred to in the paragraph mentioned in the question, considerable sales of the holdings on the same estate have been since carried out on a similar basis. The total sales on the estate completed up to 31st March, 1890, were 337, and the purchase money amounted to £246,401. Of the 337 purchasers, there are only eight in default in payment of their annuities; and the total amount of their indebtedness is £187 19s.7d.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is alleged to be the fact that the Land Purchase Commissioners have availed of the one-fifth lying out to the Duke of Leinster, and appropriated that to the payment of arrears.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think that very improbable, and I rather doubt whether the Commissioners have the power to do it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If they have not the legal power, what is the one-fifth lying out for?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that before the guarantee deposit can be applied the debt must be an irrecoverable one.

  THE CASE OF SARAH ANN MAYCOCK.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentence
  972
  passed on July 31st, at Elford Petty Sessions, in Staffordshire, on Sarah Ann Maycock, a girl 14 years of age, a fine of £5 and costs, and in default a month's hard labour, for having pulled sticks from a fence, the damage being assessed at one shilling; and whether he will advise the remission of this sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have not yet received the Report, which I asked for from the Magistrates immediately on the hon. Member's question appearing on the Paper. I am, therefore, unable to say at present whether it is a case in which I can advise any remission.

  MINES IN CORNWALL AND DEVON.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the revised list of mines, referred to in the last paragraph of Mr. Pinching's Report for the Cornwall and Devon district as being appended thereto, is not published with the Report; whether he will state how many mines were, during the year 1889, working in his district, and how many of the mines committed to his charge were during that year personally visited by Mr. Pinching; and whether, in those that he visited personally, any special observations or inquiries were made by him with reference to the sanitary conditions of the mines, and the prevalence among the miners of the miners' disease?
  MR. MATTHEWS: For reasons of economy it was decided last year that the lists of mines in the various districts should not be laid before Parliament and should only be published for sale. The lists can be obtained from the Queen's Printers or any bookseller. The number of mines working in Mr. Pinching's district was 146, including 30 small stone mines about Swanage, working on an average three men each, and 38 mines working less than 13 men each. The Inspector was unable to say offhand how many were visited personally by him, but the great majority were visited either by him, or by his colleague while he was on sick leave. Observation and inquiries were made as to the ventilation of the mines; but no complaint reached the Inspector as to miners' disease, or any insanitary conditions in the mines,

  973
  and no special inquiry was directed to those subjects.
  MR. CONYBEARE: In reference to my second question, it would be useful if such an appendix could be made to the Report. In regard to the third paragraph, is it not the fact that Mr. Pinching has remarked that a certain number of the mines are only small, but that smaller mines are as much in need of careful supervision as the larger mines? Will the right hon. Gentleman give instruction that a record of the mines visited during the year should be kept?
  Mr. MATTHEWS: Certainly, Sir.

  THE EDITORS OF THE WATERFORD NEWS AND WATERFORD CITIZEN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how the amount of £30, offered to the editors of the Waterford News and Waterford Citizen, for one day's illegal detention in gaol, has been arrived at; has his attention been called to the case of Mr. Henry O'Connor, of the Leinster Leader, sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, on a conviction quashed as illegal by the Court of Exchequer after Mr. O'Connor had been four days in gaol; is he aware that Mr. Justice O'Brien decided that Mr. O'Connor has no legal remedy for the wrongful conviction and detention, and that his action for false imprisonment against the Resident Magistrates (Colonel Forbes and Sub-Inspector Mercer) must be non-suited; and in view of the fact that Mr. O'Connor's solicitor proved that he incurred nearly £30 costs in procuring the mandamus from the Queen's Bench compelling the "case stated," which procured his release, independent of the costs of his defence, and that it was on the argument of the Crown Lawyers that this gentleman was held to have no legal remedy, will the Government offer any compensation to Mr. O'Connor, following the principle on which the Waterford editors, without any judicial decision, have been compensated for a shorter confinement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Messrs. Redmond and Fisher having, through a telegraphic mistake, been detained in custody for some hours after they first tendered bail, I expressed an opinion in this House that they were technically
  974
  entitled to damages, and undertook that they would not be put to the trouble of legal proceedings, but that the amount of the damages would be otherwise measured. Their solicitor was thereupon instructed to submit a claim. He did so, claiming £50 each. This was refused, as being out of all proportion to any loss or inconvenience which could have been occasioned. An amended claim for £30 each was then submitted, and although regarded as still large, was agreed to in order to carry out the undertaking above mentioned. Mr. Henry O'Connor was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, on the llth January last, on a charge of intimidation, contained in notices and editorial comments published at various times in the Leinster Leader, against a man who had taken some evicted land. He declined to appeal, and was committed to prison. On 15th January he was released on the issue of a mandamus for a case stated. The conviction was subsequently quashed on a particular point which did not touch the merits of the case, there being no doubt as to the illegal character of the publications complained of. Mr. O'Connor did subsequently fail in a civil action against the Resident Magistrates who had adjudicated. The Crown was not represented in the case. The learned Judge decided to the effect that the Magistrates had acted bonâ fide, and within their jurisdiction, that there was no question to go to the jury, and that he therefore directed them to find for the defendants. The point on which the conviction by the Magistrates was set aside was the insufficiency of legal proof that the particular copy of the Leinster Leader put in evidence had been published at the Leinster Leader office, and Mr. Baron Dowse, in giving his concurrence in the judgment quashing the conviction, is reported to have stated that he was sorry to arrive at that conclusion, not because the defendant would get off, but because he was morally certain that these papers produced were copies of the Leinster Leader. The Government cannot undertake to offer Mr. O'Connor any compensation whatever in the matter.

  THE MAHARAJAH OF MYSORE.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary

  975
  of State for India whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to a statement in the Times, of 8th August, that His Highness the Maharajah of Mysore has taken steps to put the Army of the State Mysore in a position to render extremely valuable aid in the defence of the Indian Empire; and whether any recognition of the loyal and patriotic action of His Highness and the Mysore Durbar has yet been accorded?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes; the Secretary of State has no doubt that the aid which it is reported the Maharajah of Mysore will give towards the defence of India will be suitably recognised by the Government of India.

  THE BENGAL AND ASSAM RAILWAY.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is true, as stated in a recent telegram, that the Government of India proposes to take the construction and working of the proposed Bengal and Assam Railway out of the hands of private enterprise, and to work it as a State monopoly; and whether any Returns are available that show the relative cost of Government and private control respectively in such undertakings in India?
  SIR J. GORST: The construction of the proposed Bengal and Assam Railway is a matter still under the consideration of the Secretary of State and Government of India. No Returns are available, but information on the subject may be found in the annual Reports of the Director General of Railways laid before Parliament.

  MINES REGULATION ACT, 1887.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSon behalf of Mr. FENWICK,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following statement, which appeared in the Daily News of Tuesday, 12th instant, namely—
  "That three men were drowned yesterday in the Talacre and Gronant Lead Mine in Flintshire by water from an old working breaking in upon them. A fourth man narrowly escaped;"
  and whether there was any reason to suspect that the mine was approaching old workings; if so, whether the precautionary
  976
  measures provided for in General Rule 13 of the Mines Act of 1887 were duly observed?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Inspector that the body of water was known to exist, and the working was being made for the purpose of tapping it. General Rule 13 of the Coal Mines Act does not apply to metalliferous mines, but advance bore-holes, though not compulsory under the Act, had been ordered by the agent. Until the evidence is heard before the coroner and the mine is pumped out it will be impossible to say how far the order had been obeyed, or whether the provisions of the Act had been disregarded in any way.

  RAILWAY TICKETS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS (on behalf of Mr. CAUSTON,: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether all Railway Companies are now printing the fares charged upon their tickets; and, if not, which Companies do not, and what are their reasons for not complying with the Law?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: In reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, I stated on Monday that 42 Railway Companies are now printing the fares charged on their tickets. In the case of the other companies I have fixed the 1st January, 1891, as the date on and after which this should be done. I fixed this time in consequence of the great number of tickets, amounting to many millions, in the stock of those companies.

  SMALL INVESTMENTS IN GOVERNMENT STOCK.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the proposals with regard to the re-investment of dividends on Government Stock held by small investors, as suggested by Mr. N. L. Cohen, in a letter to the Times, under the heading of "Accumulative Consols?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: Yes, Sir; I have been in communication with the Bank of England on the subject of the proposal made by Mr. N. L. Cohen for giving

  977
  small investors in Government Stocks facilities for having their dividends automatically invested. The Bank of England have gone into the matter with every wish to make the plan a success, and they have submitted to the Treasury a scheme which is simple and has every appearance of being effectual, and which will involve no legislation. A notice will be given that proprietors of all holdings in Consols not exceeding £1,000 will, on signing and sending an order to the Bank, have their dividends received for them, and employed in the purchase of Consols by the Bank, the Stock purchased being added to the amount previously held. As much publicity as possible will be given to the notice, and the Bank will supply holders with a form of order. A fee at the rate of 1d. for each pound of cash employed in the purchase of Stock will be charged and debited to the holder against his dividend account; the number of accounts under £1,000 somewhat exceeds 80,000. Under the scheme a ready means of making provision for a future day will be afforded to small holders; and the number of persons directly interested in the public funds will be increased. I have every reason to anticipate success for the scheme, and if by dint of the energy and co-operation of the Bank my anticipation is realised the public will owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Cohen, to whom the credit of the proposal is wholly due, and I propose to ask the Bank of Ireland to give small Stockholders similar facilities.

  VACCINATION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it has been reported to him that many parents, who are not opposed to vaccination, object to the use of human lymph with their children, as being attended with risks special to itself, and desire, therefore, to have their children vaccinated with calf lymph, declaring that on no other condition will they submit them to the operation; whether the medical officer of the Local Government Board has declined to admit the right of parents to require at the hands of public vaccinators the use of calf lymph, and has declared that the responsibility for the lymph employed rests not with the parents, but
  978
  solely with the vaccinator; whether Mr. T. M. Watt, public vaccinator of the Hovingham district of the Malton Union, Yorkshire, has repeatedly applied to the National Vaccine Establishment for calf lymph, and been definitely refused it; whether Mr. Watt has reported that for three months he has thus been prevented from performing his duties as public vaccinator; and whether the President of the Local Government Board will direct that the National Vaccine Establishment furnish public vaccinators with calf lymph when they prefer and require it for performance of their official duties?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: Representations have from time to time been made to the Local Government Board as to the cases of parents who desire to have their children vaccinated with calf lymph, on the ground of their objection to the use of human lymph, but such representations have been very exceptional. It is the case that the Medical Officer of the Board, in a letter which he addressed to Mr. Watt, pointed out that the responsibility for the lymph must rest with the Public Vaccinator, and not with the parents. An application which was made by Mr. Watt for calf lymph on April 2nd last was complied with; but on subsequent application for additional lymph, he was referred to a letter addressed to him on the 26th April, in which it was explained that the organisation of the National Vaccine Establishment did not admit of its undertaking to supply either human or calf lymph for the ordinary vaccination of individual children, of whom from half to three quarters of a million required vaccination every year. It has been more than once explained to Mr. Watt that the principle on which the National Vaccine Establishment proceeds in its distribution of lymph, whether to public or private vaccinators, is to furnish each applicant with enough for the performance of a few first vaccinations, and the Establishment expects that the recipient will exert himself to vaccinate in series from the beginning which he is thus enabled to make. Mr. Watt's duties as Public Vaccinator require him to vaccinate half-yearly, namely, in April and October.

  979
  The Board assume that he is complying with the terms of his contract in not vaccinating in the interval. I do not propose, pending the sitting of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, to make any change in the administration of public vaccination in England and Wales.

  LIGHTHOUSES IN THE RED SEA.
  MR. THOMAS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Ottoman Porte, in reference to the construction of lighthouses in the Red Sea; if so, where such lights are intended to be placed; whether the localities in question have been decided upon in conformity with the judgment of those most accustomed to the navigation of the Red Sea, and to what extent, if any, British ships are to be called upon to contribute to the cost and maintenance of the same; to what extent per annum the dues now paid to the Egyptian Government for Red Sea lights is in excess of the cost of maintenance of these lights, including a fair allowance for depreciation of capital; and at what date, and to what extent, shipowners may expect a reduction in these tolls. conformably with the agreement entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Khedive when the tolls in question were established?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Negotiations are still in progress with the Ottoman Government with reference to the erection of lighthouses in the existing route through the Red Sea in the vicinity of Abu Ail, Mocha, Zebayr, and Jebel Tier. These localities have been decided on after consultation with the other Maritime Powers concerned, but the exact sites are left for further consideration. The tolls received by the Egyptian Government on account of the Mediterranean and Red Sea Lights exceeded the cost of the maintenance of those lights in the last accounts received, those for 1888, by £67,869, and in view of this an arrangement has been come to whereby when the new Conventional Tariff conies into operation a sum of £40,000 a year will be set aside out of these Light Dues for the erection and maintenance of the additional lights
  980
  required in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. In this manner, if satisfactory arrangements can be come to for the establishment of these additional lights, British shipping will have the benefit of the new lights without any increase in the dues now paid for the existing lights.

  INCHKEITH.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what prevents the War Office taking possession, for Military purposes, of the Island of Inchkeith; what is the price asked for the island by the proprietor; and what is the valuation upon which he pays taxes; whether he is aware that considerable risk attends the embarking and disembarking of troops on the island; and whether a suitable jetty will shortly be constructed?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Negotiations for the purchase of Inchkeith are now pending. The question of constructing a jetty must largely depend on the result of the negotiations.

  PRISON MAT-MAKING.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS (on behalf of Mr. CAUSTON): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact contained in the Prisons Report for 1888-9, that Messrs. Goodacre and Sons, of Plaistow and Glemsford, paid the Government for prison labour for making mats at Stafford Prison the sum of £216 7s. 4d., being less than £2 per annum each for the labour of 117 prisoners; and whether, in view of the clause in the Prisons Act, which states that there is to be no undue prison competition with any particular trade or industry, he will give the House an assurance that the grievance complained of will be remedied?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The comparatively small sum quoted as paid by Messrs. Goodacre is explained by the fact that this firm worked its looms for only a part of the year. In the following year the amount earned by 119 prisoners was £477 7s. 6d. The prison mat-making has been repeatedly reduced, and is being still further reduced. The daily average number of prisoners engaged in mat-making was last year 1,218, and for the first threee months of the current year

  981
  1,064. It would be still further reduced if any other suitable labour could be suggested.

  GUN LICENCES IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTONon behalf of Mr. ROCHE,: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick M'Dermott, of Derrygoolan, Woodford, was served with a notice on Friday last, signed by "Zetland," revoking his gun licence; whether he will state if Mr. M'Dermott was ever charged with any offence; and, if not, why his licence has been revoked; whether he is aware that, in order to use his gun, Mr. M'Dermott had to take out a 10s. Excise licence on the 1st of August each year; and although the notice depriving Mr. M'Dermott of using his gun was dated 29th July, it was not served until the 8th of August; and whether, under those circumstances, he will direct that Mr. M'Dermott shall get back his money if he is not allowed to have his gun?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the case that the Lord Lieutenant has revoked the game licence which was held by Mr. M'Dermott. His Excellency did so in the exercise of his discretion, as being of opinion that Mr. M'Dermott is not a fit person to hold a licence. If Mr. M'Dermott considers that he is entitled to have refunded the Excise licence paid by him his proper course is to memorial the Excise Authorities.
  MR. SEXTON: I suppose it is of no use asking why the gun licence was revoked. I should like to point out, however, that though the revoking order was issued before the end of the Excise year it was not served until several days after, and in the meantime Mr. M'Dermott had taken out a fresh licence. Will the right hon. Gentleman, under the circumstances, order that the money paid shall be refunded?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR; I will consider the point, but Mr. M'Dermott can easily apply to the Excise Authorities.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was the licence revoked at the instance of a landlord to prevent Mr. M'Dermott shooting grouse?
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: The gun licence was, I am told, revoked because Mr. M'Dermott was suspected of shooting game. I noticed the right hon.
  982
  Gentleman in his answer referred to the game licence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was an error, and I withdraw the word. My answer refers to the gun licence.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON; You said game.
  MR. SEXTON: It is the first thing the right hon. Gentleman has ever withdrawn.

  POLICE INSPECTORS ON THE MAGISTERIAL BENCH.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Woodford Petty Sessions on Monday last District Inspectors Wade and Dulton sat upon the Bench with Mr. Hickson, R. M., and Mr. Lewis, J. P., a local landlord, during the hearing of cases against tenants of Lord Clanricarde; and whether it is in accordance with the regulations of the Constabulary that District Inspectors should sit on the Bench?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the District Inspectors referred to did not sit upon the Magisterial Bench, but upon a form at the end of it. They occupied this position, as there was no room to sit at the table in the body of the Court. I have suggested that in future they should occupy a seat in the body of the Court.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his advice into an instruction? It is simply indecent that officers who are frequently the prosecutors should take a seat on the Bench.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only repeat it ought not to be the case.

  THE EDUCATION ESTIMATES.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, before preparing the Education Estimates for another year, he will consider the case of those teachers who entered the profession under the Minutes of 1846, with a view, if possible, of awarding to all such teachers who are eligible the pensions to which they believe themselves to be entitled, and so removing a cause of distress and auxiety to a class who have laboured long for the public benefit?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir W. HART DYKE,: If my hon. Friend will consider the present position of the teachers to whom he refers in connection with the actual terms of the Minutes of 1846, I think he will arrive at the conclusion that their claims have been fully and fairly met by the action of the Department since the matter was brought under the notice of Parliament in 1884.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to give notice that I shall take an opportunity hereafter of calling attention to this matter.

  CHARGE AGAINST CONSTABLES.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case of the policeman charged and proved to have been drunk when on duty in Millstreet on 22nd July, there was division of opinion on the Bench of Magistrates trying the case on the 5th inst.; whether Surgeon Major Leader, who dissented, is correctly reported to have stated that "a case was brought before them of false imprisonment by a policeman" at the prosecution of his District Inspector, "and that he thought they should go into it no matter what happened subsequently," and to have stated that, on the evidence of the head constable, the arrests were illegal; whether a conviction for illegal arrest can be given under the Act of Will. 3, c. 13, s. 19; and whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be directed to the action of Mr. Butler, R. M., in obtaining the dismissal, without prejudice, of the case against the policeman in question?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I understand it is the fact that at the hearing of the case two members of the Bench were in favour of a dismissal and the third member was in favour of proceeding with the case. Surgeon Major Leader was the dissenting Magistrate; but I am not aware of the exact terms in which he expressed his dissent. The majority of the Bench, in dismissing the case, acted without prejudice and in the exercise of their judicial discretion.

  IRELAND—PRISONS-RELEASE OF CAPTAIN R. TONSON RYE.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  984
  of Ireland whether Captain R. Tenson Rye, Deputy Lieutenant for Cork County, has been discharged from Cork Gaol, where he has been confined for unlawfully shooting a tenant; and what reasons are given by the Prison Authorities for discharging the prisoner in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The conviction against Captain Rye was for unlawfully wounding. He is considerably advanced in years, and the condition of his health in prison becoming serious a consultation of three doctors, including the medical member of the General Prisons Board, was held. They reported that further confinement would endanger his life. He was accordingly discharged from custody by direction of the Lords Justices.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Has the prison doctor, who gave this certificate, ever advised the release of prisoners under the Coercion Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must know that many such prisoners have been released.

  THE ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the recent Anglo-French Agreement, the British sphere includes the Houssa plateau and extends to the Western shore of Lake Tchad; and, if so, to what point; and whether the Bornu State is outside the French sphere?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The line is to run from Say on the Niger to Barruwa on Lake Tchad, but the details of it will be settled by the Joint Commission. The only stipulation which the Declaration contains for their guidance is that the line is to include within the sphere of the company's influence all that fairly belongs to Sokoto. This would entail a deviation to the northwards, and I believe that the Houssa plain and Bornu lie to the south of the points indicated.

  THE NEW POLICE BUILDINGS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any objection to state to the House the names of the high

  985
  architectural authorities upon whose advice he appointed Mr. Norman Shaw architect for the new Police Buildings?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The artistic authorities of whom I spoke the other night were consulted by me in a strictly private and confidential way, and I do not feel justified in mentioning their names in public. I take upon myself the full responsibility for the appointment of Mr. Norman Shaw, and I think his work justifies his appointment.

  A POSTAL DISPUTE.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the offence for which Mr. H. L. Quin, lately employed as a telegraph clerk at the Central Telegraph Office, was dismissed; whether Mr. Quin has hitherto had a blameless record for efficiency, good conduct, punctuality, and regular attendance; and whether there is any previous instance in this office of a clerk being dismissed for a first offence?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,: Mr. Quin was dismissed for using the telegraph wires for private purposes to the hindrance of public messages. Neither was the object with which he used the wires calculated to bespeak a lenient view of his conduct. Having formed one of a deputation to his Controller, which pledged itself to a particular line of action, he had no sooner left the room than he proceeded to the telegraph wires and advocated another. Thus, persons at a distance were stirred up by him to adopt the very course which the deputation, of which, he was a member, had just assured the Department would not be adopted. For this act of duplicity, added to his infraction of a rule to which the Department attaches the highest importance that the public wires shall not be used for private purposes, there was in the Postmaster General's judgment only one suitable punishment, and that was dismissal. Mr. Quin's conduct inside the office had hitherto been good. There are many instances of clerks and others being dismissed for a first offence.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Was not this gentleman's real offence that he was Secretary to the Postal Clerks' Union?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: No, Sir. His offence was aggravated by duplicity. He proposed as a member of a deputation to advocate one course and used the wires to urge the men to adopt another and illegal course.
  MR. MAC NEILL: This is a serious question, affecting a man's livelihood. Will the hon. Member lay the Papers on the Table, and enable the House to judge of the matter.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: No, Sir; I cannot do that.

  CONTINUOUS BRAKES.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether an Order under "The Railway Regulation Act, 1889," has been made by the Board on the Great North of Ireland Railway Company to provide their passenger trains with continuous brakes, complying with the conditions laid down by the Board, and within what period; and whether the Board have received from the company satisfactory assurances that such Order will be complied with within the period named?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The company in question has assured the Board of Trade that they will provide for and use on all their trains carrying passengers continuous brakes complying with the requirements laid down, and an Order to this effect will shortly be made. It has been delayed in this case, in common with others, for the reason explained in my reply to the hon. Member's other question to-day.
  MR. CHANNING: I also beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what Orders have been issued to the Railway Companies, under the provisions of "The Railway Regulation Act, 1889," in respect of the provision on all passenger trains of brakes complying with the conditions laid down by the Board; what periods of time have been fixed for compliance with such Orders; what extensions of such periods of time have been granted, and to what Railway Companies; what Orders have been made by the Board as to Returns of overtime work under Clause 4 of the Act, and how frequently such Returns will be made; and whether, in case such Orders and extensions of periods are numerous, he will have a Return laid before the House stating particulars?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Several Orders have been issued, and I shall be glad to show the hon. Member a list; but as regards many of the principal Railway Companies, the matter has been postponed in consequence of the difficulty as regards mixed trains. The difficulty appeared to me to be so important that I directed the Railway Inspectors to confer with a Committee of the General Managers as to the limitations which might reasonably be authorised. The Report of that Conference is now before me, and the necessary Orders will be issued without delay. It must not, however, be supposed that the Act has been inoperative because the Orders, generally speaking, have not yet been issued. Communications have passed between the Board of Trade and the Companies, and the latter are, as a rule, making preparations for an early compliance with the Act. I propose early next Session to lay on the Table a Return on the subject. As regards overtime, a Return has been presented and will shortly be circulated with reference to the months of September, 1889, and March, 1890. The result of the selection of these months will be considered before further Returns are called for.

  IRISH LICENCES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland are the Government opposed to the Bill to restrict the issue of new licences in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Member is aware, the restriction of the issue of new licences was an integral part of our general licensing scheme. That scheme was dropped, and with it the proposals in question. Without giving any opinion on the general question, I must frankly state it as my opinion that at this stage of the Session it would seem impossible to consider a Bill which is undoubtedly of great importance, and which, if it had formed part of the Government Bill, would doubtless have led to many hours' discussion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman's opinion also apply to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I should greatly rejoice if that Bill could be passed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are we to understand that in preference to taking my Bill, on which both sides are practically agreed, the Government propose to devote time to the discussion of the Sunday Closing Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apprehend the Government cannot give time for anything. But I believe the Irish Sunday Closing Bill meets with general approval, and I should be glad to see it passed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman forgets it has not been read a second time.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will call the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General of Her Majesty's Exchequer to the charges preferred against Governor Ker, C. M. G., of the Falkland Islands, in regard to the vouchers supporting the charge of £900 in connection with Government House, which are alleged to be fraudulent, with a view to their special examination by Sir Charles Ryan, and a Report obtained from that officer?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: I have already informed the hon. Member that I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which he refers, as no charges of this nature have been made to the Secretary of State; but as soon as I receive the evidence which the hon. Member has promised to place in my hands, the matter shall be looked into, and the attention of the Auditor General will be called to it if there appears to be even the slightest suspicion of fraud, though it must be apparent that no fraudulent act would be likely to escape the searching examination of the Audit Office. But, in justice to the Governor, I must protest against these charges being sent privately to the hon. Member, instead of officially to the Secretary of State, who alone can deal with them; and publicity is thus given to them behind the back of the Governor, and before he has had any opportunity of reporting upon them. The House will, I feel sure, under the circumstances, entirely suspend its judgment upon the matter.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these charges are the common talk in the colony, and does he not know that I put a question to him on the subject when the Governor himself was in this country?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State fully investigated the charges made at that time, and found that they were without foundation. This is an entirely new charge. Of course, if the hon. Member has further evidence we will look into it.

  RIGHTS OF WAY IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering that a Resolution was carried in the House on the 18th March in favour of vesting the responsibility for rights of way in Scotland in the County Councils, and that a wide feeling in favour of this reform exists in England as well as Scotland, and that a resolution to this effect was unanimously carried a few days ago in the County Council of Cumberland, the Government will introduce legislation next Session for vesting the control and responsibility for rights of way in the County Councils?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot pledge myself to such legislation as is suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  BRITISH INDIAN SUBJECTS IN THE ORANGE FREE STATES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to an Order issued by the Orange Free States, directing British Indian subjects to quit the towns within their jurisdiction; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for India will use his influence with the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a remonstrance in the terms of the Treaties of Pretoria in 1881 and of London, 1884, to secure for British subjects freedom of travel and trade?
  SIR J. GORST: The question as to the British Indian subjects in the Free States has been the cause of great anxiety to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, and he has used, and will continue to use, every means in his power to maintain those Treaty rights to which they are entitled.

  THE SMITH-BARRY ESTATE.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a list of 29 outrages, published in the Globe, 12th August, 1890, alleged to have been committed in connection with the dispute on the Smith-Barry estate, in the County of Tipperary, from September, 1889, until June last, including attempts to intimidate by means of personal violence, arson, destruction of property, attacks on the police, and the use of explosives; and whether he can state in how many of the cases mentioned any one has been made amenable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has been called, by my hon. Friend's question and by the copy of the paper he was good enough to send me, to the list of 29 outrages committed in connection with the combination against payment of rent on the Smith-Barry estate. I have made inquiries into the matter, and the list appears to be perfectly accurate.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether it included the outrages by the Police Constable Palmer, who had not been made amenable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: There are on the Paper about 50 Votes for Report, then the Indian Budget, and after that some important Bills. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to go on with the Indian Budget, the 50 Votes for Report, and the very important Bills to a late hour in the morning?
  SIR R. FOWLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman not allow the Indian Budget Debate to be adjourned, as was done in 1873?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is hoped that the House will go through the Report with some rapidity, if hon. Members will only exercise some of the discretion they showed yesterday. I am sure it is the general wish of the House that we should make progress. I am disposed to adhere rigidly to the order of business.
  MR. CRILLY: I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government intend to proceed with the line from Ballina to Belmullet in the County of Mayo? If it is the intention of the Government to

  991
  abandon the line, they should let the people know at once, because it is to the likelihood of work on this proposed line of railway that the people of the district are looking to save them from the consequences of the throatened potato famine?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I could certainly hold out no such expectation, with the funds at our command, that we could proceed with the line.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We have heard from the Attorney General for Ireland that it is the intention to give £244,600 to the Midland Railway Company in Ireland, and you are asking that the company shall be empowered to go on to the County of Galway, which is to contribute an additional £30,000. Now, this district is threatened with famine, and the consequences are likely to be very serious; and if this £30,000 is to be provided, I do hope that it will be equally divided between the owners and occupiers, and that the starving tenants will not have to pay the whole of that sum.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: An additional grant of £30,000 is required for the locality, besides which the Railway Company itself has to spend £30,000, £40,000, or £50,000 to complete the line. Contributions under all these railway schemes are advanced by the locality.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not fair that the landlords who will have the benefit of this line should also have the privilege of paying for it, and that the whole burden should not fall upon the starving tenants?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman asks me an abstract question as to whether I think the rates ought to be divided between the landlords and tenants in a particular county, I think he could hardly expect me to answer that now. There is no difference, obviously, between the guarantee of £30,000 in this case and the guarantee of £30,000 in the case of any other county for an analogous purpose. With regard to the special amount of £30,000, it has already been offered for a far worse line.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Privy Council rejected the action of the Grand Jury on the petition of these people that they ought not to be called upon to pay. When the Bill comes on to-night we shall discuss how this rate is to be divided. I think the landlord should have the privilege of paying.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Tenants' Compensation Bill; Public Health Acts Amendment Bill, with Amendments.
  That they do agree to certain of the Amendments made by this House to Bills of Sale Bill, with Amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and disagree to one other of the said Amendments, for which they assign their Reason.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [13th August] reported. (See pages 822 to 916).
  First Twenty Resolutions agreed to.
  Twenty-first Resolution (see page 858) read a second time.
  MR. BARTLBY: I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Departmental Committee, which has been sitting for four years on some branches of this Service, will be ended, and whether there is any prospect of the clerks being put upon the Second Division, or whether any decision is likely to be come to?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I believe the Report will be received this week from the Home Office. It is now under consideration.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions 22, 23, and 24 agreed to.
  Resolution 25 (see page 896) read a second time.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: With regard to the lighting of the South Kensington Museum, I understand that the Colonial Society, the Engineers' Society, and other large Societies who hold soirées there, light it at their own expense. What I want to ask is whether the Government will favourably consider the proposition to light the Natural History Museum at night, in order that the people may have further opportunity of seeing the splendid collections which are there displayed? There could be no more useful means of assisting education.
  MR. JACKSON: The introduction of the electric light is a matter of experiment. It has been thought advisable to begin with the British Museum, because it is nearer to the masses of the people, and is more easily reached by them than is the Natural History Museum. The same pressure has not as yet been put upon the Trustees to light the Natural History Museum, but experiments will be made with a view to the illumination of the building, should it ultimately be determined upon.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions 26 to 30 agreed to.
  Resolution 31 (see page 899) read a second time.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: This Vote was reserved for discussion on Report. It was, to a certain extent, discussed two or three months ago.
  MR. JACKSON: For four days.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The Secretary to the Treasury certainly misleads the House. What happened was this: The Government lumped together two or three large Votes, and South African affairs got not more than a fraction of the four days. There have been considerable events since the Vote for South Africa was last before the House. I gave notice of the reduction of the salary of the High Commissioner, and of the very much larger sum of £110,000 to meet the expenses of the police in Bechuanaland.
  (6.20.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Sir, £1,000 is given to the High Commissioner by the Cape Government as personal allowance. But it has since been disclosed—and I confess that I never understood it before—that he has £6,000 a year as Governor of the Cape, and £1,000 as personal allowance, and that the Cape Parliament has given him £2,000 a year, not as Cape Governor, but as High Commissioner. I must say I learn that with great astonishment. I cannot conceive why the Cape should pay him £2,000 a year. It seems to me very objectionable indeed that the High Commissioner should not be wholly our servant. That he is the servant of the
  994
  Cape Government is becoming more and more evident, especially having regard to the Treaty which was negotiated by the High Commissioner, which was the subject of a very sharp Debate at 2 or 3 o'clock the other morning. Sir, I am very much surprised indeed that the Swaziland Treaty——
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESH. de WORMS,: I rise to order. Swaziland does not arise on this Vote.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: It arises on the salary of the High Commissioner, who negotiated this Treaty with a Cape politician in his joint capacity of servant of the British Government and of the Cape Government. These negotiations have resulted entirely in the interests of the Cape Government, and contrary to the interests of Natal. Some considerable concessions have been given to the Transvaal Government with regard to this question. It seems to me an extraordinary Treaty to have been made under the ægis of Great Britain. The Cape has maintained high protective duties to the extent of 15 per cent., while Natal has successfully gone in for Free Trade. Yet by this Treaty Natal is left out in the cold—a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of a Free Trade country like ours. It is a Treaty which enables the Cape Colony to maintain a protective system totally adverse to the interests of Free Trade, and most unjust and unfair to the Colony of Natal. I am at a loss to understand why we should force the Transvaal to join this Protective Union. And why we should force the Colony of Natal to join the Protective Union against the interests of Great Britain I am also at a loss to understand. I am convinced that it is a very great mistake to combine the offices of Governor of the Cape and High Commissioner of South Africa. I do not see why the Cape should rule over all the rest of South Africa. They have quite enough to do to manage their own affairs. They have managed them so badly that there has been a repetition of wars in South Africa. I hope, with regard to Basutoland, taken from the administration of the Cape, hon. Members will read the White Book, which shows the immense success which has attended the administration of Basutoland by the British Government, I think we ought

  995
  either to establish a great British South African. Dominion, to be administered by a great officer who would be independent of the Cape, or else that we should promote the federation of the States of South Africa, and wash our hands of all responsibility for the natives. I should be sorry if we ever gave up the Cape, because I have always looked upon it as a sort of midway house between England and India. There is another alternative, and that is that we should take the chestnuts out of the fire for the Cape, that we should annex this country and do all the fighting for the Cape, and that we should then make the territory over to the Cape. That is an alternative which I do not favour. With regard to Swaziland, it is very common for us to rob Native States of everything worth having, and then to make Treaties for protecting them. What I gather is that this drunken Swazi King has conceded the whole of his territory several times over. If the concessions are maintained the result will be that, having got everything from the natives, we should leave them to govern themselves, and leave the Europeans, who have obtained all the plums, to govern themselves. I want to know whether the European Courts are to decide questions between European natives, or who is to decide them? There is a great and vital question as to whether this King has power to make concessions of the whole of his territory without the consent of his people. Who is to decide that question in Swaziland? Is the Court to be a one sided tribunal consisting of Europeans alone, or are the natives to have a voice in it? Then there is the question of the validity of the claims of the British South Africa Company upon these territories. We know that the validity of the grants made by the Swazi King is disputed by a very large portion of the Matabele people. Is the Company to be allowed to decide in its own favour, and to appropriate the whole of the minerals? It is patent that at this moment the Army of the South Africa Company, such as it is, is in course of entering upon the territories it claims, and it is extremely likely that there may be bloodshed between the people of Swaziland, denying the right of their King to make a concession, and the Company's men, who, I believe, were called filibusters by an
  996
  eminent Member of the Government whom I see opposite (Sir J. Gorst.) Well, I want to know who is to decide upon the validity of these concessions? Then there is the question of Bechuanaland. We are asked to spend £110,000 on Bechuanaland, and this expenditure has been growing year by year. This year the amount in the Estimates was at first £80,000, but there has been a Supplementary Estimate of £30,000, which brings the amount up to £110,000. Bechuanaland is one of those chesnuts which we are asked to take out of the fire, for we are told by Sir Hercules Robinson that we shall have to give it to the Cape in the end. This large force, practically a military force, for which this money is to be voted, is not to be used in Bechuanaland, but in the protected territory beyond, to the minerals in which the South Africa Company say they have obtained a claim. I ask, why should we be put to this expense if this Company is to have the benefit of the diamonds and minerals in that region? The Company should pay for its own police. As to SouthAfrica, a question was asked to day with reference to the treatment of native Indian British subjects in that part of the world. The Under Secretary for India, in reply to that question, told the House, and I have no doubt very fairly, that these subjects of Her Majesty have the sympathy of the Government of India. I hope the Government of India has never been wanting in sympathy for Her Majesty's Indian subjects. But I want to know whether the Indian Government has induced the Secretary for the Colonies, and other Members of the Government, to adopt their view. Are these Ministers as zealous for the welfare of Her Majesty's Indian subjects as they would be for the welfare of Her Majesty's white subjects? We are told that remonstrances have been addressed to the Colonial Office, and that the Colonial Office is doing the best it can to induce the Transvaal and the Orange Free State to deal fairly by these Indian subjects of the Queen; but what I want to know is this: are they pressing the matter as if it were a case in which white men were concerned—white men with British constituents behind them? I cannot believe that they are doing so. In the case of Swaziland, when I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Under

  997
  Secretary for the Colonies if he could do anything in the interests of Her Majesty's Indian subjects in that country he said it was impossible to do so, as Swaziland was an independent country. Well, I think that if Manchester traders had been excluded by a Resolution of Dutch Settlers in Swaziland, as were Her Majesty's Indian subjects, we should not have submitted to it quite so tamely as we have done. I know that we are to have a voice in the Government of Swaziland, and I want to know whether care will be taken to mete out equal justice to all Her Majesty's subjects, and, if there is to be Free Trade for Manchester people, whether it is also to be conferred upon our enterprising Indian fellow-subjects as well? I do not call these Indian subjects of Her Majesty "the Jews of the East," as that is a term which implies some reproach. The Jews are not a very much respected body in the East of Europe. But they are contented with small profits, and Her Majesty's Indian subjects in South Africa are very like them. Their wants are few, and they are content to push their trade into Western countries by earning small profits. The result of the trading of these people has been so successful as to make all Europeans who come in contact with them extremely jealous. The traders in the Transvaal and in the Orange Free State and in South Africa generally are jealous of being under-sold by these industrious natives of India, and the result is that wherever it has been possible they have been shut out, and wherever it has not been possible attempts have been made to shut them out. Their influence in Natal has been undermined, and I do not know that they are very safe there. What I want to know is whether some effort will not be made to do justice to these people in the same way as if they were white traders. As we have already had a discussion on many points which arise under this Vote, it would not be fair to repeat what has been said, therefore I will confine myself to these observations, which bear upon matters we have had no opportunity of discussing.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The greater part of the speech of the hon. Member has been made by him once before—on June 2. On that occasion, however, the operation of the 12 o'clock Rule prevented
  998
  my replying, and so the hon. Member, no doubt, has thought himself justified in repeating his speech. But had the hon. Member been present on a recent occasion at about 3 o'clock in the morning he would know that every single question now put by him with respect to the Swaziland Convention has already been answered, and it is very much to be regretted that I should have to take up the time of the House by repeating the replies I then gave merely because the hon. Member was absent from the House on that occasion.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have not found a full report of the right hon. Member's speech in the Times.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: If a speech delivered at 3 o'clock in the morning cannot be reported at full length, that hardly constitutes a sufficient reason for making me repeat it. The hon. Member alleges that the Cape Government has not been sufficiently consulted with reference to the Swaziland Convention. Curiously enough, on the last occasion when the subject was considered an hon. Member sitting on the same side of the House as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy declared that the Convention has been drawn up wholly in the interests of the Cape Government. There is no clause in the Treaty to justify these views. The object of the Treaty is to establish a proper and fair understanding with the Transvaal Government on the subject of the government of Swaziland. Under the rule of the "drunken King," to whom allusion has been made, the condition of affairs in Swaziland had become disgraceful. The country was really governed by a small committee of Europeans who consulted mainly their own interests, and matters came to such a pass that remedial steps had to be taken. The Transvaal Government having intimated that they intended to send an officer to Swaziland with that object, Her Majesty's Government thought right to send a British Representative to accompany him, and Colonel Martin was appointed in that capacity. The hon. Member asks me by whom a black would be tried who should have come into conflict with a white. According to the telegraphic summary of the arrangements, there is to be a Court of justice to administer Roman-Dutch Law and to

  999
  decide all cases, civil and criminal, between white settlers. No mention is made of natives, but I presume that a case between a white and a black would be determined in the same way. Of course, disputes between natives will continue to be decided by the King or Indunas, according to the custom of the country. By the Treaty of London we are debarred from taking possession of Swaziland ourselves, and the hon. Member, I feel sure, will not advocate our surrendering the country to the Boers. The middle course of recognising a joint Government had accordingly to be taken. The hon. Member has spoken in indignant terms about the concessions granted by the Swazi King. How, I should like to know, could the English Government have prevented the King from making these concessions? By what authority could they have prevented a ruler from doing what he liked with his own land? The hon. Member, following his usual practice, criticised, but failed to suggest remedies. His is the criticism of irresponsibility and sometimes of ignorance.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I would explain that I want to know who is to decide as to the validity of the concessions?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: That question is settled by the Convention. The Court to be appointed will inquire into the validity of the concessions. Then the hon. Gentleman asks me a question in regard to the concessions granted by the Chief Lobengula. We have nothing whatever to do with concessions granted by Lobengula or by any other African chief. When the British South African Company obtained these concessions we thought it advisable to grant a charter giving the Company a higher status than it would have had had it been simply a Limited Liability Company. Further than that, the Government had nothing whatever to do with the South Africa Company. As to the additional expenditure in Bechuanaland, I can only repeat that it is for the purpose of paying for 100 more police mainly to protect the construction of the line of telegraph. It is hoped that the increase in expenditure may be only temporary, and we have, by our precautionary measure in asking for an addition to the police force, prevented further great expenditure.
  DR. CLARK: The right hon. Gentleman has not given us the details he promised with regard to the expenditure in Bechuanaland. How much of this money is for police? I wish to say a few words on the question. Practically, all the colony of Bechuanaland belongs to two chiefs, and practically all their best land has been taken from them. I happened to see these chiefs a couple of years ago, and it was heart-rending to hear them say that, in consequence of the loss of all their land, their cattle could only be taken to water once in three days. If, instead of throwing away £100,000 on extra police, the Government would put a dam in the river, they would be able to secure a good water supply, and the whole of the land would be made like a garden. Why spend this money on the police? If you want an armed force there, why not give the country a proper British force, and rule it as a Crown Colony? The land lies far above the sea-level, the climate is healthy, and the country would make a splendid sanatorium. The South African Company are building a railway through Bechuanaland. It seems to me that if the Government are going to rule it as a Crown Colony, they must either spend money themselves in developing its resources, or allow the colony to raise money and spend it. Hitherto they have acted like the dog in the manger—they will neither improve the country themselves, nor will they allow anyone else to do so. Hence the white population in Bechuanaland has diminished, and the native population is very discontented. I think there should be some Treaty between Bechuanaland and the Transvaal. The late High Commissioner's policy was one of starving out Bechuanaland, and compelling the Imperial Government to hand it over to the Cape. If the policy of the new Commissioner is to hold Bechuanaland as a Crown Colony, some money must be spent in developing its resources, and bringing white settlers into it. Well, you have given the country over to this company. That being so, surely the company, and not the British Government, ought to spend this £100,000. There are five tribes forming the Bechuana people, and Bechuanaland itself contains only two of them. If the High Commissioner is not going to annex Bechuanaland for a

  1001
  time, he must take the whole of the five tribes and form them into a colony. The man who is responsible for what has taken place is the late Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson. From the beginning he has protested against handing over Bechuanaland to the Cape. I trust that, before we are asked to vote money next year for this purpose, some policy may be placed before us. The Cape is now going to make 250 miles of railway through this territory. The Bill passed the Cape Legislature two or three days ago. The line will cost the Cape between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000, and I think, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government might spend their £l,000,000 in damming up the river so as to give the country water during the dry season. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in some respects. When the King made the first concession, he sent down to the Natal Government for permission. All the Government of Natal need have done was to give him a hint that he should not make the concession. You cannot get rid of your responsibility. You only go back to the Treaty of London; but, as a matter of fact, you ought to go back to the Treaty of 1881. By that Treaty Swaziland was cut away from the Transvaal because there were no white men there. Here is a splendid race debauched and destroyed by the action of the Colonial Office, and yet they deny responsibility. Lobengula was not desirous to give the concession, and, indeed, he has repudiated it. You are aiding and abetting Mr. Rhodes in sending a force of 1,000 armed men to take possession of the territory. Sir Sydney Sheppard approves of the proceedings of Mr. Rhodes, and will not permit anyone else to go through Bechuanaland. Lobengula states that the concession was got by fraud, and that he never intended to give it. You are responsible for the action of the Company. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government have given permission to Colonel Carrington to head what was called the police. He is really a recruiting agent. You are responsible, because these 1,000 armed men, these armed filibusters, are going into the King's territory against his will. You are giving these men every assistance you can. The captains of the
  1002
  companies are men holding commissions from Her Majesty. I think that before the Government ask for more money in respect to Bechuanaland, they should let us know what they intend to do.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 32 agreed to.
  Resolution 33 read a second time.
  DR. CAMERON: I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum proposed to be taken in payment of the subsidy for the Halifax and Bermuda cable. Late as is the period of the Session it would be wrong to allow this payment to pass without some protest against the action of this House being over-ridden by a mere Treasury Solicitor, because it was on the advice of a Treasury Solicitor that the deliberate vote of this House has been overthrown. There is about this matter a most suspicious resemblance to an unbusiness-like job, and I think it but fair we should receive some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury. The laying of the cable between Halifax and Bermuda has been long before the Government of the country, and it has been advocated by Naval and Military Authorities on strategic grounds. In 1886 Her Majesty's Government invited tenders for such a cable. Four offers were made, and the lowest was that of the International Cable Company. This Company offered to lay the cable for a subsidy of £8,000 a year for a period of 20 years. The Treasury came to the conclusion that the amount of the subsidy was excessive, and, therefore, they refused to enter into the transactions. In April, 1888, a fresh invitation for tenders was made. Three tenders were sent in, and again the lowest was that of the International Cable Company, who this time volunteered to construct and lay the cable for £6,923 a year for 20 years. This offer was accepted, but subsequently the Company asked to withdraw from the contract, on the ground of the price of material, owing, I suppose, to the corner in copper, so that the contract would be unremunerative. The Treasury very properly cancelled the contract, and invited the International Cable Company and its competitors to send in fresh tenders. Tenders were sent in,

  1003
  and again that of the International Cable Company was the lowest. On this occasion the Company offered to lay the cable for £8,100 a year, extending over 20 years. Before the contract was ratified, the copper ring had collapsed, and I doubt whether there was any particularly valid reason for increasing the subsidy. A contract between the Treasury and the Company was entered into. The Treasury required special securities for the due performance of the contract. Article 14 of the contract sets forth that the capital of the Company, to the amount of £100,000, shall be subscribed and fully paid, within one month of the date of the execution of the agreement, or within seven days of the approval of the agreement by the House of Commons, whichever should first happen. It was further provided that if the Company failed to fulfil any of the conditions, the agreement should thereupon absolutely cease and determine. The condition set forth in Article 14 was not carried into effect. On the 12th of March the money should have been subscribed and fully paid up; but I was astonished to see in the newspapers on the 24th of March a prospectus, not issued by the International Cable Company, but by the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company, inviting subscriptions for £120,000 worth of debentures for the purpose of laying this cable. The prospectus was a most peculiar document. It did not state what was the paid-up capital of the Company; indeed, several things in it induced me to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation. He told me that the time had been extended, and that the contract had been transferred to another Company. Well, but I want to find out something about this other Company. From my inquiries at Somerset House, I learned that the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company was not registered at the time the contract was approved. I also gathered from the information to be found at Somerset House that the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company had its Articles of Association subscribed by one merchant, one accountant, one agent, and four clerks. The nominal capital amounted to £50,000; but, according to information which came to Somerset House, only £35 had been subscribed by the gentlemen named in
  1004
  the Articles. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman what amount of subscribed capital has the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company? The Articles of Association were of the usual tempting character. The Chairman was to receive £300, and the Directors £200 each, and 5 per cent. on the profits above 6 per cent., the Directors being called upon to act upon the representations of these gentlemen, consisting of a merchant, an agent, and four clerks. Then, having got up this bogus company, a prospectus was issued inviting the public to subscribe for £120,000 Four per cent. Mortgage Debenture Bonds for the purpose of laying this cable, the capital for which was to be subscribed in full and paid up before the 12th May. Long before this a prospectus was issued which contained statements of a most misleading character involving the declaration as a fact that there was a Government subsidy, which the Government had promised, of £8,100 a year for 20 years. Now, the Government had agreed to nothing of the sort, but had agreed to pay under certain conditions, and the contract contained a clause that if the cable should cease to work for six months, the whole thing lapsed into the hands of the Government. Where, then, would be the subsidy upon which the debenture holders were to rely? This subsidy was to last for 20 years, but the interest on the £120,000 was to be payable for 26 years, so that, having the capital subscribed, the Directors could carry on until five years of the time, and then leave the debentures to take care of themselves on maturity. Having seen this prospectus, I put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman, and after a good deal of pressing he promised a Treasury Minute, which Minute is, if I may be allowed the expression, about the "cheekiest" thing of the kind I have ever seen. Clause 14 of the contract states that, unless £100,000 are subscribed by the 12th May, the contract shall be null and void; and this Minute goes on to state that subsequent to this, and before the approval of the House of Commons, application was made to the Lords of the Treasury for the transfer of the agreement to another company specially formed to carry out the contract, and it was stated their Lordships entertained the application, but did not ratify it

  1005
  until the contract was affirmed by the House. The right hon. Gentleman, in his explanation of the contract, never told us a word about this; that it was proposed that a bogus company should be formed; that the contract was to be handed over to a non-existent company. In anticipation of the approval of the House, the Minute says the Company proved to the satisfaction of the Treasury Solicitor that capital to the extent of £100,000 had been underwritten by responsible parties. Now, I do not like this underwritten capital; it means a commission to somebody. The prospectus asked for £120,000, and went on to say that Her Majesty's Government would subscribe £8,100 a year on condition that a paid-up capital of £100,000 was subscribed, and that, unless this condition was complied with, the Directors would not proceed to allotment. This means that this newly-formed Company, consisting of the merchant, agent, and clerks, with its paid-up capital of £35 at the time it got the contract, asked £120,000 from the public simply for the purpose of putting it in funds to lay the cable, and expressly told the public that unless £120,000 were subscribed it would not proceed to allotment; and I suppose if that had not been so, there would have been another extension of time, and the control of the House of Commons over these financial transactions would have become still more ridiculous. In this position of matters the Treasury gave a provisional sanction to the transfer to the proposed new Company, and, the Treasury Solicitor being satisfied of the security contemplated by Clause 14, the extension of time was granted. But what right had the Treasury to over-ride the contract, which had the force of law? If this explanation had been before the House when the right hon. Gentleman was defending this contract there would have been rather more criticism than there was. The Treasury Minute was a sort of sop to Cerberus, and we have had no opportunity for discussion until now. The company having been inaugurated, is, to a certain extent, connected with Her Majesty's Government, and they are responsible for it, because under the contract they nominate one member of the Board, and consequently have a right to all the information about the company. I ask
  1006
  the Secretary to the Treasury to state what was the amount of capital subscribed to this company on the 12th of April; what was the date on which he agreed formally to transfer the contract to them, and what amount of capital was subscribed at that date, independently of the debentures on which they got the public to subscribe money on grossly false pretences. If the cable comes to grief, if the payment of the subsidy is suspended, the debenture holders have no security. The statements in the prospectus are grossly misleading. I do not think there is a Financial Minister of the Argentine Republic, I might almost say of Guatemala, that would not have come forward and warned the public against a proceeding in which the national honour is involved and the national credit may be damaged. It is not well for a Finance Minister to disregard the promptings of punctilious honour in this connection. The Treasury Minute was simply a means of blinding and bamboozling the House. As the House ratified the contract, so it should stand; and if it became necessary that it should be modified, then the Treasury should have come to the House with a modified form of contract to be sanctioned; the terms of the contract should not be set aside on the mere authority of the Treasury Solicitor. I have brought this matter forward for two reasons: In the first place, because it involves a gross infraction of the control of this House over contracts submitted to it for ratification; secondly, because of the peculiarities of the whole transaction from beginning to end. The cable which was to have been laid within five months of May last year was only laid the other day. It was provided under the contract that there should be direct communication with a cable landing in this country.
  MR. JACKSON: Not here, but in Halifax.
  DR. CAMERON: The strategic object, of course, was direct communication through our own territory with Bermuda. The company have made no arrangement yet, so far as I am aware, to carry out this condition. The cable was laid at the beginning of last month. We shall probably be told the cable is excellent, and that it was urgently demanded for strategical reasons. But

  1007
  I want to know about this capital of £35 subscribed, and this £50,000 nominal capital, and why the Treasury have allowed the statements in the prospectus to go unchallenged.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£28,375," in order to insert "£22,300."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That '£28,375' stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: The hon. Member has brought forward this question not now for the first time; and I had the opportunity of explaining on a previous occasion what took place, I think, to the satisfaction of the House, and I had hoped to the satisfaction of the hon. Member. He has asked me many questions in reference to the Company which I am unable to answer. I decline any responsibility on behalf of the Government for any statement published in the prospectus. It appears to me to be no part of their duty; and as I stated the other day, I think the Government would be very unwise to undertake to protect those who have money to invest, against others who seek to obtain the investment.
  DR. CAMERON: I said there was a temptation to invest on the faith of a Government subsidy.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, the hon. Member says that was the statement; but it was not made by the Government, nor have they any responsibility for it. The whole thing is in a nutshell. The hon. Gentleman has referred at great length to proceedings under this contract. He has pointed out that, in the first instance, the Government refused tenders because they were excessive. The tenders originally received ranged from £20,000 to £8,000; and while the advisers of the Treasury declared the highest tenders to be excessive, the Treasury did not regard the company which made the lowest tender as one whose power to carry out the contract might command complete and implicit confidence. The Government, therefore, hesitated about accepting the lowest tender. and were unwilling to agree to the terms of the highest tender. A year passed and we were again pressed, for reasons the hon. Gentleman has stated,
  1008
  to provide the cable. Fresh tenders were called for, and the hon. Member has described correctly what took place as regards the tenders sent in. We then took what certainly, I believe, was a new departure; we laid down a condition that would actually provide a security for the laying of the cable. Our object was to secure that the contract should be given only to somebody who had the power to carry it out. The security was provided, the capital was subscribed, and the cable was laid, and is now in working order. Therefore, the whole object of the Government in attaching the new condition has been fulfilled. We are to-day in the position of having what, according to all accounts, is a very good cable for our money, in working order. That is the whole story. By the effective competition secured by inviting fresh tenders we saved in the first place £4,000 a year.
  DR. CAMERON: The tender accepted was £8,100 as against £8,000 offered by the same company previously and considered excessive.
  MR. JACKSON: No; I do not accept that at all. The Treasury at the time the four tenders were sent in had regard to the conditions for securing the carrying out of the contract and the laying of the cable. The next highest tender was £12,000, and the highest of all was £20,000; therefore, I think I am justified in saying that we have saved £40,000 a year for 20 years by the contract. We have, at the same time, a satisfactory cable, and I should have thought that instead of seeming to sneer at what we have done the hon. Gentleman would have congratulated the Treasury on the economical and satisfactory result. That is the whole story, and I hope the House, by confirming the Vote, will agree that we have secured the object we set ourselves to obtain. The hon. Member referred to the connection with a Cable Company having a landing station at Halifax. This we are advised has been done.
  DR. CAMERON: An arrangement connecting with an Atlantic Cable Company?
  MR. JACKSON: I believe that has been done, that this condition has been fulfilled.
  (7.57.) The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 37.—(Div. List, No. 253.)
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 34 (see page 901), read a second time.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision he has come to in pursuance of his promise to consider the question of medical certificates before retiring allowances are granted. I have seen a paragraph in the papers that the rules which have governed these matters in the past have been modified, and that a medical certificate from a private practitioner is not to be accepted by itself. I desire to know what it is will be insisted upon in the future.
  MR. JACKSON: The rule followed is this, that when one certificate is accepted it must be that of a medical officer of the Department, and if an individual forwards a certificate from his own doctor the Treasury require it, in case that doctor is not a medical officer of the Department, to be confirmed by the public medical officer.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions 35 to 39 agreed to.
  Resolution 40 (see page 904) read a second time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I rise to raise a final protest against the burden which has been thrown upon the Exchequer in connection with the funeral of the Duchess of Cambridge. I also wish to comment on the contempt with which the offer of the hon. Member for Boston to defray this charge has been met by the Government. The hon. Member offered to pay the £180 out of his own pocket, but the Government have taken no notice of that offer. I venture to say that if the sum was accepted the £180 now proposed to be devoted to defraying the funeral expenses might be put to other and more beneficial purposes.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I want some clear explanation, which I failed to get last night, as to the charge of £430 for fees payable on the installation of Prince Henry of Prussia as a Knight of the Garter. We know that there are ordinary and extraordinary
  1010
  members of this Order of the Garter. The extraordinary members are limited in number, and consist of foreign princes, to whom Her Majesty grants the Order. I do not wish to protest against the Queen's granting this Order to any number of foreign princes, but it seems to me a strong measure that when Her Majesty confers this distinction we should be asked to pay a sum of £430 in the form of fees to the Garter King at Arms, who receives a salary, and who also receives fees from persons who want him to prove that they belong to ancient families. Now, why should he be paid additional fees when these honours are conferred? I have protested against this expenditure for several years past, and I am glad to say that my efforts have met with a certain amount of success. Formerly when a Knight was made he was given his robes, and if he happened to be a foreigner he also received his underclothing. For many years I have laboured in this vineyard, and I am happy to say that I have succeeded, by persistent efforts, in preventing English noblemen from receiving their robes at all, and I have also prevented Foreign Potentates from being supplied with their under clothing. I have to thank the Government sincerely for this concession. At present, when a Foreign Potentate is made a Knight of the Garter he receives his robes, but not his underclothing. These robes are only worn at Coronations, and I hope that in due time we shall abandon the practice of giving them, seeing that, in all probability, after they have been in the possession of a Knight of the Garter for a few months they are handed over to his valet de chamber. The robes, I believe, cost several hundreds of pounds. Of course, I admit it is absurd to expect a Foreign Prince who is made a Knight of the Garter to pay his own fees, but seeing that the robes are simply useless I think we might abandon the practice of supplying them. What I want to call the attention of this House to is the monstrous proposition that Her Majesty should be debarred from making Knights of the Garter simply because, whenever she does so, it throws a charge of £430 upon the nation. One of the Junior Lords of the Treasury opposite, the hon. Member for Wigton, when defending this, suggested that, as when anyone was

  1011
  raised to the English Peerage a heavy fee was paid into the Exchequer, that was sufficient to counterbalance the outgoings in connection with the fees on making Knights of the Garter. But I think that is rather a false principle, because another Government might say that in a given year when there had been several Knights of the Garter made, and no English Peers, and when, consequently, there was a considerable loss, the only way to cover it was by creating a number of English Peers. Personally, so far as their legislative value is, concerned I should not be unwilling to the making of anyone a Peer who was willing to pay a sum of £500 for the honour. I am not the first one to propose such a thing, for Count Cavour made a proposal to the same effect in Italy once, when the national funds were in a low condition, and offered to make anyone a Count who was willing to pay into the Exchequer 10,000frs. In saying this, therefore, I am only following the example of an eminent statesman.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I wish to say a few words with reference to the charge for the funeral of the Duchess of Cambridge. I believe some heated feeling was manifested in this House on the subject last night. I regret I was not then present to record my vote. This is, on the face of it, a small thing, but in reality it is an important and serious question. I have been associated with men and women for some years past in endeavouring to set an example to the labouring people of the country to economise in the matter of funerals. Nothing could be more sad than the way in which some people allow their relatives to die in a workhouse, and then spend large sums of money on their funerals. A near relative of my own, a large landowner in Wales, who died not long since, directed that he should be conveyed to his grave on the parish hearse, in order to set an example to the people in this matter. I say it is not right to spend large sums of money in this way. I know cases of poor old people who hardly get enough to eat, and yet have £10 or £15 put away in order to cover the expense of their funeral. To labouring men, an outlay of £180 for a funeral is an enormous one, and I think we are setting a
  1012
  very bad example to the working classes by consenting to this Vote. I represent a working class constituency, and it will be my duty to explain my vote on this question to my constituents, and it will be very difficult for me to justify this Vote. The relatives of the late Duchess of Cambridge know what manner of men are to be found on this side of the House, and that the Vote would certainly be discussed and criticised. The charge is an outrage; it is injurious to the Throne; injurious to the Constitution of the country, and injurious to the aristocracy. I want to prevent this thing happening again. I regret it should be necessary to discuss this question here, but I feel it my duty to raise this protest on behalf of the labouring classes.
  MR. BARTLEY: I notice in this Vote there is an item of a compassionate allowance for one Smythe, in respect of forfeited deposits in the Savings Banks. Under a rule which prevails, if a man has two accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank, he is liable to forfeit the whole of his savings. This rule is so unjust and unfair that whenever such a case occurs a compassionate allowance has to be asked for in Parliament to repay the depositor. I think the time has come when there should be some change in the law in this matter, and that an Act should be passed obviating this injustice.
  MR. WALLACE: I should have thought it was the duty of the Executors of the Duchess of Cambridge to defray the cost of her funeral, and that that would be one of the first expenses that would be met out of the estate. I wish to ask whether the Government voluntarily went to the Executors and offered to pay these expenses, or if the Executors approached the Government and asked them to do so. I put this as a matter of business, because I am anxious to be informed exactly how this transaction stands.
  MR. HOWELL: I should like to know how it is that duplicate accounts are allowed to be opened in the Savings Banks. We know from the evidence given before the Select Committee that this practice is encouraged. Seeing that great injustice is often done under this provision, I wish to know who is responsible for it.
  MR. JACKSON: With regard to the point raised in reference to the Savings Banks in the particular case mentioned in this Vote, the person died, and it was discovered that he had two accounts. Under the existing law, his deposits were absolutely forfeited. Extremely hard cases, no doubt, occur from time to time, and, in order to meet them, the Government have to come to this House for the money. With regard to the question of the funeral expenses of the Duchess of Cambridge, £180 was the expenditure by the Office of Works in making preparations that were absolutely necessary. In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh I may say that we have simply followed what has been the practice for all time, and, with all deference to Members who have raised this question, I think it is a very small question to have raised. I mean to say that, so far as my knowledge of the working classes goes, hon. Members opposite have not expressed their view on this matter. In all cases it has been our invariable practice to ascertain if the expenses incurred by the Office of Works have been paid, and there has been no exception in this case. We have simply followed the invariable rule, and I hope that after what I have said the House will affirm this Resolution.
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,: With reference to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, I may state that the fees of the Herald's College are secured to it by Statute, and if the hon. Member objects to that he will at least know that what has been done has been done by the action of Parliament. At any rate we have no power over the fees.
  MR. MORTON: It has always been understood that the allowance made to Members of the Royal Family is a maximum amount, and inasmuch as this good lady had received altogether about a quarter of a million of public money since her husband's death, and was able to leave a large sum to her family, there is no reason why the public should be called upon to pay this funeral bill. Something has been said about objections taken to these payments by the working men. No doubt they do object, but there are others who object to such payments besides the working
  1014
  men, and I find that those objections come as much from Tories (outside this House) as they do from the Liberals. I think it is time we put a stop to this sort of thing. We have been told that these payments have been going on for many years, but a good many other bad customs have also been going on. I do not suppose we shall stop this Vote tonight, but discussions such as this have stopped other Votes, and I remember reading that the Member for North Paddington put a stop to the payments of the same kind for the expenses of boats crossing the Channel. It is only by criticism in this House that we can hope to put a stop to these extraordinary and unfair payments, because they are frequently made before we have an opportunity of saying whether we desire to pay the money or not. These payments being forced through by an obedient majority, who come here in force at the bidding of the Government, whether the people like them or not. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, in order to let the Government know that the people of this country are tired of this sort of thing, and that we are determined, as far as we can, although in a minority, to express our opinion upon expenditure such as this.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I trust that there will be no necessity for a Division, which, personally, I should deprecate, on so painful a matter. If this contribution has to be defrayed by the Executors I should feel myself compelled——
  MR. JACKSON: I said it was defrayed by the Office of Works.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I was trying to elicit from the hon. Gentleman whether instead of this sum being chargeable to the Executors it is in the nature of an expenditure which must necessarily fall on the Exchequer. I understand that on the burial of a certain lady there was a manifestation of respect in connection with a particular Department, and in that case the money could not properly be charged against the estate of the deceased lady. This was not previously explained, and if a Division had been taken upon it it would have been due to the want of that explanation.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions 41 to 48 agreed to.

  SUPPLY [8TH AUGUST]—REPORT
  Postponed Resolution further considered.
  Resolution 3.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,300,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, and Maintenance, including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1891."
  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [13TH AUGUST].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, the sum of £31,057,732 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution agreed to.

MOTION.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION BILL.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to move for leave to introduce the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply a sum, out of the Consolidated Fund, to the Service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and that Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson do prepare and bring it in."
  MR. SEXTON: I think it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would say when he proposes to take the further stages of this Bill.
  MR JACKSON: The Second Reading of the Bill is fixed for to-morrow.
  MR. SEXTON: I asked when the further stages would be taken.
  MR. JACKSON: As far as I can judge at present the Second Reading will be taken to-morrow, the Committee Stage on Saturday, and there will be an early Sitting of the House on Monday to take the Third Reading, by which means I hope the hon. Members will be able to bring their labours to a close on that day.
  MR. SEXTON: Are we to assume that at the Saturday Sitting nothing but Government business will be taken
  MR. JACKSON: I presume that that will be so.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: I think I may congratulate the Committee of the House of Commons on being at last in a position to spare a few hours for the consideration of Indian Finance. I have noticed that there is a Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton, regretting the late period of the Session at which the accounts relating to the Revenues of India have been presented. But I will not waste the precious time which we now have at our disposal in the expression of hypocritical regrets at the delay that has occurred. I am quite aware that the neglect of India by the House of Commons has its advantages as well as its disadvantages, but, whether it is good or no, it is one of the conditions under which India has to suffer. Those who are responsible for the affairs of India must make up their minds not only to indifference on the part of the House of Commons, but, also to the absolute inability on the part of this House to pass the most ordinary and necessary Departmental measures; a state of things that is varied now and then by a sort of fierce Parliamentary search-light which is thrown upon every detail of Indian administration, however insignificant. These being the conditions under which we are placed, now that I have the opportunity of addressing the Committee of this House on the subject of Indian Finance, I have nothing but a dull and prosaic tale of prosperity to unfold. The formal resolution which it is my duty to move in Committee tonight has reference only to the completed accounts of the year 1888–9. Those accounts began in March, 1888, with a deficiency of Rx698,000, and are now closed with a surplus of Rx37,000. That is not a bad result. The causes of

  1017
  that improvement were fully explained by me 12 months ago, and I will not waste the time of the Committee by repeating what I then said. The interest of the Committee to-night will, no doubt, be rather concentrated upon the year 1889–90, of which we have the revised estimate before us, although the accounts have not yet been closed, and on the Budget estimate of 1890–1, of which only four months have as yet gone by. Now, the revised estimate of 1889–90 tells the same tale of continued improving financial prosperity which signalised the year 1888–9. The surplus which was estimated in the Budget of March, 1889–90, was Rx106,000, but in August last year, when I addressed the House of Commons on this subject, I was able to announce that this estimated surplus had actually increased to Rx693,000. In the statement made by Sir David Barbour, in March last, in India, that surplus had grown to Rx.1,810,000, and the surplus which I am able to declare to the Committee tonight will be seen from the figures on page 7 of the estimate I have circulated, to be no less than Rx2,677,000. Great as this surplus is, it gives a very inadequate idea of the real improvement which has taken place in the Indian Revenue, because, in March last, the Government of India, seeing how great the surplus was likely to be, took active steps to diminish that surplus by a voluntary arrangement, by which they postponed from the year 1889–90 to the year 1890–91 a very large item of receipts, namely, the sum of Rx490,000 which was to be paid by the Provincial Governments as a special contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, and they also appropriated the sum of Rx433,500 to what the Government call the Famine Grant, annihilating in this way Rx923,000 of their surplus. Therefore, if the revised Estimate had been framed on the same basis as the original Budget, the surplus which Sir David Barbour had to declare in March last, would have been Rx2,733,000, while the surplus we should have to announce tonight would have been Rx3,600,500; this is a very satisfactory result. Well, Sir, the Committee would probably like to hear from me in the first instance some observations on the cause of this extraordinary
  1018
  financial improvement, and I may state that it is not in any degree due, as might perhaps have been supposed, to the alteration in the rate of exchange. The rise in exchange began at the end of July, and during the greater part of the year the rupee was actually lower in value than was calculated in the Estimate. The original Estimate was Is. 4·38d. per rupee, and the actual result realised was only Is. 4·55d.—a very slight rise. The real cause of the enormous improvement that has taken place has been partly increased revenue and partly diminished expenditure, the gain on the value of the rupee only amounting to Rx200,000, which, in a surplus of Rx3,600,500, is a very small fraction. Of the increased revenue, some part may not be considered as being a real advantage to the finances of India. This, I think, is very well illustrated by the fact that the greatest part of the increase in the net revenue is attributable to the item of opium. The improvement in the opium revenue of last year was no less than Rxl,076,000, but of that sum only Rx300,000 was derived from the improved price at which opium was sold in Calcutta. I suppose that, even from a moral point of view, we must rejoice in the high price of opium, and, from a financial point of view, Rx300,000 must be regarded as satisfactory. But I have to state that no less a sum than upwards of Rx700,000 in the improvement of the opium net revenue arose from the fact that the Government of India spent that much less in the purchase of opium. The Committee are aware that the Government purchase all the opium grown in Bengal at a fixed price, and sell it to the highest bidders. Last year there was a great failure in the opium crop of Bengal, and, therefore, the Government could not purchase the usual quantity; consequently, they spent Rx700,000 less than they had anticipated; and, although this has swollen the surplus of the present year, I am not certain that, in the long run, it will add to the prosperity of Indian finance. I will endeavour to give the Committee some idea of what an unstable item in Indian finance the opium revenue is. Last year the estimate made was Rs.1,070 per chest, and the highest price realised was Rs.1,215 per chest; every difference of Rs.100 per chest in the sale of this Bengal

  1019
  opium makes a difference to the Revenue of Rx570,000. The Committee will, therefore, understand how the hopes of Indian Finance Ministers go up and down with a small rise or fall in the value of opium per chest. Opium is the item in the net Revenue in which the greatest improvement has been shown, but if hon. Members will do me the honour to look at the Statement I have circulated they will see that every head of the Revenue has shown an increase, and the increase, in addition to the opium, has amounted to Rxl,637,400. Beyond this there is an increase in the Railway Receipts of Rxl66,800, making a total improvement iii the receipts of the Government of India of no less than Rx2,880,300, which, apart from the opium, is satisfactory. Nothing ought to encourage the hopes of Indian financiers more than the fact, which can be verified by reference to the accounts, that the Land Revenue of India shows a steady increase—an increase not caused by any over-renting of the lands. The Government of India is most careful never to perform that operation which is known elsewhere as rack-renting. The land is fairly rated to the Revenue, and the rating is seldom more than one-half the net value of the rent of the land. The Army charges have been reduced by Rx341,200. The defensive works by Rx410,900; interest by Rx229,800 and other expenditure by Rx367,900, making a total reduction of expenditure amounting to Rxl,349,800. I warned the Committee that the increase of receipts is not always a financial advantage. A great deal of this expenditure is not saved; it is only postponed. The whole of the sum will have to be spent, but not spent in the current year but left over to swell this year's expenditure. So it is with the Army. A great deal of the saving in the Army charges is due to the fact that stores, guns, and other material supplied by this country, have not been purchased; therefore, the charge is saved in the year ending the 31st of March last, but only to re-appear as additional charge in this year. The total improvement has been Rx4,230,100, but of that par belongs not to the Imperial but to the Provincial Governments, because, as I explained at some length to the Committee last year, the receipts am expenditure of the Imperial and provincial
  1020
  Governments are put together in these financial statements, and, in order to estimate what the real financial position of the Imperial Government of India is, it is necessary to detach the Provincial part, both of receipts and expenditure. Detaching the Provincial improvement, which amounts to Rx.735,900, the improvement in the Imperial finances is left at Rx3,494,200. When that is added to the original Budget surplus of Rxl06,300 it makes the true surplus Rx3,600,500. Then, Sir, as I explained a short time ago, Rx923,500 has been given up by the postponement of the Provincial contributions to the following year, and by the allotment of a large sum to the reduction of the debt under the head of the famine grant, leaving the final surplus of 1889–90 Rx2,677,000. There we take leave of the year 1889–90, and now I come to the year which is now current, 1890–91. When Sir David Barbour brought in his statement, in March of the present year, he estimated the surplus of the year at Rx270,400. It has now grown, as is stated at page 8 of the Financial Memorandum which I have circulated, to Rxl,870,400, and that growth of the surplus of the present year is entirely due to the alteration in the rate of exchange. In the Budget estimate of Sir David Barbour the exchange was taken at Is. 4·55d., or about Is. 4½d., and so far as the year has now proceeded—four months—the rate realised has been very nearly 1s. 6d. In the Statement which I have circulated, I am taking the exchange value of the rupee for the year at Is. 6½d., and 1s. 6½d. throughout the year would give a surplus of Rxl,870,400. Now, the Committee must not be too certain that that estimate of Is. 6½d. will be realised. In order to realise it, the Council bills during the remainder of the year will have to stand at an average of not less than 1s. 7d. It is, no doubt, true that the rate of exchange to-day is considerably over 1s. 7d., in fact it has touched 1s. 8d., and is now about Is. 7¾d., but with so doubtful, so uncertain a thing to deal with as the exchange value of the rupee, he would be a very hardy and bold financier who would venture to make quite sure that the advance in the rupee which has been maintained

  1021
  for the last two months past will continue to he maintained during the rest of the year. I said the improvement was entirely due to this rise in the exchange. Not only is it entirely due to the rise in the exchange, but if it had not been for this rise I should have had to tell the Committee to-night that the financial position of affairs was worse by no less than Rx560,000 than in March last. The advantage that accrues to the revenues of India from the alteration of the estimated value of the rupee from 1s. 4½d. to 1s. 6½d. is no less a sum than Rx2,160,000. This gain to the Revenue has not only increased the surplus to the sum I have mentioned, but it has wiped out a deficiency of Rx560,000, which would otherwise have had to be announced to the Committee to-night. This Rx560,000 is made up thus: In the first place, there is a loss of Rx40,000 on opium. The price has gone down below the low price estimated in March last; it has gone down so low as Rsl,040 per chest. The price of the Bengal opium has gone down, and the duty on the Malwa opium has been reduced; so, altogether, there has been a reduction in the estimated Revenue of Rx40,000. The railway receipts are worse by Rx320,000. Now that reduction in the estimated receipts from railways is, I believe, thought by many people to be due to the same cause that has induced a rise in the value of silver. Even bi-metallists think a rise in the value of silver will destroy a great deal of the Indian export trade; I do not myself share the gloomy, or, perhaps, joyous anticipations of the bi-metallists, but whether the trade will afterwards re-adjust itself or not, I do not think there is any doubt that the effect of the sudden rise in the value of the rupee is to check for the moment the export trade, and the reduction of the railway receipts is due to that check in the export trade of India. Some people say that check is permanent, others believe that the trade will adjust itself to any change that may arise, but, whichever theory is correct, there certainly is a temporary reduction. There is a further charge of Rx200,000 under interest. That is not in reality bad, because it arises from an offer the Government of India have made to convert the 4½ per cent, rupee loan which
  1022
  matures in 1893 into a 4 per cent. debt. It is expected that about half the holders will convert, and if that is the case the Government will have to pay in advance ½ per cent. on the amount of their holdings for three years, which is represented by this extra charge of Rx200,000 for interest. That is a charge on the Revenue of the present year, as it is paying at once money that would otherwise be distributed over the next three years. The Committee will now see that, although there is at the present moment a prospect of a large surplus of Rxl,870,000, it is not a surplus that can be calculated on with anything like certainty. I thought it my duty to inquire what would be the effect of a rise or fall of a penny in the rupee above the rate taken in the Estimate. Of course the Committee will see that the amount of the rise or fall on the penny depends on the value of the rupee, but at the rate of Is. 6½d. per rupee the rise of a penny over the whole year, to 1s. 7½d., would be a gain to the Revenue of Rx930,000, nearly a million per annum, and the result of a fall of a penny, if the rate realised were 1s. 5½d. instead of 1s. 6½d., would cause a loss to the Revenue of Rxl,050,000. With the value of the rupee fluctuating with the exchange it would be rash, to say the least of it, to declare with certainty that the surplus I am announcing tonight will actually in the end be realised. Now, Mr. Courtney, the Government being in possession of this surplus would have before it two possible courses. One would be the remission of taxation, and the other would be the restoration of that mode of disposing of the surplus, which goes by the name of the Famine Grant, or Famine Insurance Fund. Now, I should like to be allowed to say a word or two to the Committee about this Famine Fund, because there is nothing in the world so simple as the transaction in itself, but by the abuse of names, it has been made as mysterious and as unintelligible to the ordinary intellect as the terminable annuity at home. Now, first of all, this insurance is not a material insurance, but a financial insurance, and it is based on a rough calculation that the consequences of famine in India are to impose on the people of India a burden of Rxl5,000,000 in every 10 years, That burden represents

  1023
  partly the debt incurred by reason of the necessity of spending enormous sums of money when a famine does occur, and partly the loss of Revenue which is caused in a famine year and for several years succeeding; the famine. On the best estimate which the Indian financiers can make the burden is represented by Rxl5,000,000 once in every 10 years. Now, instead of burdening the taxpayers of India with the sum of Rxl5,000,000 every 10 years, it is thought more prudent and better to burden them with Rxl,500,000 every year; and, therefore, the Government of India many years ago resolved that it would create a special surplus of Rxl,500,000 a year; that is to say, it would take out of the pockets of the taxpayers Rxl,500,000 supplied for the service of the year, instead of imposing on them the burden of Rx15,000,000 once in every 10 years. The working of that plan will be seen in a moment. If the Rxl,500,000 were applied exclusively to the payment of debt, you would then reduce your Indian debt by Rxl,500,000 a year till you came to the end of the 10 years, and then you would have a burden of Rxl5,000,000 all at once thrown on it; but, as the Government of India is a continual borrower for the purpose of making railways and irrigation works, the whole or part of that Rxl,500,000 special surplus has been applied to purposes for which money would otherwise have been borrowed, applied not in the reduction of debt, but in the avoidance of debt which would be incurred for productive works, and that has the effect of keeping down the debt exactly in the same way as if actually applied to the re-payment of debt. But this special surplus has never been hoarded; it has never been invested, it has never been kept as a sort of purse which could be drawn on in the event of a famine. It has always been spent year after year. Ever since I have been Under Secretary of State for India, the Government have never been able to calculate on this special surplus of Rxl,500,000 without putting on additional taxation, and they have never thought it right to put additional taxation upon the people for the purpose of raising this Rxl,500,000, to be applied to the reduction of the debt. But it
  1024
  would be a great mistake if the Committee were to suppose that during the last two years no sums have ever been applied out of Revenue to the extinction of debt, and to the construction of railways and irrigation works. I had a statement prepared by the Financial Secretary to the India Office, which is a continuation of the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Northampton, which was presented to the House of Commons at Midsummer last year, and I see from this Return that since the year 1886–87, when the so-called Famine Grant is supposed to have been first seized, the sums which have been paid out of the Revenues of India for famine relief, for the construction of protective railways and protective irrigation works, and for the reduction of debt—purposes to which the Famine Grant has always been applied—have been as follows:—In 1886–87 Rx461,000; in 1887–88 Rx376,000; in 1888–89 Rx508,000; in 1889–90 Rxl,066,000; and in 1890–91 Rxl,033,000: making in the five years a total spent, for the purposes to which the Famine Grant is applicable, of Rx3,444,000. The surplus of these five years applied in the avoidance of debt was Rx2,628,000, so that altogether there has been spent in the five years for the reduction of debt, and for the prevention of debt, no less a sum than Rx6,072,000, or an average of Rxl,214,000. I think that for five years, with the nominal Famine Grant suspended—according to the hon. Member for Northampton the Secretary of State for India had laid hold of the Famine Grant—that is not such a bad result. The Committee must remember also that in the two years about which I am talking—the years 1889–90 and 1890–91—besides these two sums of Rxl,066,000 and Rxl,033,000, the whole of the surplus, Rx2,677,000 and Rxl,870,000, will be applied to the avoidance of debt, and, therefore, in these two years there will be applied to the reduction of debt not merely a surplus of Rxl,500,000, but a surplus of considerably more than Rx3,000,000. Now, do I suppose that after this statement which I have made the character of this transaction will be better understood and more readily admitted? No, I am not so foolish. I believe that men's minds are so tied and

  1025
  bound by the name "Famine Insurance Fund" or "Famine Insurance Grant" that they will still consider it to be a Fund. Mephistopheles remarked on the inveterate propensity of the human race when listening to mere words to believe that there was some real sense underlying them. I do not know that this House could have a more conspicuous example of that propensity to which Mephistopheles drew attention than the fact that the hon. Member for Northampton who is so sensible, and sees things so clearly, still talks about the Famine Insurance Fund having been seized upon by the Secretary of State and the Government of India as if they had robbed the people of it. I see that Sir David Barbour, in a speech which he made in India in March last, said he conceived the "only method of safeguarding our surplus is to call it a Famine Grant." So be it; but, if he saves the surplus by calling it the Famine Grant, he must not mind others saying it does not exist because it is called the Famine Grant. The Committee will observe that, in order to keep up the special surplus to the amount of one and a half millions, no less than Rx.957,200 more would have to be appropriated next year. You have nearly half a million to add to the appropriation for the present year, and you will lose besides a sum of nearly half a million from the provincial contributions, so that it will take nearly a million—Rx.957,200—of the present surplus to make up the Famine Grant to its normal condition, and leave only a surplus of Rx.913,200. It is quite clear, with the uncertainty of the surplus, that it would be impossible to apply it to the reduction of taxation. [An hon. MEMBER: The Salt Tax.] The Salt Tax —the increased Salt Tax—is an impost which the Secretary of State and the Government of India have pledged themselves to remove at the first opportunity. The cost of removing this extra half rupee on the Salt Tax is Rx.1,500,000—the exact amount of the Famine Insurance Grant. If the hon. Member for Northampton will give up the Famine Insurance Grant, and if the Government of India were willing to give up this surplus, then the extra Salt Tax might be at once removed, but they have thought, and I think rightly, that the first duty of the
  1026
  Government upon the return of this financial prosperity is to restore the special surplus, Famine Grant, or whatever you like to call it, and that the remission of the extra Salt Tax, important as it is, must wait until that is restored. I will inform the hon. Member who is anxious about the Salt Tax as to the result of the increased tax. The consumption, which had been slightly reduced in 1888–89, after the imposition of that extra half rupee, has now gone up again to more than the figure of 1886–87. Bengal is the only province in India in which there is a reduction, and that reduction is not attributable to the increased Salt Duty, because, if hon. Members will refer to page 21 of the East India Financial Statement, they will see a table of the prices of Liverpool salt in Bengal, which shows that it is the action of the Salt Syndicate and the freight rates which is accountable for a considerable part of the enhancement in the value of salt, and that an increase of price has taken place, exclusive of the duty, of about four or five annas per maund. While the extra tax is, nodoubt, one which ought to be removed, and which shall be removed as soon as it is financially proper to do so, I think the figures to which I have referred hon. Members will encourage them and encourage the Government of India to look, in the first place, to the restoration of the Famine Insurance Grant.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Is that to be the first reduction?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot here, in the House of Commons, pledge the Government of India. I can only say the Government of India have determined that the first use to be made of the surplus realised and counted upon shall be to restore the Famine Insurance Grant to its normal dimensions, and I can only refer the Committee to the declaration which I have, by the authority of the Secretary of State, made in the House, to the effect that the enhancement of the Salt Duties is only to be regarded as a temporary measure rendered necessary by financial exigencies, and that a reduction to the old Salt Duty of two rupees per maund will take place as soon as it is financially possible. I will not detain the Committee by any comment on the statement which I have made. I think the Committee will agree with me that

  1027
  the state of the finances of India, as disclosed in the Papers which I have laid on the Table, is encouraging and satisfactory, and, though it would be extremely foolish to indulge in visions of enormous surpluses and great reductions of taxation, at all events we may contemplate the future of Indian finance with hope and cheerfulness. (9.37.)
  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 1889 was Rx.81,696,678; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged to Revenue was Rx.81,659,660; that there was a Surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.37,018; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.l,638,001, besides a Capital Charge of £10,336,049 involved in the Redemption of Liabilities."—(Sir John Gorst.)
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I think the statement of the Under Secretary for India was characterised by even more than his usual ability, and by even more than I expected of that charming kind of competence which, in a lesser orator, might be described as audacity. I feel flattered by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to what he was pleased to say I described as the Famine Fund, although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's memory helped him as to the source from which I got that title. That source is the speeches and Despatches of the various Governors, and especially of those of the Viceroy, who initiated what is called the Famine Fund. The right hon. Gentleman said he would refrain from wasting the time of the Committee in hypocritical regrets at the lateness of this Debate. If I thought strong language would have any effect either upon the right hon. Gentleman or the Government which he so ably represents, I would be inclined to use it on this occasion, for I think it is disgraceful in the extreme that the Indian Budget Statement, which in 1873 was considered important enough to occupy three days of the time of the House, should be brought on after the Report of 48 Votes in Supply has been agreed to. I presume, however, it is the intention of the Government to shorten from year to year the time at the disposal of the House for the investigation of the affairs of 270,000,000 of people directly or indirectly subject to British rule. I do not wonder
  1028
  that the right hon. Gentleman thought that any expression of regret on his part would be hypocritical, for he must have well remembered that the leader of the House more than once distinctly promised that the Indian Budget should be taken this Session at an earlier date than before. But his Statement has been made to the House after the Appropriation Bill has been brought in and passed through its first stage. There was a remarkable absence from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this year of any such specific allusions to legislation as helped to ornament his speech last year, for where then he audaciously put upon the House the blame for want of legislation, he must have well remembered that the whole of the blame rests this year upon the Government, and has been in breach of an absolute pledge, frequently admitted by the First Lord of the Treasury and held out to me as an inducement not to raise a discussion on Indian affairs at that stage of business when it would have been inconvenient to the Government—the Address at the beginning of the Session. There has been no attempt to submit to the House those legislative proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman so vaguely alluded. Now, I shall have the support of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple), who takes as much interest in these matters as any Member of the House, and in the estimation of those who honour him in Bombay, much more interest than some, who was himself prevented from carrying out the intention he had formulated by the pledge given to introduce into the House a measure based on elective principles which if carried would obviate the necessity of discussing financial proposals here at all, for they would be discussed in elective, Viceregal, or other Councils in India by men understanding what was submitted to them. To discuss the affairs of 270,000,000 of people with such support given from the leaders of our Party as that Bench shows—[the Front Opposition Bench was empty]—and that strong array of the Conservative Party opposite is enough to warrant my Motion on the Paper that the late date of presentation of Accounts and Papers relating to the revenues of India renders it impossible to satisfactorily examine and discuss the Indian Financial Statement.

  1029
  Last year the explanatory statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to which he did so much injustice in one of his moments of forgetfulness as to describe it as simply his speech, was circulated two and a half months before it came on for discussion. Then anyone who paid attention to it had time to examine the matter; but I appeal to the Committee whether it is possible to deal with these millions of tens of rupees hurled at our heads this evening with anything like intelligent criticism. Last year a Statement, which is issued annually, and is by Statute required to be issued at a particular time of the year, was issued before this annual explanation, and enabled the House to check the matters submitted by the right hon. Gentleman and to correct errors into which he had fallen by following blindly the information submitted by permanent officials. This Statement, called a statement, exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India, is not even now in the hands of Members. And why not? I see by the Votes this morning—I think I must be mistaken—some record of a document having been laid on the Table last night, but I went into the Library and found nothing of it there except an endorsement and some blank sheets of paper. I ask, why is this Statement withheld? It should have been laid on the Table before. The Statute 21 & 22 Vict., cap. 106, sec. 53, says that the financial accounts are to be laid before Parliament during the first 14 days of May, and such accounts shall be accompanied by a statement prepared from detailed Reports from each Presidency and district in India in such form as shall best exhibit the moral and material progress and condition in each Presidency. Why has this Statute been disobeyed? The English Law Officers are not in their places. I do not know whether the Irish Attorney General can assist me, but clearly a misdemeanour has been committed by somebody. I do not say the Under Secretary is criminally responsible, but certainly somebody is, for having disobeyed an exact statutory command. Common decency requires that these matters, absolutely necessary to the understanding of the accounts of India, should be put into the hands of Members at least at such a time as will
  1030
  enable them to examine and master them. If I did not know the thoroughly frank and confiding nature of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, I should imagine that he had withheld it for the purpose of preventing me from making the same use of it as I did last year; but I know that is impossible, and I know that his legal advisers at the India Office would not have permitted him to wilfully to break the Statute, even if his personal inclination tempted him to do so, which is a perfectly untenable position. I may ask the Committee, I think, to express disapproval; and if the offence is repeated next year, I shall have to ask the House to express disapproval of this absolute disregard of the law by the Indian Government entrusted with its enforcement and maintenance. It is true, as urged by the right hon. Gentleman, that this semblance of Parliamentary indifference to Indian affairs has arisen since the Imperial Government has been charged with the administration of Indian affairs. When the East India Company had its charter Parliament and the Government of the day were jealous in the extreme, and inquiry after inquiry was held—not a sham, but real inquiry— but to-day it is pretended—I will not say it of the right hon. Gentleman because he is not capable of any pretence that does not represent his real official feeling; but I have come to know that official knowledge and exact knowledge are not always the same; it is pretended now that Parliamentary inquiry would embarrass the Government and prevent the Viceroy and the Secretary of State doing what is wanted. But it was not so when the East India Company had its charter. Parliament then held inquiry, and the result was good to India and not harm. If the Government break their promises, at least they should abide by the law, as less important persons have to do. I do not know what excuse will be made for the delay in issuing the explanatory Memorandum, but the right hon. Gentleman must feel that it is simply absurd to present to the House on the very day upon which his statement is made a huge mass of figures from which he selects only a few to embellish as he does everything he touches with fine figures of speech and quotations from classical authors, such, for instance, as his reference to Mephistopheles.

  1031
  There is one thing which the Under Secretary has not dealt with in his Financial Statement. It is only a small matter, but I clear it away before I come to greater ones. We heard a reply to a question, and we gathered from what are called the usual sources of information that considerable pressure had been put on the Government from their own side of the House to render some pecuniary assistance to make some payment—I will not say to give some reward to Mr. Crawford. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to state the nature of the special payments mentioned on page 35 of the explanatory statement. I cannot suppose they have any reference to the matter.
  SIR J. GORST: No.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: That is what I expected; but I ask because we have an explanatory statement that does not explain what we want, and elucidates much that is already quite clear. But let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that a very strong feeling on this account exists in India against any attempt being made to divert any portion of the money raised by taxation of the Indian people to rewarding a man who, whatever you say of the case, has clearly been guilty of corrupting justice in the worst fashion, and in resentment of the action of the Government, in direct opposition to the wishes of Lord Reay, who, addressing the people on the eve of his departure, made use of words such as had never before been used by a man in his position. He said that in order to influence the Government to keep their promise he had even gone the length of tendering his resignation, or doing something equivalent to it. I will not enlarge on this, for I fear I may bring myself, Sir, under your displeasure. Now I come to a much less exciting topic, the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in the Session that he would abolish the Silver Plate Duty, and I come to that in connection with the trade and manufactures of India. To be effective in India it must be accompanied by some such measure as the abolition of hall-marking. On July 15 I put a question on the subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know how this concerns the finances of India.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will not attempt to trespass on your ruling, Sir; but may I suggest that the silver manufacturer in India is possibly connected with the Income Tax, and thus affecting income affects the finances of India? Judging from your gesture, I find you do not accept my construction. I will content myself with saying that if I had been in order, I would have read to the Under Secretary a letter from the Private Secretary of the Viceroy containing a statement of information which the right hon. Gentleman said he had not got on July 15, as having reached home in the month of May. But I pass on to railways, just asking, because the same query bears on other matters, is there any juggle in the use of the word "official"? Is it possible that information sent home does not always reach the right hon. Gentleman? Is it possible that information sent home does not always reach the right hon. Gentleman? Is it possible that either on railways, on hall-marking, or on anything else, letters could come from the Viceroy of India, that the substance of those letters could be communicated by the Viceroy to other people than the Members of the Government of India, and that yet the Under Secretary of State for India could stand up in that House and officially deny any knowledge of them?
  SIR J. GORST: I have no knowledge of the private correspondence of the Viceroy.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would have knowledge of private correspondence of the kind. The question, however, is whether, when letters were written by the Viceroy to the Secretary of State in Council, the contents of which were communicated, by the direction of the Viceroy himself through his private secretary, to third parties, the contents of such documents were so little within the knowledge of the Under Secretary of State for India that he felt entitled to say that the Secretary of State knew nothing about them. If that is so, I submit that we discuss Indian affairs under considerable difficulty. When the right hon. Gentleman replies, I will ask him for some explanation of the policy of the Government in relation to railways. He has been reticent on this question, though I

  1033
  have addressed searching questions to him. I will ask him whether the Secretary of State received from the Viceroy of India a Despatch dated November last which referred to the outlines of the terms on which the Secretary of State proposed that Railway Companies should, under the new policy, in future be established? (1.) A company is to be formed having an English domicile, whose share capital in sterling will amount to that proportion of the whole capital required that would, in the ordinary course, be expended on the purchase of stores and plant and on other charges in England. This proportion may, it is said, be taken approximately at one-third of the total cost of the railway. (2.) The remainder of the capital required would be supplied by the Government of India. (3.) Interest in sterling at such rate as may be agreed upon (we hardly suppose that a rate much less than 4 per cent. will be accepted) on the company's share capital would be a first charge of the net earnings. (4.) The remainder of the net earnings would be made over to Government to defray the charges of interest on the Government share of the capital until the interest charges at 4 per cent, (or at whatever rate of interest the capital is raised) on that capital are fully met. (5.) The surplus profits, after the payments indicated in (3) and (4) have been made, would be divided between the Government and the company in certain proportions. Were these proposals submitted to the Viceroy a year ago, and did the Government of India reply that the practical effect of this policy on the future expenditure on railways, interpreted in figures, would be something of this kind? Supposing that we raise in India a sum of, say, 2¼ crores of rupees for railway construction—a sum equal to half that amount, or a little over one crore, equal to about two-thirds of a million sterling—would be added to meet English expenditure and would be raised in England, partly through the shares of the new company, partly as far as State railways are concerned) by loans raised by the Secretary of State. Did the Government of India say that it could not admit that in return for this diversion of State funds into the hands of others we shall obtain any of the real advantages which follow on the encouragement of private
  1034
  enterprises? The assistance intended to be given to a company thus constructed is nothing less than a sterling guarantee of interests on the company's share capital in a new form, and it is a guarantee which is practically charged on the Revenues of India. It is hardly likely that the Government of India would propose, or that any company would accept, the construction of a line with such poor prospects of traffic that the net earnings would not produce more than 1 per cent. on the capital invested. It is, however, evident that if the company's shares are not to exceed 33 per cent. of the whole capital that net earnings amounting only to 1 1-3 per cent. on the whole capital would be sufficient to provide 4 per cent. on the share capital of the company, which would be virtually guaranteed interest at that risk. And did the Government of India go on to say—
  "We should thus have repeated one of the chief evils of the old guaranteed system. From the time the undertaking paid 1 1-3 per cent. until it paid over 4 per cent., and this in the case of our secondary lines, would probably be the situation during the whole of the firs period of the contract—there would not be the slightest inducement for the company to economise. They would be secure in the receipts of interest at 4 per cent. guaranteed on the net earnings, while there would be no hope of their receiving more until surplus profits were declared. From first to last the position of the shareholders would be the same as that of the shareholders of the Madras Railway Company."
  And did the Indian Government add—
  "We are far from wishing to discourage tru private enterprises when it can be properly so called. By private enterprise we mean such companies as the Bengal and North Berber Railway Company or the Delhi Halka Company, which was created for the construction, not for the working, of the line. To these the only assistance given by Government was the free grant of land, and in their financial success the Government of India is as little directly concerned as in that of a tea or jute manufacturing company. To all companies raised on these terms, subject to the broad lines of policy we have before referred to, we consider that every possible encouragement should be given. While, however, these are our feelings with regard to the encouragement of genuine private enterprise, we do not extend to them proposals for the creation of companies which would have a very limited interest in the concern from which they take their name, which would contribute only a small portion of the capital at an unnecessarily high rate of interest, yet on what is really absolute security, and which for the rest of their capital would have to draw from the Government Treasury funds in the management

  1035
  of which the State could there after have but little influence, and from which it probably would get a very poor return. Moreover, the creation of a new class of companies fostered by a new kind of guarantee will necessarily be inimical to the extension of real private enterprise, as no promoter will be willing to accept greater risk than is involved in the new terms?"
  I ask for categorical answers on these points. When I asked last year my questions were avoided; when I repeated specific questions this year I got no answer; and I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government of India is conducted without laying upon the Table of this House the Papers which would really instruct the House as to what is happening, they cannot wonder that the air is full of rumours of jobbery, and that it is suggested that particular favourites get particular advantages; and no such rose-coloured speeches as we have heard to-night will be sufficient to hinder inquiry upon these points. This is a matter which we know has been discussed in the Viceregal Council of India; and in the East India Financial Statement laid upon the Table of this House in compliance with the Statute, we do get some references—not very many—which enable us to learn something about the matter. We find that the kind of questions which I have pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman to-night were, though not quite in the same distinct fashion I admit, pressed, as would be seen by page 89 of the Statement. The hon. Sir A. Wilson, a member of the Council, expressed his regret that no definite policy was put forward by the Government with regard to the future construction of railways. The hon. Charles Elliott in reply said, as will be found on pages 96 and 97, that—
  "To answer the question put by Sir A' Wilson as to what the railway policy of this Government is would require a full exhaustive statement;"
  which he was not prepared to give. But now I ask the attention of the Committee to the curious coincidence between the language used by Sir Charles Elliott and the passages about which I have challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say "Yes" or "No" to my allegation that they are part of a Government Despatch, either official or unofficial, or a Letter from the Viceroy of India to
  1036
  the Secretary of State in Council. I am unable to distinguish between documents which are official or unofficial when they end in burdening the country with heavy expenditure. Sir Charles Elliott says—
  "It cannot be denied that it is not economical to raise money at 3½ per cent. through the agency of companies when it can be raised by the State at 3 per cent., as is the case now."
  And I say this shows that it had been proposed to raise money through the agency of companies, if not in the express words (and I feel tolerably sure it was in the express words that I have given), at any rate to the effect that I have alleged to this Committee. Sir Charles Elliott goes on to say—
  "Therefore it is not the policy of the Government to encourage the creation of any more companies on terms corresponding to those I have just mentioned;"
  and I ask the Under Secretary for India to say whether the policy of the Secretary of State in Council is identical with the policy of the Viceroy in Council, or whether the policy of the Viceroy in Council is one thing and the policy of the Secretary of State in Council another. I ask the Secretary of State to say what railway proposals have been considered by him in Council in England which the Government of India at Simla have rejected, or with which they have disagreed; and I will ask him, also, what is the need of the Secretary of State in Council to meddle in the job of raising money in connection with railways by companies who are to be protected by the Government of India, but of which the taxpayer is to bear the burden and the loss. But I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, before I pass to the other portion of the railway question, whether there is any part proposal, or any part proposals which the Secretary of State in Council has made to the Government of India which the Government of India have accepted, or whether there are any modifications transmitted by the Viceroy to the Secretary of State in Council which have been accepted here; and if he will state what they are. It is no use talking about secrecy in these matters. When they are sufficiently known to be the subject of discussion in all circles interested in them, and when I am able to challenge the Secretary of State in

  1037
  a matter of this kind, perfectly sure that if a Committee of this House were granted to me I could put my hands upon the document giving the precise reference to it, so that there can be no doubt about it—it is perfect nonsense to talk about the matter being secret, and about the Secretary of State being hindered carrying out his duty effectively. The only thing hindered is the effectuation of any job. Now, in connection with the railways there is one point about which I ask an answer. General Trevor is reported to have said recently that—
  "The idea in high Government circles in India is to discontinue metre gauge construction, with the intention, eventually, of again obtaining a uniform gauge throughout India by gradually changing the existing metre gauge lines into broad. This reversal of policy will,"
  he says—
  "Involve a tremendous waste of public money, probably about £20,000,000, as the change will cost about £3,500 a mile, and outside Burma there are over 6,000 miles of metre gauge road."
  SIR J. GORST: Will the hon Gentleman say from what he is quoting?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I am quoting from a Report furnished to me of a speech made by General Trevor at a recent railway meeting. I will take, for the purpose of this Debate, the responsibility of using General Trevor's words as a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will ask him what is the policy of the Government.
  SiR J. GORST: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me whether that railway meeting was in London or in this country.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I fancy it was not. I fancy it has been twice reported, and from the source from which I take it, I think it was not in this country. I am not sure of that, but I am content to take it. The fact of whether it has been said at some railway meeting in this country or not is of no importance to the question I put, which is, whether the Government do intend this metre gauge change, and whether it is true that the expenditure will be an enormous expenditure bringing in no additional Revenue and giving no help to the unfortunate people of India who have to bear the cost? I now come to the Famine Fund. I listened to that portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman
  1038
  with considerable interest, as I had read with considerable interest the speech of Sir David Barbour, from which he has quoted; and there is this one advantage in the sudden interruption which occurred when I rose to address the Committee that I was able to refresh my memory by a reference to the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman upon this subject last year. His view then upon the Famine Fund was not quite the view with which he has entertained, as he always does when he speaks to a Committee of this House, us this evening—the view that it is the paramount duty of the Government to restore this Famine Grant. I do not know whether there is any mysterious or miraculous advantage in the substitution of the word "grant" for "fund," or how that which is taken in taxation from the people of India becomes a grant to them if they do not get it; but that is a trifling matter. The right hon. Gentleman to-night is content to call it a Famine Insurance Grant, and it is so sacred a matter that there is to be no reduction in taxation, no remission of the Salt Tax until it is restored. But did this Famine Grant or Fund ever exist? Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State assured us that it never existed. He said:—
  "There was an intention on the part of the Indian Government to create such a fund, but that intention has never been carried out."
  Now, what a monstrous farce it is one year to tell the Committee that the Member who seeks to describe, in the words of the Viceroy and Financial Minister for India, a fund in relation to famine as a Famine Fund, is so wrong that there never was a fund, but that there was only an intention to create it, which was never carried out; and then, this year, when they have got money in their pockets, to say, "It is our solemn and paramount duty to keep every farthing we have got because we are going to devote it to the restoration of that fund, which had been misapplied and misplaced!" I ask the right hon. Gentleman—I know his acuteness is sufficient for anything—to reconcile the Under Secretary for India to-night with the Under Secretary for India who addressed the Committee last August. I cannot help being gratified. I feel

  1039
  sure that nothing I could say in any fashion influenced the conduct of the Viceroy in Council in India or the conduct of the Secretary of State in Council here. What has happened, though post hoc is not propter hoc; and what I said ought to have been done, and told the Committee last 'year had not been done, but ought still to be done, is now to be done, and I am quite sure that when the Viceroy in Council determined on doing it no report of a speech in Hansard, which may have got out to India, had been in any way helpful to them, and that it was only from their inner consciousness of what was right and just that they arrived at the conclusion which, however ineffectually, I had endeavoured to submit to this House. Now, in the statutory Financial Statement, Section 3, paragraph 17, it was admitted that there had been a slight departure from the original policy of the Government in relation to the famine surplus, and the course was decided upon which the Under Secretary of State has explained to the Committee this evening. It is a comfort to hear from him that the surplus which the Government has now at its disposal enables them even to be partially honest, and I do not want in any fashion to say any words other than those of real congratulation. I will not attempt to express any hypocritical regret that they have not been as honest as they should have been in the past; anything in the direction of honesty will be welcome. But I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman there are two points of remission in taxation, and not one, as he said, to which the Government of India might give some attention, and I would suggest that one is in relation to the Income Tax. I pray the pardon of the Committee for detaining it so long; but, unfortunately, this is the only one occasion in the year when one has any opportunity of speaking on the subject. There is a very strong feeling in India that it would give great relief. I am not prepared to say how it would affect the figures—it must, therefore, be subject to that criticism that the minimum of the Income Tax might be raised, so that incomes less than 1,000 rupees should not be affected by that tax. It is alleged that in incomes less than 1,000 rupees there is oppression in the collection. On
  1040
  that there are Reports within the knowledge of the Under Secretary of State, and I will not dwell upon the matter longer than to bring it under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. But I must press him upon the question of the Salt Tax. I intended to have referred to the reduction of the consumption of salt in Bengal, which is 355,000 maunds less in the closed year than in the year before, and 722,000 maunds less than in 1886-7. I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the falling off was attributable to two causes: One the increased Salt Duty, and the other the increased price created in India by the salt monopoly. I have called attention to that because it gives me an opportunity of denouncing the infamy that is perpetrated under cover of the law by registering companies for the purposes of a huge monopoly. As long as private capital is left in the contest, to the ordinary working of the laws which govern all matters of trade and agriculture may be left the fair levelling of cost of production without powerful combinations being allowed to associate together in a way which the law did not permit until the Joint Stock Companies' Act of 1865 was passed, and when Limited Liability Companies were formed for the first time. I say great care should be taken in registering such companies, and when they are registered they should be brought under the notice of the Law Officers of the Crown when it is found that they were registered for purposes avowedly illegal under the decisions of the High Courts in this Realm. By the decision in "The King v. Norris," reported in the second volume of Lord Kenyon's Reports——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Surely the hon. Member will see that he is now travelling outside the scope of the subject before this Committee.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I respectfully submit not, Sir, because in page 21 of the East India Financial Statement, 1890–91, which was laid on the Table of this House by the Government, they deal with the increased duty, and the price of salt increased by the English syndicate, and I submit, with all respect now, Sir, I am entitled to criticise this statement, and the conduct of the Government in relation to it. On a point of order, I respectfully submit that to you, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how it is relevant to the subject before the Committee.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will read the words of the Financial Statement, so as to make my point clear, because I am afraid I have not made it sufficiently clear, Sir; I am reading from paragraph 22, page 21, of the Statement which was laid on the Table—
  "The only province in which consumption has not fully recovered is Bengal, and there the imposition of the increased duty has not been the only cause of the falling off, which is largely attributable to the increase in price resulting from the action of the English Salt Syndicate and the higher level of freights."
  I respectfully submit to you now, Sir, I am entitled to see how the English Salt Syndicate has managed to increase the price, and I am entitled, if it be illegal, to show to the Government how it is illegal, and to press upon the Government that it is their duty to put an end to the illegality.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is clearly outside the scope of this discussion.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The moment you say that, Sir, it is, of course, my duty to accept, as I always do, with the most profound respect, the ruling you give, but it then becomes my duty to appeal to this Committee, when it is sitting as a House and not as a Committee, to give at least once a year, as by the old custom always was given, some opportunity during which a representative of the defenceless native may put before the Parliament of England his criticisms of the official statements of the Government, and to know if he cannot get some redress for the grievances which he pointed out. Now, Sir, passing from that, which I have not the right to allude to after the intimation from you, Sir, I come to the question of the Salt Duty. When Sir Evelyn Baring was Finance Minister in 1882, in his financial speech for the year he said that—
  "The tax-paying community in India was exceedingly poor, to derive any very large increase of revenue from so poor a population would be unjustifiable."
  Since then the Salt Tax has been increased, and I appeal to the Government, with their present surplus, to make some effort at its reduction. In 1886 the Finance Minister, in his speech on the Income Tax, described the mass of the people as—
  1042
  "Men whose income, at the best, is barely sufficient to afford them the sustenance necessary to sustain life."
  We all know the important part of consumption that salt plays in connection with vegetable foods by which the Indian does sustain life. The ominous words of the Under Secretary of State for India prepared the Committee for the statement that the reduction in the Army expenditure this year was a reduction to be equalled, or more than equalled, by increased expenditure, either in the year that is to come or at some near period; but what I say to the Government, have less arms and more full bellies. Let these unfortunate people, for whom the Under Secretary of State pleaded with an eloquence that would have moved anyone, have their wants supplied. He quoted them to show the desperate state of the Mussulman cultivator under a Hindu ruler. Let him quote, as I ask him to do, from the Reports of the Government officials—showing the conditions of Mussulman cultivators under English rule. Let the Secretary of State in Council consider this which he regarded as a sufficient justification for the depositions of an Indian Prince. The right hon. Gentleman delivered in his speech to the Committee an encomium on the fairness of the English Land Revenue. He cannot have read the Reports made by an English official, Mr. Thorburn, who occupied a high position in the Punjab for the last 25 years, and who tells us that the effect of our Land Revenue system in the Punjab upon the Mussulman—those Mussulmen for whom, in the case of Kashmir, the Under Secretary of State for India was moved—is so bad that it has such an oppressive bearing upon the people, and that nothing but a complete change in the manner of the collection of the English Land Revenue can prevent an outbreak, in which blood must be shed, and which will take terrible bloodshed to quell. Last year the right hon. Gentleman used language totally dissimilar to what he has used this year about the Salt Tax. He then said that Lord Cross regarded it as not a desirable tax, and that he assented to it with reluctance, but tonight he says we must wait until the duty of the Government has been performed, and until he has achieved the

  1043
  restoration of the Famine Fund of £1,500,000——
  SIR J. GORST: I call it a special surplus.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Gentleman is not the Indian lexicon. It was the officer who initiated this fund who called it a Famine Fund, and it was the officer who sent this message to the House of Commons who calls it a Famine Insurance Grant. I do not say all the names given by officials are not wrong. At any rate, I can only take choice amongst the official words, and to leave the Committee to criticise them. I regret if I said anything that made the right hon. Gentleman uneasy. I must call it a Famine Fund, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, last year was never subscribed, and which he now practically admits has been made away with, and which is now to be restored, and then the Salt Tax shall be removed. I have already trespassed a long time on the Committee, but there is one matter to which I would wish to allude in connection with the Army expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Army expenditure has been lessened. I wish he could say the same with regard to human life which has been lost. With regard to this military expenditure, which includes the Chin Lushai expedition, I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the terrible loss of life as to which I have put several questions during the Session. I select only one British Regiment, the King's Own Scottish Borderers, from which 14 officers and 500 men formed part of the expedition; of these, one officer and 122 men died from sickness, six officers and 120 men were invalided from sickness, leaving a remainder of seven officers and 163 men only to return, and of these one officer and 10 men have since died. I appeal to the Government to put a stop to this sacrifice of human life. I had intended to quote from the Report of Mr. Maconochie, upon the state of the agricultural population in the Punjab, so piteous in its details, and so shocking in its facts, that, putting it side by side with the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman himself as to the agricultural population in Cashmere, one naturally wonders how the mote was so easily seen, and the beam entirely unrecognised. I have no right to, and I should submit
  1044
  myself to your displeasure, if I made any allusion to the incapacity of the Government here to carry the smallest measure of legislative reform in this Session. I probably have no right to reproach them for their neglect of duty. I can only submit it to the Committee in this dry and poor statement.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member proposes to submit to the Committee an alternative to the Resolution formerly moved by the Under Secretary of State. There has been up to this time no example of an Amendment proposed in Committee to a Resolution of this kind, and, it has been said that no attempt has ever been made to submit such an Amendment, so that while there is no precedent in favour of the proceeding it may be said that there is no precedent against it. I cannot say that it is not a fair Parliamentary reply to say that this late period of the Session renders it difficult to examine the accounts, but I desire to safeguard the Committee against its being supposed to be in order to submit any abstract Amendment as an alternative.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I may say that, after your intimation, Sir, I will not submit my Amendment, so as not even to provoke a semblance of precedent.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I think the Government may be congratulated on the admirably clear and lucid statement which has been submitted to us tonight by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India—a statement which was not only interesting and instructive in itself, but which was satisfactory to the Committee, and will be satisfactory to the country from every possible point of view. Allow me to make one observation, following upon those which have been submitted to the Committee by the hon. Member for Northampton, with regard to the restriction that is placed now—by the ruling of the Chair, and also by the action of the House, in consequence of the alteration of the rules of procedure—upon this annual Debate. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Northampton in feeling the utmost regret that the old system has been departed from which subsisted for so many years in this House whereby, on one night at least in the year, it was open to every Member interested

  1045
  in India to bring forward and submit to this House, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, any questions connected with the interests of India which he might think ought to be discussed in this House. It is not generally known that that rule now no longer exists, and that there is not a single opportunity during the whole Parliamentary year when a Member of this House has a right to submit to the House questions of general Indian interest as apart from the finances of India. Turning to the Financial Statement, the first thought that will occur to most of us is the question whether the Government of India is really using its years of prosperity in such a way as will enable it to pass through what will undoubtedly come, namely, years of adversity—whether the fat kine of the present cycle will provide adequately for the lean kine that are to follow. I believe the answer to that question may be in the affirmative. I think this Committee will feel that the provision which is being made by the Government of India for the recurrence of famine, or the recurrence of pestilence, or the recurrence of war, is, on the whole, a sufficient one. The right hon. Gentleman has not alluded to many of the measures which have been taken during the past year with these various objects in view. He has not referred, for instance, to the expenditure that has been incurred, and that has been rightly incurred, in those sanitary provisions which do guard, to a great extent, our Empire in India from the recurrence of pestilence. The sanitation of India is year after year receiving more and more attention. It is not too much to say that the Medical Department of India is one of the very first of all scientific bodies in the world in this respect, that it does provide most efficiently against the recurrence of those pestilences which at one time devastated India. The past year has seen serious attempts made in India, and supported in the highest quarters in this country, to grapple with such a scourge of the country as leprosy. And that is a point which certainly deserves our congratulatory remarks. With regard to the provision that has been made by the Government of India for providing against the recurrence of famine, I do think some further remarks ought to be
  1046
  made in reply to those that have fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton. The Report of the Famine Commission that was appointed some years ago, which will be in the remembrance of many Members of this House—a Commission which was adorned by the presence of Sir James Caird, one of the first authorities on such subjects—clearly taught the Government of India how it might best provide for the recurrence of famines. It pointed out to the Government of India, that by expenditure on such public undertakings as railways and irrigation works, it might make provision that would be valuable in times of famine. And the hon. Member for Northampton has been really, it seems to me, tilting at a windmill, when he talks about this Famine Fund as something which has been got at by the Government, merely because the Government has spent its famine surpluses upon railways or irrigation works, or other famine protection works of that kind. These are the very methods which Sir James Caird and the Famine Commissioners told us were the only possible methods by which the Government of India could possibly, in any way, provide against the recurrence of famine. That is prevention, and prevention is better than cure. I hope the Government of India and Her Majesty's Secretary of State will take full advantage of this present prosperity, that is so largely caused by the favourable rates of exchange, to push forward and carry out those Government works of public utility which alone can provide against the horrors of famine. The hon. Member for Northampton has spoken of a certain discussion which appears to have been carried on between the Secretary of State and the Government of India, and probably between various Members of the Government of India, and the advisers of the Secretary of State, as to the means by which railway enterprise and extension may best be carried out in India; and the hon. Member has spoken as if he had discovered some mysterious mare's nest. Why, the hon. Member may rest assured that this discussion, on which he has spoken with so much mystery, is nothing more than the discussion of the old, old question that has been debated over and over again in India and elsewhere,

  1047
  and that will always be debated, namely, the question whether if, is better to carry out such works by State control, by State monopoly, and by the purse of the nation, or by private enterprise. The same question, in its other aspects, may, as we all know, be discussed in the form of land nationalisation, and in every form of Socialism. In the Legislative Assembly of Calcutta Sir Alexander Wilson discussed the policy of the Government of India with regard to railway extension. He is President of the Chamber of Commerce of Calcutta and leader of the mercantile community in India, and he appears to have thought railway extension was best carried out by private enterprise and private capital. Sir Charles Elliott, being an official of Public Works and a Member of Council, was inclined to take the view that the Government should undertake those works, and that it would be cheaper and more economical for the Government to do so. And he pointed out what is very reasonable, namely, that whereas the Government would have to guarantee something like 4 per cent. to the Railway Companies, they could borrow money at 3 per cent., or even something less. Still it must be remembered that in the long run Government control and monopoly is apt to become an extravagant method of management. The cast iron method of a Government Department cannot be made so strictly economical as management by private mercantile firms. Therefore, it is arguable that private enterprise is more economical in the long run than State control, even if the State can obtain capital at a some what lower rate of interest. That, I maintain, is the whole story of the discussion between the Governments, of which so much has been made by the hon. Member for Northampton. I do hope, in spite of these discussions, in spite of the attempts to make it appear that the Government of India take one view and the Secretary of State another view in reference to railway extension, I hope they will not be deterred from taking advantage of the clear opportunity presented to them by the fortunate turn in exchange produced by the American silver legislation, to push forward these great works of public utility, whether it be by State construction or by encouragement to private
  1048
  enterprise, which will do so much for the country. I think we may fairly give credit to the Government of India for having prepared during this year's prosperity, and the prosperity of past years,, not only for the possible recurrence of famine and pestilence, but also for that of war. Never since I can remember anything of India has there been more confidence felt, whether in this country or in India, in the administration of the military affairs of that country. And it is matter of congratulation on all sides that that distinguished soldier, who is now at the head of the Army in India, Sir Frederick Roberts, has been requested to remain some time longer at that post which he has adorned, in the discharge of those duties which he has carried out so efficiently. I foresee in India that there will be great possibilities to economise our military charges in this way, and I will explain to the Committee why I think so. We now spend large sums in maintaining great bodies of men in various cantonments, apparently doing little else than watching the armies of our feudatories. The ever increasing loyalty of the Feudatory States of India is a matter which ought to afford us the highest satisfaction. It has been proved beyond doubt by the loyal offers of those Feudatory Princes to provide for the Empire at large against any foreign foe, and also by their more recently expressed willingness to arrange their military affairs in such a way as to enable the Government of India to withdraw those troops in favour of feudatory troops, or at any rate no longer to regard them as simply a watch upon feudatory armies. Attention has been called, by a question in this House to-night, to the fact, recorded in a recent telegram in the Times, that a large sum of money will be saved in military expenses to the Empire at large in the dominions of the Maharajah of Mysore; and I was glad to hear the answer of my right hon. Friend to that question. I have no doubt the zeal of Mysore in this respect will be imitated in the various other Feudatory States. It should be a great matter of satisfaction that the rendition of Mysore to the ancient Royal Family of that State has been so successful that British capital and enterprise are going into Mysore as easily and as confidently as into any other

  1049
  part of India. The Government is to be congratulated, not only on the favourable state of the finances in the past year, but also on the favourable prospects for the future. The prosperity of last year was perhaps largely owing to the advantage gained with regard to opium, which my right hon. Friend has described as of a gambling nature. But the prospect for the future is a far more secure one, founded, as it is, on the American silver legislation. It is, I think, a very remarkable coincidence that this change in the prospects of the Government of India, from the improved position which silver has taken in the markets of the world, has been exactly synchronous with the resolution come to by the Government of India, and expressed in this House by my right hon. Friend in March last, to consider favourably the hardship suffered by their Uncovenanted Civil Servants in consequence of the loss by exchange. While a few thousands of pounds were lost to the Government of India by their just action in this matter, the improvement in exchange has been rolling back, not merely thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, but millions into their coffers. Sir, before I sit down I desire emphatically to express my own gratitude, and the gratitude of those I represent in this matter, both to the Government and to the Select Committee—to the Government for the justice of their action, and to the Select Committee for the care they have taken in investigating the claims of these men. I believe it is the unanimous feeling of the whole of the so-called Uncovenanted Civil Servants of India, that the Government had acted in this matter, not indeed generously—that would not perhaps have been right—but certainly justly throughout. It is a great gratification to them that the Select Committee specially laid it down for the guidance of the Government, that no distinction in the way of pay and pension should be made between Indian-born and English-born servants of Her Majesty; both when domiciled in England would draw their pensions in the currency of this country. Mr. Courtney, I am confident that in the increased and extended co-operation of Indians and Englishmen in India will be found to be the truest solution of all our difficulties there, and
  1050
  the surest foundation of the continued greatness, prosperity, and happiness of the British Empire in India.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I heartily sympathise with the observations made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in reference to the Uncovenanted Civil Servants of India. For the most part these Indian Civil Servants were more tax consumers than tax producers. My remaining observation will be on the condition of the people and their sufferings from the malady of irresponsible officialism. The hon. Member opposite justly gave the Government of India credit for doing everything in their power to stamp out this evil malady in Eastern lands, but there are many others which every friend of India will try to stamp out. Here we have in this statement millions on millions of money levied from people who have no voice whatever in its control. My right hon. Friend said I was anxious for a revolution in India. I wish nothing of the kind; but if I were, I think I should have my right hon. Friend as an unconscious collaborateur with me, for he has stated that in this matter he regards the House of Commons, the ultimate Court of Appeal, with general indifference. I am sorry to think that is the case. An hon. Friend of mine told me he only a few days ago refused to obtain a ticket of admission for an Indian gentleman who wished to hear the Indian Budget discussion, because he was ashamed of the way Indian matters were conducted in the House of Commons. This document is very instructive, and at the same time very sad. My contention is, that from generation to generation the Indians have been odiously, mercilessly, and villainously robbed. The persons who are subjected to this extortion are no fewer than 270,000,000, and they inhabit a country seven times larger than Great Britain—a country which is as large as Europe, with the sole exception of Russia, and the mention of Russia reminds me of the statement of Mr. John Bright, that the Government of India was a pure and simple despotism. Out of these 270,000,000 there are no fewer than 40,000,000 who have never known what it is to have a satisfying

  1051
  meal, and from these people this money is ground, more especially in the shape of the Salt Tax. These 40,000,000 of people live on one meal a day, and the effect of the increase of the Salt Tax by eight annas deprived these people of any food for an average of eight days during the year. That is a very scandalous, a very villainous, and a very horrible state of circumstances. Let us see what is the poverty of the people, viewed with reference to their taxable ability. Our exports to Australia average £14 or £15 a head of the population of the colony, while our exports to India only reach 1s. 6d. a head, and it has been computed that the average income of the Indian native, including the few highly paid native officials, is 1½d per diem. There is a very interesting statement in the Finance Report issued by the Supreme Council in March, 1889. There is some increase in the Indian Railways—about 600 miles; but in the United States the increase was 12,000 miles. If the Government only took up this matter of railway enterprise with energy, there would be an enormous increase. However, I will say it is not, in my humble judgment, the most productive of the works in India. It has been computed that out of every shilling spent in railway enterprise, 8d. makes its way to England. In my view, preference should be given to works of irrigation, which would be more permanent and of greater advantage for the cultivation of the land. Railways may come afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman took a somewhat airy view of the Famine Fund, and he preferred to call it an emergency fund. Lord Lytton instituted it. Did he apply it to the wants of the starving poor? He did nothing of the kind. He pinched it and applied it to the Burmese Expedition.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Lord Lytton had nothing to do with the Burmese Expedition.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg pardon. It was the Afghan War. It was applied to the war in Afghanistan. Let me show the Under Secretary how the Salt Tax is regarded in the Legislative Council. Two Members of that Council protested warmly against the Salt Tax and the Income Tax. I am bound to say the two gentlemen were not European Members,
  1052
  but natives, who, in spite of the officialism and the manner in which natives are socially corrupted, had some regard for the suffering of their people. One of these gentlemen, Mr. Nulkar, said—
  "As regards the Salt Tax, I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships' Government to the extreme hardship and privation from which the great bulk of the Indian population suffers in consequence of the enhancement of the Salt Duty, which was sanctioned two years ago."
  It was sanctioned on January 19, 1888, and was the direct Act of Lord Cross.
  SIR J. GORST: It was passed like all other taxes by the Legislature of India. No doubt it was approved by the Secretary of State.
  MR. MAC NEILL: If I may talk so of the Indian Legislature, the more shame to them for passing it. I wish they had a Plan of Campaign out in India. Mr. Nulkar continued—
  "I am no believer in statistical conclusions either way, when they are based solely on a comparison between issues or exports and imports of salt within short corresponding periods. A better and more trustworthy proof of the privations to which the poor are reduced in parts of India is furnished by the new laws which have had to be passed, preventing the use of salt earth and similar substance for edible salt, because men do not resort to such extreme devices unless they are hard pressed to do so by the high rate which the Salt Tax has now reached."
  That reminds me of the Irish peasants collecting lettuce during the famine, only they were allowed to collect lettuce and were not put in prison for it. I may remind the House that in 1882 Mr. Kynaston Cross stated that the reduction in the Salt Tax was equal in its effect to the repeal of the Corn Laws in England. I would like to see the person who would attempt to re-enact the Corn Laws, and yet we are preying on the vitals of the starving poor of India. I come to the Income Tax. The poorest man who pays Income Tax in this country has at least £150 a year. In India they pay Income Tax on £34, and the cost of its collection from the people, who are utterly unable to pay it, is at least 25 per cent. Mr. Hossein, another member of the Legislative Council, says—
  "In the full belief in the justice of the cause I have undertaken to advocate, and in the moderation of my request, I earnestly implore that Your Excellency's Government will be pleased to grant the relief I have asked for

  1053
  by taking an early opportunity to exempt all annual income below 1,000 rupees from the operation of the Income Tax Law."
  That is, that Income Tax should in future be charged on £68, instead of £34; and the Viceroy and Sir David Barbour were much affected by the request. Sir David said he would consider it, and also the circumstances as regards the difficulty of collecting the tax. I wish, again, to direct the attention of the House to the contemptuous disregard of promises made by the British Government, again and again, to give the natives a fair chance of the official appointments of their own land. They have been deliberately excluded from all those appointments, and that exclusion necessitates a vast increase of expenditure because the appointments are given to Europeans, when they could be equally well, possibly better, filled by natives, at at least one-third of the expense. Of course, I do not say the natives could fill every appointment. A Departmental Committee of the India Office, in I860, reported that—
  "The difficulties offered to a native living in India, and residing in England for a time, are so great that as a general rule it is almost impossible for a native successfully to compete at the periodical examinations held in England. Were this irregularity removed, we should no longer be exposed to the charge of keeping promise to the ear and breaking it to the hope."
  The hon. Member for Northampton read a letter of Lord Lytton's three years ago, stating that the British Government, having had their choice between forcing the natives out of employment and cheating them, deliberately determined to cheat them. Here are the statistics of natives in high Government offices. Out of 2,357 appointments in the higher Uncovenanted Service, natives of India hold 188. The effect of a thing like that on the revenues of India is simply enormous, having regard to the fact that natives can do the work at one-third of the cost for which Europeans, however economically the Service may be conducted, can discharge the duties. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in stating that five natives passed the last examination, but, according to this memorandum I have got, although five natives passed the Civil Service Examination this year, only 12 have succeeded in, doing so during the past decade. I would direct the attention of the right
  1054
  hon. Gentleman to page 6 of this financial statement, paragraph 6, because it is there that Sir David Barbour speaks in animated language of what the right hon. Gentleman calls the financial and moral considerations, placing the financial considerations first. Sir David Barbour there says:—
  "The chief improvement in the current year appears under the head of Opium. There is an increase of Rx.286,400 in Opium Revenue; there is a decrease of Rx.708,800 in Opium Expenditure. The total improvement under Opium is consequently Rx.995,200. In the Budget Estimate the price of Bengal opium was taken at Rs.1,070 a chest. It has proved to be Rs.1,136."
  I will not speak of the effects of the opium on China, though I believe I should be technically right in doing so upon this Budget, as a portion of the revenue is obtained through forcing opium down the throats of the Chinese at the point of the bayonet. This is what our moral Government has done. I would say this, that the English Government are the first dominators and rulers of India who have derived, as we do now, a solid monetary gain from the vice of the people. Opium was drunk and smoked before our time, but it was in contradiction of the religious rights of the people, and was put down in one State, Burma, though it now flourishes under our rule. In that State to sell, drink, or smoke opium was punished by death. Perhaps it may be asked, in reference to this opium traffic in India, what difference there is between that and the alcoholic traffic here. There is a very considerable difference, because our Government in India are the proprietors of the traffic, whereas in the other traffic or trade a man carries it on at his own expense; and in India the Government, by purchasing the crop, put an artificial value upon the production of opium for revenue purposes. It has been stated, and will possibly be stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple), who knows a great deal about the subject, that this Indian tax on opium is simply a device to restrict the indiscriminate use of opium. I say that is not so. The best lands have been taken out of cultivation for the purpose of producing this opium, and the Government are directly engaged in trafficking in the sin and sufferings of the people of India

  1055
  for the purposes of raising revenue. By this traffic the people of India are demoralised. The lands under cultivation of the poppy are no fewer in British India than 500,000 acres, and, strange to say, for the successful cultivation of opium nothing but the best land is used. I will take the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham as a witness. In 1869, in reply to a question, he stated that we should extend the cultivation and ensure a plentiful supply, because if we did not the Chinese would do it themselves, and they had better have our good opium rather than their own indifferent opium. What is the meaning of good opium? It means strong opium, and indifferent opium means weak opium. Out of 300,000,000 of Chinese, only 1,000,000 use our opium, and that because it is forced upon them. The increase in the consumption of opium of late years is very great, and Canon Wilberforce, in a great speech on his return from India, declared that the opium was prepared in double strength in order to poison our Indian fellow subjects. There is something perfectly horrible in throwing temptation in another man's way for gross and filthy gain. I can understand a man being influenced by passion, but when men deliberately traffic, as the Government of these people have done, upon, the sins and sufferings of those under their charge, then such conduct appears to me to be too infamous to characterise. Yet this is the conduct of the Government of India in the present day. You know yourselves what opium is, because you refuse to allow opium cultivation in Bengal on account of its disastrous effects. Just for one moment let me refer to the famines. We know that India is the land of famines. The hon. Member for Evesham knows that, for he headed a relief fund on the occasion of one famine in which no fewer than a population as large as the City of London succumbed. Statisticians have computed the loss of life from war from 1793 to 1887 in Europe was 4,500,000; the loss of life from famine in India from 1802 to 1879 was no fewer than 14,000,000. The charge I make against the Government is that of diverting 500,000 of acres of the best land in India from the growth of cereals to the growth of opium for the mere purpose
  1056
  of revenue. I wish to say something about opium in Burma. As I have said, under the old Burmese Government, the man who sold, drank, or smoked opium was sentenced to death; and, in regard to Burma, you are now demoralising these people for the sake of gross metallic gain. The opium dens are increasing in numbers every year, because they mean a source of revenue to the Government. In British India these dens number no fewer than 10,000, and Mr. Caine, who was in India the year before last, has given a terrific blow to the traffic by the harrowing picture of the scenes he had witnessed in these dens. I have witness after witness—missionaries, medical men, travellers, and English clergymen, like Canon Wilberforce—who say the people of India would give anything to be rid of the traffic. I want to show what effect financially the opium has on the revenue, and that we cannot rely upon it. We have got the authority of the greatest financier of the time that the opium traffic in India is undoubtedly precarious. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian ten years ago, on the Indian Budget, said, speaking of the opium trade in India—
  "None of us, I hope, in this House view this matter with indifference. I am certainly of opinion that opium revenue, instead of being a sound foundation, is a slippery and dangerous part of our Indian revenue."
  Last year a Motion was brought forward in reference to compulsorily forcing it upon China, and the Under Secretary of State for India then got up in his place and said that the opium trade in India was necessary, because Persia was growing very good opium. In the time of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), it was said that if the opium revenue failed India would be in a state of bankruptcy. If that be so, if you are corrupting them, and guaranteeing there should be certain famines at certain specified times for the depopulation of the country, I cannot congratulate you upon your Indian rule. In listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, and then to that of my hon. Friend, I was forcibly reminded of what a great Indian citizen said to me. He said that I am the best person to defend the cause of India. If they could not have an English Member, then they

  1057
  should have an Irish Member, for he had seen in his own country the evils under which the people of India suffered, injustice promoted by malice or by class hatreds. But the mean arts of the past will no longer avail. You gained India by what I would call successful Pigottism. You got it by murder and by fraud. Are you going to keep it by demoralisation and starvation? You may do so for some time, but the people of India will soon become alive to their own interests, and will seek to govern themselves according to their own principles and for their own land.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I shall not detain the Committee long at this late hour, but I must offer a few remarks upon the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for Donegal. I do not doubt his good intentions, but I am sure the Committee knows the exuberance of eloquence in which he has just indulged. I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman, as he resumed his seat, reflected that he is a citizen of the British Empire, and that he was addressing his countrymen regarding an Empire founded by them. Before I proceed to answer some of the hon. Member's points, I feel bound to offer some words of explanation as to my own part in the famines of India. The hon. Member has got hold of the wrong end of the story. I have been concerned in three famines. The first was in Bengal, and there I really commanded, and practically no lives were lost. The second was in Bombay, and there, too, I had the command. On that occasion, despite much success, there was some loss of life. But the causes were mainly pestilence and scourge, over which we had no control. In the third case, at Madras, would the hon. Member be surprised to know that I never commanded there at all? I certainly was employed as a counsellor and adviser during the early stages of that famine, but I had no administrative authority. I stayed but a short time, and during that time the famine had made but little progress. Afterwards, the famine became intensified, and I cannot undertake to answer for what occurred, though the authorities struggled bravely against a distress prolonged over two years. But I look back with thankfulness to the
  1058
  success which, under Providence, was vouchsafed to us in the saving of life on the two previous occasions. Blessed results were obtained by enormous efforts and sacrifices on the part of the Government, of myself, and of my officers. As my time is short, I will deal for one moment with the allegations of the hon. Member regarding the opium traffic. I understand him to raise no particular objection to the Bombay system, because there the opium goes straight to the port of exportation. His objection is against the Bengal system. Now, Sir, this subject has been debated four times in this House of Commons, and four times it has been answered terque quaterque, and now, though I answer it for the fifth time, it is like slaying of the slain. The pictures which the hon. Member has painted for Bengal simply represent parts of the fiscal system. Nothing would be easier than by a stroke of the pen to assimilate the system to that of Bombay. But the results would be two-fold. First, there would be a loss of revenue; and, secondly, there would be a great deal of smuggling and illicit consumption among our own Indian people. Now, to avoid those two objections or evils this Bengal system has been devised. If misrepresented unintentionally, or if described under radical misconception, the system can be construed as having a bad appearance. But to any person who understands the case, and who looks into the administrative particulars, its real merits will be apparent. Now as regards the Chinese trade, I entirely adhere to the passage of my writing which he has quoted. As for our encouraging the taste for opium among the Chinese, the House may recollect that the Chinese themselves are the main producers. They produce about five times the amount that India produces, and the Indian production bears the same proportion to that of China that the champagne of France bears to all the other wines of France and Spain put together. And as to the allegation that we are converting good lands, that could be sown with grain, for the purposes of opium, does the hon. Member remember that the Chinese are determined to have this drug, and that they are prepared to pay very highly for it, and that its

  1059
  cultivation and production is very profitable to the Bengal peasant.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Profitable?
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Yes, most profitable; and if our system were swept away to-morrow, still there would be this cultivation, still the poppy fields in the spring would bloom with the flowers white, pink, and purple. And as it would be untaxed, probably it would be extended. In the absence of our preventive system it would be also impossible to prevent our Indian people consuming the drug. Still the traffic would continue; still there would be the opium clippers or steamers plying between Calcutta and the Chinese ports. Then, Sir, there are one or two other points in the hon. Member's speech that I ought to answer. Does the House recollect that touching, that moving piece of statistics which he detailed to the House about 40,000,000 people in the Indian continent being insufficiently nourished? Well, 40,000,000 sounds a large number, but, after all, that is only one-eighth of the Indian population, so that, even if that figure was correct—and I deny its correctness—it would amount to one person out of eight who was insufficiently nourished. I venture to say that in the Metropolitan area more that that proportion would be found of persons insufficiently nourished. But where does he get that 40,000,000? About 10 years ago, in the famine times, that figure was mentioned in a statistical estimate by Sir William Hunter. But that was a general statement of his opinion. He was a highly qualified officer. He was in this case a statistician mainly. I do not disparage him, but that was only his individual opinion, based on no particular details or any special data, and it was never accepted by any authority in India, and was never admitted by the Government. Thus it was an estimate to be taken as such, and not a known fact to be quoted against the Indian Government in this House. Then the hon. Member quoted from a Report in regard to salt earth, as if that were a proof of misery. But that was in the nature of smuggling. Those who got that salt out of the salt earth have it free of taxation. It is only a proof of their sagacity. Again, Sir, the hon. Member told us that the minimum of income for Income Tax assessment in
  1060
  India was £34, and he contrasted that with £150, the minimum in this country. But, Sir, inasmuch as the value of labour is four times greater in this country than it is in India, a man who really had £34 of income annually would be better off in India than the Englishman on £150 is in England. But how does the hon. Member get that £34? He gets it, I see, by taking the Indian minimum of rupees—500—and reducing it to the pound at the rate of 1s. 4d. exchange. But really the minimum income was more like £50 when the Income Tax was fixed. I remember very well that 500 rupees was taken as £50, and it was £50 then according to the exchange, and it will soon be £50 again. But, Sir, that comparison, I submit, is insufficient, because the income is not in pounds at all. The man knows nothing about pounds. He subsists upon the rupees, and upon that standard his income is more like £50 than £34. I say, therefore, that, according to this comparison, the minimum in India is really more favourable to the Indian people than the minimum in England is to the English people. So much for that. Then there are one or two points in the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Northampton. I am much obliged to him for the kind expressions he used towards me personally. But, subject to your good ruling, Mr. Courtney, I shall hardly be able to say a word about one matter regarding which he indirectly challenged me, namely, the elective principle for the natives in the Legislative Councils. I am prepared to avow and adhere to, both inside and outside Parliament, every word that I have ever uttered or written on that subject, and I hope that some day in this House I may have an opportunity of explaining the rough and ready plans which. I had formed for carrying out that object. But may I remark on what the hon. Member said about the salt in Bengal? He pointed to a reduction in two successive years of the quantity of salt consumed in Bengal, but that was in the quantity of the English salt.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: On the total salt.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: On the English salt, Sir.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I was careful to say the total salt.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: The explanation is this. The hon. Member has got hold of the consumption of salt as given in the Calcutta Returns. And what has happened is this, that, owing to certain commercial speculations, the price of English salt in Calcutta had risen, and consequently there was a diminution of the consumption. But, at the same time, the supply was kept up by salt which came down to Bengal from Northern India. So that the result is not so much a variation on the total amount of salt consumed, but a variation in the source of supply. The people of Bengal have consumed much the same as they formerly consumed, but instead of getting it wholly from England, they got it only in the main from England and partly from other sources. The House has heard the moving description given from a certain book by Mr. Thorburn regarding the Moslem peasantry in the Punjab. The hon. Member seemed to consider the conditions described in that book as worse than those of Kashmir, which were described in this House as justifying the deposition of the Native Prince. But what was the case? The book only showed that certain sections of the Punjab population are deeply in debt; that they are constantly renewing their bonds to the money-lenders, and that at each renewal they had to submit to terms more and more usurious. That is regrettable, and I trust that it will be the subject of special and remedial legislation, just as similar evils which were experienced under my rule in Bombay were remedied by legislation. But these evils are very hard for Kings, or Governments, or Parliaments, to cure. What is the real cause? It is just this: The Moslem peasants under British rule have been invested with proprietary rights in land—rights which they had never possessed before. That land had risen in selling value from year to year; and the consequence was that its owners, finding that they had real security to offer, ran into debt for the sake of marriage festivities and other social extravagances. This is one of those evils which bring no shame whatever to the British Government. Much is said by the hon. Member
  1062
  about Mr. Maconochie. He was an excellent officer, and his Report is said to have revealed destitution among the people. I do not find anything of the kind, and I do not know to what Report the hon. Member was alluding.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I referred to page 3 of the Report, which was laid upon the Table last year. I did not read it, being anxious not to take up time, but it contained matter much stronger than any given in my summary.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I have just been looking into the Reports of Mr. Maconochie, and they seem satisfactory, on the whole, regarding the condition of the people. There are other officers who have reported, and I find they generally say that, on the whole, the people are fairly well nourished. May I add one word about the Famine Insurance Fund to which the hon. Member has again adverted? This Famine Insurance Fund is a highly technical and curious expression which, in my opinion, ought never to have been invented, and I am quite sure that those Indian Authorities who invented it would never have done so if they had foreseen that it would be turned to such purposes of argument as it has been on previous occasions in this House. It was merely a Resolution on the part of the Government of India that they would provide such a sum as might be applied to the reduction of debt and the construction of works to prevent famine, to the extent of about £15,000,000 in each decade. That was a large undertaking, and I contend that successive Viceroys did really endeavour to act up to it, though some years have been so full of requirements for Imperial defence that in these years they have not been able to carry out their intentions. But in the course of these 10 years they will be found to have very nearly fulfilled every intention, and to have set aside a sum not much less than £15,000,000 for these purposes; and I say that, on the whole, they have done very well. And now, Sir, before resuming my seat, let me congratulate my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State upon the Statement he has been able to make to us. He has shown to us that India, despite the depreciation of the rupee, and despite

  1063
  the vast expenditure incurred out of revenue for military operations and for famine relief, is incurring year after year a capital outlay from State resources by money borrowed partly in India and partly in England, under circumstances which combine in one hand State administration with private enterprise. It shows, also, that much has been done for Imperial defence. The hon. Member said it was better for the people that they should be saved the cost of keeping up a large Army. Supposing we did not keep Armies in India, and British rule were upset, what would become of the people then? Why, they would be pillaged and devastated by fire and sword. The Statement showed, further, that, despite all that may be said by hon. Members opposite, the people of India bear the lightest taxation, perhaps, of any people in the world—far lighter than they ever knew under their own Native dynasties. As to the Salt Tax, it is absolutely the only tax paid by the masses of the people, and per head it is so small that it is hardly possible to represent the incidence in figures. The people themselves have a resourcefulness in famine which is wonderful, and which would hardly be shown by any European nation in similar circumstances. Then they evince an aptitude to strike in with enterprise whenever they have a chance. Look at the way they filled up the gap in the Cotton Trade during the American Civil War. Look, also, at the way they have seized the chance of assisting in the food supply of the United Kingdom. Year by year they are advancing in education. I may call the hon. Member for Northampton to bear witness of that. He has been to Bombay, at all events, and he has seen a grand scene of progress and education and enlightenment. I have no doubt the pious Hindoos in the Congress there almost worshipped him. They believe in the transmigration of souls, and I almost think they must have imagined that the souls of some of the mythological heroes had migrated into the stately form of the hon. Member for Northampton. I shall resume my seat with much gratitude to the House for the attention with which they have listened to me, but I might have done better if I had had more arguments to
  1064
  answer—if the hon. Member had only started a few more hares for me to hunt. As it is, I feel like the old lion perishing for lack of prey.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I am glad the hon. Baronet is going to remain in his place, because I think I shall be able to start one or two more hares than he expects. I do not wish to make the slightest semblance of an attack upon the hon. Baronet, because I have always known him, both in India and in this House, as a first-class official optimist. I am, therefore, not surprised at the character of the speech he has just delivered. He stated, truly, that he left Madras before any great number of deaths had occurred through the Madras Famine of 1877–78. But I feel it my duty to tell the Committee that the hon. Member, when he made the recommendations, to which he himself has alluded, before he left Madras, unfortunately made among these recommendations one, namely, that the allowance to be paid to the famishing creatures who came to the relief stations should be restricted to one pound of grain per day, and the enormous number of deaths which subsequently occurred were traced to the smallness of the famine ration that the hon. Baronet had prescribed. Public opinion placed on the shoulders of the hon. Baronet a great share of the responsibility for the disasters that occurred after he left Madras. I would not have alluded to this point had he not alluded to it himself. Then there was a remark which fell from the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Leth bridge) on a different subject altogether, but it is one to which I think it is very necessary to allude. It is this: In counselling the Government of India and the Secretary of State to make what he considered to be a fair use of the Army in India, he said that there were large forces of British troops at present locked up in the Native States, which had been placed in these States for the purpose of watching the Native Princes. He even alluded to the largest of all these forces, which is stationed in the cantonment of Secunderabad, a place in the neighbourhood of which I have spent the best part of 28 years. The hon. Member himself has had a long Anglo-Indian career, and I am rather surprised that he should have brought

  1065
  so little knowledge to bear on the subject as to have made the statement which he did. In the first place, the statement he has made is a decidedly unfounded reflection upon these Native States. It is a gross reflection upon them to say that they need, or that the British Government think they need, large forces of British troops to be kept at their capitals for the purpose of watching them.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mis-represent me. I said nothing of the kind, and I certainly intended to imply the very opposite of what the hon. Member has now imputed to me. What I did say was that in the bad past there had been times when large bodies of our troops were locked up in the utterly useless occupation of watching with hostile intent the armies of our feudatories, but I put it that now the loyalty of the feudatory States—I specially mentioned Mysore, but I might also have mentioned Hyderabad—that the loyalty of these feudatories was so recognised that the forces which were formerly locked up in this useless allocation will now be set free to be occupied in a different way.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: The hon. Gentleman has substantially repeated the statement I made. The hon. Gentleman admits that he had suggested that in past days there were certain large British forces placed in their capitals and elsewhere for the purpose of watching the native States. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that all these large British forces kept in native States were originally placed there under special Treaties, that the Native Princes not only sought, but paid for them, in most cases by capitalised sums, for the purpose of securing their protection against their own domestic enemies. Now, I do not know how the hon. Member can possibly assert that when a native State made a payment like that, and when the British Government were in consequence bound to place a body of well disciplined troops in that State for the purpose of protecting it from its internal and domestic enemies, I do not know how he can assert that at any time the British troops were set to watch the Native Princes and their armies. Moreover, it is perfectly clear that the forces in question are absolutely locked up in the places in which they are located,
  1066
  because we have in our pockets at this moment the whole capitalised sum which has been paid for the providing of these forces for all time. It is quite clear that if these troops were removed, the first thing to be done would necessarily be to restore to the Native Princes the capitalised amount which we now hold belonging to them, and in virtue of which we keep these troops at their disposal. But, at the risk of detaining the Committee, I think it will be positively my duty to call the attention of the Under Secretary to a few points to which I think it is desirable that the attention of the Committee should be directed, as I believe, for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by telling us that it would not be very long or very difficult of understanding, because it dealt with what he called a kind of general level of prosperity. I wish, for my part, that I could at all endorse the views of the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. But I think, by anyone who knows India, this will be taken to be the most important point of all on which the right hon. Gentleman himself rests the principal part of his case. I warn him that in what I am about to say I shall call on him to travel far outside the brief which has been furnished to him by the India Office. He told us that the Land Revenue is so mild in its incidence that it only amounts to one-half of the net produce of the soil.
  SIR J. GORST: I said net rent.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: It is just the same.
  SIR J. GORST: No; I specially corrected that. I meant the net value of the rent.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I had not the good fortune to be in the House when the right hon. Gentleman used the words, and I am indebted to an hon. Member for telling me what the words were. Now, I take it that he means net rent or net produce in the same sense as is used in all Indian Revenue Reports. An attempt is made to discover, in the first place, what is the gross produce of the land. There is, then, an attempt made to deduct from this gross produce the expenses which the cultivator has had to pay, and then the Revenue Departments consider that a certain amount is left in his pocket out of which they desire to take a

  1067
  half, leaving the other half in his possession. Now, what I want to bring specially before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is this. I want to say—if there were time, I could easily prove—that instead of the Land Tax at present enforced being only one-half of the net rent, it is immensely more; I hold that sometimes it oversteps it so much that in many parts of India the cultivators are at present living on the little capital that they possess, and are gradually getting more and more into the hands of the usurer. I want to explain to the right hon. Gentleman how he is deceived in this matter by the official documents. First of all, there is an absurd attempt made to find out the gross produce of a holding or of a district. There is what is called a crop experiment made by the district officer. The officer goes down and he looks at a holding. He picks out a field which, in his judgment, appears to be an average field, with growing corn upon it. Then he picks out a few square yards of what he thinks an average kind of growing corn, and he then orders that the corn on these square yards should be cut and threshed out and measured. The result, of course, is obvious. They thresh out the corn which is cut from these few yards, and they multiply the result by the whole extent of the field. That is the absurd way in which they get at the gross value of the holding. But they have now got to deduct some reasonable amount for the sustenance of the family, in order to find what is the net rent. This, again, is done in the most grossly unjust manner. I can point the right hon. Gentleman to proofs that, in nine cases out of ten, instead of allowing to the Indian cultivator a deduction for produce that he and his family would reasonably eat, they make him an allowance which is little more than one-seventh of the true cost of cultivation. On an average holding of 10 acres they allow for the sustenance of half a man and one bullock during nine months, instead of allowing for the sustenance of one man, one woman, with, on an average, three children, and two bullocks during the 12 months of the year. By deducting this mock sum from the supposed gross rent the net rent is arrived at, and all I can say is that the calculation is as absurd
  1068
  as that which the Chief Secretary for Ireland made in regard to the Irish Land Purchase Bill. He said the net rent was the gross rent after the deduction of the local rates only without any other outgoings, and the Indian Government, through their officials, have made as absurd a definition as between gross rent and net rent. The third way in which the Indian cultivator is mulcted is in regard to the prices at which he is supposed to be able to dispose of his produce. How do our Revenue Departments fix these supposed prices? They take the whole of the villages, small and great, throughout the whole district, some of which villages only consist of a few houses, some of which have no corn growing at all, and they take the price which obtains at these up-country rural villages, where there is no corn growing, and where the price of grain is, therefore, very high. They then take the price of grain in the large markets, where there is a plethora of it, where it naturally, therefore, sells cheap, and where, in point of fact, the mass of the crops are disposed of at low prices. They then take the united prices of the whole of these villages and districts, small and great, and add them together, and if there are, say, 30, they simply divide by 30, and say that they have got the average price of corn. These are statements which, if I may venture to say so, have never been made in the House before, and I trust the importance of the subject will be my excuse for having ventured for so long a time as I have done to trespass upon the patience of the Committee.
  MR. PROVAND: India, Sir, has, it must be remembered, no representatives in this House; and, therefore, it becomes the business of all the Members to give attention to Indian interests. India has a Budget in which the Revenue and Expenditure approximate to the Revenue and the Expenditure of the United Kingdom, and is brought in during the last days of the Session, when the strength of the House is probably not a quarter of its ordinary strength, and when only a few hours of the night can be given to its discussion. There are in this House at least two or three score Members who take an interest in India, either from past or

  1069
  present connection with that country. There are Members who belong, or formerly belonged, to the Civil and Military Establishments, and Members who are, or have been, connected with India through commerce. Perhaps I should most strongly object to the fact that this Return we have had to consider before coming here to-night has only been issued to-day, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India, although remarkably clear, does not make up for the opportunity which has been denied to us of going over the figures in this elaborate explanatory statement before we came to the House to listen to the discussion. I would say a word or two of congratulation to the Indian Government on the position in which they find themselves this year, especially as that position is different from the experience of many past years. Since 1873, I may say, the normal Indian Budget has shown a deficit from one cause or another, but chiefly by loss from exchange; whereas the improved position on the present occasion is due to a profit on exchange. The Famine Fund, of which we have heard something, but not as much as is necessary, is very largely a question of book-keeping. We have heard from several speakers comments on the Salt Tax, which presses severely on the poorest people. The Revenue from this source has increased 7 per cent. in a single year, as a consequence of the increased duty, and to this we have to add the increased price the people of India have now to pay in consequence of the cost of the salt itself being raised by the combination of salt mine-owners in Cheshire, and by the increased rates of freight which have had to be paid during the last year or two. Therefore, we hope that the advisers of the Indian Government will give their attention to doing something in their improved financial position to lessening the Salt Tax rather than to promise that they will provide for the Famine Fund which has never, so far as we have heard, been anything more than a question of book-keeping. I would make one remark as to what fell from the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Donegal, who made a terrible statement as to the circumstances attending the connection
  1070
  of India with this country. There is no doubt that the early wars in India—the wars of Clive and others—tell many a story which it would be better could not now be told against us. There was a great deal of ruthless and bad behaviour on our part at the time, but there is no man who reads the modern history of India, and compares it with what it was before our subjugation of the country, who can come to any other conclusion than that the position of the populations of India has been immensely improved in every respect since we have taken charge of it. Before that time the population was kept down chiefly by two causes—famines and wars. And, indeed, the wars were not wars in the sense in which we understand the term in Europe now; they were simply butcheries of entire populations by some ruthless conqueror who found enough troops to follow him. Another remark fell from the hon. Gentleman with reference to our connection with China as regards the opium traffic. He stated that the traffic was forced upon China by us. Well, the only foundation for that statement is that we undertook, in 1842, what is known as the Opium War; but since then there has been no compulsion of any kind, and the Chinese Authorities could stop the importation of opium at any moment. The matter has been one of open negotiation, and the cultivation of opium has increased enormously in China, notwithstanding the importation of the Indian article, and although the Chinese Government passes all sorts of laws against it. The Mandarins themselves post up large yellow notices, saying that this or that must not be done with opium, but, nevertheless, it is cultivated year after year in exactly the same way. If we did not send an ounce of opium to China it would merely increase the planting of poppies in China; and the Chinaman, instead of getting fine opium from India, would have to put up with the inferior quality which he cultivates himself. I would add to my remarks one protest. We are going to meet in three months—we are going to change our habits—and I trust the Under Secretary for India will see that the Indian Budget is brought on at an earlier period of the next Session. The explanatory statement we have had

  1071
  to-day should, I understand, have been circulated three or four months ago, and I have no doubt it was made up in India early enough to have permitted that we should have it in this House in plenty of time for this Debate. Therefore, I hope that next Session the same state of things will not occur again, and that we shall not have to wait until the end of the Session for the discussion of this important subject.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I do not intend to discuss this matter at any great length. I have risen for a particular purpose. The hon. Member for Northampton, in the course of the speech which he delivered, spoke about the necessity for reducing our armed forces in India in order to fill the bellies of the unfortunate natives, but the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham retorted where would the bellies be if our Armies were reduced? While the Government are attentive enough in some respects, I say they are not paying due regard to the proper arming of the country. We understand the Viceroy and his Council requested four years ago that the batteries of artillery in India should be re-armed. The present nine-pounder muzzle-loading gun is entirely inferior to the guns that could be brought to bear against it in any campaign by any European Power. This inferiority might have a most disastrous effect upon the Indian Army. It is essential that they should be supplied with more powerful guns. It was stated on a previous occasion that 96 guns of the new pattern would be furnished, but I should like to ask how many batteries have been furnished with the new gun? I do not believe all the batteries of the country are armed with it, and it is a matter of the greatest importance to the country. I believe that the gentleman who is in charge of the forces in India will be one of the first to appeal to the Government of this country to carry out this absolutely necessary proceeding. I believe it is very much to the discredit of the War Office in this country that such a state of things should exist, but I hope the matter will be remedied as soon as possible.
  SIR J. GORST: With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, I desire to say that the Government of India have been in communication with the Government of this
  1072
  country on the subject of procuring the guns to which the hon. Member has referred, but it has been found impossible by the War Department to supply them as rapidly as the interests of India would appear to demand. I will not detain the House at this hour of the night by making another speech. There are one or two questions to which I think I ought to reply. In the first place, it was not my fault, nor was it the fault of the leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), or of Her Majesty's Government, that this Debate did not occur at an earlier period of the Session. What would the House say if, a month or two ago, the exciting business that was then occupying the time of the House had been, interrupted in order that the Indian Budget might come on? With regard to the complaints made as to the delay in getting documents ready, I wish to say that last year I made a great effort to have all Papers connected with Indian finance ready as soon as possible. The documents were laid on the Table very early, but what was the consequence?—the Debate was delayed, the figures were corrected, and they did not prove to be of as great advantage as was anticipated. This year I did not press the authorities in India or in the India Office to hasten the production of the Papers. With regard to the particular Report referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton, I have to say that every effort was made to produce that Report as early as possible, and it was actually in the hands of the printer early in June; and if it was not produced in time it was not my fault, or the fault of any of my officials, but of the printer, over whom we have no control whatever.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: It was only laid on the Table in dummy last night.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, formally, but it was in the printers' hands. The other document referred to is the explanatory Memorandum. That Memorandum is simply a printed statement, made in accordance with what has lately been the custom of the India Office for the purpose of saving a good deal of the time of the House. It has been laid on the Table of the House by myself, in pursuance of the practice recently adopted by the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the Secretary of State for War, so that

  1073
  they should not have to make a long statement, such as was the custom in the introduction of the Army and Navy Estimates. I may be asked why I did not lay it on the Table of the House last June. The Committee will remember that what happened last year was this. We had three sets of figures to consider—first, with reference to the Financial Statement in reference to India in March last year; then the figures of my explanatory Memorandum, which were laid on the Table of the House early in June; and then the figures which were brought forward on the day that we were discussing the Bill; and hence, with regard to my Memorandum, I believe that, so far from it being explanatory, it was confusing. There are one or two questions which the hon. Member for Northampton has put to me with regard to the case of Mr. Crawford. He has asked to be compensated in regard to some part of the costs to which he was subjected, and the matter is now under the consideration of the Government of India. No decision has as yet been arrived at. I am also asked about the expression on page 12 of this Statement, namely:—
  "Including capital expenditure on steamboat service and suspense account, but excluding other indirect charges,"
  which refers to furlough and pension charges not taken into account in the railway estimates. The hon. Member for Northampton has read to me what purports to be an extract from a Despatch from the Government of India to the Secretary of State, and he challenges me to say categorically whether such a Despatch has been delivered or not. To that challenge I say I decline to reply, and I decline for this reason: If what the hon. Member has quoted is an official Despatch, the possession and knowledge of it can only have been obtained by the commission of an act which is a criminal offence under the laws of India, and, therefore, I decline to say whether what purports to be an extract from a Despatch is or is not authentic. With regard to the question of the extension of the Indian railways, I may say that a correspondence is at present going on between the Secretary of State and the Government of India on the subject. No conclusion has as yet been arrived at, but when the correspondence is brought to a conclusion,
  1074
  if the hon. Member will move that the documents be laid on the Table of the House I shall be happy to produce them. The same remark applies to the question of the broad and narrow gauge. I understand that what the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) quoted to the House was the excited language of the chairman of a narrow gauge railway, in a speech which he delivered in the City of London. This gentleman drew a most alarming picture of the dreadful results that would follow any interference with the narrow gauge railways. There, again, there is a correspondence going on between the Secretary of State and the Government of India with reference to the question of the gauge, and it is not the first correspondence of the kind. As many years ago there was a battle of gauges in this country, so now there is the same thing in India. As you may readily suppose, there are questions raised as to which is the best gauge. That correspondence is also going on, and when it is brought to a conclusion I shall be happy to produce it. I protest against the practice, which is followed very largely in discussions in this House on the affairs of the Government of India, of communicating the contents of confidential documents, as has been done in this discussion. I do not think I ought to delay the House by answering any of the more general observations of the hon. Member for Northampton. As regards the statements about the distress of the people of India, it is the easiest thing in the world to pick out one or two isolated cases of poverty and distress, but I think it is most unfair to represent that as the general condition of the people of India. No one knows better than the hon. Member for Northampton, so conversant with the affairs of India as he is, that the general condition of the people of India, as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Provand) has stated, has greatly improved under English rule; and anybody who represents the results of English rule as disastrous to the people of India must be very ignorant of the actual state of matters. Now, I think I have answered everything which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton, and I do not think there are any other statements I should take notice of except those of the hon.

  1075
  Member for Elgin. The hon. Member has given us an interesting account of the disgracefully incompetent manner in which the revenue and survey officers discharge their duties. I cannot answer that now by replying to all the details he brings forward, but I should be very much astonished if the body of English, Irish, and Scotchmen who constitute the Civil Service of Bombay was so incompetent as he represents. He says that the method of taxation is based on a miscalculation, and that the rents are shamefully over-valued by the erroneous and ridiculous manner of arriving at the basis of taxation. I can only say that such accusations as that, if they are to be made at all, should be made in the Council of the Government of Bombay. There are independent members of that Council, and if there is any gentleman in Bombay who would wish to take up this subject the Governor of Bombay would place him upon the Council, where he could point out anything so melancholy, if it existed, as that which has been pointed out by the hon. Member. As to the hon. Member for South Donegal, I do not think he has such a bad opinion of this House as one would naturally gather from some of the things he says, and I do not think that the Member for Elgin has such a bad opinion of the House either, but I believe that these stock speeches have been made rather too often in the interests of an Association which is trying to carp at and criticise anything the Government of India does. I hope that such extremely violent charges as these gentlemen have made will not be received with credulity, but will be valued according to their real worth.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I have avoided rising to interrupt the right Gentleman, but with regard to his last remark, I do not think anybody in this House who knows my past career will say that I speak in the interests of any Association or any body except the people of India, for whom I have suffered, and willingly suffered, a great deal, without seeking or receiving a shadow of remuneration in the slightest degree. The right hon. Gentleman has stated very candidly, and just as I expected he would, that it would be impossible for him on the spur of the moment to go into the details which I have endeavoured
  1076
  to give to the Committee with reference to the revenue and survey officers, but he expresses surprise that I should lay such charges against a body of men who constitute the Civil Service of India. I have not brought charges against them; I have only given, a faithful description of the false arithmetical methods under which they perform their duties. It is not their fault; they are bound to perform their duties in the way I have described. But I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question, and I think I have a right to press for a reply. Let it be granted that he rejects my data on which I have based my conclusion that the ryot has to pay the whole—aye, and more than the whole—of his net rent to the Government. I now ask: how does he himself arrive at the conclusion which formed the key-note of his speech, and on the correctness of which, I hold, the whole welfare and the very existence of our Empire hangs—that the land revenue of India at present consists of only one-half of the net rent of the soil? The right hon. Gentleman has given no vestige of information as to how he arrives at this result, and he will surely see the imperative need of his placing the Committee in possession of whatever reasons he has for adhering to his view, as against all the counter arguments which I have adduced.
  MR. MORTON: I rise as a new Member to complain of the late period at which we receive these Accounts. I do not consider that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India has made a very good excuse as to why we have not been asked to consider these matters earlier. He has said that we were so excited earlier in the Session that we were not in a fit humour to consider the welfare of 250,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects, and in another matter he has blamed the printers, and says that he is not responsible for them. But surely it was possible in a great city like London to have these documents printed much sooner than he says it was. Then the right hon. Gentleman who brings this important subject before us at a late hour of the Session has even avoided detailed answers to the arguments on this side. He did not answer to the criticism on the opium question. It

  1077
  was a trade which is a disgrace to this country, and we should be ashamed that we are making money out of the degradation of the people of another country. And he might also have told us whether in the near future the Government are going to consider whether they should reduce the tax upon salt. Again, no reply was made to the statements about the employment of natives in connection with the Government Offices in India. I understand that though natives come at great expense to this country and pass examinations, yet they do not get employed in the Government of their country.
  SIR J. GORST: No, no.
  MR. MORTON: I understand there are a few exceptions.
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member would read the Report of the Public Service Commission, he would see that they are largely employed.
  MR. MORTON: I understood there were about 150 employed out of 2,000. That is a very small number. From information which I have from outside, I gather that the natives are not employed in the service of the country, as they ought to be, and not at all unless they come to this country and pass examinations.
  SIR J. GORST: No, no.
  MR. MORTON: I have looked over these Accounts, but it is impossible, with them only a few hours in our hands, to consider the statement carefully. I wish, however, to call attention to the net revenue and the gross revenue. The gross revenue is stated at £85,000,000, and the net revenue at under £50,000,000. Then there is £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 unaccounted for, which appears to be the cost of collection. That may explain why the Government should employ Indian labour. The employment of Europeans is very expensive, and this accounts for where these £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 go. Nor is that the whole of the expense, for besides this there is £12,000,000 for the Civil Departments. Why was the cost of collection so great in India? Why, by employing Europeans. I am satisfied that in the near future you will have to consider the whole Government of India. As soon as we get rid of the Irish difficulty
  1078
  the question of India will have to be taken up. The great Empire of India will never be properly governed until the people of India have a voice in the Government of their country.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: I have gone very closely into this question while in India, and nothing can be more surprising—not to use a stronger expression—to anyone who knows about assessment—particularly the assessment of Western India—than the statement that it is over-assessed, as the hon. Member for Elgin says. He questions the accuracy of the statement that the assessment of India is on the basis of half the net rental. But that is precisely what it is in North-Western India, where land is generally sub-let. I take the case of Bombay, which I know best, but I know that it is so in other parts of India too. The assessment there is much less than half the value of the land; for when sub-let it yields twice, thrice, and even five times the amount. Then the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Morton) talked about natives not being employed in the Government Service. Why, there are many thousands of natives so employed.
  MR. MORTON: As Civil Servants?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Particularly in Revenue Departments. Natives are chiefly employed in the Revenue Survey, and in the other Services they are also extensively employed. It is only in the highest ranks of superintendents that Europeans are employed. For general purposes the appointments of revenue officers, and all those officials that come in contact with the natives, are held by natives.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I do not think that any hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House need imagine I shall detain them long. But I wish to call attention to the supposed reply given to me by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I thought I had misunderstood him at first when he said he had risen to tell me that the Government demand was half of the rent. I suggested to him net rent, which I fancied was what he meant, and I had hoped that he had accepted the correction. It would, at all events, have represented what the Government meant,

  1079
  although very far from what the actual figures bring out. I have offered to put in the right hon. Gentleman's possession proofs of what I said. But the right hon. Gentleman has shown no desire for proofs. I may, however, mention the name of Sir W. Wedderburn, who was a distinguished officer of the Bombay Government. Hon. Gentlemen representing the purely official element in India may laugh, but Sir William Wedderburn has put his case in print. He has proved his part of the case down to the ground, and no one has ventured to contradict him. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should instance the North West Provinces of India—in other words, the provinces where there are landlords, and where the land is let to tenants, which is a very different thing. He speaks of a country 1,000 miles north of Bombay. And he says that we know what the net rent is, because it is half what the land lets for. This is evidently worse and worse, for land, unfortunately too often, lets at its gross rent; and the right hon. Gentleman thinks he has answered me by telling us what the Government of India themselves would never allege for a moment, and all because he appears ignorant of the fact that the mass of the ryots of India, including those of Bombay, whom the right hon. Gentleman governed for five years, are peasant proprietors under Government, and that therefore, as there is no tenancy, there can be no letting value, as alleged by the right hon. Gentleman. I now fervently hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India, to whom we have a right to look for a substantiation of the leading statement of his Budget Speech, will give the Committee some explicit statement as to how the Government arrived at the calculation that the land revenue incidence is light, that it takes the half of the net rent merely and leaves the other half to the cultivators. To know how he arrives at this calculation will not only be interesting to the Committee, but infinitely more interesting to the scores of millions of cultivators of the soil who now stagger under the burdens which I have described.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 405.)
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will second it. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say what will be done on Saturday?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: No private Members' Bills will be taken on Saturday. The Directors' Liability Bill will be taken on Friday.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 417.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We have not had an opportunity of examining this Bill. It was only delivered to Members last evening, and the House will excuse us if we have been unable to put Amendments on the Paper. The object of the measure is to expedite the construction of light railways in Ireland. Now, I desire that the construction of these railways should be expedited, and I, therefore, propose that the notices which the Government wish to have bandied about amongst landlords should be dispensed with. My Motion will test the sincerity and bona fides of the Government. The Government passed a Light Railways Bill last year, for 12 months they have slept upon it doing absolutely nothing, and now an expedition

  1081
  rash has broken out upon them. They desire to dispense with the dates in the original Act, and substitute those in the Schedule of the Bill. Well, I think it would be fair on their part to throw the cards down on the table. At present they have given us little or no information. I have just been reading the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury, and I see that he has succeeded, practically, in keeping us uninformed on a great many vital points. It is said that the Bill is to meet impending distress in Ireland, but I deny that, and believe that it will do no more to avert impending distress than the Anglo-German or the Anglo-French Treaty. I therefore propose to leave out the last four lines of the clause, or all the words after the word "Acts." The landlords can have no interest in the sales under the Bill. What interest have they so long as they get their rent? Formerly they had a reversionary interest, but now they have not, and, seeing that the rents will run on as of yore, what compensation are they entitled to? The tenants, however, will be entitled to compensation, as their land will be taken from them. The country has run wild on the question of compensating the owners of land in regard to the construction of these railways, but, as a matter of fact, except in the towns, the land is worth extremely little. According to statements we see in this morning's papers, a tax of £30,000 will be levied on the people of Galway—the people whom the Government declare themselves anxious to save from distress. A large part of this money will go to Mr. Berridge, who, as a matter of fact, is entitled to nothing, as his land is worth nothing, and who, so long as he gets his rents, cannot be injured in any way. I admit that where a railway goes through a gentleman's demesne, the owner ought to get compensation, just as a peasant should get it if his hut is to be taken away, but I submit that no demesne land should be touched. We know that the railways are constructed so as to dodge ruins which it is desired to preserve for reasons of sentiment, therefore it is all nonsense to say that it is necessary to go through demesne lands. When we consented to the Second Reading of this Bill we did not know that a charge of £30,000 would fall on the County of Galway. The Government
  1082
  have £1,000,000 to give away. They say that the people are starving, and yet they declare that these starving people should pay £30,000. Why do they not give the whole amount, or, at any rate, why do they not require the landlords to find half? I should prefer that the poor tenants should have the chance of selling their land. The more of bog and mountain land is bought from the tenants the more will the tenants be pleased. The Irish people do not care anything about legislation on what are called British principles, and therefore I move the omission of that part of the clause which provides for the giving of notices to landowners.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "Acts," to the end of the clause, in order to add the words "are hereby dispensed with."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I would say only one word on this Amendment. Our great desire is to get the Bill through. I should like to see the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend accepted, for I do not think these notices are necessary, certainly between Galway and Clifden. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary is willing to accept the Amendment. I should be glad if an agreement can be come to with regard to it, but under any circumstances I think both sides should remember that the real object is to pass the Bill through.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I earnestly trust the Bill will not be discussed, I will not say in the spirit the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown, but in the spirit which I fear is portended by the speech he has delivered. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Nolan) says, this Bill has been brought in in the last days of the Session, with a view of giving much needed relief to the people of the West of Ireland. It will be in the power of hon. Members opposite to defeat the measure if they desire to do so; but I hope they will not desire to do

  1083
  so. Because the Government are anxious to pass a Bill, which I believe nearly all the Members from Ireland regard as a great boon, I hope no attempt will be made to compel them to introduce principles into it which ought not to be introduced into it, and which could not be accepted without discussion here and in another place. The hon. and learned Member for Longford asks that power shall be given to take land compulsorily, without giving notice to the owners and occupiers. I think the House will see that that is an unreasonable request. The hon. Gentleman says he and his friends do not care at all for British principles, but I think that when the hon. Gentleman considers that they are to be applied to the use of British money, some consideration should be given to them. It is clear that if all the Amendments are discussed they will take some time, and as the House has already been sitting about 12 hours, it would be impossible to ask Members or the officials of the House to continue sitting. The Government have done their best to bring in a Bill which will meet the views of Irish Members, and it seems to me that it would be turning the anticipated distress to very bad ends to attempt to make it a lever to induce the House to carry out the principle suggested by the hon. Member for Longford.
  MR. MURPHY: The right hon. Gentleman says he has done his best to introduce a Bill which will be acceptable to Members on this side of the House. I would ask whom he has consulted on this side of the House with regard to its form or details? It would be well that the country should know that the companies which are supposed to be aided by the Treasury under the Bill are in a position to carry out the works in a short space of time if the Treasury will only act within their existing powers. The Bill in its present shape is more calculated to delay than expedite, if not the whole, certainly some of these schemes. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the measure last night, did not vouchsafe any reasons as to why it was brought in so late. I have put down some Amendments, but I may say that their object is not to embarrass the Bill or hinder its progress, but to help the Government
  1084
  to pass it as a workable measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was good enough to say that I gave him help in carrying the Bill of last year, and I am ready and willing to assist him in carrying this, but I must point out to him that the measure in its present shape will not produce any results for months to come—probably not before next summer. I think we ought to have from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a statement as to what is going to be done with regard to all these railways. The estimated amount of expenditure required to complete them is well known, and the amount of money at the disposal of the Treasury under the Act of last year will be enough to enable them to carry out the whole of the undertakings which were passed by the Grand Juries last March.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I was rather surprised when it was agreed across the Table one evening that this Bill, involving a large expenditure, would be brought in at the close of the Session. I then understood, however, that there was a great deal of distress actually existing in certain parts of Ireland, and that this measure was to be brought in immediately in order to meet that distress. It certainly appeared to me that the most sensible mode of meeting the distress would be to vote a certain sum of money to be spent in charity. So strongly did I feel that, that I intimated to the hon. Member for Longford that I intended to oppose the Bill. I saw that, as I understood, if there was any opposition to the Bill it would not be pressed. I ventured to constitute myself that opposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed a hope that I would not do that, and said that even if the Bill was not a good one it might be improved by the Amendments by the Irish Members. Well, we hear to-night that the Bill will impose a tax of £30,000 on the County of Galway, and it, therefore, seems to me doubtful whether we ought to go on with it, especially as the Chief Secretary say she must decline to receive any Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman says that unless the Bill can be passed in a few minutes it cannot pass the House of Lords. We know who is master in the

  1085
  House of Lords, and the right hon. Gentleman comes down here and says, if you do not pass the Bill at once I have a very powerful uncle who has a majority at his back——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! A great deal of latitude has been allowed in the discussion of the Amendment, but I think the hon. Member is going too far.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I was about to conclude with a Motion. I beg to move that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  COLONEL NOLAN: I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Motion. ["No, no !"] The Government are acting for the best. They may have been to blame for putting off the Bill to such a late period, but it is clear that if we do not pass the measure now we shall get no light railways, even in Galway, out of this fund. Indeed, it is possible that we may not get them at all. I am not sure that we shall have distress, or that the potatoes will fail, but if there should be distress this measure will form a means of alleviating it without demoralising the people.
  MR. FOLEY: As a Member representing one of the districts which will be affected by the Bill, I would appeal to the hon. Member for Northampton to withdraw his Motion. Though we may disagree with the Government who have introduced the measure in some of their proceedings, still I think it would be wrong to prevent the Bill passing, particularly as there are signs of distress in parts of Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division of Dublin is mistaken as to the time at which relief will be given under the Bill. I can assure the Committee that if the Bill passes works will be undertaken in Mayo and Galway in time to meet any distress likely to occur, and if it is not passed there is no chance of a sod being turned till next summer. Therefore, those who obstruct the Bill take upon themselves a great responsibility.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL; I doubt whether the Bill will be of much use by next spring, when the pinch, will come. I doubt if there is a chance of many sods being turned in November or December, but if the Chief Secretary is of a contrary opinion I should be sorry to oppose the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have taken every pains to acquaint myself with the facts, and I believe that if there be a pinch it will come in the early spring, and I believe that by that time work will be in full swing. This has been described as a Midland Great Western Railway Bill, and no doubt we have come to an arrangement with those who govern that line. However, I hope that, by this Bill, we shall be able to carry out our present intention, and that of the original Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would test the sincerity of the Government in this matter. I do not complain of the Midland Great Western Railway Company having this money for the construction of railways. I would rather that they should have it than the ordinary gang who promote these light railways. Will it be believed that until they got the Freeman's Journal this morning the Irish Members had no idea it was proposed to go in the country for this money.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: The Grand Jury passed a resolution to the effect that they would prefer to have an arrangement made with the Midland Great Western, and they were quite prepared to make a grant of £30,000.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is surprising the right hon. Gentleman should make that statement, considering what Sir R. Cusack has stated. From his statement we are to assume that the Government would insist on the Grand Jury of Galway taxing the ratepayers to the tune of £30,000. It is said the people of Galway are starving.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, that I report Progress.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I may be some time, but I am coming to that. I would recommend the hon. Member for Northampton to withdraw his Motion if the Government will say, "We will not make two bites at a cherry. We give

  1087
  away £250,000; let us give away the £30,000 too." If you will not do that, make the landlords do something.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: On the Motion to report Progress, let me say it appears to me there are two matters in dispute: first of all there is the question of delay, and, secondly, the question of the £30,000. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) asked a very pertinent question, namely, as to when the pinch of hunger will arrive. The Chief Secretary says he believes that the pinch will not arrive until late in the year, or perhaps in the early spring. That might be quite correct if we were dealing with districts where the ordinary conditions of agriculture prevail, where the small farmers have their agricultural produce from which to obtain subsistence, but it is a well-known fact that the people in the districts we are now speaking of live on potatoes from one season to another, and that the old stock is generally used up when the new stock comes in. Therefore, the pinch will arrive long before the Chief Secretary seems to anticipate. I, therefore, hold there is absolute necessity for the immediate setting on foot of these works. Why should the Government make two bites at the cherry? Why not throw in this £30,000? I maintain that it is the duty of the Government to expedite these works, and to give the £30,000 as well as the rest. At the same time, as an Irish Representative, I am not willing to take upon myself the responsibility of supporting the hon. Member for Northampton in his Motion to report Progress.
  MR. BARTLEY: I think that we on this side of the House are long-suffering people. This Bill was brought in at the express request of hon. Members opposite. We have to sit here night after night to debate Irish Bills while our Bills concerning England, such as the Savings Banks Bill, are thrown over because they are opposed by Gentlemen opposite. We are compelled to sit here—[An hon. MEMBER: Serve you right]—to pass such Bills as this, though obstructed by the very people for whom they are brought in. If hon. Members opposite will not accept the Bill at once the Government would do well to report Progress, and to drop the Bill.
  MR. CONYBEARE: It is not often I find myself in harmony with an hon. Member opposite, bat on this occasion I do. I quite agree with the hon. Member for North Islington in condemning the action of the Government.
  MR. BARTLEY: I do not condemn the action of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, that I report Progress: I hope hon. Members will remember that.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Yes, Mr. Courtney.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEARE: I was about to answer the remarks of the hon. Member opposite, but I will postpone that, and give the reasons why I think we should report Progress. The Government must see that this Bill is not regarded as a particularly useful measure, even by those it is intended to benefit, and I sympathise greatly with hon Members opposite in being kept out of bed to hear it discussed. I sincerely trust the Government will not press the matter. It must be evident to them that to do so will not lead to any fruitful result so far as their business is concerned. Indeed, the sooner they retire gracefully from the scene, and withdraw to the congenial presence of their constituents, the better it will be for their constituents.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member for North Islington has complained that he and his friends have to sit here night after night. He has only to take a shilling hansom to get to his house, but we have to travel 300 miles to get" home. Under these circumstances, we treat his suggestions with absolute contempt. I was very glad to support this Bill on the assumption that it was a Bill to quicken procedure, but I now find it is a Bill to enable rates to be thrown on our people. All we asked is, that you should add to your £250,000 the £30,000 you say is necessary. You might, if you choose, split the rate between the rich and the poor. If you do that, you can have your Bill without further ado. I shall cordially support the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. SEXTON: I hope the hon. Member for Northampton will withdraw his Motion to report Progress, because if Progress

  1089
  is reported, I do not think we shall hear of the Bill again this year. It is notorious there is great danger of famine in Ireland, and the Chief Secretary has stated upon authority that the Bill, if passed, will enable him to meet the pinch of hunger. On the other hand, if the Bill is delayed, and the delay can be attributed to any action of ours, we shall be told we have prevented relief being given. I, for one, would not accept that responsibility. I would rather throw on the Chief Secretary the responsibility of passing a faulty Bill. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) has made two suggestions. With regard to one of them, namely, the proposal to divide the rate between owner and occupier, I admit there is great force. I allow that the Chief Secretary is confronted with difficulty, but I urge him to do what is within his power, and the jurisdiction of the Treasury, and that is to make the whole amount a grant on the part of the Treasury.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The total amount at the disposal of the Government is restricted by the Act of last year, and Galway cannot be relieved except at the expense of some other county, such as Kerry, which has arranged to expend the amount apportioned to it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I can quite understand the position of hon. Members from Ireland. They are told by the Chief Secretary that if famine takes place it is impossible that any aid can be given unless this Bill is passed, but I ask them to consider how much of the money will be spent in labour. If there be famine, it will not take place until January. The Government tell us they intend to meet in November, and if a famine is threatened in November, they could easily bring in a small Bill by which a sum of money could be distributed in actual charity. [Colonel NOLAN: No!] It is perfectly ridiculous that we should be called upon now to pass a Bill agreeing to spend a large sum of money, only 40 per cent. of which will go in labour. In view of the fact that the Chief Secretary absolutely declines
  1090
  to accept the view of the Irish Members in regard to this Bill—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never laid down any principle like it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: That is not the opinion of the Representatives of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman not only says he objects to these Amendments, but objects to any discussion of them. Under these circumstances, I shall certainly persevere in my Motion, and I am sure the Irish Members will divide with me.
  MR. SEXTON: I think that if my hon. Friend will look at the Irish papers he will see that the Board of Governors in the distressed districts are of opinion that if only a small proportion of the money is spent in labour the expenditure will be invaluable.
  (3.0.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 14; Noes76.—(Div. List, No.254.)
  Original Question put.
  (3.9.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 64; Noes 28.—(Div. List, No. 255.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion made, and Question put," That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. —(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  (3.15.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 14; Noes 77. —(Div. List, No. 256.)
  Question again proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CONYBEARE: Before we decide upon this clause I think, late as the hour is, we might have a little explanation from the Government, and make some reasonable attempt to under stand what we are voting about, and not simply vote nonsense. It appears to me that the clause as it stands is unmitigated nonsense. We are entitled to some explanation, considering the importance of the interest of the British taxpayer involved—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not a sixpence in this clause.
  MR. CONYBEARE: It is intended to expedite the expenditure of the money already voted, which is practically the same thing. The clause is loosely, carelessly drafted, and it is an outrage on our intelligence to ask us to vote it. We have unsuccessfully attempted to amend it, but it appears to be no use expostulating with the Government, and perhaps the best thing we can do is to pass the Bill en bloc. I am content with the protest we have made.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I understand the Bill to contain a proposal to take money from the poor ratepayers and not from the rich. That is the statement made, and I have heard no answer to it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the Bill upon this special clause.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman has stated it is in the power of any hon. Member to wreck the Bill, and there are a good many Members Who understand the Bill better than I do, who do not shrink from that responsibility. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to press the Bill through by the strength of his majority in the face of the assertions made?
  MR. DALTON: I wish to ask why in the list of schemes in the 1st Schedule—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee is not now concerned with the 1st Schedule; the Question is that the 1st Clause be agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On a point of order, Sir. Is it not in order to ask a question in reference to the Schedule, considering the relation of the Schedule and the clause?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I reminded the hon. Member of the Question before the Committee. If the hon. Member will put his question, I shall know if it is in order.
  MR. DALTON: I was not quite sure if I should be in order in saying a few words upon this clause, or whether I should adopt the course of moving an Amendment to the Schedule. I would refer to the Stranorlar and Glenties
  1092
  line. There is no question that it connects with a congested district of Donegal, and the merits of the scheme are unanswerable.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is a question for the hon. Member to discuss on the Schedule.
  DR. TANNER: It is not my desire to trespass on the time of the Committee to any extent, and it is not my intention to wreck the Bill. My intention is something very different. In relation to this Bill the Government have assumed their usual stubborn, dogmatic attitude——
  MR. KIMBER: I rise to order, Sir. I ask you whether the observations of the hon. Member are in any way pertinent to Clause 1?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not yet spoken to the clause. I hope he will do so immediately if he has the intention.
  DR. TANNER: The hon. Member's impatience interrupted the usual respectful prelude to the observations I am about to make. The hon. Gentleman's idea of order——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I beg the hon. Member will not comment upon the ruling upon a point of order. The Question he should confine himself to is, that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
  DR. TANNER: I will refrain from commenting on the ruling from the Chair, and have no idea of making it matter of controversy. I am going first to deal with the matter of public advertisements under the clause. I really should like to have some sort of answer to my question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member's remarks are quite irrelevant to this clause. The advertisements spoken of are those by the promoters, and the Government have nothing to do with issuing them.
  DR. TANNER: But the country——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must warn the hon. Member against this trifling with the Committee.
  DR. TANNER: I shall divide the Committee when we come to the clause

  1093
  to which my remarks do properly apply. I object to these dogmatic assertions by the Government. I think it will be a great mistake to pass this Bill, and as I am precluded from offering observations which I think are pertinent, I shall vote steadily against every clause of the measure.
  MR. MURPHY: Before we pass this clause I hope the Government will say why they have fixed on these particular dates; also, why certain lines are included in this provision, and others excluded? Again, why cannot they accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, and dispense with the notices altogether?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government show no disposition to answer my hon. Friend, although they admit that he is most competent to discuss these questions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have not replied, because we think the question should properly be raised on the Schedule, and not on the 1st clause.
  MR. SEXTON: The question is one which ought to be answered, for my hon. Friend asserts that there are lines which could be begun in two or three months, whereas if the Bill is passed in its present form the work cannot be commenced for at least nine months. Is that the case?
  MR. JACKSON: It places the Government in rather an awkward position to discuss the details of negotiations "which are pending, and to call upon them to state their reasons for adopting a course which they are taking, as they believe, in the interests of the counties concerned. With regard to the lines referred to by the hon. Member, I suppose it is open to the Government to negotiate with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for the construction of one or other of these lines as they have already done with the Midland Great Western Railway Company. All the Bill does is to provide that, if satisfactory terms can be concluded for the construction of these lines they shall be approved. But it leaves the hands of the Government free, while strengthening our position in the negotiations.
  1094
  As to the notices, I may remind the hon. Member that no step can be taken in regard to these lines until the Grand Juries have made the proper presentments, and this Bill will enable the Grand Juries to be called together earlier than usual.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How about the Belmullet line?
  MR. JACKSON: It has been represented to us it may be desirable, and that it would answer the purposes of the locality, if a steam tramway or light railway were made, instead of a broad gauge line. All we want is liberty to make the best arrangements we can.
  MR. MURPHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think, with regard to the time for serving the notices, that this Bill will really expedite matters? As a matter of fact, the Grand Juries will not meet till nearly Christmas, and we know that the negotiations between the Treasury and the Railway Companies are not likely to be very rapid.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is obvious this discussion should take place on the Schedule.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not believe it will be possible to get the Grand Juries together much before Christmas if the Bill is passed as it stands. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman expedite the meeting of the Grand Juries?
  MR. KIMBER: I rise to order. Is this discussion in order on Clause 1?
  (3.42.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 76; Noes 17.—(Div. List, 257.)
  Clause 2.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to propose, in page 1, line 17, to substitute October for November. Of course, if I am assured that in no case is it possible to call the Grand Juries together earlier than the date named in the Bill, I will not press this Amendment, for I did not move it with the view to obstruction. But if, as I understand from the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, sufficient surveys have already been made, I do not see why the Grand Juries should not meet in October.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, to leave out the word "November,"

  1095
  and insert the word "October."—(Mr. Knox.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'November' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: Of course we desire to expedite matters as much as possible, but I fear the necessary steps cannot be taken before the date named in the Bill.
  MR. KNOX: But by the Bill nothing will be done till October. Surely it is not necessary that between now and October everything shall be at a standstill.
  MR. MURPHY: In my opinion, this Bill if it is passed will delay the commencement of these railways instead of expediting it, as it will only give an excuse for requiring steps to be gone all over again which have been already done in regard to several of the lines scheduled to the Bill. I do not think, however, that much importance attaches to these dates, as certain preliminary steps must be taken if the Government insist upon all those notices being served and plans being lodged. If the lines are promoted by Railway Companies, they will probably consider that fresh surveys will have to be made; and as all this work would take a considerable time, I do not think the alteration from November to October would be desirable, as, in the case of the Clifden line, 50 miles long, it may not be possible to complete all the preliminaries at earlier dates than those named in the Bill.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: The hon. Member who has just spoken has been alluded to as a high authority on this question. He says that the Bill will delay rather than accelerate the works. I, therefore, beg to move to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I decline altogether to put that Motion. Does the hon. Member for West Cavan persist in his Amendment?
  MR. KNOX: The only reply I have received is that from the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick's, and I think I am entitled to an answer from
  1096
  the Government. On this point right hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to accept my hon. Friend's opinion, but on all other questions in connection with this Bill they have repudiated his authority and advice.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not relevant to the hon. Member's Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This Bill has practically been in hand 12 months. It will be Christmas before the Grand Juries can be called together, so that 18 months will have elapsed before a single one of these light railways can be commenced. Yet when we propose to expedite matters by one month only, we are met with a refusal. The Treasury in this are simply acting in the interests of Messrs. Barton & Price. I, for one, have been misled into assenting to this Bill on the understanding that there was a real intention on the part of the Government to press these railways forward in the interests of the people of Ireland, but their refusal at the beginning of August to call the Grand Juries together before December shows that they have no genuine desire to get on with these works. If you insist upon this proposal it will be Christmas Day before you get a Grand Jury together, and I cannot too strongly deprecate the action of the Government in pressing a Bill forward of this kind at this hour of the morning and at this period of the Session, especially when we have been told by the First Lord of the Treasury that only non-contentious business was to be taken. The conduct of the Government, under these circumstances, is certainly unusual. They say they want this Bill to avert the consequences of the threatened famine. For my part, I do not believe it. I certainly, although against the advice of my deceased Friend Mr. Biggar and some other Members of the Irish Party, supported this Bill. I ask why, in pressing forward this measure, you cannot omit the dates? Why put in any date at all? Why not call the Grand Jury together whenever most convenient? This proposal shows that the Treasury are not in earnest in the matter. Why should you not provide that it should be left to the

  1097
  Lord Lieutenant, with the advice of his counsel, to direct the summoning of the Grand Jury? I think the action of the Government all through has been unsatisfactory, and I suggest that their present attitude is unfair to the Committee. If they meant to be fair in this matter they would consent to some other arrangement.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The Government seem to be unable to accept a single Amendment. If they did accept Amendments that would involve the Report stage to-morrow and the Third Reading on Saturday, so that the House of Lords would not have time to pass the measure.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think there is something in what has just been said by the hon. Member for Northampton, there being only Friday, Saturday, and Monday to get the Bill through. But it does not matter how we get it through so long as we do get it through. I would, however, put it to my hon. Friend whether it is desirable to risk the postponement of the Bill for another eight months, especially after we have been waiting a whole year for it to be brought in.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: In matters of this kind as affecting Ireland we frequently Buffer, not only from the "law's delays," but also from "the insolence of office." To-night, for example, we have suffered the "insolence of office," and been placed in a very cold corner by the statement of the Chief Secretary, that we had only a few minutes in which to pass the Bill, and some of us have been placed in the unfortunate position that we have been obliged to go into the same Lobby with the Government, which, to say the least of it, is a painful operation for many of us to undergo. They are now about to impose upon us in addition to this "insolence of office"——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he is going beyond the Amendment.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I was only saying that we in Ireland are suffering from the law's delay, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend goes to obviate this necessity. He proposes that the Grand Juries
  1098
  should meet in October instead of November, and it is an Amendment which we can conscientiously support, because, first, we want the Bill and, secondly, we want to amend it. Not only I am anxious to get the Bill, but I am anxious to get it as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend proposes to put the measure into operation a month sooner than is proposed by the Government, I give my hearty support to his Amendment.
  MR. KNOX: I wish to point out that the effect of my Amendment would be to hasten the proceedings under the Bill by a month. I should not wish to persist if I thought it clearly impossible to do this; but, at any rate, I may ask the Government whether it would be impossible to make the Bill workable by another Amendment, giving power to the Lord Lieutenant to omit the inquiry by the Board of Works in certain cases. That would save more than a month. The Government are trusting the Midland Great Western Railway in many things; they might as well trust them a little more. It is they who must work the line, and their engineers will be responsible. Considering the relations existing between Sir Ralph Cusack and the Board of Works, the inquiry may cause considerable delay. Why should not the Government dispense with the inquiry?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is not a fact that, in the case of the Galway and Clifton line, the Government held inquiries into four different schemes? Is there an Inspector under the Board of Works who does not know every stone on that railway, and have not Grand Juries pocketed some 50 guineas on each of the four different schemes? Why should this inquiry be made when it will delay action for another month?
  (4.15.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 66; Noes 26.—(Div. List, No. 258.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I think, as it is now 20 minutes past 4 o'clock, you, Sir, ought to report Progress. I am anxious to get on with business, but there are limits to human endurance. We have been going on from the early part of the week in a manner

  1099
  wholly unprecedented. I do not think that in the whole of my recollection we have had a week like it, or at any rate when we have sat until 11 o'clock on Wednesday night and till 4 o'clock on the Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. If the Government are not inclined to consider the convenience of Members, they ought, at least, to consider that of the officials of this House. I, therefore, move, Sir, that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I put that Question at once. The Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. Hon. Members supporting this Motion will please to rise in their places. The clerks will take the names of hon. Members supporting the Motion, and hon. Members will please to keep their places standing while the names are taken.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are we to be subject to insult? Are we to be impounded? This is supposed to be a non-contentious Bill. You will find that you will not get it through.
  DR. TANNER: This does not appear to save much time, Mr. Courtney.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is intended to insult us.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Noes have it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask that the names may be read, otherwise how are we to ascertain whether the names have been correctly taken?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is at liberty to inspect the Minutes.*
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  * The following is the entry in the Votes:—
  Mr. Conybeare moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again;" but the Chairman, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, put the Question thereupon forthwith.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Noes had it, but his decision was challenged: and, it appearing to the Chairman that the Division was vexatiously claimed, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Sixteen Members having stood up, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Last night, when this Bill came under our notice, we were informed by the First Lord of the Treasury that no non-contentious business would be proceeded with. The suggestion of the Government that they are promoting this Bill for the benefit of Ireland I reject with contempt. They never accept a suggestion which we make in the interests of our countrymen; and now, at half-past 4 in the morning, we are compelled to continue the discussion of this Bill of nine clauses, in addition to which there are a great many new clauses. Let me inform the Government that a great number of Amendments have yet to be moved and considered.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to move an Amendment? If so, he must speak to that Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I propose to amend the clause by omitting the words "20th of December." I renew my protest against the farce the Government are carrying on in pretending that this is a Bill to expedite arrangements for the mitigation of threatened distress. It is evident from the suggestions we have already heard that the Government might have completely turned our flank by omitting the dates in the Bill, and leaving it to the Lord Lieutenant to call Grand Juries at such times as might be most fitting; the Government did not think it desirable to do this, because they had come here in the same spirit evinced by Mr. Forster in his Coercion Bill, namely, not to receive an Amendment because it would necessitate the Report stage. They will not alter a single comma, in order to evade that stage. This is certainly singular, when I recollect that only yesterday the Secretary to the Treasury invited suggestions and Amendments from this side of the House. The Amendment I propose would simply leave the matter in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, who might select any date he chose. Why, I ask, should the Government bind the Lord Lieutenant to give a date? As far as my knowledge goes, there is nothing in the world to prevent

  1101
  the Grand Jury being assembled immediately. By your arrangement, you are absolutely putting a fetter on His Excellency which you have no right and no duty to impose. I say to the Government, "omit these words altogether. The omission will do no harm, and it will be a proof that you are open in the future to accept suggestions from this side of the House. If only to test the spirit of Her Majesty's Government on this point, I beg to move the omission of the 'words "or later than the twentieth day of December."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words "or later than the twentieth day of December.—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SEXTON: I would call attention to the fact that, in the earlier part of the clause, power is given to the Lord Lieutenant to direct the Sheriff on or before the 18th of November. If the Lord Lieutenant is given discretion to issue his order any time before November, why should not the discretion of the Grand Jury be exercised before a certain day? I think it would be wise if you were to amend the clause, so as to provide that the meeting of the Grand Jury should be "not later" than a certain day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the Committee will feel that the Amendment we are now discussing has nothing to do with the observation made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I would point out that if the Amendment is carried, the result will be to postpone and not to accelerate the action of the juries. I certainly can most sincerely say that I approached the consideration of this Bill with the desire to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it has been made perfectly obvious within the last few hours that the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not to amend but to kill the Bill. I am not going to lend my hand to that work of murder by admitting Amendments which, as the hon. Member for Northampton has said,
  1102
  would have the result of killing the Bill Under these circumstances, I would earnestly urge every Member who desires the Bill to pass to let it go through in its present shape.
  SIR W. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman's speech amounts to this: that rather than spend another day on the business of the Motion he declines to listen to the wishes of the Irish Members.
  MR. KNOX: I think we Members from Ireland have just reason to complain of the conduct of the Chief Secretary. If it is impossible for any Amendment to be assented to, why were we not told that two hours and a half ago? We thought we could put forward some reasonable Amendments which would improve the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Two hours and a half ago I thought so.
  MR. KNOX: But I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say it will be impossible to accept an Amendment, because it is necessary to take the Report stage to-morrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If this Bill had been met in a reasonable spirit, an Amendment might have been accepted. The Report stage would have been taken to-morrow, and the Third Reading at the same time, by consent. It is quite clear now that Members opposite intend to discuss the Committee stage as long as they can; they will have ample opportunity to put down Amendments on the Report stage, and the result will be, if any hon. Member objects to the Third Reading on the same day, the Bill cannot pass this Session.
  MR. KNOX: I admit that the Debate has been marked by some asperity, but we have been met by taunts and sneers. I never heard the right hon. Gentleman make a speech in this House during my short experience of it without making use of taunts. The Bill is barely intelligible in its present form, but the Government must take the responsibility of its failure.
  MR.MURPHY (who was indistinctly heard):There was no desire on my part to unduly oppose this Bill. I do not think, however, in its present

  1103
  shape it will be effective, and the Amendments I have moved and any remarks that I have made have certainly been ad rem. With reference to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), I do not see why there should be any objection to it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I would point out that it would be better not only to leave out "not later than 20th December," but to substitute an earlier date than December. The object we have in view is to expedite matters, and it seems to me that to leave a month for the summoning of the Grand Jury by the Sheriff is a very long period. I cannot conceive that there would be any difficulty in the Sheriff summoning the Grand Jury on a much earlier day than December. If we were to make the period within which the summoning of the Grand Jury is to be made shorter, we should be acting strictly on the lines of this Bill. I would suggest, that instead of moving to leave out 20th December, we should substitute an earlier day—say the 1st November. I do not see that it is consistent with the dignity of the House or any useful purpose that we should continue to consider this Bill at all, as we are told that whatever Amendments we propose will not be considered by the Government, the intention being to force the Bill through without amendment. I think, however, we should be guilty of a gross dereliction of our duty if we yielded to those tactics. We are presented with the Bill one day, and——
  MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to order. I wish to know if the argument of the hon. Member is relevant to the Amendment under discussion?
  The CHAIRMAN declined to notice the interruption.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says we must either take the Bill as it is or leave it, and I say that that is not treating the House of Commons with proper respect. The Committee stage of the Bill is the one on which we have a right to bring Amendments forward, and to discuss them, and if we are told by the Government "there is a Bill which you may take or leave, but in
  1104
  which we cannot accept a single Amendment," I say that to such tactics we must refuse to lend ourselves. I say that it reduces the discussion of the Bill to a perfect farce.
  (4.46.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 65; Noes 22.—(Div. List, No. 260.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The sub-section provides that the Sheriff shall call the Grand Jury together. The Irish Secretary says he is unable to split the rate between the owner and occupier, as it would be too great a change in the law, but there is no reason why, on the Grand Jury, the people should not have some representation, and I cannot see why the Sheriff of a county should select entirely from persons of the landlord class. The people have to pay the rates, and the landlords hitherto have had the privilege of voting them. Well, with regard to the Special Grand Jury which will have to be called for the purposes of this Bill, it seems to me that the Government can have no objection to giving the body a shadow or a show of a representative character. The right hon. Gentleman may say that at this hour of the morning he is unable to decide in what way the Grand Jury should be constituted. I would suggest a simple mode in an Amendment. The Sheriff may select for the Grand Jury 23 of the worst rack-renters of the county. I would suggest that there is no necessity for landlords to be summoned on the Grand Jury, and as Catholics have to pay the rates, I would suggest that there is no necessity for the Sheriff to call on 23 Protestants, as he is likely to do, seeing that he is almost always a Tory. The people will have to pay this £30,000 odd, and I think they should have a voice in the method of allocating the money. I would, therefore, move to add the following:—
  "Provided that the Grand Jury, for the purposes of this section, shall consist of 10 persons to be elected by the Sheriff and 13 persons to be nominated by the Boards of Guardians in such Unions in the county, and in such proportions and in such manner as the Local Government Board shall determine."
  I do not think that is an unreasonable Amendment, if the Government are disposed to meet us in any way. 1 would make them this offer: If

  1105
  they will accept the Amendment I will withdraw my opposition to the Bill. So far as we are concerned, we can give no greater proof of bona fides than that. There need be no fear of delaying the Bill, as both Report stage and Third Reading could be taken tomorrow.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed any further on this Amendment. I must point out to him that it is not one which could be received in Committee without an Instruction.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The section provides that the Sheriff may summon the Grand Jury of the county. The clause says that the expression "The Grand Jury Acts" means the Acts of King William IV., and all the other words are defined by the Tramways Acts. Consequently, it seems that, either now or when we come to the amending Schedule, it will be competent to omit the definition in the 6th clause, and move other words. Would it not be competent to insert in this measure different words to those in the Tramways Act?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is clear that this could not be done, either in the present clauses or in the 6th clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If that is your view, Sir, I must accept it; but I would ask you to say whether it would not be possible, without defining the Grand Jury, to provide that persons should be added to it, or associated with it, for the purposes of the Act?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that could be done without an Instruction.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Under the circumstances, and considering that we have not had an opportunity of considering how best to amend the Bill, I would at this stage ask leave to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. Of course, I quite follow the ruling of the Chair, that it might be irregular without an Instruction, to alter this Bill, but it is reasonable we should have an opportunity of making some change with regard to the body that has to set this measure in force. It is utterly unfair to expect us to go on with a Bill of this
  1106
  kind. We learnt for the first time from the papers this morning what Sir Ralph Cusack had said. The Government had concealed from us the fact he revealed, and it is most unfair and unreasonable of the Government at this stage of the Session to expect us to go on. If the Government insist on going on, I will go on as long as my physical endurance lasts. I beg, Sir, to move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Gentleman will neither persist in his Motion, nor carry out his threat.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is no threat.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I referred to the announcement he made that he means to oppose the Bill as long as his physical strength endures. The hon. Member appears to speak under a sense of grievance, for which, I assure him, there is no foundation. All Sir Ralph Cusack said was that in order to carry out the Bill a charge of £30,000 would be required. That will be borrowed at 4 per cent., and the total interest will be £1,200 a year, of which about £600 a year will be paid by the Treasury under the Tramways Act. The net result will be that the inhabitants of Galway will have to pay a rate of a¼d. in the £1. For this ¼d. in the £1 the people will get a railway 50 miles long, which they have been most anxious for years; they will get the expenditure of some £30,000 or £40,000 and a free grant, without paying 6d. for it, of a portion of the £1,000,000.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I would point out to my hon. Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) that really these terms are very good. I did not know they were so good. The rate can only be ¼d in the £1, because the valuation is only £600,000 for the whole county. The fact that there will be a ¼d. in the £1 to pay is really owing to my hon. Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) himself. I was always content with the proposed narrow gauge line, but the hon. Member for Longford insisted on having a broad gauge line,

  1107
  and it is the broad gauge that has cost the extra ¼d. I earnestly hope my hon. Friend will now allow the Bill to pass.
  MR. MURPHY: The right hon Gentleman seems to think my hon. and learned Friend is labouring under some sense of grievance. Whether he is or not, I am labouring under some anxiety to amend and improve the Bill. I submit that 5 o'clock in the morning is not a proper time to discuss a measure of this kind, and that we ought now to report Progress.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I cannot fail to be struck with the observation of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan). I conceived that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury dealt unfairly with the House when Sir Ralph Cusack was allowed to make the statement he did about throwing £30,000 on the county, when the Secretary to the Treasury stated previously that no charge would come on the localities. It may be that when he so promised that it was then not intended to give a heavy broad gauge to the county. It may be that it is the difference between light broad and heavy broad gauge which has thrown the charge on the county. If that be so, I feel I shall not be justified in taking the course I proposed to take, and I will not persist in it.
  MR. MURPHY: I hope that Progress will be reported, in order that the Bill will be properly discussed.
  DR. TANNER: I hope we shall have some expression of opinion from the Secretary to the Treasury as to the works of the Great Southern and Western Railway. In Cork we have suffered greatly from the incompetence of that Railway Company.
  MR. JACKSONmade some observations which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.
  MR. SEXTON: There is no chance whatever of carrying any Amendment to this Bill, and I think there must be a general agreement. The measure cannot do any harm, and I hope it may do some good. I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Murphy) will conceive it to be his duty to support my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy).
  MR.CONYBEARE: I desire it to be distinctly understood that in waiving our right to insist on Progress we are not going back upon our observations as to the highly unconstitutional conduct of the Government in refusing to consider or accept any Amendments. Such a course simply destroys the whole usefulness of the Committee stage.
  DR. TANNER: I would point out that in Cork the line of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company is a complete failure, whilst another line, which is worked independently, is a great success. The reason is that the Great Southern and Western. Company want to get the line they are working into their own hands. However, if hon. Members on this side think that this philanthropic measure— I cannot help laughing at the idea of anything philanthropic coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—is worth having I will not stand in the way of its acceptance.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is only fair to myself to say that I think I was right in opposing this Bill as long as I conceived that an unfair obligation was being thrown on the people. I adhere to the opinion that the Bill in the absence of our Amendments will not work. Inasmuch, however, as the Government are giving the Galway people a better line than I supposed—that is to say, a heavy broad-gauge line— I shall not persist in my opposition, but will leave the Government the responsibility of rejecting our advice.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. MURPHY(who was-indistinctly heard): I have an Amendment to move to this clause. The clause was evidently intended to remove the restriction imposed by the Light Railways Act limiting the weight which can be placed on any pair of wheels to eight tons, no matter how substantially the railway may have been built. I would point out, however, that the clause in the Bill only applies where a Railway Company makes an agreement directly with the Treasury, and I would remind

  1109
  the Financial Secretary of the case of the Baltimore Railway now in negotiation with him, where the agreement to work the line by the Cork and Bandon Railway Company is made not directly with the Treasury, but with a Constructing Company who in turn agree with the Treasury. My Amendment is intended to meet this and similar cases.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 2, line 38, after "railway" to insert—
  "Or where the promoters have made an agreement approved by the Treasury for the maintenance and working of the light railway by such a railway company."—(Mr. Murphy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JACKSON: The clause is intended to meet the case the hon. Member puts. There would be an agreement, to which the Treasury must be a party, for the working of the line.
  MR. SEXTON: Surely the effect of inserting the Amendment would only be to make the clause more clear. We will be prepared to give every facility for the passage of the Bill.
  MR. JACKSON: In that case we will consider the Amendment before the Report.
  An hon. MEMBER: There will be no Report stage if no Amendments are carried.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid there are some Members who are not as favourably disposed to the Bill as are the Representatives of Ireland, and I think it will be safer not to press the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Remaining clauses added to the Bill.
  (5.27.) Mr. COURTNEY withdrew from the House, and was succeeded in the Chair by Mr. J. W. LOWTHER.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to move the omission of the words "Westport to Mulraney," in line 2 of the Schedule. I submit there is no necessity for scheduling this line. It has already passed the Grand Jury, and can be proceeded with at once if the Treasury wish.
  Amendment proposed, Schedule, line 2, to omit "Westport to Mulraney."—
  Question proposed, "That those words, stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. JACKSON: I would point out that the inclusion of these words with the Schedule does not tie the hands of the Treasury, and force them to adopt either one course or the other. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  MR. MURPHY: I feel disposed to press the Amendment.
  DR. TANNER: I do not think the people will make these payments, nor do I see why they should. If I have the opportunity, I shall tell the ratepayers as much. Let the Chief Secretary be responsible for the loss that will fall upon the British taxpayers. We have offered every remonstrance, we have done our duty, and may be content to let the English people——
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is rather wandering from the Amendment, which is, that West-port to Mulraney stand part of the Schedule.
  DR. TANNER: I had finished, Sir; I was about to add that we may accept the Bill, for we have done our duty to our constituents.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Member has the satisfaction of thinking he has done his duty to his constituents, but there is a duty also incumbent upon us to English taxpayers. There has been a remarkable expression of Irish opinion, and the reason why I oppose the Bill——
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not go into his reasons for opposing the Bill. The Question is that Westport to Mulraney stand part of the Schedule.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I want it to be clearly understood what our position is. The Chief secretary has stated with pleasing candour —["Unpleasing"]—no, pleasing candour—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not go back upon past discussion. The Question is that Westport to Mulraney stand part of the Schedule.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:Really, I think we might have some information about these places, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us something about them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I Relieve information has already been given, but we are ready to answer any Specific question.
  MR. CONYBEAREmade some remarks, which were inaudible.
  DR. TANNER: In relation to this particular point—this Mulraney line —I should like to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government will consider the expediency of continuing the line, so that it may serve the Island of Achill—one of the most congested districts on the West Coast, and where the population, unlike the population in other districts, is increasing. The men eke out their existence by harvesting in England, and in harvest time they emigrate in large numbers. The line would be most useful, and its continuation to A chill Sound would lead to other works, which would tend to encourage the industry of the district. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will encourage the hope that the line may be continued.
  MR. MURPHYspoke, but was inaudible.
  MR. JACKSON: In answer to the hon. Member for Cork I can only say that I am inclined to think that at some future time it may be possible to carry on the line to A chill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Schedules agreed to.
  (5.48.) Bill reported without Amendment.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the House will agree that we might finish the Bill now, and read it a third time. [Cries of "No."]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I would support the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I would remind my hon. Friends who have carried on a useful Debate for some time that this is not a Coercion Bill, although it is promoted by the Government, and that it is designed for the benefit of the most distressed districts in Ireland.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Is it not sufficient to prevent the Third Reading being taken now if objection is made?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It is not a case in which a single objection is sufficient to prevent the Motion. If there is a general desire the Third Reading may be taken.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Considering the opposition the Bill has met with I think there is obviously an objection to the unusual course of taking the two stages of the Bill at one sitting.
  MR.ROWNTREE: As the Bill makes no demand upon the English taxpayer, and the details concern Ireland solely, I trust English Members will not interpose, but that the wish of the bulk of the Irish Members will be accepted.
  SIR W. LAWSON: When reference is made to the general opinion, I may observe that in the last Division the minority was considerable. I think it is a most extraordinary step, after the Bill has been so hotly opposed, to propose to take the Third Reading at once.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Our Amendments were refused by the Government on the ground that the Bill must be lost because two stages of the Bill could not be taken on the same day. To read the Bill a third time now will show the insincerity of the Government excuse. So far as I am concerned, I offer no objection to the Third Reading.
  DR. TANNER: If the British taxpayer is to be robbed, it need not be done violently; let matters proceed decently and in order. Undoubtedly there is a strong objection to the Third Reading stage being taken now.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Can we put our objection into the form of proposing an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: An hon. Member, if so inclined, can move an Amendment.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I will do so.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet has already spoken to the Motion.
  (5.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 12.—(Div. List, No. 261.)
  Bill passed.

  COMPANIES WINDING-UP BILL. (No. 411.)
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  MR. CONYBEARE: On a point of order, Sir, is it competent to bring this Bill on now if it is objected to?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. KIMBER: Before the Amendments are taken I wish to draw attention to a point arising on Clause 14, and to ask whether it will be possible to move an Amendment with a view of getting rid of a blot in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. Clause 14 directs that in the case of the winding-up of companies certain Returns shall be made. One of these Returns is to show the amount of dividends unclaimed and assets undistributed, and that money is to be swept into the Bank of England to the account of the Board of Trade. Now, I feel satisfied the House never intended that that should be done——
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I rise to order. This is a point which, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, comes up when Clause 14 is being discussed, and then I shall be prepared to state my views. But I object to a discussion being raised on it now.
  MR. KIMBER: I submit that on the Motion that the Lords Amendments be considered I am entitled to ask for your opinion on a point which I have not yet been able to state. I was about to describe the sub-section, which directs that the money shall be paid into the Bank of England to the Board of Trade account. An Amendment which has been introduced has altered that to the Companies Liquidation account, and I want to ask whether it is competent for me to move another Amendment in that sub-section, not of those words, but of other words?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: On a point of order, I should like to say that the Amendment which the hon. Member desires to make has no reference whatever to these words.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:What is the Amendment?
  MR. KIMBER: I ask leave to propose the insertion of words to the effect that when it appears from any such statement or otherwise that the liquidator of a company has in hand any such unclaimed or undistributed assets, the payment thereof, as directed, into the Bank of England shall be limited to cases in which the companies are wound up by order of the Court.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:The hon. Member cannot go back on the original work of this House. No Amendment can be made now unless it relates to an Amendment made by the Lords.
  Lords Amendments considered; several agreed to; one disagreed to.
  Committee appointed, "To draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments:" —To withdraw immediately.
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.

  COMPANIES (MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL.—(No. 407.)
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 166.)
  Lords Amendments considered.
  MR. COBB: When this Bill was in Committee of this House, the Government agreed that the rooms of schools receiving a Government grant might be used for the purpose of holding public meetings in connection with the allotments question. That was considered to be a very important concession. It was held to be a privilege which would be valued very highly by villagers. It is a privilege, or rather a right, for which we have been striving for many years. But when this Bill came before the House of Lords, the Prime Minister thought it right to modify it by saying that the schools should be used for such meetings only by the consent of any two managers. What does that mean? With regard to a Board school it does not much matter, as the use of such a school is not so likely to be refused, but in the case of voluntary schools the Government

  1115
  concession is deprived of the whole of its value. As everyone knows, practically the manager of such a school is the incumbent of the parish, and had incumbents of parishes been in favour of allowing the schools to be used for meetings on allotments questions it would not have been necessary to insert this clause in the Bill at all. But the Secretary to the Local Government Board knows perfectly well that there are numbers of instances in which permission to use voluntary schoolrooms for public meetings has been refused by the incumbent. We were very much pleased when the Government re-committed this Bill for the purpose of putting in this clause. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we willingly consented to allow this Bill to be read a third time without debate, in consequence of the concessions that had been made. I will now ask the right hon. Gentleman not to agree to this Amendment. We want the villagers to have the right to the use of these schoolrooms by Act of Parliament, and not that they should have to ask the incumbent and others for it as a privilege. I beg to move that the House disagree with the Lords in the Amendment to line 32.
  Page 3, line 32, after "or," insert "with the consent of any two managers," the first Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in his view that the action of the hon. Members interested in this Bill on the Third Reading was greatly influenced by the concessions which the Government had made. But I should very much like to draw attention to the position at that time. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the point then raised was the allowing the meetings of Committees of the County Councils to be held in the schoolrooms, and then suddenly the question of allowing the parishioners to hold meetings on the question of adopting the Allotments Act was raised. The
  1116
  point was but briefly discussed, and that will account for the somewhat imperfect wording of the clause. It is obvious that some arrangement must be made in order to prevent the ordinary work of the schools being interfered with by these meetings, and, therefore, it is considered that the consent of two of the managers should be given before any meeting was held. The hon. Gentleman must admit that the principle for which he has been contending has been recognised by giving a right of appeal against refusal to a popularly elected body having special charge of the allotments question. My own view is that no difficulty at all is likely to arise; that the managers will understand from the words of the section that it is their duty to grant the use of the schoolroom, and that they will do so without demur. We are extremely desirous that there should be a friendly spirit between the managers of schools and those who desire to hold the meeting, and we think that friction would be created if the consent of the managers were not asked. Surely, under these circumstances, the hon. Member will rest satisfied that he has really attained his object. If this is not assented to, the Bill will run great danger of not passing into law, and I am sure the hon. Member would not desire that.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I, too, regret that the Government did not see their way to carry out the understanding with regard to this Bill. But I was greatly astonished to hear that this Amendment was introduced by the Prime Minister, and I trust my hon. Friend will divide against it. We have been told that there is a right of appeal to the Allotments Committee of the County Council against any refusal to grant the use of the schoolroom, but of what good will that appeal be to the half-dozen or ten labourers who require the allotments? The only place in which these men could meet is the parish school, and yet in order to get the use of the building it might be necessary for them to travel many miles to the county town simply to appeal against the decision of the local landlord or parson refusing them the use of the school. It is an absurdity to tell poor men to travel thirty or

  1117
  forty miles to do that. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to strike out this Amendment. He says that by doing so the Bill would be endangered. I, for one, accepted the Bill from the Government as evidencing their good intentions, but as it has now been altered it is worth nothing for all practical purposes, as those who are conversant with the allotments question, know perfectly well.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY:I am sorry that the President of the Local Government Board runs away from the distinct pledge he gave us when the Bill was under consideration in Committee of this House. He says that the modification of the clause will, in his opinion, create no friction, and that the managers will not object to the use of voluntary schools for these meetings. Why, Sir, he has no idea of the bitterness which exists in villages on the allotments question. The hon. Member for Rugby has told the House that the manager is usually the clergyman of the parish, and we know that the most bitter opponents of all movements for the improvement of the working classes are to be found among the clergy. I know nothing to equal the tyranny of some of these men. Again, I would like to point out that the Bill contains no definition of the word "manager." Anybody may be a manager, and the clergyman may, if he chooses, appoint 40 or 50 managers. If a clergyman likes he can appoint one or two managers, his own wife and daughter, or else none at all, as there is no definition of what a manager is. If a clergyman wants to prevent people having the use of the school he will cancel, if necessary, the appointments of all his managers, and put in some strong Tory who will assist him in carrying out his views. I am satisfied that the clergy will move heaven and earth in some parishes to prevent the poor men having the use of the school for any public purpose. The matter is one of some importance. As it is, under the Act of Parliament anybody may be a manager. In the district where I reside there is an Association of School Managers, and I wanted to join it. But I was not a manager; however I was made a manager in order to qualify
  1118
  me to join the Association, although I have never entered the school since my appointment.
  (6.33.) The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 23.—(Div. List, No. 262.)
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I now move, after the words "manager of the school," to insert the words "resident in a parish." I have already explained the difficulty we may be involved in, and if my words were inserted I think they will only carry out the spirit of the Lords Amendment.
  Line 37, after "meeting," insert—
  "Nothing in this section shall give any right to hold a public meeting in a schoolroom (a) unless not less than six days before the meeting a notice of the intention to hold the meeting on the day and at the time specified in the notice, signed by the persons calling the meeting, being not less than six in number, and being persons qualified to make a representation to the Local Authority under the principal Act, has been given, if the school is under a School Board, to the clerk of the Board, and in any other case to one of the managers of the school; nor (b) if the use of the schoolroom on the said day and at the said time has previously to the receipt of the notice of the meeting been granted for some other purpose; but in that case the clerk or manager, or someone on his behalf, shall forthwith, after the receipt of the notice, inform in writing one of the persons signing it that the use of the school has been so granted for some other purpose, and name some other day on which the schoolroom can be used for the meeting.
  "If the persons calling the meeting fail to obtain the use of a schoolroom under this section, they may appeal to the Standing Committee under this Act, and the Committee shall forthwith decide the appeal, and make such order respecting the use of the room as seems just,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Amendment proposed, in line 9 of the Lords Amendment, after the word "school," to insert the words "resident in the parish."—(Captain Verney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not think it would be desirable to limit the appointment of a manager to persons resident in the parish, and I hope the hon. Member will not think fit to press this Amendment.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I do not want to press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to move the addition of these words to the Lords Amendment, "a Copy of such Order shall be sent to the Education Department." If the persons calling a meeting fail to obtain the use of a schoolroom they would apply to the Standing Committee, who would make such Order as to them might seem just, and I think the Educational Department ought to be informed whether or no they have granted the use of a schoolroom.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Lords Amendment, to add the words "a copy of such order shall be sent to the Education Department."—(Captain Verney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I think the hon. Member will see that it will be impossible for the Education Department to undertake a duty of this kind, which is entirely outside the scope of that Department.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

  SOLICITORS (MAGISTRACY) BILL. (No. 99.)
  order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

SETTLED LAND BILL [LORDS]. (No. 406.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport): I beg to move that the Chairman report Progress. This Bill contains powers which ought not to be exercised, and under which you might even sell the mansion. But I will ask the opinion of the Attorney General.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I think it very desirable that this Bill should be-passed, and I think also that if my hon. Friend were to look at this clause he would find it would only enable the mansion house to be sold under certain limitations.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I should say that it would be specially important to retain the power of selling the mansion, because that would seem to be an economical way of providing Lunatic Asylums in country districts.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  RAILWAY SHAREHOLDERS (LICENSING SESSIONS) BILL.—(No. 73.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL. (No. 411.)
  Reason for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to which this House hath disagreed, reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT COMMITTEE.
  Leave given to the Select Committee on the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) to report their Observations to the House.—(Mr. Sidney Herbert.)
  Report, with Observations, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 390.)
  It being after One of the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock in the morning