Commons Sitting of 28 March 1892

EAST INDIA (DEATH OF BULWUNT RAO).
Address for Copy of Correspondence relating to the inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Bulwunt Rao at Gwalior.—(Mr. Seymour Keay.)
EAST INDIA (DEATH OF BULWUNT RAO).
  CROWN LANDS BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Crown Lands Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate enactments relating to the Marriage of British Subjects outside the United Kingdom." [Marriages Abroad Bill [Lords.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  EASTBOURNE IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1885, AMENDMENT BILL.
  Mr. Bartley, Mr. John Ellis, Admiral Field, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, and Sir Henry James nominated Members of the Committee, with Pour Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
QUESTIONS.

  FLINTSHIRE MAGISTRATES.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to a recent Correspondence between the Rhyl Liberal Club and the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Flint on the subject of the appointment of Magistrates in Flintshire; whether he is aware that very great dissatisfaction exists at the small number of Liberals who are placed on the Bench—namely, some ten only out of a total of 90 Magistrates; whether he is aware that there is only one Protestant Nonconformist on the Bench, while fully two-thirds of the population of the county are Nonconformists, and whether he is aware that there are a considerable number of Nonconformists resident in the county who are qualified, legally and otherwise, for appointment as
  8
  Magistrates; whether he is aware that only a very few of the Magistrates can speak Welsh, and that the need of an interpreter is often required, and whether the Government will use the needful pressure to induce the Lord Lieutenant to take steps that all Political Parties shall be fully represented on the Bench in proportion to their numbers, and thus remove a cause of bitterness which exists on the subject throughout the county?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have received a Copy of the Correspondence. The Lord Lieutenant of Flintshire informs me that he is unable to ascertain the proportion between Conservative and Liberal appointments to the Bench made by him, as his appointments have never been influenced by political considerations. He believes that few of the Magistrates speak Welsh; but that in a large portion of Flintshire no Welsh is spoken, and that in the Welsh-speaking districts interpreters are always to be obtained, and in no case has there been a failure of justice owing to want of knowledge of Welsh on the Bench. In the Rhyl district the Lord Lieutenant has recently appointed three Magistrates, two of whom are Welsh-speaking gentlemen. It is no part of my duty to interfere with the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant in selecting suitable persons to be placed on the Commission of the Peace.
  MR. S. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to whether there is only one Protestant Nonconformist on the Bench?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no information as to the religion of any of the Magistrates.

  THE PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS ACT, 1887.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue an official Circular to Magistrates, Recorders, and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, inviting their further consideration of the provisions of "The Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887," especially in view of the statement made by Her Majesty's Commis-

  9
  sioners of Prisons for England and Wales in their last Report that, in at least some districts, the local prison Governors are "not aware of the Act having been applied at all," and in view also of the figures in the latest "Judicial Statistics," showing that more than half of all the persons proceeded against summarily in the year were of "previous good character," whilst another large proportion had "nothing known against them?"
  MR. MATTHEWS: I propose to issue a Circular calling attention to Section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and to the Probation of First Offenders Act.

  UNCLASSED TEACHERS IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many unclassed teachers have been appointed to national schools in Ireland during the years 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891 respectively; and under what circumstances can the manager of a school appoint an unclassed teacher of whose qualifications he is satisfied?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The Commissioners of National Education report that in the years named the numbers of unclassed teachers appointed have been as follows:—1888, 48; 1889, 23; 1890, 18; 1891, 18. Several of these teachers had previously been monitors. Appointments of this nature are considered by the Commissioners where a person possessing the qualifications of a classed teacher cannot be found to fill an occurring vacancy, but conditional on his immediately passing a preliminary entrance examination for provisional classification in the third class. For his continued recognition he is required to pass the general examination next happening.

  OFFICIALS EMPLOYED ON THE INDIAN CENSUS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India how many Europeans, Eurasians, and Indians were officially employed in connection with the taking of the recent Census in India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The Secretary of state has no information on the subject.
  MR. MACNEILL: May I ask can the Secretary of State procure information on the subject?
  MR. CURZON: We are expecting later on a detailed Report upon the Census; but if the information desired by the hon. Member is not contained therein, I do not think there will be any advantage in asking for it.

  THE "CHARGE TAKER" AT THE GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will cause inquiry to be made into the way the recently appointed "charge taker," Mr. A. Taplin, in the General Post Office, Dublin, was selected for the position, and whether due regard was had to the claims, on the grounds of service and fitness for the position, of other employés; whether this officer has charge of the male and female domestic servants of the department; and whether he can state the grounds for the dismissal of six of the female servants since Taplin took charge, the religion of the servants dismissed, and of those who were appointed to their places?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Altogether four candidates applied for the situation, and Mr. Taplin was selected by the Postmaster General as being by far the best qualified for the duties to be performed. The charwomen of the department are under his control. There are no male domestic servants. The charwomen are not established servants, nor are all of them regularly employed, some of them being paid by the job. Eight (not six) of these persons have left since Mr. Taplin became charge taker. Of these eight, two left in consequence of age; one left in consequence of illness; one resigned; and four were dismissed for drunkenness and general misconduct. Neither of those who have left nor of those who have succeeded them is the religion known; nor is it the practice of the department to inquire.

  THE GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the grounds upon which a candidate named E. C. Conlan, who twice presented himself for preliminary examination for the office of sorting clerk in the General Post Office, Dublin, in 1892, was each time rejected?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The grounds were, not being tall enough and not being sufficiently educated.

  WEST INDIAN SUGAR.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State will take into consideration, with regard to any permanent reductions in duties proposed upon articles imported into the West Indian Colonies from the United States, the fact that although the United States, under the M'Kinley Tariff, have agreed to admit West Indian sugars duty free, they have granted a bonus equivalent to the former scale of duties to home producers; and whether alterations in the existing Customs tariffs of the Colonies will necessitate higher duties on all articles exported from the United Kingdom to these Colonies?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): In entering into the arrangement with the United States Government, under which the duties imposed in certain West Indian Colonies on various articles imported chiefly, though not exclusively, from the United States have been reduced, Her Majesty's Government took into consideration the fact that a bounty is granted in the United States to home producers of sugar. Alterations in the existing Customs tariffs of the Colonies will not necessitate higher duties on all articles exported from the United Kingdom to these Colonies.
  MR. SUMMERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when Papers on the subject will be laid on the Table?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: They are in preparation.

  SUPPLY OF REGIMENTAL STORES.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will inquire if regiments stationed in Ireland are largely supplied with groceries and other dry goods, obtainable in Ireland, from the Army and Navy Stores, London; whether any, and, if so, how many, of the officers of regiments stationed in Ireland are shareholders and have other financial interests in the Army and Navy Stores; whether it has come to his knowledge that any officers so interested in the Army and Navy Stores have used their influence in their regiments to procure orders for Army supply from that establishment to the injury of Irish traders, who are taxed to support the British Army; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): This matter was very carefully considered in 1890. I can only repeat what has been said by the Secretary of State. No complaints have been received on the subject. The canteens supplying groceries to the troops are managed by the regimental committees, who act independently of the War Office, and are free to obtain their supplies from whatsoever source they think fit.

  DEBTS OF VOLUNTEER REGIMENTS.
  MR. ISAACS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to an unreported case of "Herbert & Co. v. Silver," judgment in which was given by the Hon. Mr. Justice Day on the 19th January last at Guildhall Sittings of the Queen's Bench Division, and in which the learned Judge directed the jury that each member of the Finance Committee of a Volunteer Regiment was personally liable for debts of the regiment; and, if so, whether he is prepared to issue a Regulation under the powers contained in "The Volunteer Act, 1863," Section 16, by which the liability of the members of the Finance Committee should he limited to the amount of the public funds at the disposal of the commanding officer, in whom all the property of the regi-

  13
  ment is vested by Section 25 of the said Act, or otherwise, to obviate the possibility, under the authority of the said case, of individual members of the Finance Committee being personally sued for regimental debts?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not the duty of the Finance Committee of a Volunteer corps to give orders on behalf of the regiment; if it does so, it renders itself liable for the expense of such orders. Regulations now under consideration will make it quite clear where the responsibility for orders, given on behalf of the regiment, rests.

  THE COST OF UNIFORMS OF HIGHLAND REGIMENTS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the entire cost entailed on the Estimates by dressing Highland regiments in their national costume?
  MR. BRODRICK: The clothing of the Scottish regiments of the Line and of the Militia costs about £15,000 a year more than the clothing of the same number of ordinary Infantry regiments.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICE, LITTLE DOWNHAM, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
  MR. BRAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will take into consideration the claims of Little Downham, in Cambridgeshire, for a postal telegraph office, in so much as this parish has a population of 2,000 people, and has no telegraph office or second delivery of letters?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member has, I find, been informed that the office could only be established under a certain guarantee.

  DISMISSAL OF THE BALLYSCALLY NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what were the circumstances attending the dismissal of Mr. A. Gallagher, national school teacher, Ballyscally, County Tyrone; and when the Commissioners of Education propose to make public their decision on the Inspector's Report made in November last?
  MR. JACKSON: The Commissioners of National Education report that the teacher mentioned was dismissed by the manager of the school on 31st December, 1891. In communicating the dismissal to the Board, the manager stated that he had determined the service of the teacher in consequence of repeated acts of insubordination, together with other displeasing features of his conduct. Certain complaints had been previously made by the manager against the teacher. The Commissioners had them inquired into by their Inspector, and, having considered his Report, decided that the case did not demand further action on their part. They duly notified their decision to the manager on 17th December.

  THE WEARING OF THE SHAMROCK.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Sergeant Major of the Carlow Militia is correctly reported, when ordering the men to remove their shamrocks from their caps on St. Patrick's Day, to have told them "to throw away those tufts of grass;" and, if so, whether he will be reprimanded for making use of this observation?
  MR. BRODRICK: As the hon. Baronet is aware from recent discussions, no soldier is allowed to wear any decoration on parade, except with the permission of his commanding officer. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) has, I think, satisfied the House that he has no desire to run counter to the national sentiment in this matter, but as the order, under the circumstances, was perfectly proper, he has not felt it necessary to inquire as to the exact terms in which it was given.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say how this statement can be reconciled with the fact that men of the Welsh Fusiliers are allowed to wear the leek on parade on St. David's Day?
  MR. BRODEICK: I think my answer covers that point. With the permission of the commanding officer this or any other emblem maybe worn. It is not alleged that in the present instance such permission was sought, and

  15
  the officer or non-commissioned officer would order the removal of the emblem badge, or whatever it was, without regard to what it was.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is a custom with the Northumberland Fusiliers, when parading on St. George's Day (23rd April), for all officers and men by order to wear two roses, red and white, in their busbies; and whether English, Irish, Scotch, and Welsh soldiers in that regiment are obliged, under pain of punishment for disobedience, to conform to this custom; if so, whether he will cause an order to be made that the wearing of shamrock on St. Patrick's Day shall be discretionary in the Army?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Commander-in-Chief is not cognisant of the custom referred to in the question. There is no necessity to issue an order as to the wearing of the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day, as such matters are within the discretion of commanding officers.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Seeing how unfairly the discretion is used, is it not desirable that some instructions should be issued? May I also ask, Could not the information be obtained?
  MR. BRODRICK: I think the hon. Member is incorrect in saying that the discretion has been unfairly used. It is not alleged that any application has been made to a commanding officer for leave to wear the shamrock and refused. As regards the custom mentioned in the question, it is not within the knowledge of the War Office, and as it does not come within the regulations for discipline it has not been thought necessary to make inquiry.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a report from the Press Association that a stoker at the Seamen's Barracks, Devonport, was ordered 14 days' imprisonment for wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day last; whether he can give the name of the man imprisoned, and of the officer who gave the sentence, and the general circumstances of this case; and, if the Press report is true, whether he will order the release of
  16
  this man pending an investigation of the facts of the case, and until the House is afforded an opportunity of considering the matter?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am informed that Frederick Dwyer, stoker, while on parade at Divisions, was ordered by the lieutenant on duty to take some green decoration out of his cap, and that he refused to obey the order. This was reported to Commander Neville, who thereupon punished the man with 14 days, number 10a, for wilful disobedience in refusing to obey orders. Commander Neville subsequently reduced this sentence to seven days, number 10a. This is one of the ordinary summary punishments authorised by the Regulations in such cases. Grog is stopped, smoking is forbidden, and the offender is practically confined to barracks, but he is not imprisoned. Considering that disobedience to orders is a grave offence against discipline, I do not think the punishment inflicted was severe, nor do I propose to interfere in the matter.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I will press this matter upon the attention of the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would ask the noble Lord if there is any other instance on record of anyone in the National Service having been punished for wearing a national decoration?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot answer that question, but I may say that no decorations of any kind are permitted to be worn by men in Her Majesty's uniform.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the noble Lord whether there is any objection to the Admiralty issuing a General Order or indication that the Admiralty does not desire that Irishmen in the Service should be required to remove green decorations on St. Patrick's Day.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Whatever Regulation applies to Irishmen must apply to all other nationalities.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I would ask the noble Lord whether as an Irishman he has ever worn the shamrock himself on St. Patrick's Day?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I would like to ask the noble Lord whether, seeing the near approach of Primrose Day, he will give orders that primroses are not to be worn by soldiers or sailors on that day?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES, ROSCREA UNION.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations from ratepayers of the Borris in Ossory and Moneenalassa electoral divisions of the Roscrea Union for the erection of labourers' cottages were lodged as far back as December, 1888; whether any of these cottages have yet been built; whether the Guardians have even yet obtained possession of the plots of land for their erection; whether the Board of Works required a sum of £30 to be lodged before the Government arbitrator was allowed to proceed with the valuation of three half-acre plots; and whether any of this money has been returned to the Roscrea Board, or any account furnished of its disbursement?
  MR. JACKSON: The proposal to provide labourers' cottages in the case mentioned was first submitted to the Local Government Board in December, 1889, and was duly sanctioned under a Provisional Order. The information before me does not show whether the Guardians have yet obtained possession of the land. The Board of Works did obtain the deposit mentioned. They have not yet accounted with the Guardians, as they are awaiting the furnishing by the Arbitrator of his bill of costs.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the Board of Works continue to exact the heavy deposit of £10 in each case, seeing that very often the purchase money does not exceed that?
  MR. JACKSON: That is rather a question for the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman may recollect that when he filled the office of Secretary to the Treasury he offered to look into this matter.
  MR. JACKSON: I did make inquiry when I was in Dublin, when, if I remember
  18
  aright, the question was the provision of labourers' cottages in a Union in the South of Ireland. The suggestion made was whether a local valuer could not be employed instead of sending down an officer from Dublin. I made inquiries, and I was then told that it was very difficult to arrange that, because in many of these cases it was very difficult to find a local valuer not in some way connected with the matter. The object, of course, is by inquiry to obtain an independent opinion. I did make the suggestion to the Board of Works that they should try and limit the amount of the deposit to what would be a fair amount of the charge.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the unexpended balance is returned to the Guardians?
  MR. JACKSON: That is rather a question for the Treasury.

  LOANDA TRADE REPORT.
  MR. NEVILLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consul at Loanda, who receives £700 a year, has made any later Report on the trade of Loanda than that for 1886–7; and if he will explain why regular information is not forwarded to the Foreign Office?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): Reports from Loanda were received and issued by the Foreign Office in 1888 and in 1889. In 1890 the Consul at Loanda, Mr. Annesley, was engaged in special duties in the Oil Rivers district (owing to the illness and subsequent death of Consul Hewett). In 1891 Consul Annesley resigned in consequence of ill-health. Acting Consul Brock was instructed on the 2nd of January last to send home a Report on the trade of Loanda, and he is now engaged in preparing it.

  ULVERSTON POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. NEVILLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Post-mastership at Ulverston, worth £215 per annum, was recently given to a lady who had previously acted as sorting clerk at a salary of 30s. a week;

  19
  whether there were many applicants for the post of higher position and longer service; whether such rapid promotion is usual in the Service; and whether in this instance outside influence was brought to bear in respect of the appointment?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is, Yes. It was given to Miss Margaret Hornsby, the daughter of the late Postmaster, who in one capacity or another had assisted her father in the office during a period of 18 years. The answer to the second paragraph is, Yes, and to the third, No. To the last paragraph I answer, Yes, in this sense—that the locality presented a very influential memorial, and recommended her appointment as Postmistress in succession to her father.

  THE PETTY SESSIONS BENCH, RAMELTON, COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Petty Sessions Bench at Ramelton, County Donegal, a town with 1,700 inhabitants, of whom fully half are Roman Catholics, there are six Magistrates, and of these five are members of the Irish Episcopal Church and one a Presbyterian; and whether he will consider the propriety of taking steps to secure that members of the Roman Catholic faith should form part of a Court in which justice is administered to so large a Roman Catholic population?
  MR. JACKSON: I am an unwilling assistant of the hon. Gentleman in his self-imposed task of taking a religious census of the officials of Ireland; but the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland reports that there are seven Magistrates attending the Petty Sessions mentioned. The religious denominations of six of these Magistrates is, it is believed, as stated in the question. There is no information on this point as regards the seventh, nor is there information as to the relative proportion of the several religious denominations in the district, though I am informed that the statistics of the hon. Member are inaccurate. The Lord Lieutenant of the county is always ready to consider the names of
  20
  any properly qualified Roman Catholics submitted to him, and the Lord Chancellor to give effect to such recommendations when made.
  MR. MACNEILL: There is a vacancy on the Petty Sessions Bench. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that if a Roman Catholic gentleman is recommended and found qualified he shall be appointed?
  MR. JACKSON: It is quite out of my power to give any such undertaking; but I am sure if the hon. Member will recommend to the Lord Lieutenant of the county or the Lord Chancellor a suitable person, that recommendation will be most carefully considered.
  MR. MACNEILL: I do not intend that the Lord Lieutenant or the Lord Chancellor should dispense patronage to me.

  MILITARY CANDIDATES—WOOLWICH AND SANDHURST.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Queen's Regulations require a candidate who presents himself for admission to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, or the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, to obtain a certificate of moral and satisfactory conduct from his tutor; and whether these certificates are ever dispensed with by the Authorities at the Horse Guards; and, if so, how many of such dispensations have been granted in each of the last three years, and on what grounds?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Regulations require certificates as to moral character for the last four years in the case of candidates for the Royal Military College and the Royal Military Academy. This rule is so rigidly adhered to that there has been only one exception during the last three years, and in that case the certificate was only dispensed with under the most special circumstances and after the fullest inquiry.

  PAY OF OFFICERS COMMANDING DEPOT CENTRES.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the total cost of the pay and allowances of the officers commanding depôt centres?
  MR. BRODRICK: The cost of employing these officers, instead of giving them the retired pay to which they are entitled and receiving no service in return for it, is £10,950.
  COLONEL NOLAN: That is not the information I want. My question is, what is the total cost?
  MR. BRODRICK: I can supply that information, but I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to know the extra cost.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I will repeat the question to-morrow.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when the promised new Order will be issued with respect to districts infected with the foot-and-mouth disease, to meet, as far as is practicable and safe, the convenience of farmers by permitting beasts to be sent to the Metropolitan Market under proper restrictions?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Beasts can be sent now to the Metropolitan Market from every district in England and Wales, except the Counties of Sussex, Kent, Surrey, Cheshire, portions of Essex and Westmoreland, and part of Lancashire—which I have been compelled to close this morning—and from the districts other than those which are scheduled in Scotland. I hope the new Order to which the hon. Member refers will be issued during the course of the present week.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN THE SKIPTON DIVISION.
  MR. MORRISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the date of the last outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in the Skipton Petty Sessional Division, and the probable time when the restrictions on the movement of stock out of that district will be abrogated?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The last two outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia nearest to the town of Skipton were, one near Grassington, on 8th September, 1891, and the other near Bingley, on 31st November, 1891. Another outbreak at
  22
  Willesden, near Bingley, occurred on 19th January last. The district, as the hon. Member is aware, is a cow-breeding one, and, when free, animals are distributed from it widely over the West Riding and Lancashire. It is, moreover, a district that imports considerable numbers of store cattle from Ireland, an importation which is not without danger. I am afraid that for the present the restrictions on the movement of stock out of the district must continue in force.

  THE CONVICTS DALY AND EGAN—SUPERINTENDENT BLACK.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a paragraph which appeared in the London correspondence of the Manchester Evening Mail on 4th March, 1892, in which it is stated that a certain ex-Inspector of police in the provinces absconded; whether the police officer referred to is the Inspector who was the chief witness for the Crown in the prosecution of James Egan and John Daly for treason-felony, and who was in charge of the police who arrested both of them; whether this Inspector has absconded, and whether any charges affecting this Inspector's official career have come to the knowledge of the authorities; whether he is aware that a public testimonial to the Inspector, headed by the Mayor of Birmingham, and another promoted by the police of that city, were abandoned at the request of Mr. Farndale, Chief Constable of Police, acting on behalf of the authorities, and in consequence of the allegations in question having come to their knowledge; and whether, as John Daly and James Egan were convicted largely on the evidence of this Inspector, an investigation will be instituted by the authorities into his official career?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not seen the newspaper paragraph mentioned in the question, but I learn that its effect is correctly stated. I understand that the officer referred to is ex-Detective Superintendent Black, of the Birmingham police, who was a witness at the trial of Egan and Daly. He was not the officer in charge of the police who

  23
  arrested Egan and Daly. Mr. Black writes to me from Birmingham that he has not absconded, and his statement is confirmed in an official Report which I have received from the Chief Constable. Mr. Black also informs me that it is his intention, in consequence of these allegations, to place the matter in the hands of a solicitor, with a view to vindicate his character. It is the fact that a meeting was held by a number of the inhabitants of the City of Birmingham, but not headed by the Mayor, with the object of raising funds for a testimonial to Mr. Black, and that subscriptions were invited in the local newspapers. I am informed that Mr. Black put an end to the project himself by publishing a letter in which he respectfully declined the testimonial. This letter led also to the abandonment of a movement on the part of the police to collect subscriptions from the general body of the Force. The Chief Constable was not spoken to on this subject, and did not request that the subscriptions should be abandoned. I do not admit that Daly and Egan were convicted largely on the evidence of this officer. I am not aware that the Watch Committee of Birmingham intend to institute an investigation into his official career.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: The information I have is of such a character that I must ask the right hon. Gentleman another question in reference to this matter. I desire to ask him whether allegations have been made against this police officer of having been engaged for years in a criminal conspiracy; whether the authorities, as soon as these allegations came to their knowledge, went or sent to the testimonial committee and intimated that the testimonial proceedings should be stopped; whether the letter which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to as having been written by Mr. Black, asking that the testimonial proceedings should be stopped, was written at the instance of the police authorities; and, if these facts are so, whether, in view of the important part played by this police officer in the trial and conviction of Daly and Egan, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of instituting a judicial investigation into the circumstances?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The officer to whom the hon. Member refers is not under my control, but under that of the Watch Committee, and I have no power to order a judicial investigation into his conduct. With regard to the defamatory statements the hon. Member has thought it right to put in the shape of a question, they are, so far as my information goes, inaccurate.

  THE LAGOS TREATIES.
  MR. DALZIEL (: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Treaty recently signed at Lagos by Mr. S. T. Carter, on behalf of this country and certain Jebus, was invalid in consequence of its not having been executed with the authority of the King and head chiefs of the Jebu people after consultation at a national council duly summoned with the necessary formalities required by native custom; whether the Treaties said to be concluded by the Egbas are similarly defective; and whether, before sanctioning any offensive operations against these independent kingdoms, the Secretary of State would cause careful inquiry to be made as to the circumstances under which these informal documents are considered binding upon Jebuan and Egban subjects by the Lagos Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: A deputation sent to Lagos by the King of Jebu for the purpose of expressing the wishes of his people stated that they represented the whole of the Jebu nation, and that they had full authority to treat with the Lagos Government. The two Lagos Jebus who witnessed the agreement attested that the messengers
  "In the name of the Awujale and people of Jebu, and on their behalf, agreed to all the terms of the agreement, and undertook to carry them out, and declared that they were authorised to do so. The representatives further signified their acceptance of the terms by taking the country oath on kolas and water."
  The only Treaty with the Egbas is the one of 5th January, 1852. It was concluded by authorised persons, and there is no reason to suppose it is not valid.
  MR. SUMMERS: Was this Treaty with the Jebus confirmed by the chiefs?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: It was made by the King.
  MR. SUMMERS: And subsequently repudiated.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: There is no evidence of that.

  PUZZLE COMPETITIONS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to advertisements in Comic Cuts and other papers, stating that £200 will be given away in cash prizes to those sending most correct solutions to certain puzzles, and inviting competitors to send solutions together with 13 stamps; whether information has reached him that, owing to the extreme ease of guessing these puzzles, vast numbers of persons, chiefly youths and children, are induced to send, postal orders, receiving in return either nothing at all or merely nominal sums; and whether he will take steps to determine whether the law is being infringed by the operations in question?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I have not seen the advertisements referred to; but I have called the attention of the Treasury Solicitor to the allegations made in the question.

  CASSELL'S "NATIONAL LIBRARY" AND SCHOOL LIBRARIES.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to an offer made by Messrs. Cassell, publishers, to supply their "National Library" of 200 volumes at half price (£1 7s.), provided the library is vested in responsible persons, and the place one in which no bookseller resides; and whether, in view of the great advantage the possession of a lending library would be to the inhabitants of villages where no such provision now exists, and seeing that such a proposal is in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Revised Instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, lately issued by the Education Department, he will authorise and recommend school managers in rural districts where the library exists to include in the school accounts a moderate sum sufficient for the purchase of Messrs. Cassell's or some similar library?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,): I understand that Messrs. Cassell have made such an offer as the hon. Member describes, and I am not aware of any reason why managers of schools should not avail themselves of it for the formation of a lending library, and charge the cost to the school fund.

  MESSRS. RANSOME AND THE ADMIRALTY CONTRACT.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state whether Messrs. Ransome, of Battersea, who are carrying out, under a sub-contract with Messrs. Thornycroft, of Chiswick, a portion of an Admiralty contract, are paying their workmen less than the trade rate of wages in contravention of the Resolution of this House of 13th February, 1891?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): From the inquiries I have made I am satisfied that Messrs. Ransome have fully complied with the terms of the Resolution in question.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' HOLIDAYS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, when a Bank Holiday falls during a telegraphist's annual leave, the usual practice is as follows: "If the day on which an officer should in ordinary course begin his annual leave happens to be a public holiday in the department, the officer's leave is reckoned to begin on the following day; if the day on which an officer's annual leave expires happens to be a public holiday in the Department, the officer is not required to resume duty till the day after the public holiday;" whether this course is adopted at all Provincial and London district offices, but not at the Central Telegraph Office; and whether he will recommend that the same privilege be extended to the clerks of the Central Telegraph Office, who at the present time have not participated in this extension of leave?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The rule is as stated in the question. The Controller of the Central Telegraph Office was so informed on the 1st December

  27
  last, and the rule will be in operation during the current and future years.

  EDUCATION CODE FOR EVENING SCHOOLS.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with reference to evening schools and the New Code, whether, having regard to the fact that the articles of the Code which relate to evening schools are scattered under various headings, making it difficult to ascertain precisely the conditions requisite for obtaining a Government grant, and the further fact that many School Boards and other educational authorities in small towns and rural districts are unaware of their powers and responsibilities in respect to such schools, and of the facilities provided in the Code, he will issue, in connection with the Code, 1892, a special statement or summary of those clauses which relate to evening schools, showing the exact conditions under which a Government grant may be obtained, together with a table setting forth the subjects that may be taught, and the grants that may be earned, in evening schools?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am aware of the advantages to be derived from the course suggested, and the Department have for some time had in contemplation the issue of a separate Code for evening schools, but the details of the scheme are not yet complete.

  LICENCES AT SHOREDITCH.
  MR. J. STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Licensing Magistrates of the Tower Hamlets Division, on Monday, 14th March, renewed the licence of a public house known as the "Norfolk Arms," in Bateman's Row, Shoreditch, after sworn evidence had been given that the house was the habitual resort of thieves, and that there were already 24 other public houses or beer shops within a radius of 200 yards, and after a majority of the inhabitants of the immediate neighbourhood had presented a memorial praying the Magistrates not to renew the licence; and whether he
  28
  can state why the Magistrates, after such evidence and memorial, renewed the licence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In regard to the renewal of the licence of a public house known as the "Norfolk Arms," Shoreditch, I am informed by the Magistrates' clerk that a general statement was made before the Bench that this house was "frequented by thieves," but that the evidence failed to establish that statement. The Magistrates do not consider that the fact that licensed houses, more or less numerous, exist in the neighbourhood is to be treated by itself, and in the absence of other reasons, as a reason for taking away the licence of any particular house. The Magistrates are unable to say whether the memorial referred to was signed by a majority of the inhabitants, but point out that under the Licensing Act the only evidence they can receive in opposition to the renewal of a licence must be on oath.

  TURKEY AND ARMENIA.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Commander of the 4th Army Corps, whose headquarters are at Erzeroum, has been compelling the Armenians to supply the horses necessary for the formation of the Kurdish Cavalry regiment, that the owners have received no compensation for the confiscated animals, and that acts of cruelty have been perpetrated at Kortanlan, Hogthean, and other places on those persons who refuse to give up their property; whether any protest has been made by the British Consul in Armenia; whether the acts enumerated are in contravention of Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty; and when the promised Papers relating to Armenia will be published?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: No information in support of the allegations contained in the first paragraph has been received. Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Van has reported that the Kurds have come forward with great readiness to enlist, that their horses have been branded, and that although it was alleged that they had borrowed and stolen the horses of others he was not able to confirm the report. There

  29
  has, consequently, been no ground for representations on the part of Her Majesty's Embassy. The acts alleged in the first paragraph might be considered to be in contravention of Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin. Papers will be distributed this week.

  DISTRESS AT INNISBOFFIN.
  MR. FOLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that great distress prevails at present in the Island of Innisboffin, that 20 or 30 families there are in actual want; and if, in view of this lamentable condition of affairs, he will urge the Congested Districts Board to undertake the completion of the pier in the east end of the Island which was begun last year?
  MR. JACKSON: I have not yet been able to get the information to enable me to reply to this question, and therefore must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question.

  THE POOR RATE COLLECTOR AT INNISBOFFIN.
  MR. FOLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the local police sergeant acts as the Poor Rate collector in the Island of Innisboffin, and that, in some instances where the process of the law was invoked in this island to recover Poor Rates, warrants have been issued against persons who hold clear receipts for the rates now demanded; and whether a constable is authorised to perform the duties of rate collector?
  MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is not the case that the local police sergeant has been engaged as a collector of Poor Rates in Innisboffin, nor do the Constabulary act as Poor Rate collectors. But warrants were addressed to the sergeant by the Magistrate of Petty Sessions for the recovery of rates, and two of these warrants were not executed because the defendants produced receipts for the money paid.
  MR. CRILLY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman as he cannot answer the preceding question when he can answer this one?
  MR. JACKSON: The answer to that is very simple. Two different departments have to supply the information. I have got it from one and not from the other.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is able to state the number of superintendents of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, how many of them are Protestants, and how many Roman Catholics; whether any Protestants have become Roman Catholics, and afterwards have been promoted; whether a Protestant Inspector who, while on leave of absence, attended a meeting in London, was called upon to account for this; whether members of the Force are permitted to become members of the Gaelic Athletic Association, wearing its uniform, and acting as stewards; and if he will say what is the number of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and how many of them are Protestants?
  MR. JACKSON: The Commissioner of Police reports there are seven superintendents in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and they are all Roman Catholics. There is no record or trace of an occurrence of the nature mentioned in the second paragraph. The Inspector referred to in the third paragraph had spoken at a public meeting and was publicly reported. It was pointed out to him that he should not have brought himself thus prominently before the public without previously obtaining the views of his superiors. The reply to the inquiry in the fourth paragraph is in the negative. The Commissioner adds that the question of religion does not form any factor in the promotions in the Force. I would venture to deprecate these questions as regards the religion of men in the Public Service as being not conducive to public interests.
  MR. JOHNSTON: May I be permitted to say I merely asked this question to show that the Protestants in Ireland are not getting everything their own way.

  ILLEGITIMACY IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that 8 per cent. of the children born in Scotland are illegitimate; whether he is aware that the present law inflicts serious hardships on illegitimate children in all classes of society; and whether he will consider in what way the law may be amended, so as to remove the legal disabilities of children born out of wedlock, and to bring home to parents as fully as may be the responsibilities of parentage?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement made in the first part of the question. Without expressing any opinion on the assertion that the present law inflicts hardship on illegitimate children, I shall be glad to consider any practical suggestions the hon. Member may make for its amendment.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I would ask the Lord Advocate whether he will be good enough to inquire into the law as bearing upon illegitimate children in reference to their parents claiming damages from employers where the children have been injured? Several cases of this kind have occurred in the mining districts.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I am not aware of any such cases as the hon. Member refers to, but if he will give me details I will make inquiry into the matter.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an application, made by a branch of the Steam Engine Makers' Society, at New Brompton, to deposit the funds of the branch in the Post Office Savings Bank, was met by the reply, on the part of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, that the branch could not deposit its funds without limit, on the grounds "that, in their opinion, your Society does not come within the class of cases contemplated by the Statute"; whether he is aware that it has been the practice of
  32
  the Society named for a great number of years to deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank the funds of all their branches, and that by some 70 to 80 branches the funds are so deposited at this time without any question; whether he can inform the House upon what grounds an exception is made as regards this particular branch; and whether it is the intention of the National Debt Commissioners to withdraw the privilege so long enjoyed by the Trade Unions of the United Kingdom of depositing their funds in the Post Office Savings Banks, or of so limiting the amount as to render the privilege of but little benefit to such societies?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I would ask the hon. Member to postpone this question until to-morrow.

  IRISH NATIONAL GALLERY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Armstrong, of the Fine Arts Club, has been appointed to the directorship of the Irish National Gallery in succession to the late Mr. Doyle; and whether no Irishman could be found equally competent for the position?
  MR. JACKSON: The Board of Governors of the National Gallery have reported the election of Mr. Armstrong as Director. The appointment is not under the control of the Government, nor am I aware of whether there were other candidates; but I have no doubt the Governors, in making the appointment, endeavoured to secure the services of the gentleman who, in their opinion, would be best qualified to fill the office.

  EMIGRATION FROM THE HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had any further communication from the Government of British Columbia relative to the proposed scheme of emigration to that country from the Highlands of Scotland; whether the Government of British Columbia has accepted the offer of £150,000 for that purpose made by Her Majesty's

  33
  Government; whether he will lay the Correspondence referr ject upon the Table of the House; and whether Her Majesty's Government will advance a like or any sum for the purpose of settling the people of the Highlands in the unpeopled parts of their native land?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have not received any further communication from the Government of British Columbia with reference to the proposed emigration scheme from the Highlands of Scotland. The offer of a loan of £150,000 made by Her Majesty's Government has not yet been accepted by the Government of British Columbia, but the hon. Member has probably seen telegrams in the public Press stating that the Legislature of that colony has the matter under consideration. It will be desirable to wait for the conclusion of the negotiations before laying the Correspondence on the Table of the House. With regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I am not aware that any practical proposal has been made in the direction which he indicates.

  THE SOLOMON ISLANDS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a telegram, dated New York, 30th October, 1891, and published in the Times of the following day, in which it is stated that—
  "Her Majesty's cruiser Royalist has been cruising among the Solomon Islands and inflicting punishment on the natives for outrages committed on British subjects there…. Chief Tono refused to give up the criminals, and accordingly Captain Davis, commanding the Royalisi, landed with a party of 25 bluejackets and attacked Tono's village, which was set fire to and destroyed; Tono was killed";
  and whether the Admiralty have now received any information on the subject; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the alleged cruise among the Solomon Islands and the operations there?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I understand that the Royalist was at the Solomon Islands about the beginning of August last, but the Admiralty have received no report of her having inflicted any punishment on natives for outrages. If
  34
  any action of the kind occurred the particulars will be communicated by the Commander-in-Chief in due course.
  DR. CAMERON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he means to say that the statement made in the Times is unfounded?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I do not go so far as that. As communication is slow with the station referred to, it may be the case that something has occurred of which we have not received full information.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to give notice that I will repeat this question.

  LOUISBURG PIER.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any, and, if so, what, steps will be taken to make Louisburg Pier, County Mayo, of some practical use to the inhabitants of the locality?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): I am informed that this pier is vested in the county, and it is, therefore, not for the Treasury to take action.

  BALLINCOLLIG POWDER MILLS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the gunpowder barrels used at Ballincollig (County Cork) Powder Mills are all imported from English Government factories; and whether he is aware that such importation has thrown out of work a large number of the Ballincollig coopers? And I would further ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this question intimately affects ten families, including 108 persons?
  MR. BRODRICK: Powder barrels have up to this time been issued from Government stores to the Ballincollig Mills, as in the case of all contract powder received from mills in England and Scotland. No change has been made which could cause the throwing out of work of coopers at Ballincollig. I may perhaps add that, judging from certain samples which have been forwarded from Ballincollig, there will be no objection to give the Company an opportunity, if they obtain further contracts for powder, to quote a price for barrels as well.
  DR. TANNER: I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that that promise was made two years ago, and I would ask him how it comes to pass that it has not been carried into effect, but has remained in abeyance for upwards of two years?
  MR. BRODRICK: I was not aware that such a promise had been made; but samples have been obtained, and the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the promise will be carried out.

  THE ALLOTMENTS ACT, 1887.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a loan contracted by a Rural Sanitary Authority for the purchase under "The Allotments Act, 1887," of land for allotments for any particular pariah, is ultimately repayable, first as to principal, and secondly as to interest, out of the rates of the whole rural sanitary area, or out of the rates of the parish only for which the allotments have been provided, in the event of there being a deficiency after applying all receipts in respect of the allotments which are properly applicable towards the repayment of such loan and interest; and whether the security for the repayment of such loan to the lender is upon the rates of the whole rural sanitary area?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The principal of a loan contracted by a Rural Sanitary Authority for the purchase under the Allotments Act, 1887, of land for allotments for any particular parish and the interest in respect of the loan during its continuance are payable out of the rates of the parish for which the allotments have been provided. The security for the repayment would be the rates of the parish, and not the rates of the whole rural sanitary district.

  THE SANITARY COMMISSIONERS OF GIBRALTAR.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state what is the annual expenditure of
  36
  the Board of Sanitary Commissioners of the City and County of Gibraltar, and from what sources and in what proportions is the income deriyed; and what is the rateable value of property, and what is the proportionate representation of the ratepayers on the Board as constituted under the Sanitary Order Amendment Order (Gibraltar), 1891, and how are the members elected?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The expenditure of the Sanitary Commissioners in 1890 was £28,031. Their income is derived from rates levied, sale of water, fees for use of baths; and the receipts from rates in 1890 were £10,649, and the receipts, from the sale of water average over £10,000 a year. Private ratepayers contribute rather less than two-fifths of the receipts from water, and two-thirds of the receipts from rates. The total rateable value is about £144,000. The private ratepayers are represented, on a Board of nine—by four members nominated by the Governor, one from the list of the Grand Jury, one from the list of special jurors, and two from the list of the common jurors.

  THE "SUBMARINE SENTRY."
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the "Submarine Sentry," recently described in the principal papers and reported upon by special representatives of some of them, as a means of giving warning to ships of the proximity of shallow waters, and so of saving life and property at sea; and, if so, whether his examination has enabled him to decide whether it might afford a means of averting the calamity and loss occasioned by the occasional stranding of Her, Majesty's ships, or to what other result has his inquiry led?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The "Submarine Sentry" has been experimented upon in some of Her Majesty's surveying ships, and seems to promise to be useful in searching for dangers; but it is not considered, in its present form, a necessary or desirable adjunct to Her Majesty's ships for the purposes of navigation.

  THE INTERNATIONAL GEODETIC BUREAU OF VIENNA.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has, during the past two years, been advised by either of Her Majesty's Astronomers Royal that it would be highly advantageous, in the interests of Commerce and navigation as well as science, that Great Britain should join the other European nations in the International Geodetic Bureau of Vienna, the object of which is the collection and collation of data, from the surveys of all nations, as to the mass of the earth, its form and dimensions, tides, levels, &c., and costs the small sum of £100 per annum; and on what grounds, if any, the Government have not so joined?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have received no communication from the Astronomer Royal on this subject during the past two years, As to the reasons why Her Majesty's 'Government did not join the International Geodetic Bureau, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer oh the 21st March this year.

  THE CASE OF DR. GALLAGHER.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Dr. Gallagher, at present confined in Portland Prison, suffers from insanity; whether he is aware that a brother of Dr. Gallagher is at present a dangerous lunatic in America, and that insanity is hereditary in the family, and whether, under the circumstances, he will allow an independent medical man to examine Dr. Gallagher, or will he consider the advisability of releasing him on condition that he returns to his family in America?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received a Report, dated yesterday, from the medical officer of Portland Prison, who informs me that he finds no indications of mental unsoundness in Gallagher; that he is perfectly rational; and that he has never, while in prison, shown signs of mental degeneration. I see no reasons for allowing an independent medical examination, and I cannot advise the release of the prisoner. I have
  38
  no information as to the second paragraph of the question.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: As I got my information from a fellow prisoner, who told me Dr. Gallagher was suffering from melancholia or some form of insanity. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make further inquiries? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman did allow, other doctors than the medical officers of the prison to see Dr. Gallagher?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask the hon. Member to observe that my information on this subject does not come from common talk amongst persons in the gaol, but from a careful and most deliberate Report made by the medical officer of the prison.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not common talk that led to an inquiry as to the weak state of health of O'Donoyan Rossa, and whether his infirmity was not denied on the authority of the medical officers at the time, just the same as in this case?
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of those prisoners have become insane: since their conviction some years ago?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have answered that question, or a similar one, several times.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that Dr. Gallagher was reported by the Visiting Committee to-have been suffering from insanity three years ago?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of any such report; but if the hon. Member will put the question on the Paper, I will inquire.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: If I drew attention to the mental state of an English prisoner, whom I allege to be insane, would the right hon. Gentleman get his information from the same source as that to which he applies in the case of Dr. Gallagher? In one case it was found out afterwards that the prisoner was mentally wrong as had been stated, and he was ordered to be removed to the Asylum. I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can now rely on the Report of the medical officer of the prison in view of cases that have occurred before?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Home Secretary, with reference to Question 64, whether as it is notorious in America that there is insanity in the family of Dr. Gallagher, he will follow the precedent he has followed in other cases, and allow an independent medical inquiry if the expenses are paid by the parties interested?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I should prefer not to give a definite answer to that question without notice. At present it strikes me that the circumstances are quite different to those in the case in which I allowed an independent medical examination. In that case there was undoubted illness of a grave character, and it was to calm the distress and anxiety of the friends of the prisoner that I allowed an independent medical man to see him. Here I see no ground for investigation by anyone.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: It is exactly to calm the distress of the friends of the unfortunate man in America that we are asking for an independent medical inquiry into the case.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member omits the most important circumstance, that in the other case there was ground for alarm, but in this there is absolutely none.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in a case of insanity which has recently been brought under his notice, the official medical officer said there was no insanity, but that it afterwards turned out that there was? Was not the second examination in consequence of a question put in this House; and, for that reason, does he not think it desirable that some independent medical man should examine the prisoner, and the expense be borne by the authorities?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot follow the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman. Will he put a question down on the Paper?

  FAIR RENT APPEALS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what number of fair rent appeals lodged on or before 1st June, 1891, remained undisposed of at or near the date when the Land Pur-
  40
  chase Act of 1891 was passed; and what number of the same appeals now remain undisposed of approximately, according to the latest information?
  MR. JACKSON: The Irish Land Commissioners report that the total number of fair rent appeals up to 1st June, 1891, and which remained undisposed of at the passing of the Purchase Act of 1891 was 14,950. Of these 1,840 were subsequently disposed of, leaving outstanding on the 29th February of the present year 3,110.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE BANDON UNION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if So, what, steps are being taken for the erection of labourers' cottages in the Bandon Union under what is locally termed the new scheme; whether he is aware that on the last occasion of the meeting of the Board, it was stated the scheme has been dropped for six months; and if he will state how often and for what periods this business has been adjourned, and if any steps will be taken to provide the labourers in this Union with the houses and allotments proved necessary?
  MR. JACKSON: Under the original scheme submitted by the Bandon Board of Guardians 125 labourers cottages have been provided in that Union. Representations were subsequently made to the Guardians for the erection of additional labourers cottages. The question has been postponed from time to time by the Guardians, and at their meeting last week they appear to have adjourned the matter for a further period of six months.
  DR. TANNER: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has borne in mind the fact that this has been so repeatedly adjourned.
  MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension with reference to my power with the Board of Guardians.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as Chief of the Local Government Board he has power in this matter, and is he also aware that this is a thoroughly Conservative

  41
  Board of Guardians, a real old Tory Board?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir, I have no power to interfere unless some representations are made to me by the Local Government Board. I was not aware of the composition of this Board of Guardians from a political point of view, but I am very glad to hear that it is as the hon. Gentleman has stated.

  THE SALE OF SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS TO NATIVE RACES.
  MR. SUMMERS (for Sir WILFRID LAWSON,): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a conference between British merchants interested in the African trade and Members of Parliament, which was held at the House of Commons on the 11th March, at which it was stated, on behalf of the merchants, that "they could not do without sending a certain amount of spirits out with the cotton goods;" and whether he will take whatever steps are in his power to prevent the policy endorsed unanimously by a Resolution of this House (April, 1888), condemning the sale of spirituous liquors to Native races, being set at naught?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: My attention has been drawn to the Report referred to. I can assure the hon. Baronet that there is no intention of departing from the pledge I gave on behalf of the Government in April, 1888, to which he refers, and which was again confirmed by the Secretary of State in another place in 1889. So long as other countries have contiguous possessions through which spirits can be imported it is impossible for us to suppress the traffic. We already levy in our Colonies duties on spirits greatly in excess of those imposed in the neighbouring French and German Colonies, and also higher than the tariff laid down in the Act of the Brussels Conference.

  MR. JUSTICE NORTH'S COURT.
  MR. LEWIS FRY: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that the case of "Eliot and others v. the Mayor and Corporation of Bristol," set down for
  42
  hearing in Mr. Justice North's Court in July, 1891, is still unheard, and that only about one-third of the cases then set down before it for hearing have been disposed of; and will he explain why the case, which has for some time been marked as fit for transfer to the Queen's Bench Division, has not been so transferred?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): In answer to the question of the hon. Member I have to say that from information furnished to me it appears that at the date when the action referred to was set down for trial there were 53 actions standing before it in the list, and that 28 of these still remain to be tried. The delay has been due to the fact that some exceptionally heavy causes, one of which lasted no less than 20 days, have had to be disposed of. The marking of a case as fit for transfer does not imply more than that if the state of business in the Queen's Bench Division permits the action will be transferred for trial to that division. The unavoidable absence through illness of three Chancery Judges, and the consequent necessity for trying ordinary Chancery causes by a Judge of the Queen's Bench Division, rendered it undesirable to transfer causes to the Queen's Bench Division at the present time, but I may add that it was open to the plaintiff, had he so desired, to have commenced his action in the Queen's Bench Division, in which case the trial would probably have taken place at an ealier date.

  THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he intends to recommend the Government to apply to Parliament for a further sum of money for the purposes of the Commissioners of the British and Irish section of the Chicago Exhibition; and whether he has taken any steps with the Commissioners to have a separate grouping of Irish exhibits, under distinctively Irish management or sub-management, with a separate sum set apart for the purposes of Irish exhibitors?
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the Government will agree to an increase of

  43
  the funds available for the organisation of a representative exhibition of Irish industries at the Chicago Exhibition; and, if so, to what amount; and whether in consideration of the strong feeling in Ireland in favour of a separate Irish section at the World's Fair the Government will favourably consider the proposal?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Tipperary and the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin, the Royal Commission for the Chicago Exhibition have presented a memorial to Her Majesty's Government asking for a substantial increase of the amount to be granted in connection with the British section. The Commission have carefully considered the question of a separate Irish section and separate management for Irish exhibits, and they are in communication with leading gentlemen from Ireland upon the subject. At present, however, the feeling of Irish exhibitors appears to be that it would not be desirable to have the Irish Exhibits separately grouped, and that it would be distinctly unfavourable to the exhibitors for that course to be adopted. The matter is, however, receiving careful consideration.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how soon he will be able to give us the information he has promised, and I would also like to know whether it is intended to add to the Commission any representatives of Irish industries?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The matter really Cannot be determined until all the exhibits have come in. It is quite possible there may be some things which it will be desirable to localise and others which may be otherwise dealt with, but there can be no final determination in this matter in the meantime. As to the other question I have received no notice of it, but in reference to adding to the Commission gentlemen representing Irish industries, that matter will be carefully considered on the re-election of the Council in May.

  ELECTION EXPENSES.
  MR. BRAND: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in consideration of the
  44
  proximity of the General Election, expenses incurred by Parliamentary candidates at the present moment come within the meaning of the "Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883," and should be included in the Return made to the returning officer, in accordance with Section 33 of the said Act?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The question of the hon. Member implies that the date at which the expenses are incurred is the only important consideration. This is not the fact, as, according to the "Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883," if expense is incurred "on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of an election" such expense must be included in the maximum amount allowed. The question is in every case one of fact as to whether the expenses fall within the description to which I have referred—namely, of expenses "relating to the conduct or management of an election." I am afraid that no other general answer can be given.
  MR. COBB: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether a sitting Member is responsible for these expanses?
  SIR. R. WEBSTER: There is no difference in the case of a sitting Member and a candidate.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE ANNUITY SYSTEM.
  MR. J. STUART: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what are the grounds on which Her Majesty's Treasury has declined to sanction a loan of £5,000 by the London County Council to the Free Library Commissioners of Shoreditch repayable on the annuity principle, in view of the fact that the approval of the Local Government Board was obtained to the loan on an estimated expenditure for repayment calculated on the annuity principle, and that the same method of repayment was also proposed by the London County Council?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Treasury has not declined to sanction a loan of £5,000 by the London County Council to She Free Library Commissioners of Shoreditch. It was proposed that the loan should be repaid in certain terms of years under the annuity system, and

  45
  the Treasury sanctioned the proposed terms provided that repayment were made upon the instalment system in place of the annuity system. This course was taken in accordance with the principles laid down in the Treasury letter of 24th February to the London country Council as those which should be adopted pending a settlement of the general question. One of the considerations which the Treasury took into account was the opinion of those members of the London Country Council who, I think the House will agree, may rightly be regarded as the highest financial authorities among its members. I understand that the sanction of the Local Government Board was given merely to the raising of the money and not to the particular method of repayment.

  THE CARRIAGE OF IRISH MAILS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will consider the advisability of using the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Light Railway for the carriage of mails, which are now delayed for nearly a day at each end of the line and then conveyed by car; what was the sum demanded by the Railway Company and what was the sum offered by the Post Office for the conveyance of mails over the 50 miles of the company's line when the question was previously considered; and what is the present cost of the conveyance of mails from Belturbet and Dromod respectively to the various stations on the company's line?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Post Office desired to employ the railway in question for certain day mails, but failed to come to terms. The Post Office offered full parcel rates to the company, which would amount to about £21 a year. The company asked £90. The company could only relieve the present service to a limited extent. The present cost of conveying the mails to the district is £309 a year.

  THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMAN: I beg to the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any objection to keeping the British Museum open to the public in the afternoon till the same hour as the Branch
  46
  Museum at South Kensington is kept open?
  SIR J. GORST: I am advised by the trustees of the British Museum that the desired extension of hours could not be carried out without increase of expense; and in view of the great cost of the evening opening which, to judge by the attendance, dose not seems to be as fully appreciated by the public as might have been hoped, they are not disposed to recommend further outlay.

  MARINE BOILERS.
  MR. MATHER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will enlarge the scope of the instruction to the Committee of eminent engineers which he has appointed to examine and report on the construction of boilers for the Navy, in the following direction, namely, to conduct on land a series of trials with a boiler worked with forced draught, and constructed so as to be similar and equal as to design, materials, and workmanship to the best boilers now used in the Navy, with the view of ascertaining the efficiency and maximum power of endurance of the same; to conduct on land a similar series of trials with a boiler or boiler embodying all the improvements that may be recommended by the Special Committee, in order that these may be tasted under the greatest possible stress to which a boiler can be subjected at full racing speed; and to exhaust, by practical tests on land, all other questions that have arisen out of the shortcomings of the present boilers when worked with forced draught; and whether he is aware that similar exhaustive trials to those here suggested were made to establish the best design and construction of the so called "Lancashire" boilers, before their present high efficiency and durability were obtained?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion to put marine boilers to the same practical test which, in his own experience, he found to be of value in testing the Lancashire boilers. The propose in question, with other, will be referred to the Committee for con-

  47
  sideration, and any experiments they recommend will, as far as practicable, be carried out.

  THE CASE OF MICHAEL CRONIN.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case against Michael Cronin, indicted at the Cork Assizes on the 21st instant on the charge of having stolen four head of cattle, the property of the Earl of Kenmare, in which the accused defended himself on the ground that it was an act of reprisal on the Earl of Kenmare for having made three distraints of his father's cattle; and was the case tried under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, and what was the result of the trial; and, if so, why was it not tried under the ordinary law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am informed that the suggestion contained in the first paragraph of the question was put forward on behalf of Cronin. The accused, however, pleaded guilty to the charge of larceny, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and was bound over to be of good behaviour for three years. Two seizures were made in respect of four years' arrears of rent. The venue was changed to the City of Cork, but the case was investigated by the Magistrates, and subsequently dealt with at the Assizes under the ordinary law.

  KINSALE PIER LOAN.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in connection with the construction of Kinsale Pier, what was the amount of the original sum advanced by the Board of Works; if he can state at what rate was the amount to be repaid, naming principal and interest; what rate of interest was charged on the loan; and how much has been paid by the Kinsale Town and Harbour Commissioners?
  SIR J. GORST: The sum advanced was £11,352 15s. 1d.; £630 of this principal sum was repaid, leaving a balance of £10,722 15s. 1d. This sum, with £337, arrears of interest at five per cent., constitutes the total of £11,059 15s. 1d. to be repaid under the
  48
  award. There has been no repayment of principal made under the award; but £700 has been paid in respect of arrears of interest.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a copy of his answer, as I was not able to take down the figures?

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD MEDICAL INSPECTORS.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Medical Inspectors of the Board in Wales are unable to speak the Welsh language; and whether, in future appointments of such Inspectors, he will select persons, otherwise well qualified, who will be conversant with the language?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is only for the purpose of vaccination inspections that districts are assigned to the Medical Inspectors of the Local Government Board, and officers who act in Wales take English counties as well. As regards the general duties of the Inspectors, it is the practice to select for each inquiry the Inspector who appears to be best fitted for the duty, having regard to the engagements of the other members of the staff. At the same time I may say that in the event of my having to fill up an office where the duties of the officer would chiefly be in Wales, and I had before me two candidates who, apart from the question of the Welsh language, were in all other respects equally well qualified for the position, I should be willing to give the preference to the candidate with a knowledge of the Welsh language.

  CONVICTIONS OF CLERGYMEN.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clergymen of the Church of England have been convicted of treason or felony, or convicted on indictment of a misdemeanour, and sentenced to death or penal servitude or to imprisonment with hard labour during the last seven years; and whether, before the Second Reading of the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill is moved, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return for such period of seven years showing all such

  49
  convictions, with particulars of the offences and sentences?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am unable to answer the first paragraph. The Return asked for would involve a lengthy and expensive investigation, and the information is not necessary for the consideration of the Bill.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It would be convenient for Treasury reasons that the Royal Assent should be given to the Consolidated Fund Bill to-morrow. I therefore move, "That this House do meet Tomorrow, at a quarter after Ten of the clock," it being, of course, understood that it will be for the purpose of receiving the Royal Assent, and that no other business will be transacted.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House do meet To-morrow at a quarter after Ten of the clock a.m.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what Supply is intended to be taken to-morrow, and what are the arrangements for taking the Scotch Equivalent Grant Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If we are fortunate enough to get the Speaker out of the Chair to-morrow afternoon, we should proceed with the Civil Service Estimates in Committee. The arrangement with regard to Thursday, which I sketched to the House last week, still holds good, and will be for the general convenience of Scotch Members.
  Later, the right hon. Gentleman said: I ought, perhaps, to state that I answered the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle on the assumption that we finish the Second Reading of the Indian Councils Bill tonight, of which I have no doubt.

  ROYALTIES ON GOLD MINES.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether is a fact that the royalty on the Morgan Mine has been reduced from
  50
  one-thirtieth to one-hundreth; that the Government have withdrawn the Sheriff's officers from Mr. Pritchard Morgan's property, and have consented to allow the question of payment of costs to remain in abeyance pending the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission, and whether he has any information as to the alleged dismissal of men from Welsh gold mines?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have, as the result of communications which have passed between myself and the directors of the Morgan Mine, agreed that the royalty charged upon the product of the mine shall be at the rate of 100th until the Commission on Mining Royalties has reported. The ore which has recently been won at the Morgan Mine is of a low grade, and under the sliding scale which has been offered to the directors of the mine, but not accepted by them, would have been charged with royalty at the rate of 100th. I have made this concession, not because the sliding scale which was offered is inequitable, but to secure a modus vivendi until the whole question can be considered in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission. I have, at the request of several Members of the House, consented to postpone the execution upon Mr. Pritchard Morgan's goods; and, in order that this postponement might take place, he has signed a binding agreement undertaking to allow the Sheriff to re-enter under the same writs. I have agreed that this postponement shall be made, not until the Report of the Mining Royalties Commission is received, but to allow time in which the hon. Member may be persuaded to allow better counsels to prevail with him with reference to such payment. I understand that the workmen who have recently been dismissed from the Morgan Mine were not in Mr. Pritchard Morgan's employment, and their dismissal had, as I have been assured by a director, no connection with the steps taken by the Government to recover costs from Mr. Pritchard Morgan.
  MR, A. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury will be willing to extend to the gold mining industry in Ireland the same terms as those which have been granted to Wales?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Under the sliding scale, if there is any mine in Ireland where the hundredth part will secure the working of the mine, I shall be glad to grant the same terms.

  SMALL HOLDNGS BILL.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state that it is not intended to take the Small Holdings Bill to night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I can say that we do not propose to take it before next Monday, and to take it from next Monday as continuously as the business will allow. It is convenient to hon. Members that they should have a little time to put down Amendments.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the fight hon. Gentleman intend to move the Second Reading of the Irish Local Government Bill before Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That must depend on the progress of the Committee on the Small Holdings Bill; if we make as much progress as I hope for, we shall take it before Easter.

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE BILL.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to proceed with the Clergy Discipline Bill this evening?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope so, if we should finish the Indian Councils Bill in sufficient time to make it worth while to bring it on.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES BILL.
  MR. J. MORLEY: When will the right hon. Gentleman go on with the Ordnance Factories Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may put it down for to-morrow, as the Debate is nearly exhausted.

  EVICTIONS AT GWEEDORE.
  MR. MACNEILL: May I inform the Chief Secretary for Ireland that I have to-day received a telegram from one of the parish priests at Gweedore, and ask him whether it is true that a relieving officer has received: notice of the imminent eviction of sixteen families on the estate of Mrs. Orr; and
  52
  whether, having regard to the fact which I have brought to the notice of the House that the cause of the eviction is merely the question of costs between landlord and tenant, he will not allow the Forces of the Crown to be employed?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no information with reference to this case except that which the hon. Gentleman has just given to me of course, I. can make no promise as to what protection will be afforded if it be applied for.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to put documents before him which will show the terrible harshness in the case?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Gentleman desires to put any information before me, of course I will examine it.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  INDIAN COUNCILS ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords]—(No.182.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): I am glad, Sir, at this early period of the Session, to be able to introduce to the notice of the House a Bill which if carried into law, will, I believe, be fraught with advantage to the interests of our fellow-subjects in India. It is sometimes said, Sir, that this House bestows but a scant and reluctant concern upon the interests of the millions of India. And yet I am not sure that this alleged indifference of the many, if it be true which I do not altogether accept, is not more than compensated for by the vigilant and uncompromising attention of the few, whilst I have heard it Stated on high authority that the greater interference of this House in the government of India might not be a source of unmixed benefit to that country. How ever that may be, Sir, I hope that this Bill will be one that may approve itself to both sections of opinion in this House—both to those hon. Members who may not have direct and personal experience of India, and to that smaller section who either from long residence there or from official experience are emphatically entitled to

    53
    speak on Indian question, and whose interference in our debates is always welcome. And perhaps I may be permitted to take this opportunity of expressing the regret which I am sure has been felt on both sides of the House at the disappearance from among their number of the omnivorous intellect of the late hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). The object of this Bill which it is my duty to explain to the House is to widen the basis and to expand the functions of government in India; to give further opportunities than at present exist to the non-official and native elements in Indian society to take part in the work of government, and in this way to lend official recognition to that remarkable development both of political interest and political capacity which has been visible among the higher classes of Indian was taken over by the Crown in 1858. In form this Bill is one to amend the India Council Act of 1861. Legislative powers of some sort or other, but powers of some what confused character and conflicting validity, have existed in India for a very long time. They existed under the rule of the old East India Company, dating from the times of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns; but the modern legislative system, under which the Government of India exists, owes its origin to the Viceroyalty of Lord Canning, and the secretary ship of State of Sir Charles Wood, after wards Lord Halifax, who in 1861, carried through the House the India Council Act of that year. I may, perhaps, in starting, be permitted to the provisions of that Act, as they are basis on which we are now attempting to proceed. The Act of 1861 constituted three Legislative Councils in India—the Supreme Legislative Council of the Viceroy and the Provincial Legislative Councils of Madras and Bombay. The Supreme Legislative Council of the Viceroy, or, as it is called in the terms of the Act, the Council "for the purpose of making laws and regulations only," consists of the Governor General and his Executive Council, with a minimum of six and a maximum of
    54
    twelve additional Members who are nominated by the Governor General, and of whom at least one-half must be non-official, whether drawn from the European or the native element. The Legislative Councils of Madras and Bombay are also recruited by a minimum of four and a maximum of eight additional Members who are nominated by the Provincial Governor, and of whom at least one-half must be non-official. Since the passing of that Act, Sir, Legislative Councils have been called into existence for Bengal and the North-West Provinces. In Bengal the Council consists of the Lieutenant Governor and twelve nominated Members, and the Council of the Lieutenant Governor and Councillors, of whom, in each case, one-third must be non-official. Such is the constitution of the legislative machinery which has existed during the past 30 years. This system has undoubtedly worked well. It has justified itself and the anticipations of its promoters. Operating to a very large extent through the agency of special committees composed of experienced persons, it has proved to be an efficient instrument for the evolution of laws. The publicity which has attended every stage of its proceedings has had a good effect. A number of native gentlemen of intelligence, capacity, and public spirit have been persuaded to come forward and lend their services to the functions of Government and undoubtedly the standard of merit in these Legislative Councils has stood high. Indeed, I would venture to say that few better legislative machines, with regard to their efficacy for the particular object for which they were constructed, are any where in existence, nor can better legislation produced by such bodies be found in any other country. At the same time, these Councils have been subject to restrictions and limitations which were intentionally, and I think wisely, imposed upon them in the first place. The House must recognise that they are in no sense of the term Parliamentary bodies. They are deliberative bodies with a comparatively narrow scope, in as much as they only assemble for the discussion of the immediate legislation which lies before them, and are not per-

    55
    mitted to travel outside that very circumscribed radius. I will take the instance of financial discussion. In these Councils no financial discussion is possible unless there is a proposal for a new tax, and then it can only be in connection with the immediate legislative proposal before the Council for the time being. Under these circumstances it has been felt that there has been wanting to the Government an opportunity of explaining its policy and of replying to hostile criticism and attack, such as a less restricted system of discussion would provide; and that at the same time there was wanting an opportunity to the non-official element, to those who may legitimately call themselves the guardians of the public interest, of asking for information, stating their grievances, and becoming acquainted with the policy of the Government. These feelings have been expressed in many memorials which have been addressed over a large number of years to the Government of India by important public bodies and associations in India. They have been further testified to by successive Viceroys. Lord Dufferin, in a speech which he delivered at Calcutta in February, 1887, the occasion being the celebration of the Queen's Jubilee, spoke of the desirability of reconstituting the Supreme Legislative Council of the Viceroy on a broader basis, and of enlarging its functions. And in the November of the following year he sent home a despatch, extracts from which have been published in a Parliamentary Paper, in which he recommended in the first place a yearly financial discussion in the Supreme Legislative Council of the Budget of the year. And, Sir, inasmuch as his words are of very great importance, and will, of course, carry deserved weight in this House, I hope the House will pardon me if I read some portions of it. Lord Dufferin said:—
    "I do not mean that Votes should be taken in regard to the various Items of the Budget, or that the heads of expenditure should be submitted in detail for the examination of the Council, but simply that an opportunity should be given for a full, free, and thorough criticism and examination of the financial policy of the Government. Some such change as this would, I think, be as beneficial to the Indian administration as it would be in ac-
    56
    cordance with the wishes of the European and native mercantile world of India. At present the Government is exposed to every kind of misapprehension and misrepresentation in regard to its figures and the statement of their results. Were the matter to be gone into thoroughly and exhaustively on the occasion I suggest by independent critics, who, however anxious to detect a flaw and prove the Government wrong, would be masters of their subject and cognisant of the intricacies of Indian administration, the result would be more advantageous to the financial reputation of the Indian Government, as well as more conducive to improve her financial system, than the perfunctory Debates of the House of Commons, and the imperfect criticism of Indian finance by some English newspapers."
    In the same despatch Lord Dufferin expressed the opinion that questions should be asked in the Supreme Legislative Council, subject to certain restrictions, upon matters of domestic as distinguished from matters of Imperial interest. At the end of 1888, Lord Dufferin left India, and was succeeded by the eminent statesman who now holds that office. Quite early in his Viceroyalty, in a speech delivered in the Legislative Council in March, 1889, Lord Lansdowne signified his approbation of the annual discussion of the Budget in the manner suggested, and also of the right of addressing questions to the Government on matters of public interest. Both these proposals were accepted by the Secretary of State in a Despatch, dated August, 1889, not merely as referring to the Supreme Legislative Council of the Viceroy but also in reference to the Provincial Councils. In the same Despatch my noble Friend also signified his desire for an enlargement of the representation of public opinion in India by an addition to the number of members on these Councils by means of an extension of the present system of nomination, and, in as much as these changes were found to be impossible without fresh legislation, he also included a draft Bill upon which he invited the opinions of the Government of India and of the several Provincial Governments. These views and other suggestions were received from India, and they were found on the whole to be eminently favourable to the contemplated measure. From these germs sprang the Indian Councils Bill which it is now my privilege to introduce to the notice of

    57
    this House. Now, a few words as to the Parliamentary history of this measure. It has been in no ordinary degree a victim to the vicisstudes of Parliamentary existence. Its career up to this point has been one of mingled success and disappointment. It was introduced for the first time in the House of Lords by the Secretary State in 1890, and a very important discussion—if I may venture humbly to express the opinion, the model of what such a discussion should be—took place on the Second Reading of the Bill. In Committee a number of important and valuable Amendments were introduced in it by noble Lords who have had experience in the Government of India, and it passed through that Houses. It came down in the same Session to the House of Commons but did not succeed in getting beyond a First Reading. In the ensuing year, 1891, it was again introduced into this House and again it fell a victim to that fate which hon. Members, according to their political feelings, will be disposed to ascribe to the hardships of fortune or to the immoderate interest displayed by their opponents in other topics of Parliamentary interest. So much for 1891. This year the present Bill, in its amended form of 1890, has again been introduced into the House of Lords, and subject to some speeches implying strong approval from a number of noble Lords it has passed without alteration through its various stages, and thus it comes about that it is now my duty to bring it before the House of Commons. This delay which I have been describing has naturally been the source of considerable disappointment in India, where there has been a good deal of murmuring at the tardy arrival of this long-promised reform, and at the apparent willingness of this House to postpone the consideration of a non-controversial Constitutional change for India to the perennial and unprofitable discussion of changes of a highly controversial character for other parts of the Empire nearer home, which, from the Indian point of view are infinitesimally small and unimportant. I think this disappointment has been a perfectly legitimate feeling, and it undoubtedly has been felt by the noble Lord the present
    58
    Viceroy of India, who, having inaugurated his term of office by signifying his hearty approval of this Bill, is naturally looking forward to being able to carry it into execution before the termination of his period of office. This anxiety has been shared in this House, if I may judge from the numerous questions addressed to my right hon. Friend who preceded me in the office I now hold. These feelings of disappointment and interest are, moreover, I believe shared by those who hold more extreme views, and who, while they regard this Bill as in some respects an inadequate measure, are desirous that it should pass into law. In July of last year the British Committee of the Indian National Congress, who may be supposed to be the representatives of extreme views in India, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State in which occurs the following passage—
    "They express the deep regret with which they view the withdrawal by Her Majesty's Minister of the Indian Councils Amendment Bill, and respectfully bring to your notice that bitter disappointment will be caused throughout India by the abandonment for yet another year of any action in a matter of such paramount importance to our Indian fellow citizens."
    In the present year Lord Kimberley, who has himself been Secretary of State for India, has elsewhere expressed himself in the same sense in a paragraph which I propose to read. He says—
    "I echo most sincerely the hope that this measure will be pressed by Her Majesty's Government and will pass into law. It is really a misfortune that a measure of this kind should be hung up Session after Session. However important to us may be our domestic legislation, let us not forget that we have an immense responsibility in the Government of that great Empire in India, and that it is not well for us to palter long with questions of this kind. And I am more desirous that this measure should be dealt with, because I have observed, with great pleasure, that in India the tone has much moderated, and that very sensible views have been expressed at meetings held in India, and there is now reasonable promise that there will be an agreement as to a tentative and commencing measure on this subject. We must not look for it all at once, but if we can make a beginning, I believe we shall lay the foundation for what may be a real benefit, and a real security to our Indian Empire."
    I hope I may draw from the extracts I have read to the House, and from the expressions of opinion to which I have alluded, the inference that this Bill

    59
    will be welcomed on both sides of this House, and subject to the expression of Opinion by those Who hold more advanced views, Will as rapidly as possible be passed into law. So much in explanation of the history of the measure and the circumstances under which it falls to my lot to introduce it to this House. Now briefly turning to the Bill itself I will give an outline of the manner in which it is proposed to carry out the recommendations of successive Viceroys and of the present Secretary of State. The changes which it is proposed to introduce by this Bill are broadly speaking three in number. The first is the concession Of the privilege of financial Criticism both in the Supreme and Provincial Councils; the second the privilege of interpellation or the right of asking questions; and the third an addition to the number of Members in both classes of Councils. First, as regards the financial discussion. I have already pointed out to the House that under the existing law this is only possible when the Finance Minister proposes a new tax. At other times the Budget in India is circulated in the form of a pamphlet and no discussion can take place upon it at all and as an illustration of the practical way in which this works, I may mention that during the 30 years since the Councils Act of 1861 there have been 16 occasions On which new legislation has been called for and On which discussion has taken place, and there have been 14 on which there has been no discussion at all. In this Bill power will be given for a regular annual discussion of the Budget both in the Supreme and Provincial Councils. It is not contemplated, as the extracts I have read from the Despatch of I Lord Dufferin will show, to vote the Budget in India item by item in the manner in which we do it in this House, and to: subject it to all the obstacles and delays which Party ingenuity or loquacity can suggest. That is not contemplated, but it is proposed to give opportunities to Members of the Councils to indulge in a full, free and fair Criticism of the financial policy of the Government, and I think all Parties will gain by such a discussion. The Government Will gain, because they will have an opportunity of explaining their financial policy, of
    60
    removing misapprehension, of answering calumny and attack; and they will also profit by the criticism delivered in a public position, and with a due sense of responsibility, by the most competent Representatives of non-official India. The native community will gain, because they will have the opportunity of reviewing the financial situation independently of the mere accident of legislation being required for any particular year, and also because criticism of the financial policy of the Government, which now finds its vent in anonymous and even scurrilous articles in the newspapers, will be uttered by I responsible persons in a public position. Lastly, the interests of finance themselves will gain by this increased publicity, and by the stimulus of a vigorous and instructive scrutiny; and the application of the external aid that I have described cannot have any other result than the promotion of sound and economical administration in India. It is now 20 years since Lord Mayo, that wise and enlightened Viceroy, first proposed the submission of Provincial Budgets to the Provincial Councils. At that time he was overruled by the Government at home, which, I believe, was one of the Governments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. However that may be, I hope both sides of the House will now co-operate in introducing this change, which speaks for itself, and requires no further defence from me. The second change introduced by the Bill is the concession of the right of interpellation, or of asking questions. That is a system with which we are tolerably familiar and which is sometimes severely attacked in this House. It is not for me to say whether the right is or is not abused, but I have observed that those who denounce the system most savagely when they are its victims, view it with a benevolent regard when they are in a position to become its masters. It is proposed to give to Members of both classes of Councils, the Supreme and Provincial Councils, this right of asking questions on matters of public interest. But both this privilege and the one to which I have previously alluded will be subject, under the terms of the Act, to such conditions and restrictions as may be

    61
    prescribed in rules made by the Governor General or the Provincial Governors. In answer to the hon. Gentleman who cheers somewhat ironically, I may observe that we are not altogether unfamiliar with such rules and restrictions in this House, and if they are needed here, where we have, perhaps, the most perfect and highly elaborated system of Parliamentary Government that has ever been known, how much more will they be needed in India, where Parliamentary institutions cannot be said to exist. The merits of this proposal are self-evident. It is desirable in the first place in the interest of the Government, which is at the present moment without the means of making known its policy, or of answering criticism or animadversions, or of silencing calumny, and which has frequently suffered from protracted misapprehension, which it has been powerless to remove; and it is also desirable in the interests of the public, who, in the absence of correct official information, are apt to be misled, and to entertain erroneous ideals, but who, within the limits dictated by the judgment of the responsible authorities, will henceforward have opportunities of making themselves acquainted with the real facts. I hope this liberty may provide a wise and necessary outlet in India for feelings which are now apt to smoulder below the surface because there are no public means for their expression, but which might often be allayed a little if timely information were given from the right quarter. The third proposal is to add to the number of Members on these Supreme and Provincial Councils, and will state the numbers to which, under this Bill, the Members will be increased. The Supreme Legislative Council consists at present, in addition to its ex officio Members, who number seven, of a minimum of six and a maximum of twelve nominated Members, of whom half must be non-official. The Bill proposes to raise the minimum to ten and the maximum to 16. The Madras and Bombay Councils now consist, independently of their four ex officio Members, of a minimum of four and a maximum of eight nominated members, of whom half are non-official. In the Bill the minimum is raised to
    62
    eight and the maximum to 20. The Council of Bengal consists at present of twelve nominated Members, of whom one third are non-official, and we propose to raise the number to 20. In the North-West Provinces the number is nine, of which one-third are also non-official, and under the Bill the number will be raised to 15. The object of these additions is very easily stated, and will be as easily understood by this House. It is, by extending the area of selection in each case, to add to the strength and representative character of the Councils. The late Mr. Bradlaugh, who at different times introduced two Bills dealing with the reform of the India Councils into this House, proposed in those measures to swell the numbers on these Councils to quite impracticable and unmanageable proportions. Under his first Bill their totals would have amounted to more than 260, and under the second to more than 230. It is within the knowledge of everyone who is acquainted with India that the number of persons who are competent and willing to take part in the functions of these Councils is nothing like adequate to supply the extravagant expectations of those Bills.
    MR. SCHWANN: Do the figures just quoted refer to the Councils separately or are they clubbed together?
    MR. CURZON: I was speaking of the five Councils I have mentioned and the totals for those five Councils. As I was saying, you could not get the number of persons; but still, the number is sufficient to justify a not inconsiderable addition to the present totals. Every year the number of native gentlemen in India who are both qualified and willing to take part in the work of Government is increasing, and every year the advantage of their co-operation increases in the same ratio. More especially in the case of the Provincial Councils it has been found that more effective means are needed of reinforcing native and non-official opinion. The Government believe that this moderate addition which they propose to the numbers will have the effect which I contemplate, and at the same time that it will be compatible with efficiency. This House does not need

    63
    to be told by me that the efficiency of a deliberative body is not necessarily commensurate with its numerical strength. We have instances in this country of public bodies prevented from working well in consequence of the large number of their members. Overlarge bodies do not necessarily work well. They do not promote economical administration, but are apt to diffuse their force in vague and vapid talk. And if this be true of deliberative bodies in England it is still more true of deliberative bodies in a country like India. I hold in fact that it would be better that competent men should be left outside than that incompetent men should be included. Now we will look at the question of how these additional Members are to be appointed. I notice that the hon. Member for North Manchester (Mr. Schwann) has placed on the Paper an Amendment declaring that no reform of the Indian Councils which does not embody the elective principle will prove satisfactory. But in reply I should like to point out that our Bill does not exclude some such principle, be the method election, or selection or delegation or whatever be the particular phrase that you desire to employ. I would with the permission of the House read the very important Sub-section of Clause 1, which deals with that question:—
    "The Governor General in Council may from time to time with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council make such regulations as to the conditions under which such nominations (that is the nomination of additional Members), or any of them, shall be made by the Governor General, Governors and Lieutenant Governors respectively, and shall prescribe the manner in which such regulations should be carried into effect."
    I should say that this clause was introduced into the Bill as an Amendment by Lord Northbrook in the House of Lords, and was gladly accepted by the Secretary of State with the avowed object of giving considerable latitude in this respect. Let me call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that Lord Kimberley has thus expressed himself elsewhere on this Clause:—
    "I am bound to say that I can express my own satisfaction because I regard this as to a certain extent an admission of the elective principle."
    64
    On another occasion he said:—
    "I myself believe that under this clause it will be possible for the Governor General to make arrangements by which certain persons may be presented to him, having been chosen by election if the Governor General should find that such a system can properly be established."
    MR. MACLEAN: Does the Government accept this view of Lord Kimberley?
    MR. CURZON: Undoubtedly the opinions expressed by Lord Kimberley are those which are also shared by the Secretary of State. Under this Act it would be in the power of the Viceroy to invite Representative Bodies in India to elect or select or delegate representatives of themselves and of their opinions to be nominated to those Houses, and thus by slow degrees, by tentative measures, and in a matter like this measures can not be otherwise than tentative, we may perhaps approximate in some way to the ideal which the hon. Member for North Manchester has in view. With respect to the character of such Bodies and Associations as those to which I have alluded, I may mention, only as indicating what may be possible, such Bodies as the well-known Association of the Zemindars of Bengal, the Chambers of Commerce of India, the Municipalities of the Great Cities, the Universities, the British India Association, and perhaps even more important than any, the various great religious denominations in that country. I believe that the House will hold that this method of dealing with the question is a wise method, since it leaves the initiative to those who are necessarily best acquainted with the matter and does not lay down any hard-and-fast rule by which they may find themselves unfortunately bound. I cannot myself conceive anything more unfortunate than that this House should draw up and send out to India a cast-iron elective scheme within the four walls of which the Government would find itself confined, and which, if it proved at some future period inadequate or unsuitable, it would be impossible to alter without coming back to this House and experiencing all the obstacles and delays of Parliamentary procedure in this country. But I am well aware that these proposals may not altogether suit those hon. Members on the other side, whose

    65
    ideas of political progress have been formed in the breathless atmosphere of life in the West, and who are perhaps enable to accommodate their pace to the slower movement of life in the East. The hon. Member (Mr. Schwann), for instance, is anxious to have the elective principle more clearly defined and more systematically enforced, and he has placed an Amendment on the Paper, in which he asks the House to signify its opinion that no reform of the Indian Councils which does not embody the elective principle, will be satisfactory to the Indian people, or will be compatible with the good government of India. I venture to say, Sir, that this Amendment is vitiated by a two-fold fallacy, for while, in the first place, the hon. Member affects to speak on behalf of the Indian people, he at the same time entirely ignores the primary conditions of Indian life. When the hon. Member assumes in this House to be the mouthpiece of' the people of India, I must emphatically decline to accept his credentials in that capacity. No system of representation that has ever been devised, no system of representation that the ingenuity of the hon. Member can suggest, no system of representation that would stand the test of 24 hours' operation, would, in the most infinitesimal degree, represent the people of India. Who are the people of India? The people of India are the voiceless millions who can neither read nor write their own tongues, who have no knowledge whatever of English, who are not perhaps universally aware of the fact that the English are in their country as rulers. The people of India are the ryots and the peasants, whose life is not one of political aspiration, but of mute penury and toil. The plans and policy of the Congress Party in India would leave this vast amorphous residuum absolutely untouched. I do not desire to speak in any other than terms of respect of the Congress Party of India. That Party contains a number of intelligent, liberal-minded, and public-spirited men, who undoubtedly represent that portion of the Indian people which has profited by the educational advantages placed at their doors, and which is more or less imbued with European ideas;
    66
    but as to their relationship to the people of India, the constituency which the Congress Party represent cannot be described as otherwise than a minute and almost microscopic minority of the total population of India. At the present time the population of British India is 221,000,000; and of that number it has been calculated that not more than from 3 to 4 per cent. can read or write any one of their native tongues; considerably less than 1 per cent—about one-fourth or one-third—can read or write English. In the Province of Bengal alone, where the population exceeds 72,000,000, it has been calculated that the maximum constituency created by Mr. Bradlaugh's Bill would have only numbered a total of 870,000. It appears to me that you can as little judge of the feelings and aspirations of the people of India from the plans and proposals of the Congress Party as you can judge of the physical configuration of a country which is wrapped up in the mists of early morning, but a few of whose topmost peaks have been touched by the rising sun. To propose an elaborate system of representation for a people in this stage of development would appear to me to be, in the highest degree, premature and unwise. To describe such a system as representation of the people of India would be little better than a farce. The Government assume the responsibility of stating that, in their opinion, the time has not come when representative institutions, as we understand the term, can be extended to India. The idea of representation is alien to the Indian mind. We have only arrived at it by slow degrees ourselves, through centuries of conflict and storm. Nay, it may be said that it is only within the last 25 years that we have in this country entered into anything like its full fruition. No doubt we are apt to regard popular representation as the highest expression of political equality and political freedom; but it does not necessarily so present itself to those who have no instinctive sense of what political equality is. How can you predicate political equality of a community that is sundered into irreconcilable camps—("No!")—into irreconcilable camps by differences of caste, of religion, of

    67
    custom, which hold men fast-bound during their life-time, and the rigour of which is not abated even beyond the grave? I notice that the hon. Member has altered the terms of the Amendment as it was originally placed upon the Paper. At first he spoke of the elective principle as defined at the meetings of the Indian National Congress. But those words are now omitted. I think that that is a prudent omission. For the truth is that the Indian Congress is not of one mind, and does not speak with one voice on this matter. In 1890 we had a Bill containing an elaborate system of electoral colleges and proportional representation, and overswollen Councils, presented to this House; but in the following year this Bill was incontinently withdrawn, and has never been heard of since. And in that year Mr. Bradlaugh—of whose Parliamentary ability no one could have any doubt—introduced another Bill entirely different, in which he showed such extreme diffidence in himself and in the Indian National Congress, and such confidence in the Indian Government, that, although it contained expressed provisions for a system of election, the means by which that system was to be carried out were left entirely to the discretion of the latter. These ambiguous, fluctuating, and hesitating proposals illustrate the premature and experimental character of every reform hitherto advocated. But while these considerations render it, I believe, impossible so to re-model the Legislative Councils of India as to give them the character of Representative Chambers, I should be the last to deny the importance of the opinions and the criticism of gentlemen representing the advanced phases of Indian society. At present the sole vent that is available for that body of opinion is in the native Press, and in organised meetings such as the Indian National Congress. Everybody on both sides of the House agrees that this knowledge and activity might be better utilised than it is at present; and the Government believe that the sub-section of Clause 1 will provide the means by which representatives of the most important sections of native society may be appointed to the
    68
    Councils, and may have an opportunity of explaining their views with a fuller sense of responsibility than they at present enjoy. If the Government are able at present to go no further it arises from no want of sympathy with the inhabitants of India, but from a sense of the colossal responsibility that rests upon them, and of the dangers that would accrue from any rash or imprudent step. This Bill is not, perhaps, a great, or heroic measure; but, at the same time, it does mark a decisive step, and a step in advance. As such it has been welcomed by every living Viceroy of India. It was foreshadowed by Lord Dufferin; it is earnestly asked for by Lord Lansdowne; and it has received the emphatic approval of Lord Northbrook, no less than the approbation of Lord Ripon. I hope that these facts, and the explanation which I have given, may commend this Bill to the sympathy of the House, that it may be regarded as a useful measure, and may be exempt from the ordinary Parliamentary obstacles and delays. There are two main objects which this House is entitled to require in any new legislation for India. Firstly, that it should add to, and in no sense impair, the efficiency of Government; and, secondly, that it should also promote the interests of the governed. It is because I believe this measure will further both those ends, that I commend it to the sympathetic attention of the House, and will conclude by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Curzon.)
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to move as an Amendment:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, no reform of the Indian Councils which does not embody the elective principle will prove satisfactory to the Indian people, or compatible with the good government of India."
    I beg to assure the House that I move this Amendment in no Party spirit. I think that in the presence of 285,000,000 of our fellow-subjects in the East it would be wrong of anyone to touch on a subject so nearly allied with their interests in anything but the most

    69
    judicial and impartial spirit. At the same time I feel it incumbent upon me to move this Resolution, because I believe the Bill itself will not answer in any way the expectations, the desires, and the aspirations of the Indian people. We have heard the history of this Bill for the last three or four years. It seems to have been wilfully strangled by its present parents. I repeat that I hope it will not be accepted by this House, as it certainly will not be accepted by the Indian people as anything like even an instalment of what they desire, of what they require, and of what is necessary for their happiness. The fact is that the Bill contains, it seems to me, but a very slight trace of the elective principle. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill says that Clause 4, which is the only one which can be credited in any way with an admission of the principle, is one which will limit the number of representative Members to a number of gentlemen nominated as heretofore by the Viceroy. Now, Sir, I think the Indian people have a right to receive from this House a more determined expression of their opinion, and that representation which is merely nomination by the highest officials of India is not sufficient, and is inadequate at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the year 1861 and to the proposals which were made by the Government of India at that day and which exist at present. Well, but 30 years have elapsed since that date, and what was quite adequate for India at that time is entirely inadequate for the India of to-day. The fact is, India, as the hon. Gentleman said, has slumbered long. We all remember the words of the late Mr. John Bright uttered in the Manchester Town Hall many years ago, when he said that India in face of the English people was dumb. But the Indian people have since that time found a voice, and may be considered, to a large extent, a nation. I am quite willing to admit, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that India consists of a number of races, with different creeds, different customs, and differing even in colour. At the same time, we
    70
    must not forget that the English nation consists of more than one race, and that it is almost impossible to find any nation with absolute purity of race and of origin. The Indian people, I maintain, have to a very large extent now attained to a clear idea of nationality, and I think this has taken place through the instrumentality of the English language, of commerce, of education, of a free Press, and of the right of free meeting. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of India as if it was entirely sunk in ignorance at the present day. I should like the House to remember that there are five Universities at the present moment in India. At the present moment at Oxford there are at least 20 Indian students; at Cambridge there are 20 Indian students. At the Unversities of Edinburgh and London there are a large number of Indian gentlemen who are preparing to return to India, after receiving a thorough English education; and when they go back again they will find a large number of men who have already passed through the English Colleges, and who are perfectly able to understand the value of political privileges and views through our Western ideas. At one time the Punjaubee could not understand the Madrassee, nor the Bengalee speak with the Mahrattee. Now a large number of men of these various races of the Indian people are able to confer with one another, to exchange their ideas, and to act together for political purposes. The very condition of things which I have pointed out as existing to-day was foreseen by some of our statesmen of former times. Lord Macaulay, in a memorable speech, says—
    "It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system until it has outgrown that system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not; but never will I attempt to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes it will be the proudest day in English history. To have found a great people sunk in the lowest depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to have made them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would, indeed, be a title to glory all our own."

    71
    Well, I have said that India has a national voice, and that voice, to a large extent, is the Indian National Congress. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill has said that India consists of a great number of races who are hostile to one another; but is it not strange that in the Indian National Congress you will find Representatives of all the races of India, acting together for political ends with the greatest harmony, with the greatest loyalty to the Crown, and with great advantage, I submit, to the questions which interest the Indian people. You will find amongst the Members of the National Congress Hindoos, Mussulmans, Parsees, Christians, Jains, Sikhs, &c., &c., and other races. Some of them travel thousands of miles, journeying very often three or four days and nights, in order to be present at this National Congress. They often risk even the exclusion from caste, because, in some cases, the crossing of the sea in a ship is sufficient to exclude from caste, in order to be present. Then, the growth of the Congress is phenomenal. In the year 1885 the Congress met in Bombay, and the number of delegates present was 72; in 1886, it met in Calcutta, and the number of delegates was 400; in 1887, it met in Madras, when the number of delegates present had swollen to 607; in 1888, it met in Allahabad, and the number present then was 1,500; in 1889, it met in Bombay, and the number present was 1,590; and, in the year 1890, it met in Calcutta, and then the number of delegates present was 677 (the proportion of delegates to the number of the population having been reduced, because it was found very difficult to offer hospitality to the number of delegates willing to come from the extreme portions of India in order to take part in the Congress) but besides the delegates there were several thousands of spectators present as audience on each occasion. The hon. Gentleman has said that there is a great want in India of men able and willing to take a thorough interest in Indian politics. It seems to me that if you have got such a large number of men as 1,590 delegates to travel across the country under such disabilities and inconveniences as exist in India, it is a proof that
    72
    there must be a large and capable body of men who are perfectly fit to undertake the performance of political duties for their country. I had the advantage of being present at the meeting of the Indian Congress of 1890, and I have never seen any debate carried on in a more orderly, more loyal, or a more dignified and amicable manner. Everything was conducted exactly with as much regularity as if it had been a meeting of the great Federations of Conservative or Liberal Associations in this country. The only thing that was changed was the beautiful and gorgeous costumes of the delegates, there being a very marked contrast between them and the more prosaic costumes of Western Europe. I should like the House to take note that the Indian Congress when sitting was not confined to the delegates sent from various parts of that vast country. Some six or seven thousand spectators were present, all taking the greatest interest in the proceedings, and showing the same political energy and enthusiasm as would be the case on a similar occasion in England. I should also like to point out that the delegates were all elected in open, free, public meeting; and that, therefore, while we are looking around to see if by any possibility we can introduce a little of the elective principle into India, the elective principle has been already carried on in India to a very large extent, in the most orderly and regular manner, by a large section of the Indian people. Do not let us suppose, therefore, that the principle of election is a new one in India. I should also like to insist upon the loyal spirit shown by the people of India. If the House will allow me I shall read the opening remarks of the Chairman at the meeting of 1891 in December last. He said—
    "The keynote of the movement is loyalty to the British Crown and attachment to the British people, to whom India owes its rebirth. The promoters of the movement have thorough appreciation of the excellent intentions of the Indian Government, and it is their fixed desire and firm resolve to secure by loyal and constitutional means the reforms which are essential to the fruition of those intentions. As loyal subjects of Great Britain we desire the everlasting union of England and India. We know, whoever may misjudge us, that we can render no greater service to

    73
    either country than by openly declaring what we consider to be unsuitable or defective in the existing administration."
    Now, the Indian National Congress, a purely elected body, has gone through the usual forms of criticism. At first it was the subject of ridicule; then threats were used and the Anglo-Indian Press suggested that it should be boycotted and suppressed; and, lastly, it was received and treated with respect, if not cordiality. Lord Lansdowne, with respect to the meeting of 1890, removed a certain interdict which had prevented the Civil servants of the English Crown attending the meeting, even as visitors, up to that date. Lord Lansdowne annulled that interdict, and, speaking in the most handsome and courteous manner of the Congress, said it was perfectly admissible, that it was the expression of the voice of the people, that it was constitutional, and that there was no reason why Civil servants should not attend it as visitors and spectators—though not, of course, as members taking an active part in the proceeding. The English Press has also changed its tone very much as regards the Indian Congress. The English Times, in its notice of the last Indian Congress, treated it with far more courtesy than it had ever done before; and so it is also with other English papers. I do not wish to weary the House with extracts. The Anglo-Indian Press, however, does not treat the Indian Congress in the same friendly spirit. But you might almost as well expect the Orange Press in Ireland to be fair and impartial to the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) as to expect the Anglo-Indian Press to deal fairly with the Indian National Congress. The House may be surprised to hear that there are 755 Municipalities in India, and about 892 Local Boards—in all 1,647 institutions of a municipal character. A certain proportion of the members of these Bodies are nominated, but a large number—the majority—of them are elected by the people in open meeting. These Bodies have control of Rx7,000,000, and they have the charge of all municipal business, including streets, roads, water supply in all cities and most towns, of local roads, schools,
    74
    hospitals, dispensaries, and sanitary improvements, and of harbour works, port approaches, and pilotage. Officials testify to the great interest shown in the election. One report states: "At the contested elections in Murabganj 96 per cent and in Jalesar 89 per cent. of the registered electors appeared at the polls and voted." At Mooltan, in the Punjab, 70 per cent. of the registered voters polled. So keen was the contest that the successful candidate won by one vote only. The average attendance of Members of Municipalities of the united Provinces was 63 per cent. of the whole number, and in one town exceeded 90 per cent. I now turn to the main question which is before the House—that of the application of the elective principle to the Vice-regal and the Provincial Councils. What did Lord Dufferin say in his Jubilee speech with regard to it? He said—
    "Wide and broad indeed are the new fields in which the Government of India is called upon to labour—but no longer, as of afore-time, need it labour alone. Within the period we are reviewing, education has done its work, and we are surrounded on all sides by native gentlemen of great attainments and intelligence, from whose hearty, loyal, and honest co-operation, we may hope to derive the greatest benefit. In fact, to an Administration, so peculiarly situated as ours, their advice, assistance, and solidarity are essential to the successful exercise of its functions. Nor do I regard with any other feelings than those of approval and goodwill their natural ambition to be more extensively associated with their English rulers in the administration of their own domestic affairs."
    This is a complete answer to the plea of the Under Secretary that it was impossible to find in India native gentlemen worthy and capable of taking places in the higher Councils of India. This was confirmed by Lord Dufferin in another speech which he made in 1887, when he said—
    "Glad and happy should I be if during my sojourn among them (the people of India) circumstances permitted me to extend and to place upon a wider and more logical footing the political status which was so wisely given, a generation ago, by that great statesman, Lord Halifax, to such Indian gentlemen as by their influence, their acquirements, and the confidence they inspired in their fellow-countrymen were marked out as useful adjuncts to our Legislative Councils."
    Lord Northbrook has also expressed himself in favour of a "properly guarded application of some mode of election."

    75
    I understand it is the general feeling of the Indian National Congress that it would be advisable to leave to the Viceroy to propose what method of representation he considers best. Lord Lansdowne has, I believe, not expressed himself as opposed to the elective principle; but it is very difficult indeed to ascertain what really passed between the Viceroy and the Home Government with reference to the question. To a certain extent the knowledge is abroad that Lord Lansdowne sent round proposals to the Lieutenant Governors which received general acquiescence except in one case, as to the introduction of the elective principle as far as regards Provincial Councils. Lord Dufferin actually forwarded a scheme to the Home Indian Office containing this actual proposal, but the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India has had the wisdom to omit this striking proposal when he referred to Lord Dufferin's proposition and programme. It is scarcely necessary for me to refer to Lord Ripon's views upon the question, because we all know that his Lordship has broad opinions with regard to it; but I may mention that in a speech which he delivered at Edinburgh a short time ago, when some Indian students presented him with a Memorial thanking him for his services to the people of India, he said—
    "I do not at all desire to see the early establishment of household suffrage throughout India, and I am sure you will not be surprised when I say so; but what I do wish to see is that there should be infused into the Legislative Councils of that country a reasonable proportion of the representative element, which will enable you, the educated natives of that country, to make your voices really heard by the Government through the Representatives of your own choosing."
    Now, there is another Gentleman who sits in this House, and who always takes a distinguished part in the debates which arise upon matters affecting India. He has a thorough knowledge of that country, and his opinion will be received with respect by this House. I refer to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Worcester (Sir Richard Temple). He said, in an Indian Budget Debate in this House on 27th August, 1889—
    76
    "An hon. Member has referred to the Native Congresses. I may just say that I have long thought that elective Members might be substituted for the appointed Members on the various Legislative Councils. I shall be prepared to bring forward a moderate and practical scheme to give effect to that principle on the proper occasion."
    I am delighted to have that testimony from the hon. Baronet—his opinion is of real value. I must apologise to the House for perhaps wearying it with so many extracts, but I think the House is more likely to value the opinions of such eminent authorities rather than the impressions of a humble Member of the House like myself, but I am now coming to a conclusion. First, however, let us see what the author of Greater Britain (Sir Charles Dilke) has to say upon the question. He writes—
    "But the National Congress does not ask for their political enfranchisement. It asks for the general introduction into the provincial institutions of the country, which already exist, of that elective principle which we have ourselves, by Governmental action, introduced into the Municipalities. In this I think the movement wise. To my mind, British rule itself in India will be strengthened by widening its base, by the development of municipal and other elective institutions, and by the representation of these elective bodies upon Provincial Councils."
    I would further like to read a short extract from a book called New India, written by Mr. H. J. Cotton in 1886. In this book Mr. Cotton states that his father and his grandfather had been for 60 years in the Indian Service, he himself for 25 years and is so still, and he disclaims the slightest disloyalty to it; but he thinks it his duty, as a servant of India and of the Empire, to express freely his sentiments. He says—
    "The constitution of these Councils has lately attracted much attention in the Native Press, and I sincerely trust that public opinion will not cease to express itself on the subject until some radical and thorough reform has been effected. It is not too much to say that the present constitution of the Legislative Council is the merest farce. Not only do officials predominate to an extent which absolutely precludes the possibility of any independent action, but these officials consist almost entirely of individuals who, from the very position they hold, are unable to display any personal independence. The present Members of the Council are little more than puppets. A Native Deputy Magistrate is not inclined to offer advice unacceptable to a Lieutenant Governor to whom he owes the honour of his appointment, and on whom he

    77
    depends for his prospects in the service. The excellent and faithful agents of the rich and powerful zemindars, who now enjoy a seat in the Bengal Council, would as soon bite off their tongues as place themselves in opposition to Sir Rivers Thomp son. No blame to them They act in accordance with the antecedents of their own order, and of their fellow-country-men of the old style. The very essence of their creed is subservience to authority. Is there one among their friends and associates who would justify their action if they were to place themselves in opposition?"
    We may be sure of one thing, that the Indian people will continue to make claims which will be irresistible because they are just and reasonable, and that we must be prepared for some changes if we really mean to carry out the reforms which are required. The House of Commons has, in the past, not taken a great deal of interest in Indian affairs, but I must say that when it has interfered with regard to them, it has, as a rule, according to my experience, been for the benefit of India. Therefore I can recommend it to use its powers on this occasion. I submit that if the Manipur question had been submitted to the House, much gratuitous mischief would have been prevented. Its interference with the Opium Traffic and "Abkari" have been fraught with good, also the discussion on the restoration of the Maharajah of Cashmere was not useless. Perhaps the House is not aware that that Prince was restored to the Throne a few weeks ago by the Viceroy on his late journey to Cashmere. I do not propose to go into these matters on the present occasion. The question now to be dealt with is the constitution of the Legislative Council. It is proposed that there shall be four additional Members. It seems to me that that is a totally inadequate addition, looking to the number of Members on the Viceregal Council. It is evident that the question is one which deserves the greatest attention. I think that the best rampart we could have against a Russian invasion is the loyalty and attachment of a happy and contented people. I have produced a great deal of weighty evidence, not of Radical Members of Parliament, nor of pushing Babus, but of men who have borne the burden of the Viceregal power, with regard to the question, and the House will be able to judge for itself whe-
    78
    ther India is ripe for a further extension of the elective principle. This House ought not and cannot throw its responsibility on the shoulders of any Viceroy or any official, however high-minded he may be. I have, therefore, great pleasure in moving my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no reform of the Indian Councils which does not embody the elective principle will prove satisfactory to the Indian people or compatible with the good government of India,"—(Mr. Schwann,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should wish if in my power to curtail this Debate, so far at any rate as any controversial element is concerned. I do not speak of the information, the knowledge and the experience which may be brought into this Debate by Members competent to enter into an examination of Indian affairs, but so far as controversy is concerned I should hope it may be compressed within narrow limits. We have before us a Motion on the part of the Under Secretary of State for India that this Bill be now read a second time. We have on the other hand before us the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Schwann), who asks the House by that Amendment to declare that in his opinion—
    "No reform of the Indian Councils which does not embody the elective principle will prove satisfactory to the Indian people or compatible with the good government of India."
    Well now, Sir, I ask myself the question whether there is between the Bill now before us, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend such a difference of opinion or of principle as to make me desirous of going to an issue in respect of that difference. Undoubtedly, Sir, if I look at the Bill I am disposed to agree with my hon. Friend that taken by itself its language is unsatisfactory in so far as it is ambiguous; but then, Sir, I have the advantage of an authoratative commentary. The hon. Gentleman the

    79
    Under Secretary of State for India has introduced this Bill to our notice in a very comprehensive and lucid speech. If I were to criticise any portion of that speech it would be the portion in which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to the consideration of the Amendment before the House. It appeared to be his object, or at all events I thought it was the effect of his language, to put upon that Amendment the most hostile construction it could bear, whereas I desire to put on the speeches that we have heard on the Bill not the most hostile, but the least hostile and least controversial construction to which they are susceptible. Now, Sir, while the language of the Bill cannot be said to embody the elective principle, yet, if it is not meant to pave the way for the elective principle, it is in its language very peculiar indeed. It was, I believe, suggested by a Nobleman in the House of Lords, friendly to the elective principle, that unless it were intended to leave room for some peculiarities not as yet introduced in the Indian system in the appointment of the Members of the Indian Councils under this Bill, it would have been a very singular form of speech to provide, not simply that the Governor General might nominate, but that he might make regulations as to the conditions under which such nominations, or any of them, might be made either by himself or by the Governor General in Council. It is quite plain that those who framed that language, and we must assume also those who adopted that language and have sent for our consideration a Bill couched in such language, had in view something beyond mere nomination. Now, Sir, I come to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India. That speech appeared to me, I confess, to distinctly embody what is not very different from the assertion of my hon. Friend in his Amendment, except as to this important point—that the Under Secretary proposes to leave everything to the judgment, the discretion, and the responsibility of the Governor General of India and the authorities in India; but, otherwise, apart from limitation, I think I may fairly say what the
    80
    hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary did embody in his speech was the elective principle in the only sense in which he could be expected to embody it. My construction of that speech is—and I do not think it admitted of two constructions, especially considering the reference the hon. Gentleman made to the speeches of Lord Kimberley—my construction of that speech is that it is the intention of the Government and the intention of the House of Lords, in which we are now invited to concur, that a serious effort shall be made to consider carefully those elements which India in its present condition may furnish for the introduction into the Councils of India of the elective principle. Now, Sir, if that effort is seriously to be made, by whom is it to be made? I do not think it can be made by this House except through the medium of empowering provisions. The hon. Baronet the Member for one of the Divisions of Worcester (Sir R. Temple) has spoken at some period of proposing a plan of that kind; and I have observed on more than one occasion with pleasure, the genuinely liberal views of the hon. Baronet, with respect to Indian affairs and to the Government of the Indian people; and were he to produce a plan of that kind, I have no doubt it would contain a great deal that was wise, a great deal that was useful, and a great deal that would be honorable and agreeable to the spirit of an Assembly such as this. But I doubt if, even under such enlightenment, it would be well or wise on our part, with our imperfect knowledge, to proceed with the determination of the particulars of any such plan. The best course we could take would be to commend to the authorities of India what is a clear indication of the principles on which we desire them to proceed. It is not our business to devise machinery for the purpose of Indian Government; it is our business to give to those who represent Her Majesty in India ample information as to what we believe to be sound principles of Government; and it is of course the function of this House to comment upon any case in which we may think they have failed to give due effect to those principles; but in the discharge of

    81
    their high administrative functions, or as to the choice of means, we should leave that in their hands. It would be a great misfortune if, with imperfect information, we were to indicate leanings which might tend to embarrass them in the discharge of the duties of an office so highly responsible. It is quite evident, without any disparagement to the remarks of my hon. Friend, that the great question we have before us—the question of real and profound interest—is the question of the introduction of the elective element into the Government of India. That question overshadows and absorbs everything else; it is a question of vital importance, and also, at the same time, a question of great difficulty. Do not let us conceal from ourselves that no more difficult duty has ever been entrusted to a Governor General than the duty of administering such a Bill as this and giving effect to it in a manner honourable and wise. I am not at all disposed to ask from the Governor General or the Secretary of State who has communicated with him and shares his responsibilities—I am not at all disposed to ask them at once to produce large and imposing results. What I wish is, that their first steps shall be of a nature to be genuine, and whatever amount of scope they give to the elective principle, it shall be real. There are, of course, dangers in the way. There is the danger of subserviency; there is another danger, and that is the danger of having persons who represent particular cliques or classes or interests, and who may claim the honour of representing the people of India. The old story of the Three Tailors of Tooley Street does, after all, embody an important political truth, and it does exhibit a real danger. It is to the Governor General's wisdom we must trust to do the very best, and to make the most out of the materials at his disposal. What we want is to get at the real heart and mind—at the most upright sentiment and the most enlightened thought, of the people of India. But it is not an easy matter to do this, although, with regard to the view expressed by the Under Secretary of State for India, I think we are justified in being a little more sanguine than he was as to the amount of these
    82
    materials. The hon. Gentleman did not indicate where such materials for the elective element in India are to be found. Undoubtedly, Sir, as far as my own prepossessions go, I should look presumptively with the greatest amount of expectation and hope to the Municipal Bodies and the Local Authorities in India, in which the elective element is already included. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that is now before the House did valuable service in pointing out the amount of authority that can now be alleged on behalf of the introduction of the elective principle—the authority not merely of men distinguished generally for their political opinions, but of those who have been responsible for the actual administration of India. These men, after carefully examining the matter and divesting themselves of those prejudices which administration is supposed to impart, have given their deliberate sanction to the introduction of this Bill. It is there that I feel we stand on very firm and solid ground, and Her Majesty's Government ought to understand that it will be a most grave and serious disappointment to this House if, after all the assurances we have received from high quarters, that some real attempt will be made to bring into operation this great and powerful engine of government, there should not be some result which we can contemplate with satisfaction. I do not speak of its amount. I think it should be judged by its quality rather than by its quantity. In an Asiatic country like India, with its ancient civilisation, with its institutions so peculiar, with such diversities of races, religions, and pursuits, with such an enormous extent of country, and such a multitude of human beings, as probably, except in the case of China, never were before comprended under a single Government, I can well understand the difficulties that confront us in seeking to carry out our task. But, great as the difficulties are, the task is a noble task, and one that will require the utmost prudence and wisdom to carry it to a successful consummation. But we may feel, after the practical assurances we have had from persons of the highest capacity and the greatest responsibility, we may feel justified in expecting something

    83
    more than a merely nominal beginning in this great and magnificent undertaking. It is not too much to say that this great people—this nation to which we belong—has undoubtedly had committed to it a most peculiar task in the foundation and the government of extraneous territories. But all other parts of the British Empire present to us a simple problem in comparison with the problem which India presents. Its magnitude and its peculiarities are such as to lift the function of Great Britain in this respect far above all that any other country has ever attempted, and far above all it has itself attempted beyond the sea in any portion of the Dependencies of the Empire. I rejoice to think that a great and a real advance has been made, both before and especially since the time of the transfer of the Indian Government to the immediate superintendence of the Executive at home and the supreme authority of the Imperial Legislature. The amount of progress they made has been made by the constant application to the Government of India of the minds of able men acting under a strong sense of duty and also under a strong sense of political responsibility. All that has so far taken place induces us to look forward cheerfully to the future in the expectation that if there should be a real success in the application, the genuine even though limited application, of the elective principle to that vast community, it will be the accomplishment of a task to which it is difficult to find a parallel in history. In these circumstances I deprecate a Division on the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I see no such difference between the Amendment and the language of the Bill as ought to induce my hon. Friend to divide the House. If the language of my hon. Friend is to receive a perfectly legitimate and not a strained construction, it is only an amplification and not a contradiction of what the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary implies. I think it would be a great misfortune if the House were to divide on this subject. There is no difference of principle disclosed, because the acceptance of the elective principle by the Under Secretary, though guarded, and neces-
    84
    sarily guarded, was, on the whole, not otherwise than a frank acceptance. I do not think there is on the other side of the House any of the jealousy of the introduction of that principle, which, if it existed, would undoubtedly form a strong mark of difference between the two parties. In reality and in substance we have the same object in view, and we are prepared to recommend the employment of the same means to secure that end. If that be so, it would certainly be unfortunate that any Division should take place which though the numbers might be unequal (I certainly could not take part in any Division hostile or apparently hostile to the Bill) would, after the speech of the Under Secretary, convey a false impression. It is well the people of India should understand the truth—that united views substantially prevail in this House on this matter. My persuasion is that these views are united, and that they are such as likewise tend to the development of an enlightened and so far as circumstances will permit not only of a liberal, but of a free system. While my hon. Friend has done service in bringing this matter forward, he has really no substantial quarrel with the declarations of the Government, and I think he would do well to withdraw his Amendment and allow this Bill to receive the unanimous assent of the House, in the hope that without serious difficulty it may shortly become law, and fulfil the benevolent purposes with which it has been submitted.
    MR. J. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has taken advantage of the speech of the Under Secretary of State for India to suggest that there is substantially no difference of principle between the Bill and the Amendment. I hope I may be pardoned for introducing a slight controversial element, but I hardly think the House appreciates the vast and far-reaching importance of the change that it is proposed to introduce into India. I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, because I wished to discover any explanation the hon. Member would give of the elective principle, but I fail to find any such explanation, and I am still at a loss to know in what manner this elective

    85
    principle will be introduced. Personally, I am not at all opposed to the introduction of some kind of elective principle into the domestic affairs of parts of India. Probably I am the only Member of this House who has taken any part in introducing the elective principle into the local affairs of India. Some 20 years ago Bombay was governed by the advice of a Bench of Magistrates, and it was mainly owing to a motion which I made at a meeting of the Bench of Magistrates that the Government was induced to concede to the people of Bombay the management of their own affairs. Sir Seymour Fitzgerald, who was then Governor of Bombay, sent for me, and asked what system should be set up, and I recommended that household suffrage should be made the basis of an Elective Municipal Council. That proposal was accepted by the Government, and the result has justified the experiment. But although the experiment has succeeded in Bombay, it must be borne in mind that Bombay holds an exceptional position in India. It is a town which somewhat resembles one of the old free cities of the German Empire. Bombay is the second city in the whole of the British Empire in point of population, and the natural beauty of its situation, the magnificence of its buildings, and the public spirit of its citizens, make it not unworthy of this proud position. In Bombay there is a community which is gathered from all quarters, but among whom English influence prevails. There are not there, as in other parts of India, great nobles who lament the loss of the power they formerly enjoyed; there is not the same strict separation of castes; there is a strong body of Parsees, and certainly there is more freedom there than there is in other parts of India. Whatever may be suited to Bombay is not therefore necessarily suited to other parts of India. What is more, the good feeling which prevailed in the Anglicized Indian communities of 20 years since does not now exist. Lord Ripon broke up the entente cordiale between Europeans and natives, and created the anti-English agitation which now finds expression in the Congress movement.
    86
    It is significant that very often now-a-days we hear in this House questions addressed to the Government as to whether there are not a great many more Europeans in the public service of the Crown in India than ought to hold those positions; and the Member for South Donegal is frequently asking why the natives are not allowed to occupy the higher positions in the Executive Service. The reply is that the Administration is English, and must be kept under English control. The effect of Lord Ripon's Administration was to put into the heads of the natives the idea that they could govern the country themselves, and exclude the English from any exclusive rule of that country. Then grew up the Congress movement, which begun in 1885, and went on increasing during several years, although latterly it has been on the decline. But that movement cannot be said to represent in any real sense the wishes of the people of India. We know that the Europeans, as a community, all stand aloof from it, although a European here and there of fantastic ideas may give it the benefit of his assistance. Are the Mahomedans in favour of the movement? I have myself presented several Petitions to the House, and so has the hon. Member for South Worcestershire, from most enlightened Mahomedan representative bodies in India protesting against any concession being made to this National Congress movement. The Parsees, as a community, are also opposed to it. In fact, it is only a movement promoted by the Hindoos, and they themselves are divided in their opinion upon it, for many of the most enlightened Hindoos have protested against the movement. The Hindoos are the majority of the people of India, and it is only natural that the Mahomedans should be afraid of what might happen to themselves if they were governed by a Legislative Body containing a majority of men bitterly opposed to them in race and religion. I venture to say that Representative Government has nowhere succeeded where antipathies of race and religion have prevailed. I doubt whether Representative Government has been a success anywhere in the world except in England and some English-speaking communities

    87
    abroad; and I doubt whether Representative Government could be continued here, or whether we should not be plunged back into civil war if issues of a most vital and fundamental character were raised in this House affecting the Constitution of the country. It is only where there is agreement upon the main foundations' of Government that it is possible for representative institutions to succeed. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Schwann) tells us a great deal about the education we have given to the people of India. But merely intellectual education, which does not touch the morals, manners, or habits of a people, cannot change their character or give them that sobriety and robustness of disposition which is essential to the smooth and even working of representative institutions. I suppose the Barons who could not sign their names to Magna Charta might be as trusty statesmen as Burke or Macaulay; and amongst the most illiterate English peasants, who belong to a race that has the love of freedom instinctively in its life-blood, and who understood the principle of self-government and respected the rights of individuals almost before the dawn of history, there are those who would be far more capable of attending to the administration of public affairs than the most cultivated Bengalee who ever discoursed as fluently as the Member for Midlothian himself upon political institutions. In saying this, I, of course, do not wish to cast any reproach on the people of India. They have a civilisation of their own, which in some respects may be perhaps occasionally superior to ours, but you are running a great risk in proposing to transfer a large portion of the administration of India to men like the Bengalees, who have been slaves, nay, the bondsmen of slaves, for fifty generations. That is simply a physiological fact. There is another element of danger in this proposed change, for, if you are going to place real power in the hands of these men, you will disturb the pre-eminence of English rule in India. The hon. Member opposite wishes to do that.
    MR. MACNEILL: I beg pardon; I do not wish to do anything
    88
    of the kind, and that observation ought not to pass without instant contradiction. The hon. Member says we wish to disturb English rule in India. We wish to do no such thing, but we wish to make English rule more beneficial to the natives of India.
    MR. MACLEAN: There is another point I wish to dwell upon in order to show the danger it would be to the pre-eminence of English rule in India to make a change of this kind. A very great and important change has been made in India during the 14 years in which I have been absent. You have changed the whole political system of India, and shifted the centre of power from Bombay and Calcutta away up to the North-West. That being so, and the system of Government having become more exclusively military than before, what would be the effect of placing the control of the finances or military affairs of India in the hands of men chiefly belonging to the lower Provinces and not to the North-West Provinces at all? Sir Charles Dilke has been quoted as being in favour of this movement promoted by the National Congress. He has written a very interesting book on Greater Britain; but perhaps its defect is that he tries to make friends with everybody all round, and consequently often defends a system in one page which he shows to be utterly impracticable in the other. I will read a sentence in which he refers to the National Congress. He says—
    "We are not driven by considerations which touch their happiness to work towards the unity of India, but in the development of the provincial system which ought gradually to create a federal India, except for fiscal and military purposes, the natives must undoubtedly take a leading part."
    Do hon. Members appreciate the gravity of the restriction he there places upon the development of the elective principle? He says he is in favour of some advance in the Provincial Councils towards the introduction of the elective principle, but he also says that these Councils are not to touch either finance or military affairs—
    "We must have British military supremacy," he adds, "sufficient to preserve peace, and British control sufficient to raise the necessary taxes and to prevent the imposition of Customs'

    89
    duties. Our first duty in India is that of defending the country against anarchy and invasion."
    Nobody can say that a man who writes in these terms can be taken to be in favour of the programme of the National Congress. In another chapter he gives an argument which turns the whole proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester into ridicule, for he says—
    "I have formed a distinct opinion that we should cease to enlist men from the unwarlike races. We have already ceased to enlist Bengalees, and I should wish that the same principle should be extended, and that we should no longer enlist men from Southern India. No one would dream of sending Madras, Bombay, or down country infantry regiments against Russians."
    MR. SCHWANN: Is that quotation from the last edition of Sir Chas. Dilke's book? There are two editions of Greater Britain, and the extract I gave is from the edition not three weeks old.
    MR MACLEAN: This is from the Problems of Greater Britain, and not the original book of Sir Chas. Dilke. I may point out that what his opinion really amounts to is that we are bound to preserve in our own hands the military and financial control of India. Now, what would be the result of having a Legislative Assembly in which the natives of Bengal and Madras and Bombay would be in an overwhelming majority as compared with the Representatives of the Punjaub and the warlike Northern races? Here you have it confessed that you cannot rely on troops from the Southern districts of India, and yet you are to give the natives of those districts a majority in the Legislative Councils, so that the warlike races are to do all the fighting and the unwarlike races are to hold the power of the purse. Can anybody imagine a more absurd system of government than that, or suppose that British rule would last in India if the warlike races were subjected to a rule of that kind? Hon Members attempt to minimise the importance of the concession which the National Congress demands; but if you once make this fatal concession, of course the people of India will want the power of the purse also, and they never will be satisfied until they get it. A great deal has been said about Lord
    90
    Dufferin's opinion and what ought to be done. He has, no doubt, temporised in some of his Despatches, but we know what he really thought of the Indian National Congress when he made his celebrated speech in Calcutta on 1st December, 1888, in which, describing the promoters of the Congress movement, he said—
    "Who and what are the persons who seek to wield such great powers—that would tempt ths fate of Phæton and sit in the chariot of the sun? They are most of them the product of the system of education which we have ourselves carried on during the last 30 years. Out of the whole population of British India, which may be put at 200,000,000 in round numbers, not more thau 5 or 6 per cent. can read and write, while less than 1 per cent. has any knowledge of English. Thus the overwhelming mass of the people is still steeped in ignorance. During the last 25 years probably not more than 500,000 students have passed out of our schools with a good knowledge of English; there being perhaps 1,000,000 more with a smattering. Consequently, it may be said that out of a population of 200,000,000 only a very few thousands possess an adequate qualification, so far as an acquaintance with Western ideas or even Eastern learning are concerned, for taking an intelligent view of those intricate and complicated economic and political questions affecting the destinies of many millions of men that are almost daily presented for the consideration of the Government. I would ask, then, how could any reasonable man imagine that the British Government would be content to allow this microscopic minority to control the administration of that majestic and multiform Empire for whose safety and welfare they are responsible in the eyes of God and before the face of civilisation? It appears to me a groundless contention that it represents the people of India. Is it not evident that large sections of the community are already becoming alarmed at the thought of such self-constituted bodies interposing between themselves and the august impartiality of English rule?"
    That extract conveys the real sentiment of Lord Dufferin in regard to the aims and intentions of the National Congress. They may be disguised for a time until the British Parliament is deluded into making certain concessions which will pave the way for further concessions, but the aims and intentions are still the same as they were when Lord Dufferin described them in such accurate language. I will say no more in regard to the Amendment, but I should like to make one or two comments upon the Bill brought forward by Her Majesty's Government. When the Under Secretary of State quoted Lord Kimberley's speech in the other House,

    91
    I asked whether the Government accepted that statement as describing their intentions in bringing forward this Bill, and I was somewhat surprised that he gave an unconditional assent.
    MR. CURZON: I should say that I did not mean that the language of Lord Kimberley expressed the intentions with which the Government had brought forward this Bill, but on behalf of the Government I did not dissent from the interpretation put by Lord Kimberley upon the possible application of a particular clause.
    MR. MACLEAN: I think that means the same thing. The Government does not exclude the principle of election from this Bill; but it leaves it in the power of the Governor General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, to make regulations as to the conditions under which persons shall be chosen for appointment to the Legislative Councils. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, I maintain that when Parliament is making a change of this sort it should know exactly what it is doing and should not allow the principle of election to be brought in by a side wind. If we were to pass a measure of that sort we should be playing into the hands of Party Government in regard to India, and none of us would wish to do that in the management of Indian affairs. Let us suppose, for example, that a Liberal Government came into office, and we had Lord Ripon as Secretary of State for India, and Lord Reay as Governor General, would not these two noblemen strain every clause of this Bill for the purpose of introducing an elective system which would suit the views of their friends the Members of the National Congress? It is extremely dangerous to leave such a power to whoever may be Secretary of State or Governor General for the time being; and when this Bill is in Committee I shall propose an Amendment, which I hope the Government will take into their serious consideration, providing that the regulation for the choice of Members of these Legislative Councils which are to be made by the Governor General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, shall be submitted to
    92
    both Houses of Parliament. It is absolutely essential that if the principle of election is introduced at all, it should have the direct and immediate sanction of both Houses of Parliament, for that is the only way in which we should be able to prevent a dangerous application of the new system. I think the concessions in the 2nd section of this Bill will not satisfy anyone, because practically they lead to nothing. When the Secretary of State for India introduced this Bill in the House of Lords he said it was an unimportant measure; but I look upon it as the most important measure which has been brought forward since the whole constitution of the Government of India was changed after the great Mutiny of 1857. There is no greater danger connected with our Government of India than that we should make it the field for experiment in constitutional changes. It has always seemed to me that there was something profoundly mournful in the poet's description of Venice in the days of her decadence:—
    "Once did she hold the gorgeous East in fee, And was the safeguard of the West."
    England is a greater and a nobler Venice, and she "holds the gorgeous East in fee," and is "the safeguard of the West" in a far larger sense than ever Venice was. But if we wish to lose these glorious titles to the respect and admiration of mankind, we cannot take a surer step towards attaining that end than by making India a field for rash and ruinous experiments which strike at the foundations of the Empire acquired and bequeathed to us by the wisdom and valour of our forefathers.
    MR. MACNEILL: I cannot congratulate the hon. Member opposite on acting on the wise precept laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, that we should refrain from making this Debate of a controversial character. I shall not enter into matters of a controversial character, because the issues at stake are so enormous; but I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for India for a deliberate statement upon an important point. The right hon. Member for Midlothian accepted to the full the

    93
    statements of the hon. Gentleman with reference to the admission of the representative principle, and they were made in the presence of Lord Cross who was seated upstairs, and of the Leader of the House, without any expression of dissent or of disapproval being made. But now a thick and thin supporter of the Government accuses the right Member for Midlothian of taking a tactical advantage of the Indian Government. I wish to know whether the Government accepted the principle of representation or not? I believe they have done so, and in that belief I shall modify the speech I intended to make. Four years ago the hon. Member for Oldham made himself unconsciously the agent for stirring up religious animosity between Hindoos and Mahomedans, and his observations in this House were warmly repudiated in the Indian Congress by a Mahomedan gentleman. The hon. Member for Oldham has quoted the substance of Lord Dufferin's speech; but Lord Dufferin, when he delivered it, was under an absolute mistake as to what was aimed at by the National Congress and the Party of reform. He thought they wished to capture the Executive Government, but they wish to do no such thing. If the principle of election were carried out to the fullest extent the Indian Councils would be nothing more than consultative; the Bill has guarded that carefully. It would be possible for the Governor General to destroy all their legislative arrangements or to carry any Statute in the teeth of these bodies. When Lord Dufferin said the Reform Party wished to gain supremacy or controlling power over the Executive Government he misunderstood the change which the representative principle would make. The Indians would not be allowed to legislate; the Councils are consultative and not legislative in the true sense. When I interrupted the hon. Gentleman he misunderstood me, and I tried to explain myself by saying that Englishmen or Europeans ought to leave India if they did not stay there for the benefit of the people. I adhere to that absolutely. The right hon. Member for Midlothian said in his Limehouse speech that our time in India depended
    94
    on our stay there being profitable to the people, and our making them understand that, and later on he said—
    "It will not do for us to treat with contempt or even with indifference the rising aspirations of this great people."
    The right hon. Gentleman has said practically that same thing to-night, and I charge Ministers that they must not deceive themselves in this matter. The Under Secretary said this was not a very great measure; I consider it a great measure, though small compared with what we were promised six years ago. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord P. Churchill), when a responsible Cabinet Minister, in introducing his Indian Budget in August, 1885, pledged the Government to give full administrative reform to the Government of India. That promise is to be fulfilled by this Bill, which comes down here for consideration, after having been proposed in another place two and a half years ago. The four principles now embodied in the Bill are mainly due to the Indian National Congress, and yet those who at that Congress suggested these very reforms were for years subject to wicked misrepresentation. The Times said in those days that India had been won by the sword and should be kept by the sword. But the feeling on both sides of the House have changed since that, and we endeavour to elevate these suffering millions, and make their lives better. The Quarterly Review said that the Indians are not fit for self-government and called them a race of liars. Professor Goldwin Smith said that the concession of the smallest reform to India would lead to universal anarchy. Lord Salisbury said—
    "I do not see what is the use of this political hypocrisy; it does not deceive the natives of India; they know perfectly well they are governed by a superior race."
    As a superior race it is our duty to show mercy to these people. I take it that this Bill gives representation to India, and that the House will not be deceived in the matter. In regard to the theory of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean) as to the selective principle I will give an illustration. A Maharajah of the North West

    95
    Provinces was appointed a Member of the Supreme Council, and he could not speak a word of English, and was not allowed to have an interpreter. After the meeting a relative asked him how he got on. The reply was—
    "At first I found it very difficult, but then there was the Governor General who elected me, and when he raised his hand I raised mine, and when he put his hand down I put down mine."
    The Indian Government wants men who will give a fair and independent expression of opinion, who will be backed in their opinion by the knowledge that they represent the feeling of hundreds of thousands of their fellow-subjects, and truly represent their ignorance and prejudices. Edmund Burke said that the statesman would not be worthy of the name of statesman who did not consult the ignorance and prejudices of the people. We want to know what these people think. The hon. Member for North Manchester (Mr. Schwann) quoted a number of authorities in favour of the representative principle; I have studied a great deal of literature on the subject, and have found the most unlikely people in favour of it. In a book which came out in the native tongue, just after the Mutiny, and which was translated by Sir Auckland Colvin in 1887, called The Cause of the Indian Revolt, said that one of the direct causes of the Mutiny was the want of representative institutions. Sir J. Lawrence, in 1864, said that it would be to the advantage of the people of India and of the Government if the people had a voice in their own affairs. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple) is in favour of a limited system of representation, and undoubtedly he would have benefited during his administration if he could have had the assistance of Indian gentlemen who were the mouthpiece of many people whom he could never reach. In 1880 a deputation of Indian gentlemen waited on Lord Hartington to press the principle of representation. The Times in 1890 admitted the principle of election, and said—
    "There is no doubt of the force of the argument that nomination is not calculated to give the Government the advantage of contact with some of the important factors of Indian society."
    96
    The differences between Hindoos and Mohammedans were, till the English Government came in, not religious but political, and the great administrator, Akbar, placed religious toleration in the forefront of his programme, making all creeds equal in the sight of the law. The hon. Member for Oldham spoke at some length of the incapacity of the natives for administrative and executive functions, but yet in India there is a perfect system of self-government where the natives have shown to the utmost advantage their powers and capacity for popular self-government. In the French dominion, at Pondicherry, they have full representation. But in India there is a large English and European class, irrespective of the official class—the milling and mining interests are all manned by Europeans—who bitterly complain of the loss of rights and privileges in their new Indian life. The hon. Member for Oldham was wrong in saying that there were not many Europeans who sympathised with the aspirations of the natives. An eminent merchant, Mr. Ewell, took the chair at the Indian National Congress, and he was supported by a large party who complained that Englishmen in India were unrepresented. Everyone who is not an official is debarred from having any voice in the management of public affairs; that ought not to be. It is not good that Englishmen should be deprived of their rights, nor is it desirable that natives should be debarred from having a voice in public affairs. The hon. Member talked of the miserable poverty of these people, but that might be made riches and their ignorance knowledge if they could only send people of their own flesh and blood to set before the English people their grievances, and when they understood them they would be delighted to remove them. Mr. Bright in one of his last speeches said that India was governed by despotism, and under this Bill that proposition remains. We want these Councils to be consultative, and surely the Indian Government would be glad to get the best advice, and then to act on their own responsibility. At present no Bill is introduced into the Supreme Council until it has first been submitted to the

    97
    Secretary of State here, and it cannot be introduced if he vetoes it, and the Councils are official Councils pure and simple at present. There are only about 14 sittings of the Supreme Council at Calcutta, and then it moves to Simla. There, where the non-official Members cannot afford to follow, the greater part of the work is done. I see the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, and I think we are entitled to have from him some statement to the effect that the words of the right hon. Member for Midlothian were a correct view of the intentions of the Government, and that they intended to do their best to secure more representation for the people. I believe when they realise the sufferings of the people the Indian Civil Service act fairly well towards them, and when I spoke in the contrary sense the other day the sufferings of these people were weighing on my mind. I hope if my words reached India that the Gentlemen whom they concern will believe I think they are doing their best, and that they will, if possible, increase their efforts to save the people. It is because I believe the representative principle would better enable the Government to help the people that I am in favour of this Bill.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: I must begin by referring in very thankful terms to the kind manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian alluded to me. He adverted, among other things, to a plan of my own which I have more than once mentioned in this House, and again this evening I have been challenged to say in general terms what it was. My plan always had reference to the Bill before the House and to the rules which, according to it, are to be framed; and it will be found a modest plan and contained in very brief compass. In the first place, I must admit that to formulate any scheme which would in any proper sense represent the population of India is an absolute impossibility. You might theoretically construct a system whereby constituencies could be formed in every district; but that would involve local Parliaments con-
    98
    sisting of hundreds of Members, and it would be impossible to say, if such a system were introduced, what sort of men would be elected, and how such bodies would work. In fact, the idea is really a travesty of a responsible Government in India. But because such a representation of the people is impossible in this sense, it does not follow that some moderate scheme within sensible limits might not be propounded. And my plan would be simply this. It is now proposed that 16 additional Members (presumably natives) should be given to the Legislative Council of the Government of India. Well, I suppose they might be elected by 16 selected cities in various parts of the great Indian dominion. Of course I should like to select the cities, and they would be so chosen as to represent as nearly as possible the various sections of the population. It would be essential to provide for a minority representation, and certain cities should be chosen that would evidently elect Mahomedans. All these cities that I should select would be places which had the elective principle in force within them, both for municipal and local purposes, and where, therefore, the idea of election would be familiar to the citizens. To such a scheme as this there is the obvious objection that these cities do not represent the country—that is to say, the country in our sense of the term, as contradistinguished from the town. But, nevertheless, their inhabitants would form fair specimens, samples, and types of the various forms of thought and sentiment that reign in that vast population, and they would be great centres of native thought, activity, and industry. So far there would be, not an adequate, but a limited representation upon a scheme that is perfectly practicable; and because perfect representation of town and country is impossible, that is no reason why we should not have, at all events, some representation of the towns. Then, according to that plan, it would be necessary that the Government should always provide itself with a majority, whether by nominated Members or otherwise. It would not do to leave to elected

    99
    Members, in such a country as India, anything like control of the legislation and finance. Elected Member would be there to help, not to supersede; but the advantage would be that instead of having nominated Members, you would have men chosen by the suffrages of their countrymen. At present every Governor General or Governor who has a nomination endeavours to choose a man who is a type, a representative; and every man that I myself have ever nominated was exactly the man who would have been elected if there had been an elective principle in force. Now within the moderate compass above described, art elective scheme could be safely and effectually carried out. That is the plan I have always had in my mind; and it is perfectly workable, and also perfectly consistent with this Bill. Although I quite acknowledge that our tenure in India largely depends upon good administration, good management, and conciliation of the people, yet its ultimate basis is upon the sword and on nothing else. Therefore, we must have a majority on the Legislative Council; but, so long as we have a majority, I would like to make the majority as nearly as possible a mirror and a looking-glass of the sentiments of the people. These remarks which I have made with regard to the Governor General's Council might be applied to the Various Provincial Councils. In all these provincial areas, I am particularly careful to explain, I would have the various minorities represented, especially the great Mahomedan community. And I must say, with great deference to the hon. Member for North Manchester and the hon. Member for South Donegal, that probably not one of these cities would elect a National Congress man. If they did so, that would only be proof that the majority of the citizens were not taking any interest in the election, and were allowing men to be elected who did not represent the popular opinion. That being my plan, the House will see that it is quite moderate and reasonable; that it starts with small beginnings and is quite compatible with this Bill. I would point out that the details of these things should be left to the Executive Government
    100
    in India and not arranged by this House. It is impossible for us, sitting as a Committee in this House, to make out an elaborate scheme; we must leave the matter to the Executive Government on the Spot, under regulations as provided for in the Bill. Next the hon. Member for Manchester says that no plan will be satisfactory to the people Of India which does not specifically include the principle of election. I must repeat that question which has been asked more than once in this House—who are the people of India? How are they represented? The hon. Member evidently thinks that the National Congress represents the people of India. Now, I venture to traverse that Statement in the strongest possible manner. The men who propose a new elective Constitution, if British rule were to disappear tomorrow, would be swept into the sea. ("No!") That is my opinion, and I think that any person who understands India will say the same. I do not wish to disparage those who compose the National Congress. They are what, we have made them, and no man living has had a greater share than I have had in making them what they are. All I say is that they do not represent the population of India. The hon. Member for Manchester speaks of them as forming a nationality. I cannot imagine any name less applicable to them than that of nationality. That is just what they are not. He said they spoke with the voice of the people of India. Nothing could be more contrary to the fact—their voice is their own and nothing more. The hon. Member said they have great influence over the mass of their fellow-countrymen. They have no influence at all among the mass of the people. They are looked upon as semi-foreigners, having all the faults of foreigners, with, perhaps, few of their merits. They are not popular. No doubt they deserve to be popular; only the people of India do not seem to see it. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Oldham in regard to their position in the country. Everything that can be done for them intellectually or morally, everything that would tend

    101
    to elevate them by culture I would do; but as to giving them political power—they are the very last persons I would select. Until they show greater moderation, greater sobriety of thought, greater robustness of intelligence, greater self-control—all which qualities build up the national character—I, for one, would not entrust them with political power. Therefore, I am not in favour of making any concession to the Congress particularly. They should be content with their place in the ranks of their fellow-countrymen and take their chance with them. The hon. Member spoke of the mute multitude of the unrepresented masses. So did the Under Secretary for India, with much justness. The masses in India are indeed outside any conception of the elective principle. Besides the masses, who are spoken of as working men, artizans, and labourers in the field, there are distinct sets of classes who are thoroughly outside any electoral idea. Perhaps the most important class in India are the village headmen. They have withstood the shock of revolution and the stress of war, and they have come out of it like gold refined by fire. These men, though quite representative in their way, are thoroughly outside any idea of any electoral system. Then take the great landholders. When I was at the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi, I had of an evening in my reception tent a group of men whose total rental was not less than half a million sterling—they never dreamt of election. Tens of thousands of small landowners are of the same mind. But besides landowners there is the great class of peasant proprietors. They are everywhere, from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas, and constitute the very backbone of the Indian population. They are wholly outside this idea. Then there are the frontier chiefs, the men who dominate the border, who keep back marauders and robbers, and who are the wardens of the marches all around the frontiers of India. They never heard of election. Take the hill tribes scattered all over the country; their hills are just like the bones in the physical body, or the arteries. All these tribes are thoroughly
    102
    innocent of this idea. There are the martial races that supply not only the foot soldiers and the troopers, but also the native officers for the Infantry and Cavalry. I say these men never heard of election. Then take the purely peaceful races: the native bankers and traders who have accounts in every village, and also transactions extending over Asia into Europe, and even on to America; the shopkeepers, who are a numerous class in every town, in every village; the still more important class, the proprietors of ships and boats, the men who circumnavigate the Indian Peninsula, who conduct an inland navigation on the great rivers, not surpassed in extent in any part of the world; all these men are outside the idea of election. Then we come to the priests, both Hindu and Mahomedan, who live in the recesses of temples and mosques, in cloisters and shrines, but yet who have potent influence over the lives of the people from the cradle to the grave. These men think nothing of the principle of political election. Take the Brahmins, who study the ancient Sanskrit, the men who look back to the dawn of ancient civilisation, and who are the repositories of the religious traditions of the country; the Mahratta Brahmins, the representatives of an Imperial as well as a priestly race; and, lastly, the men of what I may call the old school—those men who look back to the ancient régime, who regard all Western civilisation as an evil. All these would abhor the idea of election. I ask the House to reflect on the great variety and importance of the classes I have mentioned, and hon. Members will see what a powerful phalanx they compose. Take the masses, and all these classes together,—what remains of the whole population? Why, nothing, except the few thousands who form the National Congress — and they are the only advocates of the elective system. But, further, we have the Mahomedans; they are actually opposed to such a system. I have myself submitted representations on their behalf, and have promised to watch their interest in reference to this Bill. They are anti-Congress' out and out. They know that they form a very im-

    103
    portant and influential section of the community, and they say that according to the scheme of the National Congress, an undue share of power would accrue to that Congress, which consists almost entirely of Hindoos and Parsees. I desire to speak of the Parsees with all respect, but they do not represent the feelings of the people of India—they are, in fact, simply like the swallows that portend the spring. The Mahomedans say that they would be outvoted by the Hindoos in every place, and they naturally wish to maintain some influence in the country, whose destinies in historic times they have so largely helped to mould. They ask, in effect, that there should be some arrangement for the proper representation of their important minority, which may now be numbered at between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000. This question of proportional representation alone shows how hard and onerous the elective system must be in such a country as India. Now, I will ask this important question: Is the elective system at all in the hearts and minds of the people? Of course it is not. The dignity of the village headman is hereditary; so also are the village offices; and almost all the ancient appointments held by Mahomedan Judges are more or less hereditary. Here and there germs of the elective system are to be found. Priests, for instance, are elected, though in what way no outsiders can say. In Mongol or Mogul times the victor in the saddle would be hailed Emperor by the knights on horseback around him; but the dignity thus elective in the beginning soon became hereditary in his son. But if the elective system is going to be introduced, the natives would have to be educated and taught what it means. It is quite possible to do that, but if you try it you must bend yourselves to the task. I have myself experimented with the elective system in Calcutta. In that metropolis I thought I perceived a middle class having Western education, so I sacrificed all my extensive patronage of nomination and threw the appointments open to election by the citizens. At first I did not meet with entire suc-
    104
    cess. It was almost as hard to get the citizens of Calcutta to vote as it is to bring ratepayers to the poll at London School Board or County Council elections. But they soon got used to it; and now I understand that they regard, at as a privilege of which they would not bear to be deprived. In Bombay, on the other hand, the elective system has always been found to answer, and with regard to District Boards in the interior, which were originated under the régime of Lord Ripon, the principle of election is growing year by year. No doubt in most towns there is the germ of the elective system; but if this plan is to be carried out generally for political arrangements, it would have to be by means of rules and regulations, which should be framed here, and their working out left to the authorities on the spot. I have myself just propounded a plan. But I would not send it out cut and dried to India. Even for an abridged plan like that the number of persons whom the Governor General would have to consult, and others who would have to be won over, and their views taken into account by him, must be very large indeed. It would be a very serious matter, but I have no doubt something of the kind could be done in time under the regulations as in this Bill provided. That is why I approve of this Bill. It leaves the details of the scheme to be worked out on the spot. I have no doubt that the authorities in India will be greatly guided by what is said in this House, and that the Government out there will profit by a perusal of this Debate. If a few Members are to be added to the Council I fail to see any danger allowing those Members to be elected instead of being nominated. Broadly speaking, I would venture to express two opinions: The first is, that this Bill is entirely worthy of the support of this House; and, secondly, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester ought not to be accepted.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I trust that the tremendous importance of this subject to the 285,000,000 of the Indian people,

    105
    amongst whom I have spent the greater part of 30 years, may be taken as my justification for endeavouring, with the kind permission of the House, to place them in possession of some most serious facts, drawn from my own observation, which will, I believe, incline the House to the conclusion that the Government of India cannot be safely carried on any longer without the introduction into it of the principle of popular representation. Sir, on the very few occasions when India gets a hearing at all in this House, it is, I fear, far too much the fashion for the House to accept the views of gentlemen who have held official positions, and who invariably give assurances that every thing is going on most admirably, and that the Government of India is the best of all possible Governments. Now, Sir I protest against the views of these gentlemen, however personally worthy and excellent men they may be, being accepted as authoritative in regard to the real condition and wants of the people of India; for my experience of them all, with only a few exceptions is, that they are much too apt to indulge in optimist views, which, however, unconsciously to themselves, are really nothing but the offspring of an easygoing hope that a state of things is sound, from which they have reaped comfort, honour, and substantial advantage. There are two main reasons why the alien bureaucracy which we call the Government of India are fairly frightened at the bare idea of the introduction of the elective principle: In the first place, they know that the people's representatives, in so far as they were able to make their presence felt at all, would feel bound to insist on a reduction of the vast salaries and appointments now held by Europeans, whereby the natives are excluded from all good offices in the Public Service of their own country, and whereby the revenues of their country are appropriated and eaten away. Nine years ago a Return was presented to this House, on the Motion of Mr. John Bright, which casts a grim light upon the cause why the present Motion is so strenuously opposed. That Return shows that, other than the rank and file of the British Army, there are only about
    106
    68,000 Europeans in the whole of India, and that of these no less than 25,000 receive salaries from the Government of more than £100 a year, the total amount of their salaries arriving at the enormous figure of £13,000,000 yearly. Moreover, nearly one-third part of this vast sum, or £4,000,000, is paid in the shape of pensions, &c., to Europeans living in this country. But, on the other hand, what is the case with regard to the natives of the country? There are no less than 285,000,000 of the natives of India, and of these only 11,000 hold Government posts over £100 a year. Their total of salaries, moreover, amounts to only £2,250,000. Last year the Government kindly accepted a Motion which I made for a continuation of that Return up to the present time, and I have no doubt that when it is presented it will reveal a state of things still worse than that which I have described. The fact is, Sir, that the whole policy of the Government of India is framed for the purpose of supporting, and the natives of India are ground down for the purpose of paying, the gigantic salaries of these 25,000 Europeans. And, Sir, it is because the Government of India well know that to introduce an elective, element into its Councils would be to introduce a jarring element which would disturb the fine unanimity hitherto displayed by these Councils in voting salaries for their own class, and taxing the people of India in order to pay for them, that the present proposal is vehemently opposed by the privileged class whose monopoly would thereby be threatened or broken down. But there is another and a still more serious reason why it is essential that the elective principle be introduced without delay, and that is the enormous and ever-increasing impoverishment of the people, which is taking place under our rule. It is solely by the device of absolutely excluding elected representatives, from their Councils that our officials are now able to go about drying "peace and prosperity," while all the tithe biting poverty and decadence of the most serious character is going on under our rule throughout the length and breadth of India from day to day, and from year

    107
    to year. And, Sir, I venture to say that this hiding away of the truth, which could and would at once be declared by the mouths of elected Representatives of the people, constitutes the most serious possible danger for the future of our Empire in India. One of the chief apostles of the official classes, who are accustomed to soothe the Members of this House with bland assurances as to the increasing wealth and prosperity of the Indian cultivator, is the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham. On the occasion of the Indian Budget Debate last Session he delivered to the Committee one of his usual optimist speeches as to the wonderful and increasing prosperity of the people and the lightness of their taxation. In reply I called attention to the more than Draconian Land Revenue, Law, the passing of which was his last and chief act as Governor of Bombay, and I asked, why did he find such a law of unparalleled stringency necessary to extort the Land Revenue if the people were prosperous and I lightly taxed? I asked, and I now ask, for example, why the hon. Baronet had taken away from the cultivator all appeal against the Revenue collector's claims? Why did he ordain that on default of a single instalment the entire Land Tax of the whole year should become, due at once, with interest at a rate unnamed, together with a fine of an amount unspecified, and which can be increased from time to time at the discretion of the Government? Why did he ordain that instead of one-half only the Revenue collector may seize for an arrear the whole of the ryot's crop, leaving the ryot and his family literally starving? Why did he ordain that the lands of a whole village of solvent ryots should be attached for arrears due on a single holding? Worse still, why did he find it necessary to provide that all the solvent and wholly innocent villagers should be subjected immediate distraint and sale of their property, movable and immovable aye—and also subjected to personal arrest and imprisonment—for on offence whatever, except for the default of a single one of their number? Lastly, why, in the face of all this prosperity, did he find it neces
    108
    sary to ordain that for the default, of a single shilling for a single days the entire holding of a cultivator, with his 30 years' lease, with his crops, plantations, cattle, implements houses, and improvements, would become forfeited to Government, and the cultivator and his family evicted and thrown upon the world absolutely without grace or notice?
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not see the relevancy of the hon. Gentleman's observations.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I was going to point out that such an in human law as this could not possibly have been passed without amendments had the Bombay Legislative Council possessed even a fair amount of Representatives elected by the people of India, and is it not most dangerous that the frightful impoverishment now caused in the Bombay Presidency by the administration of this inhuman law should go on?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to review the whole condition of India on a Bill of this kind.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: My view is that the people are now ground down by the existing legislative enactments, and I wish to warn the Government of the consequences whilst there is yet time. Sir, I can conceive no stronger possible argument for requiring the recognition of the elective principle than the fact that under scientific engines of financial torture, such as the law which I have described, the Indian cultivator is now suffering absolute depletion in silence, because he has not so much as a single Representative, by whom he could make his sufferings known to this House, or even to the Indian Government itself. Our Revenue system steeps the people in poverty, yet our officials, one and all, declare that they are rolling in wealth.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to inform the hon. Gentleman that he is not touching the Bill before the House.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I regret, Sir, that I am precluded from touching the details of this infamous Revenue

    109
    system, but I will state broadly the result.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentlemen must obey my ruling.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I am endeavouring, Mr. Speaker, to obey your ruling most absolutely. Now, Sir, no assertion is more universal amongst our officials than that we only take from the cultivator one-half of the net produce of his holding, leaving him the other half to himself to revel in luxury, after paying for the costs of cultivation, including the support of his family. Sir, this fallacy is so dire that, unless speedily corrected by popular representation, it must of itself be fatal to the Indian Government. In order to show the real truth on this subject, I have myself had an industrial census taken of an average village in the Bombay Presidency; and, if I may venture to ask the further indulgence of the House, I will give a brief abstract of the result. The population of the village is 236 persons, including families. The land farmed is 1,400 acres, and the whole crop of the year valued only 2,900 rupees, because, from sheer poverty, not a vestige of manure is ever put into the soil. Now, if we allow only 10 rupees or 14s. a year for the sustenance of each person, and 8 rupees per year for the sustenance of each of the 58 pair of bullocks required for the cultivation, it appears that the real net produce of the village amounted to 76 rupees only. Nevertheless, the Land Tax and Local Cess extorted from these poor creatures last year amounted to no less than 1,100 rupees, or nearly 40 per cent. of the entire gross produce. How, then, it will be asked, was the assessment paid? The village accounts supply the answer. It was paid by application to the village usurer, who lent the money to the half-starved villagers at an interest of 24 per cent., and the balance which they owe him now amounts already to more than ten years assessment. Whatever small sums they are able to pay to him, for either interest or principal, are earned not from the land at all, but entirely from the labour of the villagers at other callings in the adjacent town of Sholapore. Now, Sir, there is no
    110
    question that this miserable state of things is only kept dark because there are no elected representatives of the people, and it is chiefly in order to hide these things away that popular representation is denied. Our Indian officials detest this Motion, because it would secure a representation under which these horrors would be exposed, and by which the Dracoman Laws under which they exist would be repealed. Do our officials desire, or do they fear, to know the truth? If they so desire, why do they not welcome this Motion? Is it not a safeguard to any Government that the people should have a representative channel through which to let their wants be known? Why, then, do they fight so strenuously against opening such a channel? There is only one answer: Because the first thing that elected representatives would do would be to reveal such appalling picture of poverty and heartrending sufferings of scores of millions of helpless human beings that the British nation would rise as one man and overturn their entire system. Sir, I repeat that it is only a selfish desire to retain lucrative posts which makes our European official seek to persuade this House that the natives of India are unfit for representative Institutions. Such men carefully conceal that, before British Rule came to destroy it there was little else in India except popular Government. I would venture to call attention to the facts on this subject which are given by the famous Sir Thomas Munro, who said—
    "In all Indian villages there was a regularly constituted Municipality, by which its affairs, both of revenue and police, were administered, and which exercised to a very great extent magisterial and judicial authority."
    To this the famous Sir John Malcolm, one of the highest possible authorities on the subject, adds his testimony as follows:—
    "The municipal and village institutions of India were competent, from the power given them by the common assent of all ranks, to maintain order and peace within their respective circles. In Central India their rights and privileges never were contested even by tyrants; while all just Princes founded their chief reputation and claim to popularity on attention to them."
    Some years ago in the Legislative Council of Bombay, the Hon.

    111
    Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik, a distinguished native reformer, afterwards a member of the Governor General's Council, thus charged the British system with having produced atrophy in the political intelligence of a people who had been accustomed from time immemorial to self-government—
    "Those who assume incapacity on the part of the people for self-government betray a complete ignorance of the past history of India in general, and of Western and Southern India in particular. I am prepared to admit that the disuse of particular powers of mind and body may cause a partial atrophy of that portion of the organisation.
    "The people of this country are perfectly capable of administering their own local affairs. The municipal feeling is deeply rooted in them. The village communities, each of which is a little republic, are the most abiding of Indian institutions. They maintained the framework of society while successive swarms of invaders swept over the country. In the cities also the people clustered in their wards, trade guilds, and punchayets, and showed much capacity for corporate action.
    "These facts supply an answer to the sceptics as to our aptitude for self-government. Those who say we are yet to have a trial in the matter appear to forget that they are speaking not of Kaffristan or the country of the Hottentots, but of the inhabitants of a country with a long history, reaching even beyond hoary antiquity, with definite forms of Government, with an extensive and varied literature, and with comprehensive systems of philosophy and ethics, of religion and morals, of natural science—from mathematics up to astronomy, of architecture and engineering, as evidenced by splendid public works and monuments, and of the fine arts. Elective Government was not only not unknown, but so late as the Fourteenth Century a large tract of country on the coast of Western India was actually governed by a Council of four Senators, with a President elected by the people every three years."
    And yet this ancient nation, consisting of 285,000,000 of men, is at this day traduced and libelled by an interested bureaucracy, who shout loudly that they themselves possess a monopoly of political and moral virtue, while the natives possess a corresponding monopoly of vice. Sir, I am firmly convinced that no time should be lost in giving to the people an elective voice in expending their own revenues and declaring their own wants. I have no desire to speak as an alarmist, but I say that it is useless for any well-informed and impartial observer to deny that, under our fright-
    112
    fully expensive and impoverishing system of government, biting adversity is now fast turning the hearts of the masses of the people against their British masters. As the struggle for bare life becomes harder and harder a deep and sullen sense of wrong is stealing over the length and breadth of the land. It is the result of no single incident. It is the voiceless and ever-increasing growth of gradually accumulating privations. It is not race antagonism of any kind whatever. It is the embitterment caused by the steady advance of pinching poverty; when the daily toil becomes more incessant, and yet the out-turn of the over-cropped field becomes less and less every year; when the little savings, horded perhaps for two generations, have to be dug up from the floor of the mud but and handed over to the Revenue officer; when the scanty meal becomes scantier; when the little condiment eaten with the rice has to be intermitted; the bangle on the arm of the wife or baby has to be sold; the marriage of the daughter has to be postponed till the village money-lender can be induced to advance the wherewithal. It is the sense of wrong and injustice when the bread-winner is taken away from his home and imprisoned for debt in the civil gaol. It is the exasperation of a ruined family when their holding is confiscated for arrears of Land Tax, and when its occupant from that hour descends in the social scale, and, ceasing to be a farmer, becomes a landless labourer. Sir, all these terrible truths are far too apt to be excluded from the mind of the Anglo-Indian official as he goes about crying "peace and prosperity." But I venture to say that they furnish perhaps the strongest illustration ever witnessed of the absolute necessity of giving a vast people like the natives of India a representative voice in their own affairs, and the absolute impossibility of safely governing them without giving them such a voice. The late John Stuart Mill had India in his eye when he wrote these well-known words—
    "The government of a people by itself has a meaning and a reality, but such a thing as government of one people by another does

    113
    not and cannot exist. One people may keep another as a warren or preserve for its own use—a place to make money in, a human cattle farm, to work for its own profit."
    It remains to be seen whether this House to-day, by rejecting the principle of this Amendment, will decree that India should be retained for a further period as a human cattle farm, or whether by accepting the Amendment they will tell the Indian people that it is their firm intention, cautiously and carefully it may be, but still honestly and really, to develop representative Government among them.
    MR. S. SMITH: Sir, I have been struck, as I think the House generally must have been struck, by the extraordinary contrast which is observable between the two last speeches to which we have listened (Sir Richard Temple and Mr. Seymour Keay). Each of those speeches was delivered by gentlemen of very long Indian experience, and their statements are so absolutely opposite that it is difficult, if not almost impossible, to believe that these two gentlemen could have lived in the same country. Sir, I am bound to say, from all I have been able to ascertain, that I agree more largely with the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Seymour Keay) than with the speech of that official optimist the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Richard Temple). I wish it was not so. It is exceedingly painful for an Assembly like this to listen to statements such as have just been made. I hope there may be in these statements some exaggeration. I believe, indeed, that they are somewhat exaggerated; but, at the same time, I believe—and I am sorry to say it—that the statements of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down represent more truly the situation in India than the statements we are accustomed to hear from the hon. Baronet opposite. My honest conviction is—and I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the truth—that many of the Indian people are suffering from extreme poverty and from an accumulation of grievances which prove the necessity of estab-
    114
    lishing in India some kind of local representative Government. There is every desire on the part of the people of this country to act in a manner which will best contribute to the welfare of the people of India; but, Sir, the Government of India is a bureaucracy, and in the nature of things a bureaucratic Government cannot be a perfect Government, and must of necessity generate certain vices. There was a time when it was impossible to govern India in any other way; but the time has now come when it is essential gradually to modify the system and methods of its government if we wish to retain the confidence of the people, and even to maintain our hold upon that country. I rejoiced to listen to-night to the noble speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. I do not think the Indian question has ever been raised to a higher level in this House, and in the generous sentiments expressed all friends of India will agree. But I fear that to some extent the right hon. Gentleman has read his own generous sentiments into the Bill, and I much doubt if it will be so interpreted by the ruling classes in India. All friends of India will welcome the suggestions of self-government put forward by the hon. Member for Evesham. But I share the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, as to whether any Governor General will have the courage to give effect to the elective principle in view of the official pressure all round him. We have only had one Governor General of recent years who has had the courage to set that opinion at defiance. We know that Lord Ripon introduced a system of Municipal Government into India—a most valuable instalment of Local Government—and we know also that he intended to give larger scope to the natives in the government of their own country. But there was never any Governor General more disliked by the official classes than Lord Ripon was; and I very much doubt if we shall again get a Governor General to act so disinterestedly for the good of the people of India. It was my fortune to travel through India soon after Lord Ripon left the country, and I was struck with the fact that the affection

    115
    of the people went out to him as it had never gone out to any Governor General in modern times. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian has said, that the language in which the Bill is couched is ambiguous and unsatisfactory. I cannot myself clearly see the elective principle in it. It may be there, but it is a very small germ indeed. I believe if we had another Lord Ripon the principle of election might be discovered. But if we have an ordinary Governor General I would take the view of the hon. Member for Oldham, that the principle would be non-existent. However, I am glad to think this Bill does mark a certain advance in our method of governing India. It will enable the financial state of India—its very unsatisfactory state—to be discussed once a year in face of the public, and that is a very great gain. It also contains one or two other points of very considerable value. The right to discuss the Budget and to put questions will, however, remain very much a dead letter except so far as it is exercised by elected Members, because clearly those who are nominated by the Government will not do anything that might be inconvenient to the Government. Therefore, unless there is grafted upon the Bill some genuine representation whereby independent criticism and judgment may be obtained the Bill will fail to satisfy Indian expectations. I agree with all that has been said by the hon. Member for Manchester of the value of the Indian National Congress as the mouthpiece of Indian feeling, and if the hon. Member for Evesham would now go back to India after his absence of twelve years he would form a different judgment from that which he has expressed to-night. A friend of my own, an Englishman, was elected to that Congress. The election took place in one of the largest villages in the interior, and the inhabitants were called together in the market place. My friend was put up for the position; he was moved and seconded before a large crowd of people; every one was invited to take part in the proceedings, and he was cordially and unanimously elected by the whole mass of the population.
    116
    And I believe this was the system adopted all over India in choosing the Members of the Indian National Congress. So-far from being elected at hole and corner meetings, they were, as a rule, elected by free voting—they were the freely chosen candidates of large masses of the population of India. And I hold that, at the present moment, there is no way of getting at native opinion more reliably than through the Indian National Congress. I am aware it does not perfectly represent the people. Everyone who knows India is aware that it is almost impossible to get any Representative Body which will be a mirror of the endless shades of caste, race, and religion in India, but the Indian National Congress approaches this more nearly than any institution which has existed in India for 100 years. I have read the proceedings with care and have been struck with the moderation and wisdom and statesmanlike ability with which their views have been placed before the public. You will find no Parliament in Europe in which the Debates have been conducted more creditably than in the Indian National Congress. The fact is, we ought to be proud of that Congress; it is our own creation; it reproduces the education we have given to India, and our own sense of liberty and justice. It is indeed an exact copy of ourselves in Indian form. We have transplanted our ideas into India, and we need not be astonished to see them grow up and bring forth fruit. I would say, further, that there is no population more thoroughly Conservative than the population of India. Both Hindoos Mahomedans are essentially Conservative and further removed from anarchy or revolutionary ideas than any other people in the world. And on this ground I think we can treat the Indian people with kindness and confidence, and extend to them a greater degree of power and responsibility than we could safely do to almost any other population in a similar state of civilisation. My belief is if we give representation to India we will be astonished to find how many defects exist in our administration. We will make discoveries which will

    117
    not be pleasing to our amour propre, we will discover for the first time that India is full of real grievances, and of some real wrongs as well, and we ought to let them have a legitimate outlet instead of sitting on the safety valve and risking an explosion. I agree entirely with the view that our Government in India is much too expensive. It is far too much arranged in the interests of European employés The land is exhausted by a wretched system of agriculture, in some degree the result of the revenue system we have laid down. I doubt that India is not getting richer but poorer, and that the peasantry are loaded up to the lips with debt. And all these grievances need to have an outlet, need to be discussed, faced and honestly dealt with in place of being hidden and veiled over with optimistic statements. I feel sure if we allow in India the full light of publicity to be thrown upon all the dark corners of our Government, we shall immensely improve that Government, immensely increase our hold on the country, and take a position 100 year hence very much stronger than it would otherwise be. I am told it is very difficult to devise any elective system. I admit you cannot have a complete system any way analogous to what exists in England or America. But why should we not allow a certain number of large cities, through their existing Municipalities, to elect a certain number of Member to the carious Legislatures? I think this would be an excellent thing, and I believe it would work perfectly well and form a basis which we could afterwards enlarge. I have no belief in the possibility of any system for India corresponding to universal suffrage; the country is utterly unfit for it; it must have an intermediate system resting on existing bodies and existing associations. I think we could not do better than adopt Lord Dufferin's suggestions. He recommended a tentative scheme of election. When a Viceroy, so essentially Conservative, recommends such a plan, surely the British Parliament will be willing to endorse it. I feel the enormous responsibility that rests upon the people of this country for the government of
    118
    India. It is too great and too undivided a responsibility, involving as it does the charge of one-fifth of the human race. A mistake made by our Government might cost the lives of millions of people, and we ought to be glad to devolve some of this responsibility on the people of the country them selves. The previous Under Secretary (Sir John Gorst) admitted that India was under despotic Government. No doubt it is far humaner than that of Russia for example, but it is equally destitute of any trace of representation. It is surely time that this country, which has set the example of Constitutional Government to all the countries of the world, should being to engraft its own institutions on India. Our system of Government there is only provisional; it cannot last; it must be modified sooner or later, and now when we are in a time of peace, there is a good opportunity. There is no fear of invasion by Russia at present; but if ever there should be, we shall have to rely on the loyalty of the natives of India, and then we should have to give in a hasty and ungracious manner those concessions which we may now grant considerately and graciously. I have the Government will give something like an assurance that they will take the generous view put upon the Bill by the right hon. Member for Midlothian, and should they do so, I believe there will be great satisfaction when the news reaches India to-morrow.
    MR. O. V. MORGAN: I am in the position of a distinguished Member of the House who said that a there months' visit to India only made him aware of his great ignorance of that country. I feel in that position after three visits. On the whole I like the Bill; I think it is a step in advance, and that is a very great deal, for in dealing with a country like India we have to be very cautious. The Bill increases the numbers and powers of the Members of the Legislative Councils; it gives them power to discuss the Budget and to put questions to what we may call the Ministers. I think that, perhaps, is as important as anything because at the

    119
    present time there are certain Indian newspapers which are never happy unless making false statements against the Government. The Government will now be able, in answer to questions, to admit or deny these statements, and the natives will get to know the real state of the case. I should have been glad to see some change in regard to the Indian Council in London. It is antiquated and its Members are antiquated, because a man who has left India far more than ten years is not in touch with the present state of affairs. I was there ten years ago, and was much struck last winter with the great change that had taken place during that period. I believe no country in the world has changed so much in ten years. The Members of the Council, though eminent men, retired from the Civil Service long since, and there is no Representative of Indian opinion, or even of commerce, on the Council, and that may be the reason why the Government of India has been so slow in the construction of railways. There is great diversity of opinion among the natives as to Representative Government. The Hindoos think it should be on an educational basis; the commercial interest think it should be on an Income Tax franchise; while the Mahomedans, who form one-third of the whole population, are not in favour of it at all. Their reasons are that they are not so well educated as the Hindoos, haying neglected their opportunities, though they are now sending their sons to school, and that they are outnumbered by the Hindoos. The Parsees are about equally divided on the point. I had a most interesting conversation with a man in Bombay, who maybe considered the only true representative of the working classes. He was formerly an operative, but through his education became the spokesman of his class, and publishes a newspaper in their interest. In reply to my questions he said he hated the National Congress, as it was a Brahmin movement. I said it was rather a Bengalee Baboo movement. He replied that the Bengalee Baboos were the enemies of the working classes as much as the Brahmins. I agree generally with the remarks of the hon. Member for Flint-
    120
    shire (Mr. S. Smith), though I do not think there is so much poverty and suffering in India as he has depicted; the agricultural population were last year able to export large quantities of their produce at remunerative prices. There are many difficulties in the way of giving Representative Government to India, but I am glad the attempt is going to be made in a small way. It is wise to introduce the representative principle, because the educated classes are largely increasing in number, many are educated in England and go back to India with English ideas, and they would become more English still if they were admitted to the friendship of the resident English people. I was sorry to see the absolute indifference with which they were treated by the English people. Perhaps this change in the form of Government will bring the two classes nearer to each other. I was pleased with the speech of the right hon. Member for Midlothian, and I hope the Government will give give us some further assurance as to their intentions. If the Government give an answer that is at all satisfactory, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. CURZON: I think the House will agree that we have now arrived at the period when this Debate may well close. I do not think the Government has any cause to be dissatisfied with the course the Debate has taken. We have had a number of interesting and valuable speeches from hon. Members who are fully qualified, by experience or residence in India, to deal with these questions. I was glad, Sir, to observe in all these speeches that the importance of this Bill has been recognised; and, in fact, there has been no attempt on either side of the House to underrate it. The hon. Member for Oldham went so far as to say it was the most important Bill which had been introduced since the Government of India was taken over by the Crown. I was further interested to observe that in the various speeches no serious criticism—certainly no criticism of a hostile character—has been directed

    121
    against the specific reforms and changes introduced by this Bill. The concession of the right of financial criticism, of the right of asking questions, and, finally, the addition to the Members of the Supreme and Provincial Councils, have all met with the approbation of this House. I do not think I have heard a single remark to the contrary. I am, therefore, relieved from the necessity of making another speech on the general provisions of the Bill, and it will only be my duty to make a few observations in reply to particular remarks or queries that have fallen from hon. Members in the course of the Debate. I do not think, Sir, it will be necessary to follow with any great minuteness the hon. Member for North Manchester, who moved the Amendment. He indulged in many interesting and picturesque observations about the National Congress of India, whose meetings he is more fortunate than my self in having attended. I do not think I am called upon to follow the hon. Gentleman through the whole of his speech, but I am bound to notice one statement, for he was guilty of a serious misrepresentation when he said that the system of nomination, as applied to the various Councils in India, is at the present moment a fraud. I am convinced that if he had a wider experience of India he would not have made that statement. There are hon. Gentlemen in this House—at least, two hon. Members—who have filled the position of Governors in India, and I am certain that they can bear me out in the remark that the object of every Governor in India is as far as possible to persuade, and to induce, representatives of even advanced political opinion to join those Councils. [Sir R. TEMPLE: Hear, hear!] That, undoubtedly, was the case with the hon. Baronet who cheers me, and equally so it was the case with the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General when he was a Governor in India. And if the hon. Member applies his remarks to the present time, I would like to ask him whether in his knowledge of India he has never heard the names of Peeri Mukuji or Cristodas Pal? These are
    122
    names, as the hon. Baronet knows, of very prominent representatives of the advanced section of public opinion in India, and the gentlemen who bear these names were lately upon the Council of the Governor General. In the face of these facts, I am certain that the hon. Member will see that he was, at any rate, misinformed. Then the hon. Member complains of what he calls the inadequate addition that is proposed to the Legislative Councils, and he spoke of the addition proposed by this Bill—an addition both to the minimum and the maximum number of Members—as a modest and inadequate addition. It is the case that Lord Dufferin, whose views have been freely quoted in the course of this Debate, did not himself think that an addition to the numerical strength of the Supreme Council was required; and the problem that you have to face in India is this—not that you have a number of men who are anxious and willing to join the Councils, but that there is a difficulty in obtaining men with both the qualifications of willingness and intelligence who will surrender that portion of their time that is required for the important business of these Councils. I doubt very much whether the hon. Member has a clear idea of the business of the Supreme Legislative Council in India. It is fortunately free from the system that prevails in this House. There is no Queen's Speech or programme of legislation at the beginning of each year. Contrary to the principle that we adopt, the Legislative Council only legislates when legislation is required, and that does not happen invariably, as Members might be led to suppose from the practice of this House. What is the process of legislation in the Council of the Viceroy? Before a measure is ever introduced into the Council—a proposal which very likely relates to some particular part or Province of India—it is referred to the Government of that Presidency or Province, and inquiries of a most wide and comprehensive character are made by competent persons. The Bill is then introduced into the Council and read a second time, and next passes to a Select Committee of experts, who are

    123
    really responsible for the final form in which it before the Council. The hon. Member should further remember that the Legislative Council of the Viceroy does not, as does this Parliament, sit for six, seven, or eight months in the year. Legislation is only carried on during the Calcutta season. I think the hon. Member will see, therefore, that there is less need for a large addition to the numbers or a larger attendance than he at first supposed. But if he is the unwilling to accept my words on the subject I should like to quote to him the opinion of Lord Northbrook on this question of the number of Members. Lord Northbrook spoke as follows in another place:—
    "The National Congress and others have recommended a much larger extension of the numbers of the Legislative Councils. I believe myself that the Bill (that is our Bill) goes far enough in that direction. I believe there would be a great difficulty in making any much larger increase in the number of the Legislative Council of the Viceroy, and a substantial increase has been made in the Local Councils. Therefore I think the Bill provides fully for all present needs in respect of the increase of Members."
    I do not think I need pursue the subject further, and I will come now to the speech—if I may venture to say so, the wise and weighty speech—with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) favoured the House at an earlier period of the evening. The immediate effect of that speech was to eliminate the element of controversy, to a very great extent, from our Debate this evening, and to diffuse a spirit of harmony over these proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman complained, at the outset of his speech, that the language of this Bill was ambiguous, but I was glad to find as he proceeded that the ambiguity was one from which he did not himself draw conclusions that were hostile to the Bill or its framers. I entirely endorse, speaking on behalf of the Government, that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he said that it is not for us, for this House, to determine a plan or to devise the Machinery, but that the means of initiation must be left in the hands of the Government of India. A subsequent speaker, the hon.
    124

    Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Keay), has argued that the matter should be settled by this House, but I prefer the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian oh that subject. It is the object of the provisions that have been introduced into this Bill, and of that particular sub-section of Clause 1 which I read to the House and which has been the subject of so much discussion, to leave, the initiative to the Viceroy of India, subject to the absent of the Secretary of State, and it will be for him to frame the conditions under which these future nominations are made Hon. Members have more than once asked to-night whether the words of the clause are to be taken as merely complimentary words, and the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, of whom I have previously spoken, said that he was prepared to stake his political reputation that this clause would be a dead letter. I am sorry to say for the sake of the hon. Gentleman that I think his political reputation stands in very great peril. Undoubtedly the words of that clause were designedly introduced by the Government, with a clear apprehension of their meaning. I do not think there was any want of clearness in the terms in which I expressed the possible application of that clause at an earlier period of the evening. I endeavoured to give hon. Members to understand that it has been designed to give perfect latitude to the Viceroy in this matter, and that it will admit of the introduction of the principle of representation in India, whether the system be election or selection, or delegation, or whatever the precise method may be that recommends itself to the Government of the Viceroy. I think that it was a very important contribution to this Debate when the Member for Midlothian speaking with a full knowledge of the enormous responsibility of Indian Government, said that the question of degree, and the manner in which this principle may be carried out, are matters not for the consideration of this House, but primarily for the consideration of the Government of India. I think it would be in the highest degree unwise if this House were to

    125
    endeavour to exercise pressure in a matter the handling of which must necessarily be left to those who are better informed than our selves. I will not further detain the House, and, will only say, in conclusion, that I entirely accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the objects with which this Bill is introduced. They are undoubtedly to enlist in the service of the Government of India what I think he described as the upright sentiment and the enlightened opinion of native society, and if this Bill is discussed with as little delay as possible, and passed into law, I am certain that it will be attended with beneficial results.
    MR. PICTON: There is, I think, considerable excuse for the ignorant and inexpert Members of this House to speak on this subject, for the Government of India has been removed from the immediate control of the East India Company to that of the Imperial Government, in which the House of Commons plays a conspicuous part. It is admitted that all Members of Parliament are responsible for the Government of India, and though we may not, perhaps, have a knowledge of all the various languages or of the various modes of Government in the various Provinces, yet we hold certain general principles which we believe should be applied to this Dependency, and we claim the right to express our opinions. In the course of his argument in moving this Bill the right hon. Gentleman said he did not exclude the possibility of the introduction of the principle of election or selection of the Council of the Governor General and of the various Provincial Councils. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Manchester who moved the Amendment said that unless the Bill recognised the principle of election it would not be effective. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian afterwards spoke and said in words of gravity and wisdom, which were recognised as much on this side of the House as they were on the opposite side, that there was not much difference of opinion between them; but the Under Secretary of State for India in the speech which he has just delivered,
    126
    has, I think, gone rather too far in his interpretation of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India said that he endorsed entirely the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, that it was not for this House—I do not profess to quote the words exactly—to dictate in detail the measures that ought to be adopted. Of course we all admit that, but I understood—I hope I am not Wrong—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian to lay down the principle that it was for this House to choose the general principles on which the Government of India was to be carried out. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India—if he will allow me to say so—is as yet a young man, and it is a great distinction for him at his early age to occupy the high position he does and I congratulate him upon it, but he has not been quite so long a follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian as I have been, as to be as well-qualified to interpret what is meant by him. I am only sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place at this moment. I quite believe the right hon. Gentleman meant, when he spoke, that it was for this House, for the Imperial Government of this. Country to lay down the general principles of equity, under which the Government of the Indian Dependency was to be carried on; and at the same time he admitted—and we all follow him in that—that so far as matters of detail are concerned the Governor General and all the Governors of particular towns must be held responsible for the mode in which these general principles are to be applied. If both sides of the House agree upon this, of course there is no need going to Division. But we have not been told precisely by the Under Secretary of State for India that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian was right in his interpretation of his speech. He has not told us that what was meant in Sub-section 4 of Section 1 of the Bill is the gradual introduction of the elective principle into the nominations for the various Councils that

    127
    govern the great Dependency of India. If he had said that I do not believe the hon. Member for North Manchester would go to a Division. If I were in his place, unless the Government more distinctly acknowledged that the elective principle must be introduced, and at once, in the selection of Members of the Council of the Governor General and of the other Governors of the Provinces, I should certainly go to a Division. No one on this side of the House thinks that India is prepared for Home Rule in the sense that Ireland has been prepared for Home Rule, but although we believe that India may not be prepared for a complete Home Rule measure, yet we think that India is prepared for a tentative, gradual, and very moderate introduction of the electoral principle and that is all that we ask. Surely, if the Marquess of Dufferin thought that the Government ought to have the means of controlling and neutralising the effect of the moral mischief which accrued from holding up English rule to hatred and contempt, we ought to have some men brought in who are elected by their fellow countrymen. I do not say they ought to dominate or control the action of the Government—very far from it. All I say is that they ought to be able to introduce some elected Members who would be able to communicate to the Government freely the aspirations and feeling of those who had elected them. The Members of all Governments, Liberal as well as Conservative, have spoken in a disparaging manner of the natives of India. I remember some years ago I had to negotiate with a Member of the Liberal Government as to the candidature for a particular constituency, the main Members of which had nominated an Indian gentleman. This Liberal Member of a Liberal Government said: "Do not have that nigger." Well, that was in anticipation of the words of a certain Member of the present Government, who said something about a black man; so that both sides are pretty much tarred with the same brush. Well, I think that something is necessary to bring about a closer and more fraternal sympathy between the subjects of the
    128
    Empire in India and the subjects of the Empire at home. You cannot neglect the fact that the educated natives of India have been studying our constitutional history, that they have been reading the history of the way in which our forefathers wrenched something like liberty and equality from their former tyrants, and they wish to emulate the principles and the aspirations, though not the methods—they do not believe the methods are necessary—of our forefathers. Well, I think we ought to make some allowance for the extension of British culture to India. We leave to the future the gradual development of the elective principle; we would be contented with the most modest introduction of it at the present time.
    MR. SCHWANN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether or not he will distinctly state to the House if it is intended by Subsection 4 of Clause 1 to apply the electoral principle in India? If it is so intended then I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend is in charge of this Bill, and I trust that it will be left to him to answer the question.
    MR. CURZON: I would say, in answer to the question of the hon. Member, that I do not know that I can add anything to what I have already stated in this House upon the subject. The initiative is left to the Viceroy of India, and it would be an unfortunate thing for the Government or for the House to transfer that initiative to itself.
    DR. TANNER: As one who has listened to this Debate, and who cannot pretend in any sense to have been convinced by what has been said in favour of the Bill, I must express my adhesion to the views enunciated by the right hon. Member for Midlothian—that this clause is both ambiguous and misleading. It is a proposal to place additional power and further emoluments in the hands of the bureaucracy of India. The result of such instalment of so-called representation would be so meagre that it would not be worth having. The subjects of the Queen in India have always been treated as sub-

    129
    jects to be trodden under foot. You have only to go to any regimental affair in India to hear them spoken of, not as "Indians" or "natives," but as "niggers." The noble Lord who is at the head of the Government has himself called them "worse than Hottentots." I hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the question, and that those who have had the opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to it will also endorse them by going into the Division Lobby. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham said "Do not give political power to the Hindoos;" but the hon. Baronet, like others who have held positions of trust in India, have always stood by their order and by the bureaucracy. The hon. Baronet also spoke of the mute masses of the people of India, but I would like to ask whether they have not had good reason to be mute, when they are subject to periodical starvation and periodical deprivation? I never had an opportunity of visiting the coral strands of India, nor Greenland's icy mountains but I have always understood that the headmen of the villages in India are peculiarly under official power, and that they are coming more and more in contact with English officials in India. They like to mix with the English snobocracy, and to rub skirts with officials, and by that means they are led by the nose. These are matters which are really not for the welfare of the people of India, and are not intended to raise the character of the people of India. I am convinced that this Bill will not confer upon the Indian people any benefit, as it is not intended to carry out the principle of representation, and, accordingly, I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
    MR. S. HOARE: The House has had the advantage of listening to several Members who have had the good Fortune to visit India; and as one who has likewise visited that country, I should like, if the House will bear with me for a few moments, to say a few words. It was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Mem-
    130
    ber for Flint (Mr. Samuel Smith), that India is growing poorer every day. Sir, I had hoped that having made that statement the hon. Member would bear it out with some statistics and some facts, knowing as I do how thoroughly well able he is to marshal facts and figures and to explain them to the House. The hon. Gentleman, however, gave us nothing of the kind. Now, Sir, though I cannot claim to be an authority, I may say that during my visit to India I consulted many native authorities, and formed some views which may possibly be as accurate as those of hon. Gentlemen opposite. One view which I formed is this: that India, so far from growing poorer is growing richer, and its trade is becoming larger, and growing almost daily. The railways of India have been increasing at the rate of 1,000 miles a year. Perhaps it may be said that these do not tend to the improvement of the wealth of India. Well, Sir, when twelve months ago I received the Viceroy of India in the middle of the central provinces, and he opened the line of railway that is some 850 miles in length, the great portion of that railway was through uninhabited jungle, where there was no wealth whatever, and yet during the present six months that railway is earning a profit sufficient to pay its guaranteed interest on £7,000,000. Surely that must mean that there is some increase of wealth in that district. Then, Sir, there are the discoveries of coal. I stood a year ago on ground where a few years previously there was no sign of coal, but where now there is a substantial coal-mining industry. The financial position of India is, of course, difficult, owing to the great depreciation of silver, but I cannot allow that this is owing to the method of English rule, or that the progress of India has not been vast during the last 20 years. With reference to the point of establishing some kind of electoral system, I realise the great difficulties attaching to the institution for the carrying out of such a system. I asked the opinion of numbers of my countrymen in India on the subject, and I attach great weight to what they said. When the time comes we shall be glad to place some further power in

    131
    the hands of the people of India, but it is somewhat premature to speak of introducing the electoral system. Sir, I hope the statement will not be repeated that India is not progressive, because it is progressing in every part so far as its material wealth is concerned.
    MR. SCHWANN: On the whole, though I have not had an altogether satisfactory pledge from the Government, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [Lords].—(No. 228.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir E. WEBSTER,): I beg, Sir, to move that this Bill be now read a second time. There has been a universal expression of opinion in favour of the measure which was read a second time last year, and which has been most carefully considered by Lord Herschell and by all the lawyers in the House of Lords, and which meets with their approval.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  MILITARY LANDS CONSOLIDATION BILL.—(No. 184.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE].
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. MORTON: I understood the Government was willing
    132
    to assent to the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee, and I should like to have an assurance on that point, as otherwise I do not think it would be right to allow a Bill of this kind to go through the House without some debate and without any explanation. This Bill deals with a question upon which I think we ought not to rush to a decision lest we should afterwards find, as we have found in the Ranges Act, that there is interference with the rights of people for whom no redress is provided. The Bill, I understand, gives the Government power to acquire rights over common land by lease or otherwise, and it does not appear to me, so far as I can understand the clauses, that commoners' rights are properly safeguarded. Now that the Financial Secretary has returned to his place, I put the question to him; is it intended to send this Bill to a Select Committee or a Hybrid Committee in order that the rights of persons interested in common lands may be inquired into and protected?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK,): I regret that I should have been absent for I moment. It is the intention, and a believe that has already been announced by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) that this Bill shall be referred to a Select Committee where the clauses will be fully investigated in a manner satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.
    DR. TANNER: It is clearly understood then, that this Bill goes before a Select Committee. I know that many Members on this side of the House entertain objections to the Bill, but they are not present, because they assumed that this Bill, standing No. 11 on list for the day, would not be reached before 12 o'clock. Perhaps there will be less objection if the Bill is threshed out before a Committee and subsequently comes before us. I know that questions of commoners' rights arise, and notably in connection with the establishment of a rifle range in the New Forest. But I have neither power of

    133
    voice or the necessary information to discuss the Bill now, but I sincerely hope that proper means will be taken to allay apprehensions I know have arisen, and I think it is a questionable proceeding to attempt to carry this stage of the Bill under these peculiar circumstances, when it would not have been reached but for the dropping of intervening Orders of the Day.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (&c.): I understand that the Bill includes a proposal to take away a large portion of commoners' rights in the New Forest, and I know that in this many Members take an interest, but they had no reason to expect the Bill would be taken and have left the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is anxious to speak on the subject, and it is a question of such public importance that the Bill should not pass without discussion. I know there is a question arises as to the abolition of public rights of way also. Would the Government be prepared to refer the Bill to a Commons Committee empowered to make the usual local inquiry under the Commons Act at the public expense? To put myself in order and to enable the hon. Gentleman to reply, I move the adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
    MR. BRODRICK: I hardly think it is necessary for the hon. Member to insist on that Motion. With regard to the commons part of the subject, I may mention that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) who has specially interested himself in this subject expressed himself as perfectly willing that the Bill should go before a Committee.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What kind of Committee?
    MR. BRODRICK: An ordinary Select Committee of the House, and I think that inquiry would satisfy hon. Gentlemen for there is nothing in the
    134
    Bill calling for special local inquiry. In regard to the New Forest there is a local inquiry proceeding, and upon this a report will be made. This is not dealt with in the Bill. The object of the Bill is simply to consolidate existing Acts, and of course the Committee upstairs will have the opportunity of going into details which a Committee of the whole House would not have. We do not propose by the Bill to reopen all the questions connected with commons; it is simply a consolidation Bill which a Committee upstairs will be eminently qualified to deal with. I think there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of such a course, and I hope the hon. Member will not press his Motion.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope the hon. Member will not proceed with his Motion for adjournment. I have carefully examined the Bill in the interests of commoners, and I am satisfied that it will be in the interest of commoners that the Bill should pass into law. It is not merely a consolidation Bill for it does remove a very serious difficulty arising out of the Ranges Act passed last year. In reference to this I had the honour of introducing a deputation to the Secretary for War, and the right hon. Gentleman has very fairly met the demand made by the deputation. There was one point I referred to the other night in connection with the New Forest range. Proceedings in reference to that range have been commenced under the Act of last year, and I suggested that an Amendment should be introduced providing that this also should be dealt with under a Provisional Order as is provided in the Bill for future proceedings. Subject to this, I think the Bill is satisfactory and may well be allowed to be referred to a Committee.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: I do not think my hon. Friend's Motion is unreasonable under the circumstances. This measure comes on unexpectedly. It was not expected that the Debate on the Indian Councils Bill would terminate so early as that the Government, by passing over other

    135
    measures, would reach this Bill. Of course I should not be in order if on this Motion I attempted to discuss the Military Lands Consolidation Bill, nor can I say I am well acquainted with its contents, but I may observe that while the Financial Secretary describes it merely as a Consolidation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman on this side (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who is well acquainted with the measure, says it is not merely a Consolidation Bill. It appears it does include an alteration in the law. There is a difference of opinion, and there should be a full statement of the contents and discussion if necessary before we dispose of the Second Reading. The short time at our disposal does not permit of a full examination of this Bill of 30 clauses, and I think an adjournment now is only reasonable.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I may be allowed to point out the fact that there is one clause in the Bill, the 25th, excluding the New Forest from the scope of the Bill, and I have reason to know from local knowledge that local opinion is in favour of the Bill.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to be able to advise my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, but first I should like to know whether the Bill is to be referred to a Committee of seven Members, or whether it will simply go before the usual Select Committee of four Members? If the Bill goes before a Hybrid Committee with an assurance that all interests will be considered, perhaps we might allow the Second Reading to be taken now. The New Forest people may be protected, but there are other commoners who require protection.
    MR. FLYNN: I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Morton). There are clauses which, as applied to Ireland, require very serious consideration. There are powers to be given to the War Office over foreshores and tidal waters adjacent, and there have been very serious complaints as to the method of carrying on torpedo practice. There is a contention now going on between the War Office and the Har-
    136
    bour Authorities as to the firing in Cork Harbour.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that it is a Motion for Adjournment which is before the House.
    MR. FLYNN: The fact that I am precluded from going into the merits of the Bill is in itself an argument for Adjournment. The Bill contains much controversial matter which cannot be disposed of to-night, and if debated at all it must occupy a couple of hours.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I hope the Motion will be accepted. I know that the hon. Member for Northampton desires to speak on the Bill, and naturally he did not expect that the Orders of the Day would be disposed of in a few minutes that this Bill might be reached. The hon. Member for Hants (Mr. Jeffreys) has spoken of the New Forest, but the district is not within his constituency, and I should be more satisfied if the Member representing them expressed the opinion of the commoners there. In these 30 clauses questions arise that concern the whole country from Scotland to the New Forest, and I do not think we ought to be asked to dispose of the Second Reading in this hurried and unexpected manner.
    MR. BRODRICK: May I be allowed to explain that the War Office have nothing to gain by pressing the Bill forward? Every power the Bill contains the War Office already have; nothing in the Bill extends those powers, and whatever change is proposed is in the direction of a limitation of the power of the War Office. Should the House decline to proceed with the Bill, the position will be that the War Office will have more extended powers than they would have in the future if this Bill were passed. So far as the Government are concerned, they have no reason to press the Bill. Our desire is to meet objections raised by hon. Members on the other side to the Ranges Act passed last year. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) admits that those objections are met, and I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be allowed to go to the Committee.
    DR. TANNER: The hon. Gentleman must have raison de quoi—he should have told us all about it at the commencement of the Debate. Have we not often found the Government trying to smuggle a Bill through late at night? The Bill applies to Ireland, and it must be debated if there are objections to it. I think the Government should be satisfied with the progress they have made with their business to-night, and I hope they will not allow their desire to get the better of their good sense.
    MR. WALLACE: I hope the Debate will not expire in this uninteresting manner. I have listened to the reduplicated explanations of the Financial Secretary, and, accepting them in the spirit in which they are offered, I cannot say they carry conviction to my mind. They did not seem consistent with themselves or calculated to promote the object he professedly has in view. I understand that the last argument of the hon. Gentleman was directed to this point; that if he lost on a Division his Department would be gainers. Well, it seems to me that on the face of it that is paradoxical and to a certain extent unintelligible. I cannot see if it is to the interest of the Department he represents to lose a Division why he should persist in persuasion against proceeding to a Division. That the Bill should be hurried on in itself excites suspicion. Many hon. Members interested have left the House under the impression the Bill would not be taken, and I am not free to assume that were they present they would be influenced in favour of the Bill by the considerations the hon. Gentleman has advanced. If the hon. Gentleman had been officially convinced he would have put his views in a way more consistent with his first argument.
    (11.57.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 63.—(Div. List, No. 54.)
    (12.10.) Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 140.—(Div. List, No. 55.)
    (12.20.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR claimed, "That the Original Question be now put.
    MR. SEXTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask you if the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in taking that course?
    MR. SPEAKER: There is no necessity for a further Motion, the Division already taken lead up to a decision on the Main Question.
    MR. SEXTON: What I wish to ask, Sir, is whether the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman is superfluous, whether the putting of the Main Question follows on the Original Motion for the Closure?
    MR. SPEAKER: There can be no further debate on the Main Question. The right hon. Gentleman having moved that the Question be now put, and that being carried applies to the Original Motion. The proceeding is in order. I am acting under the Standing Order of the House.
    (12.20.) Original Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a second time.
    The House divided:—Ayes 153; Noes 44.—(Div. List, No. 56.)
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee." (Mr. Brodrick.)
    COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to speak upon that Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: Further proceedings stand over if objection is taken.
    It being after Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  SHORT TITLES BILL [Lords]. (No. 227.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  SAVINGS BANKS ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 210.)
  Order for Second Reading road, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (COMPENSATION APPEALS).
  Return ordered—
  "Of all Appeals to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury under the Compensation Clauses of 'The Local Government 1888,' in consequence of County Councils having refused (a) to grant, (b) to assess the amount of Compensation (as in the case of the Treasurer of Middlesex) to transferred and other Officers who have suffered loss by the operation of the Act, giving in such Return (1) the annual amount of alleged loss and length of service; (2) the amounts of Compensation asked; (3) the result of the Appeals; (4) the reasons for the Grants or the Refusals."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)

  ARMY (OFFICERS' SERVICE).
  Address for—
  "Return showing the length of service (from date of first commission) of Lieutenants promoted to Captains, Captains promoted to Majors, and Majors promoted to Lieutenant Colonels, in each year respectively for 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891, in the following British services, namely, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Cavalry, and Infantry of the Line."—(Mr. King.)

  POOR LAW (INDOOR AND OUTDOOR RELIEF) (IRELAND).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing, in respect of each Union in Ireland, the number of persons of each sex of 65 years of age and upwards, and the number under 65 years of age who had attained 16 years of age, and the number of children under 16 years of age, in receipt from the Boards of Guardians of Indoor Relief and Outdoor Relief respectively on the 1st day of January, 1892, and at any time during the twelve months ended at Lady Day, 1892:
  "In order to avoid duplicate recokonings, persons relieved during the twelve months to be entered in the Return according to their ages when they were last relieved during the twelve months, and as Indoor and Outdoor Paupers according as they received Indoor or
  140
  Outdo or Relief last during the twelve months non-resident paupers to be included only in the Returns of the unions to which they were chargeable."—(Mr. Mahony.)

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (ASSIZES)
  Address for—
  "Return of the time occupied by the Judges of the High Court in holding Courts at the Assizes held in the year 1891 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 282, of Session 1891.)"—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

  RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS (SITTINGS).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the number of the days on which the Railway Commissioners held Sittings in the years 1889, 1890, and 1891."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler).

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (NAVY VOTES).
  Paper [presented 25th March] to be printed. [No. 127.]
  GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
  Accounts presented,—of Moneys received and disposed of, and of Contracts for the grant of deferred Life Annuities and for payments on death, made during the year ended 31st December 1891 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
  Copy presented,—of Annual Accounts of the Ordnance Factories for the year 1890–91 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (BEHAR CORRESPONDENCE).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 8th March; Mr. Herbert Knatchbull-Hugessen]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.