§ MR. MACLEAN (Oldham)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the anxiety caused in India by the Division of Friday night week, and the necessity for letting the Indian Government know what are the real intentions of the House of Commons with regard to the Opium Revenue, he will give a day for the discussion of the Main Question raised in the Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir J. Pease), and of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir R. Fowler)?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster)I regret that the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London did not form part of the Main Question raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division, but I cannot see at present any prospect of being able to find time for a renewal of the discussion in order that a definite decision on the whole question may be arrived at.
§ MR. MACLEANIn the meantime, will the Government refrain from communicating to the Government of India the imperfect proceedings of the House, or calling upon them to take any action whatever in this matter?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think the hon. Member is well aware of the circumstances and conditions under which the Government of India is conducted. The Government in India is responsible for the financial arrangements of that Empire, and it would be improper if I were to suggest that they will not consider what passes within this House. I have no doubt they will, but they 901 are not, however, responsible to this House. The full and entire responsibility of the Government of India rests with them.
§ SIR J. PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)Perhaps I may be allowed to say that it is not my intention to ballot in order to place this Motion again as a Substantive Motion before the House. I feel that at this time of the Session it would be inconvenient to the House again to introduce the subject, even if I were so minded. Moreover, I am advised that if I were to do so the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London might be deemed by you, Sir, to be out of order, as it involves a question of handing money by this House over to the Indian Government without a Vote of the Crown. In looking at the matter myself, in the excellent work of Sir Erskine May, it seems to me that the point might arise, although I believe there has been no absolute ruling by you, Sir, in regard to it. On the other hand, I am quite content for the present with the declaration which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been in the past a steady reduction of the quantity of land in India placed under poppy cultivation, and that that policy will be persevered with in the future. I am also content with the declaration which was made by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Under these .circumstances, I do not propose to raise the subject again this Session.
§ MR. H. ELLIOT (Ayrshire, N.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the conflicting statements made as to the effects produced upon health by the consumption of Indian opium in China and elsewhere, to the confusion which it is alleged exists in the public mind upon this matter, and to the insufficient time which a discussion on a private Member's Motion affords for an exhaustive Debate, he will consent to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations made on either side, with a view of testing their accuracy, and enabling the House and country to form an instructed judgment as to their worth?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI am aware that there have been conflicting statements 902 as to the effects produced upon health by the consumption of Indian opium in China and elsewhere, but I do not think that the appointment of a Select Committee would enable the House to judge of the accuracy or otherwise of the allegations which have been made, as the Committee would not be able to examine Chinese witnesses, and the evidence of those who have merely passed through the fringe of that country would not enable a Committee to form a judgment which would be of very great value.