Commons Sitting of 20 September 1893

QUESTIONS.

  LOCAL TAXATION IN URBAN DISTRICTS.
  MR. H. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a vast mass of evidence upon the incidence of local taxation in urban districts, together with various plans for its readjustment, is contained in the Reports of the Select Committee on Town Holdings, 1886–91; whether he is aware that the London County Council have adopted and recommended several plans for making the owners of ground values contribute towards the rates levied for permanent expenditure upon street improvements, open spaces, main drainage, and other like objects; and whether the Government will consider the expediency of appointing a small Commission, similar to that now appointed for the unification of the County and City of London, with instructions to consider and report what is the best way of making the owners of ground values contribute their fair share towards local taxation? I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, according to the Reports of the Local Government Board, urban rates have increased and are increasing at an enormous ratio year by year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, that the subject referred to in the hon. Member's question was well worthy of consideration, but he was not able to make any statement upon the subject at present.

  THE FEVER HOSPITAL AT HOUNSLOW.
  MR. J. BURNS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, considering the allegations that are being made in the Press about the unsanitary condition, overcrowding, and general maladministration of the Fever Hospital at Hounslow,
  1714
  the Local Government Board will at once institute an inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,)said, the Local Government Board had brought under their attention the allegations which appeared in the Press with respect to the sanitary condition and administration of the hospital at Hounslow belonging to the Heston and Isleworth Local Board; and on the 8th instant the Board addressed a letter to the Local Authority asking for their observations on these allegations, and a Report by the Medical Officer of Health giving full information as to the facts with regard to the condition of the hospital, the number of patients admitted, and the officers and servants of the hospital. The Board have not, however, received any reply to that communication, and they have arranged for a Medical Inspector at once to visit the hospital for the purpose of ascertaining the facts.
  MR. J. BURNS: May I supplement my question by asking whether the reason why no reply has been received from the Local Board is that, notwithstanding the serious condition of things, the Local Board have adjourned for their holidays, leaving illness, infection, and death behind them?
  SIR W. FOSTER: I have no information as to the adjournment of the Local Board for the holidays; but, even if that were so, it would make no difference to the action of the Local Board in securing a prompt remedy for any unsatisfactory conditions connected with the hospital in question.

  MAGISTRATES IN IRELAND.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of licensed victuallers who have been appointed to hold the Commission of the Peace in boroughs in Ireland since the present Government came into Office?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone his question.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will, at the same time, say how many such Magistrates were on the Commission

  1715
  before the present Government came into Office?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will endeavour to do that.

  PROSECUTIONS IN SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the prosecutions which had been instituted in Sligo had been undertaken at the instance of the Government?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I may say that instructions were yesterday sent that the whole proceedings should be at least postponed for a certain time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.

  THE COAL STRIKE RIOTS.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to matters connected with the recent disturbances which had occurred in various parts of the country, arising out of the labour troubles which were prevailing at the present time. At the outset he desired to say that he did not in any way desire to convert this into a Party question, or to make any attack whatever upon the Home Secretary, or upon any Member of the Government. It would be his duty, in the few remarks he had to offer, to deal with matters for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, and duties for which provision was made by the Votes contained in the Bill; but he was happy to think that matters as grave as those to which he now desired to call attention could be approached without being in any way associated with Party controversy. He was bound to say that if it was his desire, which certainly it was not, to introduce any Party element, he did not think, from the recollection he had of successive Administrations, extending over a period of 30 years, that it would be in the archives of the Home Office he would seek to furbish up weapons for attack. However any other hon. Members might consider themselves justified in making a special attack upon a public servant on account of his discharge of a bounden duty,
  1716
  he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he should approach the matter in no Party sense. When this subject engaged the attention of the House for a few brief moments the other day, the hon. Member for Haggerston expressed an opinion that in the information he (Mr. Lowther) had put before the House he had been misled, and that the circumstances to which he had referred had been greatly exaggerated in the public prints. If that had been the case, or if he felt that the dangers of the situation had passed away, he would be far from any desire to recur to these evils, and gladly would he have allowed this humiliating chapter of contemporary history to remain untouched, and he would not again have obtruded these matters on the attention of the House. But he was sorry to say, as the result of inquiry and local information vouchsafed to him, not only was the original information published in the newspapers not exaggerated, but, unfortunately, it largely understated the gravity of the situation; and in his remarks he had erred in largely understating, rather than overstating, what had been actually proved to have occurred. The condition of affairs which prevailed in different parts of the country during the last month had been most discreditable—a. condition of affairs that he thought deserved the most anxious attention of Parliament. The condition of many districts was that of absolute anarchy. Mobs, numbering in many instances thousands of men, had paraded large areas of the mining districts of the country, committing in some cases minor outrages, and in other cases, unfortunately, proceeding to the commission of offences of a graver character—brutal assaults on honest labouring men discharging their inalienable right to earn their daily bread; and also these mobs had been guilty of outrages on other inoffensive persons, had destroyed a vast amount of property, had committed arson, and other crimes. He was glad to say that, so far as the greater part of the country was concerned, where these disturbances had occurred the Local Authorities appeared to have been equal to the situation. Additional police had in many instances been drawn into the disturbed neighbourhood, and troops had been summoned to be in readiness if required in

  1717
  case the emergency should become more acute. In the mining districts of South Wales special precautions taken in advance had the desired effect, and rioting which began to display itself was suppressed, and further extension of the evil avoided. Happily, in Wales, the working men who were prepared to stand by their liberties were sufficiently numerous to render a very good account of themselves, and every lover of liberty must have rejoiced to hear that in Ebbw Vale the lawless scoundrels who contemplated attack received a well-merited thrashing. Unfortunately, other districts were not able to supply a sufficient number of independent men to vindicate their personal liberties; and that task devolved, as in all civilised communities it should, on those charged with the duty on the part of the Crown of preserving the public peace. In one district especially he regretted to say there was a backwardness in taking active precautions, and that was in the West Riding of Yorkshire. There a state of affairs prevailed which he should have thought would have aroused the authorities to bestir themselves to the discharge of their duty for the prevention of the extension of disturbances. He found that on Monday, 4th September—he would not weary the House with details—the practice was adopted which had frequently been followed in other districts similarly affected, of a large mass of men being gathered together from different colliery villages, and these marched, gathering in numbers on their way, to some appointed centre, and in the case he was about to refer to the march was directed to Garforth, in the heart of the colliery district. Arrived there the mob proceeded to the pit's mouth, and demanded to know whether any men were at work—in other words, whether any free-born subject of the British Crown was exercising his inalienable right to earn his daily bread in a legal manner he thought fit. Unfortunately, the men at Garforth were not so situated as the men at Ebbw Vale. They were not in sufficient strength to administer a well-deserved thrashing to those who interfered with them, and he regretted to have to say that, owing to intimidation, the persons in charge of the mine had to give assurance that employment should be suspended. As a matter of fact, he believed that the only men in the
  1718
  pit were those engaged in the necessary work in connection with keeping down the water in the pit. But the leaders of this lawless mob were not satisfied, and insisted upon going down the pit, where they had no business. They intimidated those in charge to let them down to satisfy themselves that their lawless behest was obeyed. Such a matter deserved, he thought, the anxious consideration of the House of Commons. This was not all. After this proceeding, a meeting was held close by. A person was called to the chair, and, not to weary the House with details, the usual resolutions were passed, and the usual talk was indulged in. The men then proceeded to find out whether there were any so-called "black sheep" in the neighbourhood of the colliery—"black sheep" being a word locally used, as in other places "blacklegs," to describe those honest working men who exercised their personal liberty and declined to be dictated to as to when they should work. Men found to be working in the pits were roughly handled, in many instances were brought out into the crowd, and, under threat of personal violence, compelled to sign undertakings not to work again. Now, as to the popular feeling in the neighbourhoods concerned, which the House had been told by some who professed to speak for the miners was opposed to violent tactics, he regretted to say that such a notion must be dismissed as an idle tale, as evidence of which he might mention that amongst the most violent were women with babies in their arms, denouncing the so-called "black sheep." On Monday, the 4th September, a dangerous condition of affairs evidently prevailed in the West Hiding. What were the authorities doing to prevent a. recurrence of evils which occurred at the outset of the disturbances, between the Monday at midday and subsequent days, when affairs assumed greater gravity? As far as he could make out, the Chief Constable of the West Riding or those responsible took one step, and one step only—namely, to withdraw 25 per cent. of the police force of the West Riding and lend them to the police authorities at Doncaster to preserve order in connection with Doncaster races. But the Chief Constable of the West Riding was primarily responsible for order in his own district; and if, according to custom, he

  1719
  had to furnish assistance to the Don-caster police, it was his duty to obtain, in like manner, assistance from other police forces to enable him to do his duty in preserving order. The only step, however, that the Chief Constable of the West Riding took was, not merely not to strengthen his force, but to send away to Doncaster 269 members of his force of 1,080. It was only fair to mention that the Chief Constable was away upon holiday at the time. Everybody, unless he be a Member of Parliament or an officer of the House of Commons, was fairly entitled to an annual holiday; and, therefore, the Chief Constable had a perfect right to a holiday, but his place, in his absence, should have been filled by an efficient deputy. But, so far from having one, affairs seemed to have been allowed to drift into a condition of hopeless chaos. Nothing was done until matters assumed an exceedingly grave aspect, and then additional police and troops were summoned. He deplored the necessity for the use of troops in conflict with civilians. When it was necessary, however, to employ troops, they should be protected from taunts, insults, and actual assaults from disorderly crowds, which tended to a breach of the peace, and not only rendered them useless to preserve the peace, but even placed them in danger of their own lives. The greatest moderation was observed by the Civil and Military Authorities. A small force of some 25 or 26 men was dispatched from Bradford to Featherstone, where a serious riot was going on. No Magistrate was to be found to read the Riot Act, and the officer in command placed his men in a building where they were subjected to jeers and insults, and actual assaults, from the mob, while being powerless to act. His own opinion was that the reading of the Riot Act was altogether unnecessary, and that every subject of the Queen, whether military or civil, was bound to assist in preserving the peace, and in preventing the commission of a felony, when called upon even by a common constable. However, the Queen's Regulations tied the hands of officers, and he was not prepared to say that—with an eye to Coroners' juries, with their erratic and chaotic and frequently ridiculous verdicts—the Military Authorities were to be blamed for observing caution in these
  1720
  matters. And, as to the delay in procuring a Magistrate, it was only fair to remember that it was holiday time; and while, no doubt, the best plan when feasible was for a Magistrate always to be sent along with troops, it must be likewise remembered that a Borough Justice could not act outside his municipal area, so that if a Bradford Magistrate had accompanied the soldiers he would have been useless in the West Riding area. At the same time, what occurred at Featherstone was most humiliating, as, owing to being unable to act, the soldiers were withdrawn under a kind of improvised treaty entered into between the officer in command, the manager of the colliery, and the ostensible leaders of the mob, amidst the jeers and the insults of the crowd. They subsequently returned, accompanied by a Magistrate, after which every effort was made to persuade the mob to disperse, and it was not until it became absolutely necessary that the officer in command gave the order to fire. He had seen it stated that the persons injured were mere spectators, and were not engaged in the riot; but, in his opinion, the Riot Act having been duly read, these unfortunate men, by not at once dispersing, were in their own persons guilty of aiding and abetting, if not of taking actual part in, the disturbance. Moreover, what business had men from a distant village to be at such an hour so far from their homes in the midst of riotous scenes. It should also be borne in mind that it was not the inhabitants of a village who had the disadvantage of being personally known to the local police and colliery officials who headed these disturbances, but persons from another neighbouring village, like the deceased. The Civil and Military Authorities responsible for the maintenance of order had been denounced by those who might have been expected to support them. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could take very good care of himself, and he (Mr. Lowther) was not going to interfere between him and other Members of the House, but he desired that the House should make it clearly understood that no Party capital would ever be attempted to be made out of any unpopularity any public servant might incur, or run the risk of incurring, while honestly in the discharge of his duty.

  1721
  If the bonâ fide leaders of the men could be relied upon on such occasions as he had been speaking of to assist the authorities in the maintenance of order, the provision made in the Appropriation Bill for the services of extra military and police would be unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman was about to cite instances of inflammatory language which, he contended, had been used by certain Members of the House against the authorities, when—
  SIR C. W. DILKE*SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean) rose to a point of Order. He did not intend any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but he wished to ask whether a Debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill must not be confined to objects that came within the scope of the Bill? He understood the right hon. Gentleman was about to quote the utterances of certain Members of the House, which was travelling beyond the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman could not speak of Members of the House, unless he could show that they were connected with the disturbances and the action taken by the Home Secretary.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, then he would eliminate from his argument the quotations he intended to have made. His contention, however, was that the burden imposed on the taxpayers would be greatly diminished if the Home Secretary and those responsible for the preservation of order could rely upon the assistance of the bonâ fide leaders of the men. Attacks had been made on the constituted authorities of the realm by many persons, who not merely shared the responsibility common to all Her Majesty's subjects to assist in the preservation of the peace, but some of whom were actually Members of that House. In his judgment, so far from assisting the authorities, and diminishing the charge on the taxpayer to which he had alluded, these gentlemen had delivered speeches which, in one particular instance, he did not hesitate to say, could not be characterised properly by any language which the Forms of the House sanctioned, and no language that any recognised lexicographer could furnish would adequately convey his opinion of such a speech. He trusted that before sanctioning any contribution from the Imperial Exchequer towards local police
  1722
  funds the Home Secretary would satisfy himself that Local Authorities had not neglected to furnish additional police to other districts when such could be spared without detriment to the districts themselves, as was provided for by various Statutes. He mentioned that as he had seen it stated that the Nottingham Borough Authorities had raised difficulties of the kind in connection with the Hull Dock strike, and similar reports prevailed regarding the present crisis in regard to other Local Authorities. He hoped the Government would take care that it should be made clear who were the Local Authorities who were responsible in cases of this kind—whether the local Justices or the Watch Committee, as confusion seemed to prevail in some quarters in those respects. It should be clearly laid down who were responsible, and in what manner they were to be brought to book if they neglected to discharge their duties. The present condition of affairs was of sufficient gravity that he felt bound to bring the question prominently before the House, and he thought it would be generally agreed that the matter demanded the earnest consideration of the Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The right hon. Gentleman has not made any attack upon the Government, and I do not propose to follow him in the criticisms he has thought it right to make on the action or inaction of the Local Authorities in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the early stages of these deplorable disturbances. At the present time I do not think that there is sufficient information in the possession of the Government, or the House, to justify us in expressing approval or disapproval of what was done, or left undone, by the Local Authorities. Therefore, I think any further dispute on that line of argument may be fairly deprecated. I will avail myself, however, of this opportunity to tell the House at once what has been and what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in relation to this matter. It would seem difficult, and almost impossible, to get the people of this country to understand what are the functions and responsibilities of the Executive Government in reference to local disturbances. It cannot be too clearly laid down that

  1723
  the responsibility for the prevention and suppression of local disorder lies, whore it has always lain from the earliest period of our history, with the Local Authority. So deeply is that principle ingrained in our law that when, from a failure on the part of the Local Authority to do its duty in that respect, damage is done to anyone, not the Public Exchequer, but formerly the inhabitants of the hundred, and now the ratepayers of the particular police district, are the body that has to make good the injury. In the same way, when the County and Borough Police were established nearly 60 years ago, their administration was entrusted to the Local Authorities in the districts in which they were raised. That being so, what is the position of the Secretary of State? According to the ideas that seem to prevail in many quarters, it might be supposed that the Home Secretary in this country is in the position of the Minister of the Interior in France, or in the position of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. His position is nothing of the kind. I entirely disclaim on behalf of myself, and of those who may succeed me in this Office, any responsibility of any sort for the way in which the local police force in this country is governed. No doubt, by a practice which has gradually grown up, it has become the duty of the Secretary of State in the case of emergency to give advice to the Local Authority, but the Local Authority is perfectly at liberty to accept or reject that advice as it thinks fit. Further, the Secretary of State is the channel through which the demands of a Local Authority for assistance, when their own police resources are insufficient to cope with an emergency, may be made; and, further than that, if the Local Authority are found to be guilty of excess or remissness, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to conduct such inquiries and to institute such proceedings as the nature of the case may require. I believe I have summarised in this statement the whole of the duties which the law imposes upon the Home Secretary.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The contribution from the Imperial Exchequer?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is true that the Secretary of State has the power to withhold the certificate which the Act of Parliament empowers him to give at the
  1724
  end of the financial year, and so deprive a Local Body of its share of the Imperial contribution towards its police; but he can only do that if he is able to certify that the police force concerned has not been kept in a state of efficiency during the year. He would be travelling beyond his powers and his duties if he were to inquire, in addition, how it had been managed in the course of the year. I am not going to say anything in the way of criticism of the existing system. It has its drawbacks, no doubt, when the area of disturbance extends over several counties, and when it is impossible to expect uniform and concerted action on the part of the various authorities concerned. On the other hand, in my opinion, the advantages of the arrangement infinitely outweigh the disadvantages. I think it would be an evil day for the administration of justice if we were to centralise that which is at present local. In my opinion, the privilege of local self-government ought to carry with it the responsibility for the maintenance of local order. I have thought it right to state these few general principles, because the case now immediately under consideration is, after all, only a typical case. This is, I think, the fourth or fifth case of great gravity in which I have had to consider what the powers and duties and responsibilities of Ministers are, and I do trust that what I have said may help to get rid of misconceptions in the public mind, and enable the country clearly to realise what are the limits of our functions and responsibilities. And now, Sir, a very few words on the immediate case before us. A very grave state of things existed in the West Riding of Yorkshire three weeks ago. I am not prepared, from the information I have received, to assent to the proposition that the riotous and marauding proceedings that went on, the wrecking of collieries, the burning down of buildings, the levying of toll on innocent passers by—that these actions met with any sympathy whatever from the general body of miners on strike. I believe these outrages were the work of a comparatively small number of rowdies and normally unoccupied men, and that, so far as the general opinion of the mining population was concerned, they would discountenance any such proceedings. But, whatever might have been the state of feeling

  1725
  among the miners themselves, it is undoubtedly the melancholy fact that these things did go on, and that there was for some time no attempt on the part of the law-abiding population to stop them. The local resources in police in a county like the West Riding are, of course, calculated with reference to a normal and not an abnormal state of things; and, whatever may be the justice of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman as to the withdrawal of police for Doncaster races, they would have been in any case insufficient to cope with this suddenly-arising emergency. I am sorry not to see in their places to-day some hon. Members who have been going about and denouncing me, and circulating what I can only characterise as a pitiful and ridiculous fiction—namely, that Her Majesty's Government deliberately sent, without warrant or cause, the armed forces of the Crown into districts where industrial disputes were going on, in order that they might take the side of the coalowners and crush the miners. Where are the men who made these statements? It was well known that this matter would form the subject of discussion this afternoon. Why are they not in their places? It is a very easy thing to go about the country speaking to excited audiences where you are safe from refutation and reply; but it is a very different thing, and the only proper thing, to come here, to the House of Commons, and on the floor of this House, face to face with the Minister you condemn, to fight the matter out. I regret that this has to be said of men, personal friends of my own and generally supporters of Her Majesty's Government, but I do think that conduct such as that of the hon. Members to whom I am referring ought not to be allowed to pass unnoticed, and that the least a Minister of the Crown whose action is challenged by Members of this House has a right to expect—especially as we are at the close of our present Sittings, for the opportunity may not occur again—he has a right, I say, to expect that he should be given the opportunity of answering the statements made with respect to his conduct in the presence of the hon. Members who make them. These hon. Members are away. If they were present I should ask them what they would have done in my position? Supposing that
  1726
  they had held the Office which I hold, and that the state of things which I have described had been brought to their knowledge; supposing that the Local Authorities, alarmed for the preservation of the public peace and for the safety of property, had sent them telegram after telegram saying that the local police forces were insufficient, that they had tried to borrow additional police elsewhere, but unavailingly, and that unless special protection were given to them they would no longer be responsible for the public peace, what course would any responsible Minister adopt in the circumstances? These gentlemen know as well as I do, and would admit it if they cleared their minds and tongues of cant, that there is no man in this country who would not have acted as I have done, and who would not have felt it his bounden duty to supply the Local Authorities with such a force as, in their judgment, was necessary to supplement the local resources at their disposal. I do not believe that the House will disapprove the course which I took. No one can deprecate more strongly than I do the employment of soldiers unnecessarily. I know that their employment in the performance of police duty is distasteful to the soldiers themselves, and for many obvious reasons it is, undoubtedly, irritating to the people. I have, therefore, impressed upon Local Authorities over and over again that, whenever it is possible, they should obtain in emergencies additional police from other localities, and on the occasion under consideration that direction was followed. But it must be borne in mind that the total police force of the country is very limited in number, each borough and county being bound not to retain a larger number of police than is necessary for its ordinary requirements. From Wiltshire, however, from Dorset, and from other parts of the country police were supplied to render assistance in the West Riding and Nottinghamshire. I, therefore, do not think that it is fair to say that there was any indisposition on the part of Local Police Authorities in other parts of England to render such aid as they reasonably could. I myself sanctioned the despatch of about 400 men of the Metropolitan Police, and I find that I am denounced with exactly the same energy of vituperation for having sent

  1727
  these policemen down to Yorkshire as I am for having sent the soldiers. It is very difficult to understand the position of those who think that in such circumstances as I have described a Minister would not have failed in his most elementary duty if he had not supplied all the resources at his disposal which appeared to be reasonably demanded. What was the result of the action that I took? Within 48 hours, almost within 24 hours, from the time when the local forces were thus supplemented the whole disturbance ceased, and for nearly a fortnight we have not had in the whole of the three counties which constituted the area of disturbance a single case of collision, either with the police or the military. I find it difficult to believe that that striking and rapid change from what had become a most serious situation is not to be attributed to the prompt measures that were taken. In many parts I gladly admit that the leaders of the miners have helped loyally and well to bring about the improved state of things. I think it is a most creditable circumstance that in the whole of Lancashire, where there are a very large number of miners on strike, from the beginning of the disturbance up to the present moment there has not been any serious trouble whatever. I attribute this very largely to the efforts of the miners' leaders to exercise a restraining influence upon their followers, and to keep them within the bounds of moderation. I have no doubt, also, that their example has had a tranquillising effect elsewhere. I am as anxious as any man in this House can be for the removal of the additional forces from the localities to which they have been sent. At the earliest moment when it shall be possible to remove them without jeopardising the preservation of public order the House may be sure that then they will be withdrawn; but until that moment arrives it would not only be wrong, but almost criminal, to take any steps to weaken the powers which the Local Authorities have demanded and obtained. Before I sit down I will say a few words respecting the most deplorable incident in these disturbances. I refer to the riot and the intervention of the military at Featherstone, near Pontefract, which resulted, as we all know, in the loss of two lives. As the House is aware, inquests have been held upon the bodies
  1728
  of the men who were, unfortunately, killed. In the first inquest the coroner's jury returned a verdict of justifiable homicide, but in the second inquest the jury refused to return that verdict, and apparently shrank from the only other logical conclusion open to them—namely, that of returning a verdict of wilful murder against the Magistrates and troops. They preferred—and I am not quarrelling with them for doing so in the painful position in which they found themselves—they preferred to return an open verdict, to which they appended a rider to the effect that the authorities had not taken proper steps in the earlier stages of the affair to prevent the disturbance from reaching a climax, and they also intimated plainly that, in their opinion, the order given to the soldiers to fire was not justified by the circumstances prevailing at the time when that order was given. When those two verdicts were brought to my notice, I saw that we were face to face with a very serious state of things. But before taking any action I thought it right to call for the evidence which had been taken at the two inquests, and to give it my most careful consideration. I have now completed my study of that evidence, and I have come to the conclusion that the matter cannot be allowed to rest where it is. We are face to face with two verdicts upon the same state of facts, which are absolutely irreconcilable one with the other. A careful investigation of the evidence has convinced me that there are a number of facts materially bearing upon the point at issue which were not investigated at all, in consequence, no doubt, of the hurry of the proceedings. I have to consider both the position of the authorities and the feeling of the public, and I do not think that I should be able to satisfy the legitimate demand of public feeling, or that I should be acting fairly to the authorities themselves, whose conduct is distinctly impugned by one of these verdicts, if I did not take the best means in my power to provide for a thorough and adequate investigation of the facts, so that we may have materials on which to pronounce an authoritative and final judgment. As I pointed out yesterday, in answer to a question, there are some difficulties in the way of constituting a proper tribunal for the

  1729
  purpose. Without a special Act of Parliament, giving powers to take evidence upon oath and to compel the attendance of witnesses, a Public Department is, in a matter of this kind, largely dependent upon the spontaneous cooperation of those concerned. But I feel confident that we shall have that co-operation, for the public interest demands that the whole truth shall be disclosed. If I succeed in providing a tribunal which shall command general confidence, I am sure I may rely upon everyone concerned to do all in his power to insure that all the facts connected with this deplorable occurrence shall be known. I must now utter one final word of appeal to those who have far more power than even the Local Authorities or myself to put an end to the existing state of things. This deplorable dispute has now been going on for the greater part of two months; it has involved the districts affected in widespread misery; it has engendered feelings of animosity easy to arouse, but difficult to allay; and it has been productive of most disastrous results to the general industries of the country. I trust, then, that it is not too much to express the hope that neither on the one side nor the other will there be a continuance of that unreasoning obstinacy which, I cannot but think, is the main obstacle to the settlement of this great quarrel. Serious, indeed, will be the responsibility of those who persist in such an attitude. I believe I am expressing the unanimous opinion of all Parties in this House, and of every reasonable man outside, when I say that we look with confidence to the moderation and good sense of both sides in this dispute to put an end to it without delay.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid, he did not propose to enter into the facts of the case; indeed, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the facts immediately surrounding it were shrouded in some obscurity, nor did he intend, on the one hand, to criticise the action taken by the Local Authorities for the preservation of the peace, nor, on the other, the action taken by the miners of the district. He rose merely to say that great anxiety had been expressed that there should be further inquiry, and he was very glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had
  1730
  consented to hold such an inquiry. An inquiry into the whole proceedings was due, in common fairness, to all the persons concerned, and he hoped the investigation would be full and complete.
  MR. DODDsaid, he did not wish to detain the House after the promise of inquiry that had been given by the Home Secretary, but he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would include in the inquiry the question whether it was necessary for the Local Authorities to seek the aid of the military—a point upon which there was difference of opinion. There were great differences of opinion on that point. There were many people in the district, as he knew, who thought that the whole matter would have been better managed by bringing in additional police, and for that reason he asked the Home Secretary to inform the House whether the inquiry would include an investigation as to whether it was right to bring in soldiers? There was reason to believe that the unfortunate men who were killed were innocent of any complicity in the rioting, and if this was proved by the inquiry to be the fact he hoped the Home Secretary would devise some means by which compensation should be awarded to the relatives of the deceased men.
  MR. J. BURNSsaid, as the Home Secretary had pointedly alluded to the Labour Members of Parliament, who he regretted were not present to criticise, in the light of fuller information than he possessed, the conduct of the Local Authorities and the Home Secretary, he (Mr. Burns) ventured, not as one in full possession of the facts, to briefly address the House. As the Home Secretary had granted an inquiry, which he trusted would be full, clear, impartial, and comprehensive, this was not the time nor the occasion for discussing matters which could only be adequately discussed when the Report of the inquiry was laid upon the Table of the House. He most sincerely agreed with the Home Secretary in his hesitation to assume towards the Local Authorities who were responsible for law and order in this country, that position and that power of controlling and supervising the local forces in a manner that could only be properly undertaken by a Minister of

  1731
  the Interior such as existed in France. He gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet that he was inclined to impose upon the Local Authorities a central control. He (Mr. Burns) was certain that if such a system was applied to the large industrial communities in England, not only would riots ensue, but it would produce civil war, if not actual revolution. The Home Secretary, with that respect for local governing institutions which characterised all conditions of Englishmen, preferred to throw upon the Local Authorities through their Watch Committees—and he (Mr. Burns) hoped very soon through their elected Magistrates—the responsibility which no centralised State power could control. If one of the results of the inquiry was still further to decentralise political power and establish the right of every district to have its own elected Magistrates, then they would see the workmen's leaders jointly charged, with Magistrates from other sections of the community, with the preservation of order. Under the present Magisterial system, the administration of the law was practically in the hands of a body of men who, when a dispute took place and riot was threatened, thought less of the interests of the community, and the maintenance of law and order, than of using the soldiers and the police for morally intimidating men whom they, as masters, were fighting. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He believed that the military had been imported into this district without sufficient justification. There was no doubt that in the case where the military were called in near Pontefract, the thing was done to intimidate the men through their wives and families. [Cries of "No!"] He felt confident that such was the fact, and if the local police had been kept at homo instead of being kept on duty at Don-caster Races the military would not have been required. ["Oh!"] Yes, it was quite true, and he regretted that police should be drafted off to racecourses to keep in control the acts of blackguardism which were associated with racecourses everywhere. He could cite one instance of the advantage of elected Magistrates. He referred to the City of London, which had the only Corporation with elected Magistrates. A short time ago he conducted a trade dispute right in the centre of London, the
  1732
  richest city in the world, and in that case the Aldermen were strictly and regularly at their duties, were brought face to face with the circumstances of the dispute, and were, to a very great extent, in touch with the leaders of the men.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was scarcely entitled to raise the whole question of elected Magistrates on the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. J. BURNSsaid, he deferred to the Speaker. He only wished to say that when the whole facts were brought before the House it would be seen that in order to deal satisfactorily with these labour disputes, and to prevent men on the outskirts, as it were, of a dispute from discrediting those who were engaged in the struggle, it would be necessary to have elected Magistrates. They succeeded, and what was possible in their case could be achieved in other towns if Magistrates were appointed on the elective system. If the Home Secretary, who was a strong man—perhaps on some matters too strong, and lacking a little in discretion—would bring in a Bill to provide for the appointment of Magistrates by election, he would do a great deal to assist in the preservation of law and order everywhere, especially on occasions of public excitement and trade disputes.

  FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was sorry to have to ask the attention of the House for a few moments to another subject; but, as a matter of fact, those Members of the House who were not Members of the Government had had no opportunity this Session of bringing forward questions which in ordinary Sessions could be done on private Members' nights. He proposed to call attention to two or three points which, he thought, illustrated the reason why a general want of confidence prevailed in the Government at home and abroad. He thought the condition of affairs at home was very much to be deplored. There was a general feeling of unsettlement. There was a grievous depression in trade, and the existing labour disputes and the misery and ruin which prevailed in consequence were very considerably due to the want of confidence in the present Government. They had been in power 13 months, and from a legislative

  1733
  point of view had done nothing. It was a curious misfortune—if it was not the fault—of the present Government that at this period, as, indeed, during the Administration of the present Prime Minister, foreign Governments felt at liberty to attack British interests. Taking the 13 months that the present Government had been in Office, and referring first of all to Egypt, our interests in that country were threatened with very serious injury indeed. Egypt seemed on the point, for the moment, of sinking back into the disorder and anarchy from which British administration had rescued it. That was entirely due to the fact that the present Prime Minister, when out of Office, gave foreign countries, and especially France, reason to believe that he was prepared to evacuate Egypt. Happily the danger which had arisen in Egypt from the weakness of the right hon. Gentleman and his most unfortunate utterances in public before he came into Office had been averted by the firmness of Lord Rosebery, whose influence in the Cabinet was sufficient to cause timely action to be taken; but the restoration of order and the maintenance of our interests in Egypt had only been effected by the process of nearly doubling the British Army of Occupation. Our interests had also been seriously injured by the action of the Government in regard to the dispute between France and Siam. Her Majesty's Government had shown a great want of acquaintance with the affairs of Siam, and had allowed themselves to be steadily pushed down hill by the progress of French aggression. Ten weeks ago, if any hon. Member had told the Under Secretary that by the 20th of September Siam would have been despoiled of one-third of her territory; that she would have been compelled to pay a large and unjust indemnity; that the revenues of some of her wealthiest Provinces would have been assigned to France; and that there would be great danger of a French Protectorate, such a statement would have been laughed to scorn. But all these evils had come about. Siam had been despoiled with impunity by the French Government, and its integrity and independence had been threatened. One of the most serious elements in the matter was the influence which this weakness on the part of the Government must have on public feeling
  1734
  in India. It was a most deplorable coincidence that at the moment Russia was rapidly advancing towards the frontier of India through the Pamirs, and generally seeking to extend her influence and control over Northern Persia, another great European Power should be successful in making a serious attack upon the integrity, if not the independence, of Siam, whose interests were largely bound up with our Indian Empire. Now these things caused a general feeling of want of confidence in the Government. The Under Secretary for the Colonies, with a courage which did him credit, disputed the proposition that the Government had exhibited weakness.
  MR. S. BUXTON: Hear, hear!
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: But it was a fact that owing to the weakness displayed by Her Majesty's Government several British enterprises in Siam, involving the expenditure and profitable use of a large amount of capital, had been abandoned by British merchants. That was a distinct injury to British trade and commerce, and unless our interests were looked after more closely than they had been this injury was likely to extend. It was stated that the demands of France on Siam had by no means ceased, and that her Representative was now pressing further claims in excess of the Ultimatum which Siam had accepted. He hoped the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would be able to tell the House that the Government were vigilant in the matter, and were determined not to consent to further concessions and further surrender on the part of the Government of Siam, and that if these exaggerated claims should be pressed by France the Government of Siam would have the support of Her Majesty's Government in resisting them. He desired to know if the Under Secretary could assure the House that the Russian forces now engaged in the Pamirs were not engaged in fortifying the very important Passes that led to Kashmir, and through Kashmir to our Indian frontier. It was a mournful fact, which could not be denied, that the moment the return to Office of Mr. Gladstone last year was assured, telegrams were sent from St. Petersburg ordering a Russian detachment to advance into the Pamirs. With regard to Mashonaland, it was a singular fact that the statement he made in the

  1735
  House yesterday as to the danger of the replies made by the responsible Ministers of the Crown being repeated to foreign Governments and savage potentates, and thus encouraging them in attacks on British interests, was confirmed by a letter in this morning's Times from Lord Gifford, a representative of the Chartered Company. The varying statement made by the Government to Lo Bengula was—
  "At the inevitable risk of the loss of all prestige at the hands of a man who, although a savage, is astute enough to read the situation thus brought about."
  The vacillating conduct of the Government with reference to the threatened Matabele raid, and their contradictory orders, were simply encouraging this savage chief in his attacks. The House had been given to understand that Mr. Rhodes, the representative of the Chartered Company, was satisfied with the action of Her Majesty's Government. But Lord Gifford practically contradicted that statement. He said as to the contradictory orders of the Government—
  "On learning of this collision the Government informs the British South Africa Company at one moment that they (the Company) were solely responsible for providing both men and money for any war, and for the maintenance of peace in Mashonaland and Matabeleland; the next moment, despite the attack by the Matabeles, the Company are advised that war could not be 'commenced without Government authority.'"
  Another contradiction was thus described—
  "The High Commissioner at one moment sends a message to Lo Bengula virtually ordering him to withdraw his impis and punish the indunas who had brought about the collision, and, further, claims compensation for the injury done to the property of the white men; the next moment, notwithstanding the defiant reply sent by Lo Bengula, and with the knowledge that the King has sent for his impi to return at once from the Barotse raid, and notwithstanding, further, the great damage done to the property of the settlers in Mashonaland, the Government informs not only the company, but also Lo Bengula, that compensation should not be demanded from him—this at the inevitable risk of the loss of all prestige at the hands of a man who, although a savage, is astute enough to read the situation thus brought about."
  Further on Lord Gifford said—
  "To a large extent this state of affairs has been brought about by the hesitating attitude of the Government; the absolute withdrawal of the claims for compensation to the white settlers; and the unreasonable veto fettering the action of the Chartered Company, which is virtually this:—'You must wait until the Matabele assegais are at your throat before you
  1736
  may lift a hand in your own defence.' This position of the settlers in Mashonaland caused by the attitude assumed by the British Government is unparalleled in the history of England."
  The state of affairs in Mashonaland was, as the Under Secretary for the Colonies had said, becoming graver day by day. The hon. Member had spent a large portion of his speech in making an attack on a British officer who was now in a position of responsibility. The hon. Member had used language of severity and injustice. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; because he had spoken of cruelty and murder. He had very much regretted to hear the attack made upon Captain Lendy yesterday by the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Buxton), and he did not think it was at all justified. Captain Lendy's offence was at the most the offence of a soldier who was too reckless in the conduct of military operations, and who did not cease firing at the moment when the minimum loss of life was secured. That was very different from being responsible for murder, and no Member of the Government should bring such a charge against a man in Captain Lendy's position. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary (Mr. S. Buxton) subsequently withdrew the word "murder," but others did not, and he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) said that the attack made upon Captain Lendy was scandalous. Captain Lendy might have been guilty of imprudence, and might have continued to fire longer than was necessary, but these were things that happened everywhere in the employment of the armed forces of the Crown. Captain Lendy might be at that moment engaged in defending the British settlers and British interests in Mashonaland at the peril of his life, and yet that was the moment chosen by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Paul) and others to denounce him. The responsibility the Government had assumed in ordering the Chartered Company's forces to make no advance without the permission of the Home Government was extreme. How could they telegraph and wait for an answer when Lobengula was perhaps burning their barns, laying waste their fields and massacring their servants? If the lives of the settlers could be saved in the forts their property would be destroyed in a day or two if Lo Bengula's forces were permitted to

  1737
  advance. The Military Authorities ought to have permission the moment they were satisfied that Lo Bengula was making an offensive movement against them to attack him.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is so much in the habit of bringing general charges of a sweeping character that I think we have ceased to attach much importance to them; and, therefore, I shall devote myself to the one or two instances in reference to foreign policy which the hon. Member has advanced in support of these general charges. As to the question of Siam, it has been discussed more than once before this Session, and there is nothing new to be said about it. On the last occasion that the hon. Member brought charges against the Government in reference to Siam, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Fergusson), who was Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the last Administration, dissociated himself from the statement of the hon. Member that the prestige of this country has been damaged in the least degree in reference to what has occurred in Siam. The policy of always maintaining that when the opposite Party is in power whatever happens may diminish British prestige is not a patriotic policy; it is not one which enables us to say that he who adopts it has done his utmost to uphold the honour of the country. The hon. Member suggests that the troubles in the Pamirs were owing to the advent of a Liberal Government to power; but these troubles began under the late Government. The incident at Somatash occurred on the 24th of July last year, long before the present Government came into power, and orders must have been sent from St. Petersburg many weeks previously.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: My distinct allegation is that the orders for the Russian advance on the Pamirs were telegraphed towards the end of July, when it was known that the Elections would result in the return to Office of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) at a very early date. The practical result of the English Elections was known in St. Petersburg by the middle
  1738
  of July, and orders were immediately telegraphed.
  SIR E. GREY: I repeat that it would have been impossible to have sent such orders in time for the incident at Somatash on the 24th of July, after the result of the British Elections was known at St. Petersburg. Some time ago the Russians in the region of the Pamirs actually went so far as to arrest a British officer. That was when the late Government was in power.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: And they apologised.
  SIR E. GREY: Yes, they apologised for it afterwards; but the hon. Member's contention is that they only dared do these things when a Liberal Government was in power. Then, take the question of Egypt. The hon. Member alleges that there would have been no disturbance or friction in Egypt but for the advent to power of the present Government, and he bases that assertion on statements made by the Prime Minister when in Opposition. It is perfectly true that a desire has been expressed for the evacuation of Egypt, but that desire has found its fullest and most legitimate expression in the Drummond Wolff Convention, which was signed by the hon. Member's own Government. The Drummond Wolff Convention, it is true, did not come into force; but that was not owing to any want of will on the part of Lord Salisbury. When the hon. Member says that troubles in different parts of the world have occurred in consequence of a feeling of apprehension owing to the present Government being in power, he is bound, if he wishes to obtain, if not the assent, at all events the respect of his opponents, to have regard to such events as the signing of that Convention, and such things as took place in the Pamirs.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he wished to submit a few remarks on our Imperial position in the world, as it had been affected by the proceedings of the present Sitting of Parliament. He did not wish to make an attack on the Government; on the contrary, he quite recognised that in some respects they had done well, and there were certain matters on which he could join with their friends in offering them congratulations. In the first place, the happy termination of the dispute between the

  1739
  United Kingdom and the United States with regard to the seal fisheries in the Behring Sea and the North Pacific Ocean was undoubtedly a matter for congratulation. Whilst the reference of the dispute to arbitration was settled by the late Government, it might fairly be admitted that when the arbitrators met at Paris, Her Majesty's present Government did all they possibly could to present the British case in the best possible manner. It was, no doubt, largely owing to the most able presentation of that case by the two leading barristers in the House as well as to the inherent justice of the case itself that this happy result had been attained. He thought Her Majesty's Government might also be congratulated upon having despatched a Mission to Uganda in deference to the wishes of the philanthropic and religious world. The religious world desired the Mission in the interests of missionary labour, while the philanthropic world desired it for the suppression of the. Slave Trade. Now that the Mission had been carried out, everybody was looking forward with the deepest anxiety to see what course would be taken by Her Majesty's Government. As regarded Egypt, he also thought the attitude of the Government had been highly satisfactory. The speech of the Prime Minister on the subject was one of the most useful and able speeches he had ever heard delivered on any Imperial question, and this was the more wonderful because the right hon. Gentleman had rendered his position peculiarly hard for himself. The right hon. Gentleman had undoubtedly said much more on previous occasions than he ought to have said, and had made declarations which were understood by the French to foreshadow the evacuation of Egypt. Notwithstanding that, Egypt had not been evacuated, and the prospect of evacuation was as far off and as much relegated to the dim and distant future under the present as under the preceding Government. At the same time, he felt bound to warn the Government that Members on the Opposition side of the House felt very great anxiety upon a great variety of foreign and Colonial affairs, and hoped that during the short Recess Ministers would do something to allay and mitigate their alarms. If they did not he respectfully warned them that when the House met again in the
  1740
  Autumn there would be constant interpellations and a free use of all the Rules of the House for the purpose of impressing upon the Government and their supporters the views entertained by the Opposition. He trusted that the Government would not lose sight of India, which might be said at the present moment to be between two fires. The grave contingencies and possible eventualities should not be lost of. With regard to the Eastern danger which threatened India he should not say anything specific at this moment, because when the House was in Committee of Supply he had twice an opportunity of going into that matter with the utmost detail. But he might say this, in justice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—that he believed he was quite correct in saying there was no disturbance in the region of the Pamirs. Nevertheless, he did not think his answer was as satisfactory as it might have been. It is, no doubt, a very suspicious circumstance, that when a certain proceeding politically took place in this country in July of last year a forward movement in the Pamirs was ordered from St. Petersburg during the latter part of July. They know that the time of England's difficulty was always that of Russia's opportunity. If he were not unwilling to detain the House, he could show that the step Russia took in Central Asia had been connected with a movement in this country. He therefore, repeated that they on that side of the House were not to be thought unduly suspicious if they did connect those events in the Pamirs with the political electoral circumstances in this country. No one could say it was so for certain; but everything points very much in bearing this out. As regarded the movements which took place previously under the late Government, they were not withdrawn. As the House knew, a British officer was arrested, but he was immediately released and an apology made. But the movements were not withdrawn. He did not think, however, that there was any remissness on the part of the late Government in respect of the Pamirs. At the same time, he did not wish to fix any blame whatever upon the present Government either. All he contended was that if the result of the General Election of July, 1892, had been other

  1741
  than it was, they should have heard very little about Russia moving in the Pamirs. That, of course, was purely a matter of opinion, which he had a right to submit to the House. Russia, however, had made this movement, which was of immense importance with regard to India. It was probably the political action last year which gave an impulse to Diplomatic Missions. At any rate, various military movements had been made from Cashmere towards the boundaries of the Pamirs by this Government. He greatly regretted that such a policy should have been questioned by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They probably did not perceive that this movement, of which they are inclined to complain, was taken by reason of Russian advance in the Pamirs. That Russia intended to take a portion of the Pamirs was most certain. He would not detain the House to detail the geographical position or the political importance of the Pamirs. But he might add that the whole question of the delimitation of the Pamirs was pending, and they should do nothing to embarrass the proceedings. According to British ideas, Russia was only entitled to a very small part of the Pamirs if they came to a partition. There must be a partition of the Pamirs, as there had been of other territory in different parts of the world. They could only wish God speed to the British negotiations. Another word:—They should prevent Russia taking the law into her own hands. While negotiations were pending they should prevent Russia taking a forward movement; possibly there was regret expressed for the action of her officers; but, nevertheless, they had not been withdrawn. Therefore he did hope nothing of that kind would be permitted in this case. Again, in Africa they had abundant cause for anxiety. The inhabitants and cultivators in the neighbourhood of Suakin were in great danger from Mahomedan and Arab invasions, and Her Majesty's Government ought to see that the Egyptian Government performed its duty of protecting the inhabitants of that region. The Niger Company seemed to have got into some embarrassment and danger. He was glad to hear the defence of the company which had been made by the Under Secretary. No one could doubt that it was doing England's work in the upper and middle regions of the
  1742
  great river. It was difficult for private Members to get at the real truth as to Lieutenant Mizon's actions; but if we were not careful these would lead to serious complications between Great Britain and France. He earnestly commended that important letter to the consideration of the Government, assuring them that great interest was felt, not only on his side of the House, but in many important quarters outside, on this subject. With regard to Uganda, there could be no alternative to bringing the territory under a British protectorate. The Government might endeavour to avoid that great contingency, but the sooner they made up their minds to face the inevitable the better, for he was perfectly certain that the minds of the great majority of the British people were made up on that subject. There was very great anxiety as to the future of the British South Africa Chartered Company. That company had been very active in the most honourable as well as patriotic manner. Though it might be true that some Corporations of the same character had been mixed up in questionable finance, and engaged in transactions of a doubtful character, nothing of the kind could be urged against this company. At least two distinguished men—the late Sir William Mackinnon and the late Sir William Bennett—took part in originating it, and with it was associated the hon. Member for Westminster, a gentleman whose position placed him beyond all possible motives of interest in the matter. He urged that as a reason why the Government should help the company to maintain its position, and, above all, they should give them some assistance in constructing the railway from Mombasa to the Great Lake, a project of the most important character. The railway had practically been taken in hand by the late Government. He did not know what the present Government was doing in the matter. No doubt they were handicapped by the unfortunate speeches which they had made in Opposition; but he hoped that they would take a patriotic view of the matter, and remember that England required the total suppression of slavery. He was unwilling to mix himself up in the controversies about South Africa. It was said a design existed for the formation of a great Customs Union, which was to bind Cape Colony to the

  1743
  Transvaal Republic, to the exclusion of Natal. That would be a very serious matter for Natal, and it deserved the very careful consideration of the House and the country. On the subject of Mashonaland, he wished to say that that country was within the British sphere of influence or it was not; it was under British protection of some sort or kind or it was not. If it were, we were bound to protect it. That was a proposition so plain as to be almost a truism, if it had not been controverted in the Debates which had taken place on the subject. Mashonaland was threatened with invasion by a certain tribe, and he wanted to know why we should not take care of Mashonaland as we took care of the outlying districts of the Indian territory? We did not allow tribes to raid our outlying territories in India. Why should we allow Mashonaland to be made a sort of unhappy hunting ground for the Matabeles? We were bound by every principle of duty to effectually protect Mashonaland, and the only question that remained was as to the best mode of protecting the country. The authorities on the spot were, he contended, the best judges on that subject, and we ought to have confidence in those authorities, and not find fault with every movement that was made or proposed by them to repel the enemy. It had been urged that we should not be rushed into war by the colonists in Mashonaland. But we had permitted ourselves to take up a position in Mashonaland, and it was now too late to withdraw. We must perform the duties appertaining to that position, and we should not say that the performance of these duties meant being rushed into war. He strongly condemned the observations which had been made by certain hon. Members in reference to Captain Lendy. Whether Captain Lendy served under the Crown, or under the Colonial Government, or as a Mashonaland Administrator, he was to all intents and purposes a British officer.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: It has been distinctly stated that these officers are lent to the company, and while acting as such are not acting for the British Government, and that we are not responsible.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he thought that Captain Lendy had been acting for the British Government; but, for the
  1744
  sake of argument, he would concede the point to the hon. Member for Peterborough. Beyond all question, Captain Lendy was a British officer, employed on difficult duty in Mashonaland; and. he was, therefore, entitled to more generous treatment than he received yesterday at the hands of hon. Members opposite, some of whose speeches were calculated to have a very bad effect on those who were serving their country abroad under circumstances of the greatest danger and discouragement. It was all very well for hon. Members to sit there and criticise men who were acting in great emergencies and in scenes of doubt and difficulty; but he was not sure that those hon. Members would have done any better, if so well, under similar conditions. It might be conceded that Captain Lendy had acted injudiciously; but his action was, after all, only an error of judgment, and they all knew how the judgments of military officers were open to question. Hon. Members who dissented from that proposition had criticised, as an error of judgment, certain actions of a military officer which had recently been taken in Yorkshire. How much more, then, was it possible to commit an error of judgment in the heart of Africa? Captain Lendy's conduct was certainly not open to the extreme observations which had been passed upon it yesterday by hon. Members opposite; and, in justice to his fellow-countrymen who were serving their country abroad under circumstances of difficulty and danger, whom some hon. Members were too much given to denouncing and condemning, he felt it his duty to make these observations. Passing from South Africa, he desired to say that there was great anxiety about the future of Newfoundland. In Newfoundland there was, no doubt, grave dissatisfaction on the part of the people with the modus vivendi, and with the arrangements which had been made. The opinion prevailed in the colony that France had been allowed to take undue advantage of her Treaty rights, and to acquire on the coast of Newfoundland a position that was intolerable. India was about to come up for discussion, and perhaps he might be allowed to refer to the great half-way house between England and India—Gibraltar. The greater part of our

  1745
  Indian trade passed in front of that historic rock. There was grave doubt whether the fortifications there were sufficiently strong; but one of the most pressing needs at the present time was the construction of a dock, such as would enable our men-of-war to be repaired there. If this dock were not constructed, there would be the greatest danger to our Fleet in case of war, for, in the event of a naval action being fought in the Western part of the Mediterranean, any British men-of-war that might be injured would either have to be repaired at Gibraltar, or, if that were impossible, to remain hors de combat for the rest of the war. He knew that there were other dockyards under construction elsewere; but the need for the construction of no dockyard in the Empire was so pressing and important as that suggested at Gibraltar; and he could assure the Government that they on that side of the House would not let the matter drop, but that they would spur, spur, spur the Government until they did their duty. He trusted that next Session the House would be gratified by seeing a substantial amount placed upon the Estimates for that purpose. A few words now about our naval position. We had a first-rate programme under the late Government, but that programme had been given up by the present Government. He desired to know whether the Government had undertaken the construction of the proper number of ships to maintain our position in competition with other nations, and also to replace the wastage that occurred annually in such a vast Service? They had been told that certain new vessels were under construction. They hoped they were; but while they did not doubt the sincerity of the Government and the accuracy of their information, they regretted to say that they had been unable to find out on the spot whether that was the ease or not. They would defer the subject until the House met again, when they hoped that they would have better information.
  MR. PAULwished to say, in reply to those hon. Gentlemen who had attacked him for bringing forward the case of Captain Lendy, that he did not withdraw anything he had said with reference to the conduct of that officer. The statements he made on the
  1746
  previous evening were based upon the Blue Book which had recently been issued. It was said by the hon. Baronet that there were people who took a delight in running down their fellow-countrymen who were serving their country in difficulty and danger abroad. If that were so, he could only say that he was not one of them. It was because British officers did their duty, as a rule, so admirably that the case of Captain Lendy attracted notice. Very likely, if Captain Lendy had been a French officer, nothing whatever would have been said; but we were not French. This country had always observed a higher standard than others in dealing with natives, and he hoped that standard would always be maintained.

  GRIEVANCES OF WARRANT OFFICERS.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONcalled attention to the grievances of the warrant officers of the Navy, and pointed out that the Navy was the only Service in the country in which there was an absolute wall across the line of promotion, preventing the continuance of a man's advance to commission rank. He could best explain the grievance under which warrant officers in the Navy suffered by relating an instance within his own knowledge of three brothers, sons of a farmer. One of the brothers by energy and ability obtained a Scholarship at Cambridge, and was now a Professor in connection with the University. Another brother enlisted in the Army, and obtained a commission. At present he was a captain, and might some day arrive at the rank of colonel. The third brother entered the Navy, and at the age of 25 became a warrant officer, and that was the highest thing he could look to in the Service for the rest of his life, the only other advance possible being the nominal rank of sub-lieutenant, which he would be entitled to on retiring from active service at the age of 55. This case was a remarkable one, owing to the extraordinary ability and services of this warrant officer. So great was the ability he displayed that in the Burmah Campaign in 1885 that he was placed in command of a gunboat patrolling 100 miles of coast. In the course of this service he had a severe encounter with pirates, and although the pirates had a much superior force he defeated them; and so valuable

  1747
  were his services that he was specially complimented by the captain of his ship on the quarter-deck, and he also received a special letter of reward from the authorities at Whitehall. Then, again, when the Howe was stranded, the captain of that vessel based his statement on the estimates made by this same warrant officer, who further distinguished himself during the time the Howe was on the rocks by superintending the construction of 15 copper dams in a manner which called forth the special commendation of the officers of the Howe and of the Salvage Company. Could nothing be done to reward this warrant officer, whose services in the Navy were of such value that the Admiralty awarded him a sum of money in recognition of their merit? He presumed it was competent for Her Majesty to give a commission to any seaman of the Navy, but, as a matter of fact, only two seamen in the past 80 years were so rewarded. These two instances occurred in 1887, when two men were selected on the ground of valour, which he might remark was not a special ground for promoting men to commission rank. For many years there had been a continued cry, amongst naval officers for more Lieutenants in the Navy. Warrant officers were sometimes entrusted with Lieutenants' work, and as long ago as 1885 the Minister then in charge of naval affairs stated that if the difficulty of education could be removed, and if warrant officers were able to pass the examinations that Lieutenants had to pass, the chief difficulty in the way would be removed. Upon that hint the warrant officers, at their own expense, instituted classes, and got themselves instructed in navigation and other matters, and they were now ready and willing, numbers of them, to submit themselves to an examination of the same character as that passed by Lieutenants. It seemed to him that the promotion of warrant officers to some form of commission rank would not only be just in itself, but would save the nation money, because these men had great experience, and if they were promoted the great cost of training men for the position of Lieutenants would in some measure be avoided. Warrant officers did not demand that they should have continuous promotion. All they asked was that a
  1748
  new rank or line of promotion should be created for them corresponding to the position of Quartermasters and Riding-masters in the Army. To do this would costmoney, but it had been calculated—and the calculation had not been contradicted by the Admiralty—that the total cost would not exceed £3,000. Although no exact promise had been made with regard to these officers, he would point out that extreme sympathy had been expressed by previous Ministers, and the late First Lord of the Admiralty in the year 1891 held out strong hopes that their case would be met—hopes so strong that men not altogether unreasonably took it for a promise. He hoped, therefore, that the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to hold out some further hope that the case of these men would be dealt with, and that the warrant officers of the Navy, who were not less able nor less efficient than warrant officers in the Army, would as soon as possible be put on an equal footing with the Army warrant officers in respect to promotion to commission rank.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,), in reply, said, the grievances of the warrant officers had been under the consideration of the Admiralty, but, although some points might be further considered, the Board did not see how to overcome the great difficulties in the way of creating a new grade or rank. With regard to the declaration of the late First Lord, the Admiralty were desirous of opening appointments in the Ordnance Establishments to warrant officers. When the Ordnance Department was taken over from the War Office the officers of the Establishment were, of course, also taken over, but it was intended as vacancies occurred to promote warrant officers to those positions which are now held by commissioned officers. He could only add, on behalf of the Admiralty, that they felt great sympathy with the warrant officers in the want of promotion at a certain stage of service, but they must recognise that there was also stagnation in some other branches of the Service, and it was very difficult to avoid. To remove it might cost more than could be justified. The interests of this extremely deserving and valuable class of Her Majesty's Service

  1749
  would always receive careful attention at the hands of the Board of Admiralty.

  THE SPARKBROOK FACTORY.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he wished to call attention to the proposal of the War Office to dismantle the Small Arms Factory at Sparkbrook, and to turn it into a repairing shop. This was, he urged, a matter not only of local concern, but of national import. He contrasted the advantages of the Sparkbrook Factory with those of the factory at Enfield, and pointed out that in the event of a prolonged invasion of this country Enfield would be almost unprotected. Railway communication with that place could not be compared with Sparkbrook, which was in the midst of a network of railways, placing the district in communication with all parts of the Kingdom. Sparkbrook, moreover, was situated in a district possessing rich resources of coal and iron and other requisites for carrying on such a factory. The policy of the Government, if carried out, towards the Sparkbrook Factory would entail great loss upon his constituents in Bordesley, and, although he insisted on their fair and equal treatment, he did not base his objections solely on the loss his constituents would suffer. He based them on military grounds, and thought every military man would agree as to the imprudence of closing a small arms factory with so many facilities for its work as that at Sparkbrook. The factory was capable of turning out from 600 to 1,000 rifles a week. It possessed the best machinery, and he contended that to close the place as a factory and remove the works to Enfield would not only be contrary to the understanding on which the Sparkbrook Factory was opened, but wasting a considerable amount of public money. He earnestly asked the Government to reconsider their attitude in the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not given notice of his intention to raise this question. The representatives of the War Office are not present, and I am in the unfortunate position of being a sort of residuary legatee of all the odds and ends that turn up on the Appropria-
  1750
  tion Bill. I am afraid I cannot give a detailed reply; but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's observations will receive due weight. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should think that everything the present Government has done is wrong, and that everything its predecessor did was right; but I am at a loss to understand the right hon. Gentleman when he puts his claim on national grounds. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the event of a prolonged invasion it would be better to have a factory at Birmingham than at Enfield.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: My statement was not against Enfield.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid that in the case of a prolonged invasion Birmingham from its importance, and especially from the importance of its Representatives, would be one of the first objects of an invading Army. They would probably desire to hold the Members for Birmingham, and especially the right hon. Member for Bordesley, as hostages, with a view to the conclusion of peace on favourable terms. But it ought to be some consolation to the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever method be adopted by the War Office, it will be adopted on the deliberate advice of competent military advisers.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. A. C. MORTON*MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough) rose to move the following Amendment:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that all Indian officials should be allowed an appeal to the Home Government without regard being had to the amount of their salary."
  The hon. Gentleman said that a few weeks back he brought a special case before the House, and he now referred to that case to say that it was on a question of principle. He brought before the Secretary for India the case of Mr. Kalvade, whose salary was just 250 rupees per month. There was an un-

  1751
  fortunate rule in connection with the Government of India that when an officer had a salary of over 250 rupees per month he could appeal to the Home Government; but if his salary was only 250 rupees, or under, he had no right of appeal. In this particular case the official's salary was just 250 rupees per month, and on that occasion he asked the Under Secretary for India whether he would consider the appeal under all the circumstances? This officer's salary was only short of the amount fixed by the rule by a fraction of a rupee, and on account of not having the right to appeal he had been practically ruined. It was not necessary for him to argue his case, whether it was right or wrong. This official had been ruined by a decision of the Government of India; and, therefore, he desired—and he thought very properly desired—to appeal to the Home Government; and, above all, he made a request—and this was the object of his getting the appeal—that there should be a judicial trial so as to settle the questions in dispute between himself and the Government. This was the point refused, and, therefore, he thought, so far as that particular case was concerned, that Mr. Kalvade had a very strong case indeed in favour of the right to appeal to the Home Government. He would not argue that particular case any further at the present moment. He had brought it forward before, and he only mentioned it now as an illustration of the desirability of carrying out the reform proposed by the Amendment. There were a very large number of these cases, probably more than they knew of at the present time, and he should take an opportunity later on of asking the Under Secretary of State for India to furnish a Return showing how many of such cases there were. What he desired to do now was to get the principle acknowledged of the right of appeal. According to present Rules it was held that a person having a salary above 250 rupees per month had the right of appealing to the Home Government, but that the poorer officials had no right of appeal. It might be said that it was "too much trouble," or that it was wrong to allow appeals at all to the Government at home. If they decided that, well and good; but
  1752
  now they said that the rich official who, in his (Mr. Morton's) opinion, did not need the right so much should have an appeal to the Home Government, and that the poor man should not. That was opposed to all ideas of justice in this or any other civilised country. He had another reason for specially asking for this reform from the Government. So far as he understood, it was the European officials who had the large salaries, and, therefore, the right of appeal to the Home Government, whereas it was the natives and the half-caste people that had smaller salaries who were deprived of the right of appeal. So far as he had been able to ascertain from the figures, there were about 4,000 European officers as against 12,000 natives and half-castes. Therefore, it was the natives who got the smaller salaries who would be benefited by an alteration in this rule with regard to appeals. Why should not the people with the smaller salaries have this right of appeal? He might be told that if appeals were allowed in all these cases there would be so many appeals that it would take too much trouble and time to look after them in this country. He did not agree with that view. His own impression was that if it were known to the officials in India that these people had the right of appeal they would act towards them more fairly, and there would be less injustice and cruelty. In some cases it was gross cruelty to refuse to redress the grievances, and if the higher officials were aware that an appeal could be made to this country against their conduct and decisions they would act differently. It was all very well to say that our officers in India and our Government acted fairly and well. He did not want to make any charge against them, but they knew very well that in India the British people considered it their duty to protect themselves at all hazards against the natives, and to treat them as a conquered people. Therefore it was not likely—it was against human nature he supposed—that they would take a very fair view in all cases of the position of these native officers. ["Oh, oh!"] So far as they had been able to ascertain, that was just what the complaints had been in India—that justice was not meted out to the natives; and, notwithstanding the ironical cheering of some hon. Members, he

  1753
  believed he was right in saying that the general tendency was to act against the natives. Then, why not allow these appeals? In their ordinary policy in this country they allowed appeals to almost everybody; it was the principle upon which they acted in all their Government affairs. Should they be bound by the judgment of any official whatever? Sometimes in this country officials of the lower rank were turned off without being heard, and the right of appeal in these matters had in some cases been brought before the Law Courts. He remembered reading of an eminent Judge who said that the meanest of Her Majesty's subjects, no matter what his conduct had been, had the right to be heard and the right to appeal, and he added that even the Almighty called Cain before him before he condemned him. So that they had very high authority that a man should be heard, and heard impartially, before he was condemned. He wanted the Government to thoroughly understand that they were not satisfied with the present condition of things. He did not at all wish to charge the Home Government with a desire to act unjustly. No doubt the Governments of India had a right of discretion if they choose to send on Petitions, but he did not think it ought to be a question of their discretion, because it was not likely that that discretion would be exercised in the way it ought to be. He thought it was very wrong that that discretion should be in the hands of officials in the position our officials were in India. He meant the officials who did not act from the will of the people, but depended upon the Army, and, therefore, had great power in that direction without consulting the wishes or feelings of the natives of the country. He had referred to one eminent Judge—he would now refer to another. Lord Camden said with regard to the discretion of a Judge—
  "It is the law of tyrants; it is casual always; unknown, and depends upon temper, prejudice, or passion."
  He supposed in any case in dealing with Indian affairs, they should have, to some extent, to depend on temper, prejudice, or passion; but as far as possible by allowing the right of appeal they ought,
  1754
  of course, to remove that difficulty out of the way of their fellow-subjects, and in that sense he desired to treat the Indian people as British subjects, and allow to them the same liberty, rights, and privileges that he would allow the people of this country. He might be told that in another Amendment which was on the Paper—an Amendment with regard to a Royal Commission being appointed—his wishes might be gained by consenting to a Royal Commission being appointed, amongst other things, to give this very reform that he desired. On former occasions he had said that he objected to Royal Commissions altogether. As a rule a Royal Commission was a farce and a fraud upon the people, and they were moved and appointed for the purpose of putting off a question instead of settling it. Probably, this Royal Commission might be agreed to by the Government, and it would report five or six years hence. Then the Government would take another five or six years to consider the matter, and eventually they would be all dead and buried before anything was done in the way of a settlement. He asked the Government for justice for the people of India, and he did not see that a Royal Commission would do any earthly good to him nor to the Indian people. Everybody knew what were the grievances of the people of India, and they wanted immediate redress. They did not want to be put off by Royal Commissions, neither did he. Therefore, it was much better to propose, as he had done that day, some practical remedy for an acknowledged grievance. This was a grievance that would not be permitted in this country to last 24 hours, because it had always been admitted to be the right of the poorest and most insignificant individual to have an appeal, and he trusted that the Government of India would be able to consent to this reform. Several times during the last three or four years he had been asked to bring this matter before Parliament, and it ought now to be attended to immediately. This was an opportunity of doing something for the natives of India, and he had felt it his duty to urge the Government to do this little justice towards them. He hoped the Government would consent to the Resolution and make the necessary

  1755
  reform. He was anxious to do the same for the people of India as he would for the people of Great Britain, and since he had a seat in that House he had always voted, not for Royal Commissions, but for something practical, and for the benefit of the Indian people. That day he had brought forward something which was practical, would be for the benefit of the people of India, and would assure them, through the officials, that they were willing to treat them all alike, no matter whether they were poor or whether they were rich, whether their salaries were high or low. He begged to move the Resolution.
  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, it is desirable that all Indian officials should be allowed an appeal to the Home Government without regard being had to the amount of their salary."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): I am really sorry I cannot consent to this proposition of my hon. Friend, because I cordially recognise the moderate and temperate tone in which he has brought the matter forward, and because he has on his side a considerable amount of reason. But the chief objection, as I understand, to this proposal is that it would simply inundate the India Office with Memorials. I cannot say exactly how many the servants of the State in India are, because I have not the figures here, but of those who have a salary of overl,000 rupees there are about 15,000, and if you take all grades of officials down to the lowest, we shall get to vary large figures indeed. There is nothing in the condition of things proposed to prevent each of these servants of the State from having a grievance, and if the proposal of the hon. Member is carried out there would be nothing to prevent each one of them sending Memorials to the India Office. That would, of course, very much increase the burden of work at the India Office, and would necessitate a large addition to the present staff. But it is not only on that ground that I oppose this pro-
  1756
  posal, but because we consider that these appeals are really better dealt with on the spot than they would be in England. When a man has a grievance against his Local Government he is not left to the Local Government for redress, but his appeal lies to the Viceroy, who is on the spot, and has better information on which to decide than we can possibly have at home. Appeals here must, of course, be carried out by correspondence, while out in India matters can be adjudicated upon by oral testimony. That is the second reason why we oppose my hon. Friend's Amendment. The existing Rule certainly does make a distinction between the highly-paid and the lowly-paid official; but my hon. Friend was, I think, wise in not calling attention to the particular case he brought before the House earlier in the Session. That was in one way a hard case, because the officer was placed in a different position than he would have been if he had only a fraction of one rupee more per month. But officers in his position have the right of appeal to this House, for they can get a public Representative always to bring a legitimate grievance before this House. He has also an appeal to the Viceroy, and we hope in the immediate future the Legislative Council of India will afford exactly that opportunity of criticising grievances which is afforded in England by the House of Commons. I admit there is upon the face of it an absurdity that the Rule permits the highly-paid official to appeal to the Government at home, while it prevents the less highly-paid servant from having the same redress. It might be a good thing to say that all grievances of this kind should be settled in India, and that there should be no distinction between the highly-paid and less highly-paid officers. But I presume the reason why the more highly-paid are allowed to appeal is because of the greater importance of the questions raised in their cases, which perhaps touch the principle of Civil administration, and may, in fact, be of sufficient social and political importance to merit the attention of the Secretary of State. The theoretical ground of the rule is, I admit, a very imperfect one, and I am quite prepared to receive suggestions for improving it. I do not say that the amount of salary affords any satisfactory

  1757
  clue to the importance of the grievance or the amount of suffering involved, but can my hon. Friend suggest any more practical or workable way than by the amount of salary? I am authorised by the Secretary of State to say that he will consider any plan or scheme my hon. Friend can suggest with the view of remedying any inequality in this connection, but I cannot accept the Resolution as it stands. I hope my hon. Friend will take my assurance that there is no disposition on our part to oppose any remedy for the grievance which exists.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEYsaid, that although he was precluded from moving the Resolution for a Commission to inquire into the economic condition of the people of India and their inability to sustain the present cost of the Indian Government, yet he should like to say a few words in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission. After more than a century of our Government the mass of the people of India were sunk in the depths of poverty and degradation. When they came to consider the amount of the revenue, and its pressure on the population, the burden of taxation was more onerous and more oppressive to the people of India than it was to any other people in the world. There was a time before the Indian Mutiny when India was looked upon as a mine of inexhaustible wealth, and officials who went out there came back to England loaded with riches. But the present poverty of India was an established fact. This had been proved beyond all dispute by his hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji), who was also the Member for India, in his various publications. Let them make a comparison of India and other countries. The Income of the United Kingdom was about £800,000,000 per annum. Now, if they analysed that, they arrived at the following facts. The annual average income per head in England was £41, in Scotland £32, and in Ireland £16. Then, if they took the poorest country in Europe, and the most corruptly-governed—namely, Turkey—they found the annual income was £4.
  1758
  When they came to India, they found the income per head was £2—that was to say, that India was twice as poverty-stricken as the worst-governed country in Europe. Eighty millions of people in India were going through life with insufficient food, and any failure of the crops brings them face to face with famine and starvation. Mr. Robertson, Agricultural Reporter to the Government of Madras, said of the agricultural labourer—
  "His condition is a disgrace to any country calling itself civilised. In the best seasons the gross income of himself and his family does not exceed 3d. per day throughout the year, and in bad seasons their circumstances are most deplorable. I have seen something of Ireland, in which the condition of affairs bears some resemblance to those of this country, but the condition of the agricultural population of Ireland is vastly superior to the condition of the similar classes in this country."
  Now, although steeped in the deepest poverty, the incidence of taxation was heavier in India than in England. The average payment of the British taxpayer to the Government was 7 per cent., whereas, in India, it was 14 per cent., or double. And there was this aggravation—that the British taxpayer paid out of his abundance, whereas the Indian taxpayer paid out of the necessaries of life. This state of things was serious, and became more serious as time went on. They were accused of being the cause of the misery in India; they were told that the administration of this country in India was expensive, and the most extravagant in the world; they were told they were draining the country of its wealth, and grinding the people to dust by our administration. If these charges were true, clearly there ought to be a Royal Commission to inquire into them and discover the cause, and, if possible, provide a remedy. They had no right to remain in India unless it could be shown that they were there for the good of the people. The continuance of this state of things must be disastrous. The words of Mr. John Bright spoken 40 years ago were as true to-day as at the time when they were uttered. He said—
  "Rely upon it, the state of things which now exists in India must, before long, become serious. I hope that you will not show to the world that, although your fathers conquered the country, you have not the ability to govern

  1759
  it. You had better disencumber yourselves of the fatal gift of Empire than that the present generation should be punished for the sins of the past. I hope that no future historian will be able to say that the arms of England in India were irresistible, and that an ancient Empire fell before their victorious progress—yet that finally India was avenged because the power of her conqueror was broken by the intolerable burden and evils which she cast upon her victims, and that this wrong was accomplished by a waste of human life and a waste of wealth which England, with all her power, was unable to bear."
  MR. NAOROJI: Forty years ago, when I first spoke upon this question, I expressed my faith that the British people were lovers of justice and fair play. After those 40 years, and with an intimate acquaintance with the people of this country, and a residence of 38 years, I repeat that faith. I stand here again in that faith, ten times stronger than ever it was before—that the British people are lovers of their Indian subjects—and I stand here in that, faith hoping that India will receive justice and fair dealing at the hands of this Parliament. I might also add, Sir, that from that time to the present I have always held that the British rule is the salvation of India. A higher compliment I cannot pay to the British rule. It has done a great many good things, and has given new political life to India. If certain reforms that can be made, and about which there was no difficulty, are brought about, both England and India will be blessed. I do not want to occupy much of your time, so I will not say more on this point. I acknowledge with the deepest gratitude that so far, in several respects, though not in all, the English rule in India had been a great and an inestimable blessing. With regard to the Amendment I propose, in which I ask that a Royal Commission be appointed in order that we may come to the bottom of many questions of grievances, and especially into the principle and policy of the British rule as it exists at present, I may just quote a few words that were uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister only a few days ago in connection with the question that is before us. He says—
  "I must make an admission. I do not think that in this matter we ought to be guided exclusively—perhaps even principally—by those who may consider themselves experts. It is a
  1760
  very sad thing to say, but unquestionably it happens not infrequently in human affairs, that those who ought, from their situation, to know the most and the best, yet from prejudice and prepossessions know the least and worst."
  How far that is applicable to the Indian administration I am not undertaking to say; that is exactly what the inquiry ought to settle—whether the views expressed by the Anglo-Indian officials are the right views, or whether they are mistaken in the way the Prime Minister thinks they may be. He says, again—
  "I certainly, for my part, do not propose to abide finally and decisively by official opinion. Independent opinion—independent but responsible—is what the House wants in my opinion in order to enable it to proceed safely in the career upon which, I admit, that it has definitively entered."
  And that is exactly what I appeal to. In the matter of the difference of opinion that exists between the Indian officials on the one hand and the native opinion on the question it is absolutely necessary—especially in the case where this House cannot in any way watch the taxes and the taxpayers, which it cannot at a distance of 5,000 miles—it is absolutely necessary that there should be some independent inquiry to satisfy this House and the public whether the administration is such as it ought to be. I hear that grumbling has begun to come from India itself. Only the other day, the 15th June, a telegram appeared in The Times saying that there seemed to be little doubt that all classes of India would soon join in demanding a strict and impartial inquiry into the excessive cost of the Indian establishments and the contributions levied on the Indian Treasury by the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Foreign Office; it was universally felt that India has been treated very unfairly in these matters, and that any attempt to stifle or delay the inquiry would cause much bitterness and discontent. Now, this is not all that has to be inquired into. I say that the whole policy and principle of the Budget, and the whole administration requires an overhauling. The last inquiry we all know took place in 1854. Since then there has not been an inquiry of the same kind. When we see the Prime Minister himself acknowledging only a few weeks ago, on the 30th June, that the expenditure of India, and

  1761
  especially the military expenditure, is alarming, and when we see also the Finance Minister telling us in his last speech—
  "The financial position of the Government of India at the present moment is such as to give cause for apprehension,"
  I think it will be admitted by the House that the time has come when it is exceedingly necessary that some fair inquiry ought to be made into the state of affairs. Well may the Prime Minister say that the expenditure is alarming, when we see that in 1853 and 1854—when the last inquiry took place—the annual expenditure of India was £28,000,000, whereas now in 1893 and 1894, excluding everything connected with public works, railways, &c, we have an expenditure of Rx68,000,000, which means an increase of 140 per cent. upon the expenditure of 1853 and 1854 in 40 years. The question is, whether this expenditure is justifiable or not? No inquiry has been made during these 40 years, and it is time, with such an additional expenditure, that full inquiry ought to be made. And then we know, at the same time, that from the beginning of this century to the present day there has been a constant wail and complaint that India is poor; and when we remember that the latest Finance Ministers emphatically laid down that it is the poorest country in the world, even compared with Turkey in Europe, I think it will be enough to satisfy the House that there ought to be a proper inquiry. I will now take a few illustrations of the principles on which the Budget, as it were, is built up, and consequently which also is an indication of the principles and policy of the whole administration. I have here the Colonial Office built at an expense of £100,000; every farthing of which is paid from the British Exchequer. I have the India Office built at nearly or about £500,000; every farthing of which is taken out of the Indian Exchequer from the Revenue of the poorest country in the world. The Colonial Service is given in the finance accounts as about £168,000; every farthing of which is paid from the British Exchequer. The Indian expenses or establishments given in the India Office expenditure is something like £230,000; every farthing of which is taken from the Indian Exchequer.
  1762
  But there is one item which, small as it is, is peculiarly indicative of the curious relations between England and India. I refer to the examinations that take place in England to send out young men for service in India, where they get a splendid career. They inflict upon us, rightly or wrongly—I am not discussing the justifiableness of such an injury—injuries of six different kinds. They take the bread from the mouths of the natives; they take away from the natives the opportunities of service in their own country which they otherwise would have. That is the material welfare we lose. They take away also esteem and the wealth of experience, because when an English official of 20 or 40 years' experience leaves the country all his accumulated wisdom is utterly lost to us, and we do not get the benefit of the wealth of that wisdom which we have a right to from the experience of those who are serving in India. The result of that again is that we have no opportunity of exercising our faculties, or of showing our capacity for administration. So that I think, as a law of nature, our capacity is stunted, we lose and wither, and we naturally become, as it were, incapable in time of showing that we have capacity for government. And what follows? You add insult to injury. After stultifying our growth, our mental and moral capacity, we are told that we are not capable. Well, Sir, I cannot, of course, enter into the details of these various injuries we suffer; but I say that here are these English youths who are to go out to India for a spendid career, and yet for their examination and further education in this country India must be charged £18,000 a year. This is a significant example of the relations that exist between India and England. Lastly, I will give one more authority. Lord Hartington has put the case very significantly. He once said—
  "There can, in my opinion, be very little doubt that India is insufficiently governed. I believe there are many districts in India in which the number of officials is altogether insufficient, and that is owing to the fact that the Indian Revenue would not boar the strain if a sufficient number of Europeans were appointed. The Government of India cannot afford to spend more than they do on the administration of the country; and if the country is to be better

  1763
  governed that can only be done by the employment of the best and most intelligent of the natives in the Service."
  I want to point out this as an illustration of the relations that subsist between England and India. I need not say anything about the saving of £2,000 in the salary of Lord Kimberley, by appointing him also as the President of the Council. Much has been said on this point, so I will not add to it. By one stroke of the pen about 10,000,000rupees additional burden is put on the poor taxpayer of India by giving a British exchange of 1s. 6d. to the European officials. This means this, that the starving are to be starved more in order that the well-fed may have their fill. I think the House will ask whether such should be the relations between the two Revenues? To come to the next proposition. Another illustration of what I am saying is charging India with half the expense of the Opium Commission. I will not say much upon that subject, because I find that almost the whole of the English Press, as well as the Indian Press, have condemned that proposal, and have used strong words, which I should be unwilling to use—that is to say, the English Press has used very strong words against that proposal, and I will only use the softer and milder word—that it is unjust. It was the English people, in the interest of what they consider their own morality, who proposed that this Commission should be instituted, and it must be remembered that it was this House that had settled that such a Commission should be given. Under such peculiar circumstances, to ask the people of India to pay half of this expense is anything but just. And what is still more striking is this—that in 1870 the same question was before this House, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and in 1891 the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), laid it down distinctly that India should not suffer in the slightest way; that unless the House was prepared to give to India the surplus of £6,000,000 of 1870 to make up the deficit of every year in Indian Revenue, neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House in 1891 (Mr. W. H. Smith) would proceed any further, or would listen to any representation about it. After such just protest against any movement of that kind, that the Prime
  1764
  Minister should now agree to this proposition is, I must confess, altogether beyond my comprehension. The next illustration, and a very significant one, is one upon which I need not dwell long, because only a short time ago a Debate took place in the House of Lords on the subject of military expenditure, when. Lord Northbrook, who has been Viceroy of India; the Duke of Argyll, who has been a Secretary of State; Lord Kimberley and Lord Cross were present, and it was the unanimous opinion of their Lordships that the Treasury and the War Office had treated India very unjustly in respect of the military expenditure and upon expeditions. I will read one extract from Lord Northbrook to show the manner in which India is treated in that respect. The whole Debate is worth a very careful perusal, and if hon. Gentlemen of this House will peruse that Debate they will get some idea of what highest Indian officials think of the relations of England with India. I will read one extract of Lord Northbrook's speech, which is very significant. He said—
  "The whole of the ordinary expenses in the Abyssinian Expedition were paid by India, only the extraordinary expenses being paid by the Home Government."
  I may interpose that, had it not been for the agitation I raised on that occasion, there is no doubt that the Indian Government would have been saddled with the whole of that expense. As it is, they had only to pay the ordinary expenses, and the British Government to pay the extraordinary expenses, though we had nothing to do with that. Lord North-brook goes further. He goes on to say—
  "The argument used being that India would have to pay her troops in the ordinary way, and she ought not to seek to make a profit out of the affair. But how did the Home Government treat the Indian Government when troops were sent out during the Mutiny? Did they say—'We do not want to make any profit out of this?' Not a bit of it. Every single man sent out was paid for by India during the whole time, though only temporary use was made of them, including the cost of their drilling and training as recruits until they were sent out."
  I think this is a significant instance of the relations between England and India, and I hope the House will carefully consider its position. In regard to the injustice of the military expense, even a paper (The Pioneer), which takes the

  1765
  side of the Government against the Indians generally, has expressed the opinion that the sum now imposed is an injustice, and that the expense is a large item annually increasing. It gives the whole—I think £2,200,000 in all—and then says—
  "This sum is a terrible drain on the resources of India, and might well be reduced."
  One more significant instance of these things. When the Afghan War took place it was urged upon this House that it was an Imperial question; that the interests both of England and India were concerned in it; and it was right and proper that this House and this country should take a fair share in the expenditure of that war. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister accepted the view which Mr. Fawcett put forward, and he said—
  "In my opinion, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney has made good his case."
  And he says again that it is fair and right to say that, in his opinion, the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney is completely made good, and that case, as he understood it, had not received one shred of answer. Well, Sir, the case was then that this war had taken place in which both India and England were equally interested; that as it was an Imperial question, and not altogether an Indian question, a portion of the expenses ought to be defrayed by this country. And the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, true to his word, when he came into power, did contribute a certain portion on that ground. We might have expected that he would have contributed half of it, but he contributed nearly a quarter; out of an expenditure of £20,000,000 or £21,000,000 he contributed from the British Exchequer £5,000,000, for which I can assure the House we are most grateful, not so much for the sake of the money, but because the principle of justice was admitted. It was admitted that this country had something to do with India; and if it has its rights, if it draws millions and millions a year from India, it has also its duties. And the first time this was ever admitted was on the occasion I have referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. We regard it as a great departure in the administration of
  1766
  the country. Now, I urge that there is a large Military and also Civil expenditure upon Europeans. It is avowedly declared—over and over again we have been told—that a British Army and some British Civil Service in India are necessary for the maintenance of the British power, as well as in the interests of India. That in order to maintain British power there must be a certain amount of British Army nobody denies; but the question is whether the employment of this British Army is entirely for the interests of India alone, or whether it is not also necessary for the maintenance of the British power in India? In other words, are not the two countries equal partners in the benefit to be derived from the European Services; and, if so, should not England pay for this as well as India? I urge the consideration of this upon the House. I say that part of the military expenditure is for the interests of the British Empire; that the maintenance of this Army involves the interests of Great Britain as well as India, and that both should equally share the expenditure for the maintenance of the British power in India and for the protection of British interests there. I may have to say a great deal upon this subject, but considering the time we have at our command I will be very brief. I would only say this: that on the discussion which formerly took place the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition took an opposite view to the view held by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Among the other reasons this was one of the reasons urged—that if India had belonged to an independent Ruler, like the Mogul, it would have been necessary for him to have entered into the war precisely as the Indian Government had done, and for precisely the same objects. There was no doubt, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government were following out a right line of policy in throwing the whole of the cost upon Indian finance. For these reasons he gave the Government his cordial support—that is to say, for throwing the whole expenditure on India. The right hon. Gentleman, however, forgets altogether that when the Mogul was the Emperor, and when the natives were a self-governing people, every

  1767
  farthing spent in the country on every soldier returned back to the people, whilst at the present time, in maintaining a foreign distant Power, you are drawing considerable amounts of money from the Indians for the Europeans, every farthing of which is completely taken away from the people under the present circumstances. That makes it entirely different. When a foreign domination compels the people to find every farthing for the sinews of war, then the money does not go back to the people as it would under, a Home Ruler. That is not the position of Britain. Britain is 5,000 miles away from India, and sends thousands of Europeans and foreigners over to India in order to support her power. We have to find every farthing of the cost, and then we are told it is only what the Mogul would have done. It is as different as the poles, as the House will recognise. It may be remembered that a few months ago a Petition was presented to this House from a public meeting in Bombay. In the Despatch quoted from the Government of Lord Lytton to the Secretary of State, he put the question in such a form that I shall be perfectly content to leave his words before the House. After making certain preliminary remarks, the Despatch goes on—
  "We are constrained to represent to Her Majesty's Government that, in our own opinion, the burden now thrown upon India on account of the British troops is excessive, and beyond what an impartial judgment would assign, considering the relative material wealth of the two countries and the mutual obligations that subsist between them. All that we can do is to appeal to the British Government for an impartial view of the relative financial capacity of the two countries to bear the charges that arise from the maintenance of the Army of Great Britain, and for a generous consideration of the share to be assigned by the wealthiest nation in the world on a dependency so comparatively poor and so little advanced as India."
  I hope these few words will bear weight. I do not ask for a share of the Military and Civil expenditures of the European Services simply as a beggar on account of being poor, though that is a great hardship; but I ask it on the ground of justice, on the ground that our interests and British interests are practically identical, and that both have an interest in maintaining the British rule in India. The British people have a great
  1768
  advantage, and in justice to the Indians they should be willing to pay their share. Now, I wish to say a little about the administration. I will say it in a very few words. As an illustration, may I remind the House that there are 37,000,000 people in the United Kingdom, and that an Income Tax of 1d. in the £1 produces above £2,250,000. India has a population of seven or six times the number in Great Britain, and yet on the 1d. in the £1 she can hardly pay, I think, £200,000. If this be not an indication of the condition of the people, of India I do not know what else is. A short time ago I heard with very great interest the Statement on the Budget by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spoke in very warm terms of the marvellous way in which the Income Tax increased in this country, although merchants and traders were complaining of a very bad state of trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rejoiced that, notwithstanding this, the Income Tax was jumping on year after year. I was very anxious to hear his explanation of this paradox. I would like to give a little explanation upon it. I do not know whether it may be an exact statement of the facts, but still I will venture to give it. Under ordinary circumstances, it is estimated that Britain draws something like £20,000,000 a year from India. I know that much more is said by some people, but I want to put it at the lowest. On the testimony of one gentleman who is generally antagonistic to the Indians—namely, the late Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean)—£20,000,000 is about the amount. Therefore, we may take it that something like that sum is annually drawn from India. I would welcome this annual wealth being taken from India by you if we benefited as well as you. I take it as a matter of fact that with all this wealth flowing into Britain the Income Tax is increased. I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to agree with me on this point he will show a greater sympathy with India in his dealings with the financial aspect of the Empire. I will give another illustration which will bring the matter home to the mass of the English

  1769
  people themselves. In India you have a vast country inhabited by people who have been civilised for thousands of years, and capable of enjoying all the good things of the world. They are not like the savage Africans, whom we have yet to teach how to value goods. But here you have 300,000,000 people to trade with, and for 100 years you have ruled them administratively by the highest-paid Service in the world. What is the result? What does England get in the shape of commerce? England sends her exports to various countries, and there are countries which shut their doors to her trade. But in India the trade is free; it is entirely under the control of the British themselves, and yet what profit do all the masses of the people receive? Very little. The total export of British produce to India is not worth 2s. 6d. per head per annum. If India were prosperous, if you allowed India to grow and make use of its own productions, then if you could export, say, £1 per head per annum, you would have a trade in India as you have not now in the whole world. It is a great loss to you and to us. If the present principles of administration were reformed and changed, and brought into a more natural condition, the result would be that the trade of England would grow to an extent of which we have no conception. You would have a market with 300,000,000 people, whereas, at the present time, you are spending hundreds of thousands in finding markets which will produce nothing approaching this. But here is a market at your own doors, and you are not able to sell of your produce more than 2s. 6d. a head per annum on the population. We know that in Native States native industry is prospering under the protection of British supremacy. The Native States have not foreigners going in and eating up their productions. They are gradually progressing in prosperity. I hope the time may come when important changes will he made in the administration of the country. I will not go into any further illustrations, but I would remind the House that Lord Salisbury has said what this policy is in the most significant terms. He has expressed it not in the hurry of a speech, but in a deliberate Minute made as Secretary of State for India. I hope
  1770
  his words will be digested by the House. He thinks that India only exists to be bled, and that now only those portions should be bled which are capable of giving blood. He says—
  "As India must be bled, the lancet should be directed to the parts where the blood is congested, or at least sufficient, not to those which are already feeble from the want of it."
  An hon. MEMBER: Where does he say that?
  MR. NAOROJI: It is in a Minute made by Lord Salisbury in connection with the Famine Commission Return, No. 3,086–1, 1881, page 144. Those singular words cover the whole present policy of administration, and I do not think I need add anything to them. I will use a few words of our Prime Minister, and of other great and eminent statesmen, as to what sort of relationship there should be between England and India. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on one occasion, in 1858, quoted these words of Mr. Halliday approvingly—
  "I believe our mission in India is to qualify the natives for governing themselves."
  But I would lay most stress on the words he recently expressed in this House in connection with the Irish Home Rule Bill. He says—
  "There can be no nobler spectacle than that of a nation deliberately set on the removal of injustice, deliberately determined to break not through terror, and not in haste, but under the sole influence of duty and honour, determined to break with whatever remains still existing of an evil tradition, and determined in that way at once to pay a debt of justice, and to consult by a bold, wide, and good act its own interest and its own honour."
  I appeal to no other sentiment of the British people, but leave it to their justice. It is necessary, in putting this matter properly before the House, to show how the present principles of administration in India are destructive. I appeal, therefore, to the Government, and say that an inquiry is absolutely necessary to ascertain whether it is or not that the administration of India is based upon a principle not only destructive, but very much mistaken. This is my view. I appeal to this House to give us an opportunity of proving that the present system of administration is an unfortunate one, and that certain changes

  1771
  of reform would be a blessing. With regard to the extract from Lord Hartington's speech, which I have read, I may say that that clearly shows that India is not properly governed. It is not sufficiently governed, for you cannot have the requisite number of men to govern it except from the Indians. I will read a few words from a speech of Mr. Bright's which are very expressive of our opinion regarding Indian government. He said—
  "You may govern India, if you like, for the good of England, but the good of England must come through the channels of the good of India."
  This expresses what is desired by the people of India. Mr. Bright further says—
  "There are but two modes of gaining anything by our connection with India: the one is by plundering the people of India, and the other by trading with them. I prefer to do by trading with them. But in order that England may become rich by trading with India, India itself must become rich."
  He also says—
  "We must in future have India governed, not for a handful of Englishmen, not for that Civil Service, whose praises are so constantly sounded in this House."
  On this point and in these words you have the whole Indian trouble, what the principle of the administration ought to be, and what alone will benefit both England and India. I will just read a few words by Sir Stafford Northcote when he was Secretary of State; I have no hesitation in saying that he endeavoured to do the best for us. He tried his best to see what justice he could do to the Indians, and he expressed himself in words like these—
  "If they were to do their duty towards India they could only discharge that duty by obtaining the assistance and counsel of all who were great and good in that country. It would be absurd in them to say that there was not a large fund of statesmanship and ability in the Indian character."
  I might quote something similar by the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir E. Temple). Sir Stafford Northcote further says—
  "Nothing could be more wonderful than our Empire in India, but we ought to consider on what conditions we held it, and how our predecessors held it. The greatness of the Mogul Empire depended upon the liberal policy that was pursued by men like Akbar availing themselves of Hindu talent and assistance, and
  1772
  identifying themselves, as far as possible, with the people of the country. He thought that they ought to take a lesson from such a circumstance."
  Now, I do not think I need say more. I think I have made out a primâ facie case that the Indian problem is a very serious problem. As Sir William Hunter once said, it is a problem which might in 40 years become an Irish problem, but 50 times more difficult. I hope and trust that time will never come, and that such a contingency will never arise. I hope the time is coming when the natives themselves, educated and learned men, will have a voice and due share in the government of India. Everything is promising. If the statesmen of to-day will only overhaul the whole question and have a clear inquiry by independent and responsible men acting with English sense and honour and justice, then the time is not far distant when both England and India will bless each other.
  SIR G. CHESNEY: I think, Sir, that the first condition imposed upon those who make a proposal such as we have just heard should be that they should put forward some sort of case for the establishment of an inquiry. I have listened with great attention to the hon. Member who moved this Resolution, and also to the hon. Gentleman who seconded it. And I am bound to say that, having listened to them, I have been unable to discover anything whatever which can be taken seriously to justify the course which is proposed—namely, the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the economic condition of the people of India, and which, apparently, is not only to cover the whole ground of the administration of the system in that country, but also to deal with various matters civil, military, political, and financial. Sir, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution gave the only sort of support to it that he could by assuming a constantly-increasing poverty among the people of India. As regards that very startling and novel announcement, he offered the House no sort of evidence whatever, except so far as to misstate by about £20,000,000 the Expenditure of the

  1773
  country. As to the constant cry about increased poverty, he was, no doubt, supported by the hon. Member (Mr. Naoroji) who supported his Motion. That has been the key-note of a great deal the latter hon. Gentleman has said both in and out of this House. He has taken up the position as a sort of general Representative of India. Well, on that point I would venture to remind the House there are a great many Members who have had a much larger and much more recent experience of India and Indian affairs than the hon. Gentleman who represents Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji). Moreover, I would venture to remind the House that the hon. Member, who speaks with such confidence, and assumes such a knowledge of the country, has spent only a comparatively small time in India, and that, too, in one corner of the country. There are Members in this House who have spent a much longer time in the country, and who have had opportunities which have been denied to him of serving and living in various parts of India. Many of us have lived in almost every part of India. We have thus had an opportunity of knowing intimately the native races with whom the hon. Gentleman is entirely a stranger. I entirely sympathise with him in his desire that the wants of India should be made known, but I would remind him that as regards the people of India he belongs to an alien race which has spread over that country solely and only as a result of British occupancy. Where the English have found their way, there also the Parsee community, a highly respectable and enterprising community, have followed in their footsteps; but they are no more natives in the proper sense of the word than Englishmen. They are aliens separated from the people of India by religion, by race, by caste, by tradition, and by history. If English domination, as it is called, or English government in India, were to come to an end, then that community, which is a much smaller community than the English, and they would assuredly be driven out of India at the heels of the latter. So much, therefore, with regard to the claims of the hon. Gentleman to pose as the Member representing India. But, at the same time, I admit it is satisfactory to find the case of the
  1774
  people of India advocated in this House. No one can spend his life in India who does not acquire a real regard, and I may say a real affection, for the people of India, and who does not feel that his interests have become their interests, and that it is his duty, after he has left the country, to consider the welfare and happiness of the people with whom he has lived so long and to whom he feels he owes so much. I think all hon. Members who have served in India share that feeling. But when it comes to proposals of the kind now put forward I venture to ask the House what is the connection between the desire that the people of India should have a Government which will give them a just measure of happiness and prosperity, and a proposal that there should be a Royal Commission to gather evidence and to make, apparently, some indefinite proposals. Sir, I cannot conceive anything calculated to do more mischief in the present state of things than to set on foot an inquiry in the form which has been proposed. I am quite prepared to agree that inquiries made in a proper sense may produce a reasonable result, but to carry the Motion which has been proposed to inquire into the economic condition of the people of India, with the suggestion thrown out that the condition of these people has deteriorated, and that the deterioration is due to the action of the British Government, is a most monstrous proposition to be made by British legislators. Both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have assumed without any sort of evidence that poverty in India is constantly increasing. They have, as I say, no sort of evidence whatever in support of such an assertion; the real evidence which is in our possession entirely disposes of that assumption. When you have an increasing trade and an enormous traffic on the Indian railways which have entirely sprung up of recent years, and further a large increase not only in population, but in the great mercantile centres, you have most indisputable proof that the wealth of India is, on the whole, largely increasing.
  It being half-past Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP)BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented,—of Return, for year ended 31st March 1893, of Army and Navy Officers permitted to hold Civil Employment of Profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS).
  Further Return presented,—relative thereto (Part II. Counties) [Address 2nd February; Mr. Storey]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 422.]
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, 1892.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 2nd March; Mr. Carvell Williams]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 423.]
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS) (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 29th August; Mr. Parker]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 424.]
  ALIENS.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 4th September; Mr. H. L. W. Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 425.]
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Copy presented,—of Further Regulations relating to the Militia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (PENSIONS OF SOLDIERS, AND PAY OF YEOMANRY).
  Copy presented,—of Further Regulations under the Yeomanry Pay and Pensions Act (Pensions of Soldiers) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (RULES OF PROCEDURE).
  Copy presented,—of Rules of Procedure [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, with detailed Report on Agriculture, for the year 1892 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND) (MIGRATORY LABOURERS).
  Copy presented,—of Report and Tables relating to Migratory Agricultural Labourers (Ireland) 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Report on the Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1892 with Tables [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Appendix to the Fifty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1892 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Six o'clock.