EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.

HC Deb 21 September 1893 vol 17 cc1794-894

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [20th September], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

SIR G. CHESNEY (Oxford)

When the Debate was adjourned last night I was about to remark that, whereas the Mover of this Motion and those who seconded it had alleged as their reason for making it the constantly increasing poverty of India, the whole of the facts which furnish criteria on the point are absolutely and entirely opposed to that assumption. Tried by every test which can be applied either to India or any other country, it will be found that the progress of India in wealth and material prosperity is steadily progressive and large. One test of the prosperity of a country is the condition of the large towns and cities. I do not know any country in the world—perhaps not even the United States—which presents such a remarkable instance as India does of the rapid increase of great towns. The City of Bombay, which 40 years ago might almost be described as a collection of huts, is now a city of 1,000,000 people, and is one of the most beautiful and wealthy cities in the world. Then there is the great Imperial City of Delhi. Delhi for the last 40 years has been increasing and expanding its trade in every direction. I might quote many other cases: but are these not sufficient evidence that the country in which these things take place must be a country increasing in wealth, and not increasing in poverty? Well, then, Sir, to take the test of revenue. I will not refer to revenue derived from the imposition of new taxes. I will take taxes levied for a long series of years, and in the method of the assessment of which there has been no alteration. These taxes will be found steadily giving a larger return year by year. Can there be a more sufficient gauge of the increase of wealth in a country? I need only turn again to the trade, both foreign and inland, and to the enormous development of Indian railways. Forty years ago, when I first went to live in the Punjaub, there were no roads whatever, and you would not meet 50 travellers in a day's march. Where, then, you met travellers by tens and scores, they are now travelling by railway over the same track in hundreds and thousands per diem. Can people go on paying every year a largely increased sum for railway travelling if they are constantly growing poorer? And it has to be observed that the great traffic of the Indian railways, apart from their goods traffic, is almost entirely a third-class passenger traffic—the traffic of very poor people. Nevertheless, it produces to the Indian railways an income of a great many millions sterling a year; and it is a remarkable circumstance that at the present moment, although the sea trade is so depressed, and when vessels are lying in harbour waiting for cargo, never were the great Indian railways so prosperous as now, thus showing how enormous is the inland trade, and how independent it is, to a great extent, of the trade with foreign countries. I might go on to quote other criteria to show that the country is increasing in wealth, but I will only ask those gentlemen who talk so lightly about the distressed condition of the Indians to refer to the records of a few years back; let them compare the state of India then, under Indian Government, to what it is to-day, under British Government. I would ask these gentlemen to read a well-known work by a very high authority—by a man unconnected officially with the Indian Government, and who, by his position, might rather be assumed to be in opposition to that Government; I am referring to the late Sir James Macintosh's Diary and Travels in India. Let any man read Sir James Macintosh's account of the Bombay Presidency, now one of the most prosperous parts of India, and I venture to say that man would not have the hardihood to get up and say India is getting poorer. I admit, Sir, that while almost all classes of the country are improving, while wages are increasing even more rapidly than prices, that, nevertheless, there is one class of whom the same satisfactory account cannot universally be given. I refer to the great agricultural population who do not earn wages, and who live on the produce of their own fields. Undoubtedly these people, in many parts of India, are pressing hard upon the means of existence. But why is that? It is because the population is increasing at so great a rate. As long as India was liable to the ravages of war and pestilence, and famine, then, no doubt, the population was kept down to a point at which it was not more than the land could supply. But we have substituted for war a reign of universal internal peace; we have managed to grapple successfully with famine, and, as a consequence, the population is increasing in some agricultural districts at a rate which undoubtedly offers great cause for anxiety in the future. But, I may ask, what proposals have ever emanated from the Party which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) professes to represent? What proposals have they put forward which shows they have the smallest idea of how to grapple with that great subject? And what useful result, I may ask, would follow from the appointment of a Roving Commission to inquire into circumstances which are perfectly well known, and which are fully understood? Have we succeeded yet in this country in grappling with the poverty we find, on a very much smaller scale, at our own doors? With our failure to deal with that, are we with a light heart to put forward proposals to take up the consideration of the case of more than 200,000,000 agricultural persons with the expectation that such a process and such machinery as a Royal Commission would give us any sort of assistance? There is one class, however, in India which is specially and extraordinarily prosperous, and whose presence in India is entirely due to British rule. I refer to the great Indian middle class. In the old clays you had the ruling Prince and a few persons who pandered to his pleasures, and you had a large Army, ill-paid and ill-disciplined, which overran the country; but you had no trade, you had no roads and no means of communication, and, therefore, no trading middle class. That prosperous middle class you now find in India is entirely due to the British Administration, and to the peace and prosperity which they insure in the country. And not only is there a prosperous middle class, many of them belonging to the same faith and race as the Member for Finsbury, but some of them have amassed enormous fortunes in India. Can you amass fortunes out of a country that is constantly growing poorer? How have these fortunes been amassed? By taking advantage of these poverty-stricken agricultural classes; by buying produce from them as cheaply as you can, and selling it at as high a profit as you can make. I am not finding fault with them for pursuing a legitimate trade, but I think complaints of poverty come with very bad grace from those who have made fortunes out of the poverty of the persons they are talking about. I do not want, however, to take the hon. Member for Finsbury too seriously, but I would rather turn to the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn), who has resided recently in India, and who belonged to the India Civil Service, of which he was a distinguished member. It may be said that if you find a person who was himself a Member of the Administration of a country turn round and say that that Administration is bad that there is then a case for inquiry. But I submit that a phenomenon such as the occasional appearance of a person holding the opinion of the hon. Member for Banffshire is not in itself at all remarkable or extraordinary. In every class or condition of life you will always find some eccentric person who takes an entirely different view from everybody about him. We all remember the case of the scientific gentleman who wrote a book to prove that the world was flat, just as you will find in every society or club someone to tell you that the committee are worthless, and that the club itself is the worst in the world. In the same way in the vegetable world: if you sow seeds you will find now and then springing from them plants of an entirely different kind from the plant that produced the seed. These exceptional kinds are known among gardeners as sports, and so, Sir, among all classes of officials you will find an occasional official sport. And it would not be unreasonable to expect that in such a large Service as the Indian Civil Service there should not be some one man who was afflicted with political colour blindness, and who is incapable of seeing facts as they are. Therefore, the circumstance that one member of the Civil Service can be found to take these extraordinary views is not to be regarded as proving anything except that he is one of those exceptional cases which you must expect to find among such a large body. One reason advanced for this inquiry is that it should be appointed to ascertain whether the condition of the people of India is not due to the excessive Civil and Military expenditure. Well, as regards Civil expenditure, I do not know whether the House is aware that while the business to be performed by the Civil Service in India goes on increasing year by year, the number of European officials who have to do the work has remained for a very large number of years almost stationary, and that at the present time the Service is worked harder than any other body of public servants in any part of the world. And so far from there having been an increase in the rate of emoluments, the tendency has been to cut down salaries, and the process has been very largely accelerated by the rapid course of the depreciation of the rupee. The Indian Civil Service, considering the duties performed, and comparing those duties with the duties performed at home, is, I say without fear of contradiction, distinctly underpaid, as compared with the Civil Service at home. The hon. Member for Finsbury seems to think one of the great remedies for the distress in India is to be found by substituting in a greater degree natives for Europeans in the Civil Service. I think be used the expression that these young civilians sent out to India were taking the bread out of the mouths of the people of India. I would ask the hon. Member, if the British had not gone to India, would there have been any Civil Service to administer? He says the natives of India should be more largely employed. I go with him so far as to say you should employ natives in India as largely as you can; and I venture to add that no one connected with the Government of India has pressed that more than I have done myself. But there is a practical limit to this. The people of India do not love us, perhaps, but they certainly respect us, and they are prepared to obey us; but they are not prepared to obey other people of India who have no feelings in sympathy with themselves, who are divided from them even by the most hostile feelings. Sir, I think we had sufficient during the late riots which have taken place in what were thought to be the most pacific parts of India, in the feelings which were raised on that occasion, to indicate that extreme care should be taken in lessening in any sensible degree at the present moment the number of official non-natives. The process should go on as far as is safe, but I believe that at the present moment the point of safety has nearly been reached. And if you were to substitute natives for Europeans, where, I ask, would be the financial saving to the people of India—where the gain to the agricultural classes? As regards military expenditure, I would ask the House to consider this fact: that the Indian Army is now, considering the circumstances of the case, on the most extraordinarily small and economical scale. In Bombay, with a population of 1,000,000 people, the garrison of that great city, with its forts and harbours and the great interests which are to be defended, consists of four weak companies of British Infantry, a weak battalion of Native Infantry, and a handful of Marines. That is the garrison of one of the largest cities in the world. Then take the Imperial City of Delhi, which is the residence of some of the most dangerous classes in India. There, again, the whole and sole garrison of that great city is only four weak companies of British Infantry and a handful of natives. At this moment the Army in the British Isles is more than one-half the strength of the Army in India—that great country which has a frontier of several thousands of miles occupied by warlike or hostile tribes. So small, Sir, is the garrison of that country that if, at any moment, a force is required, as is almost constantly happening, for active service on the frontier, you can only gather that force together by moving the troops from one obligatory point to another over the whole country. The British Army in India at the present moment is actually smaller than it was 40 years ago, and within that time our Indian territory has been increased by several hundred thousand square miles. When Burmah was occupied the other day not a single soldier was added to the garrison, so desirous was the Government of not increasing the burden of taxation on the Indian people. That has put a very great strain upon the already overworked Army of India. I mention the circumstance to show that, so far from this Army being on an extravagant footing, it has been reduced to the smallest point possible. The Indian Army is a very efficient Army, but its efficiency must be understood in this sense—that it is efficient only so far as it is understood to be a peace Army, which will have to be very largely reinforced on the outbreak of any war. Subject to that reservation, the Indian Army is undoubtedly efficient. It is an over-worked Army, and an Army very much smaller than it was years ago. These are the two great items of expenditure with regard to which it is assumed that a very great variety of useful information can be obtained by further inquiry. And that is the claim put forward for this Commission. Now, the general use of a Royal Commission, no doubt, is to obtain information on points upon which information is needed. In this respect I venture to say that there is absolutely no need whatever for an inquiry of the sort. As regards information, the Records of India are already on the fullest scale, and there is perhaps no country in Europe where statistics upon every conceivable subject have been so completely worked out. You have the most detailed statistics already available on Public Works, Civil and Military Expenditure, and on the condition of land settlements in different parts of India, and about everything else. No country has such ready and complete records of desirable information. The hon. Member spoke of the inquiries which took place in former years. In previous times it was, no doubt, customary to make an investigation every 20 years; but in those days there was a complete want of information about India. That want no longer exists; and to suppose that, having got your information at the end of 40 or 50 years of the most careful and elaborate labour, therefore a Roving Commission wandering about the country would be able to throw any further light upon the matter is absurd. What is wanted, I would venture to suggest, is to come to a conclusion—to form an opinion, and to lay down a policy with regard to the matter. That, Sir, is not the duty of a Royal Commission; it is the duty of this House. I go so far with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) as to say that with regard to the distribution of charges between India and England great injustice is very often done. The hon. Member, in saying this, is not bringing forward anything new. It has been said many times before, and we do not want any further inquiry by an irresponsible body. What is really wanted is the action of this House; for it is the action of this House alone that can perform this act of justice satisfactorily to the Indian people. A Joint Committee of the two Houses, or a Select Committee of this House, might carry out this very useful work, but short of the highest authority of the land—the authority which controls the Treasury—nothing useful will be done to India by this inquiry. In the original Motion proposed, the hon. Member went on to speak of having representative Members on this Commission. I suppose by representative he meant representative of the people of India. If you are to have the people of India represented on the Commission your Commission must not be counted by units or tens; you must have a Commission composed of scores. You will need a great number indeed to obtain any representation of the diverse, and often hostile, views of the people of India. What, however, I apprehend to be contemplated is that the representation should have that peculiar and very partial representation which is signified by the view of the National Congress. For a good many years past the National Congress has been sitting, and I will defy any person to produce one single useful suggestion which that Congress has brought forward. So far from representing the people of India, I will say this of the National Congress: that for one man who believes in the Congress a hundred despise it. They have never attempted to deal with matters which have the real sympathies of the masses of the people, such as the poverty of the agricultural class. The representation of the National Congress has been for the most part connected with the representation of the small and special class who desire to get a larger share of the official loaves and fishes. They desire, for example, to reduce the Income Tax, which is the one tax that the middle classes of India pay. Amongst other things, the National Congress has made two very silly and useless proposals. One proposal they make every year is that the people of India should be allowed to re-arm themselves. Now, our small Army in India maintains the peace over 300,000,000 people, only and solely because the people of India have no arms. I ask the House to consider what would have been the effect of the late riots at Bombay and at Rangoon, and at other places, if the rioters had been, as they were 40 or 50 years ago, in possession of weapons? Nothing could be more preposterous than the proposal to re-arm the masses of the population of India. Another proposal made at the same time is that native Volunteer corps should be established. We have Volunteer corps here in England because we have a very small Army, and we are surrounded by other nations armed to the teeth. We have enormous wealth close to our seaboards, and we are in danger of invasion, against which a Volunteer Force becomes a valuable safeguard. But, I would ask, if a Volunteer corps was established at Calcutta or Bombay, what would be the use of it if there was an invasion from the North-West Frontier? The only certain result of a Volunteer Force would be to increase the taxation of the people of India. Yet these two supremely ridiculous proposals have been put forward year by year by the National Congress. If representation on this inquiry is to be similar to the representation on the National Congress, I do not think any good will be got from an inquiry. But I submit to the House that absolutely no case is made out for this inquiry. We do not want to gather information that is already available, while if any action is to be taken it must be by this House; a Commission of any sort would be extremely offensive to the Government of India, and would greatly increase its present difficulties.

SIR W. WEDDERBURN (Banffshire)

I desire to speak in support of the prayer of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Finsbury for an independent inquiry into the condition of the people of India, and I wish to bear personal testimony to the deplorable condition of the masses of that people. I wish to lay before this House some facts, which I think will show that the cause of that deplorable condition is the system of official administration which now exists in India. I do not wish to say anything against any individual or any class, but I am firmly convinced that this official system is the direct cause of the present condition of the people. Not only is it the cause, but I cannot see how it could be otherwise, because practically we have now in India an administration in which the people have no voice at all in the management of their affairs. We have an official class who have absolute authority, who are practically uncontrolled, whose professional interests in many important respects are directly adverse to the interests of the great body of the people. I say that the people have no voice in the management of their own affairs, and, practically, there is no means of obtaining redress when they are in official disfavour. And what do we ask? We ask simply for independent inquiry in order to learn the true state, and in order to do justice. Some hon. Members, I believe, will say that there is danger or inconvenience in such an inquiry, but I say the danger consists in the refusal to make such inquiry. There is no people more loyal, more law-abiding, or more docile than the people of India, but the one thing which may drive them to despair is the fear that an inquiry into their grievances may be refused. I would like to speak with regard to the condition of the masses of the people of India. I am glad to say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford admits that the condition of the agricultural population of India is not at all satisfactory. That agricultural population includes about nine-tenths of the whole population of India. It is a peasantry not unlike the peasantry of Ireland, and a great part of India is in the condition which in Ireland is known as the congested districts. In this inquiry I have great hopes of obtaining the sympathy and support of the Nationalist Members from Ireland. They know what their own countrymen in similar conditions have suffered. The iron has entered into their soul, and I think they will be very sympathetic to my hon. Friend (Mr. Naoroji) in his endeavour to bring the case of his countrymen before this House. He has worked very hard and grown grey in the service of his country; he speaks with difficulty in a foreign tongue, and I think this House will be very anxious to understand the case that he wishes to make out on behalf of his unfortunate countrymen. It has been said by one hon. Member that my friend is a foreigner and a Parsee. I think the hon. Member is a little mistaken when he says that the Parsees depend for their position upon the existence of the British Government. They have been there for many hundred years, and it might as well be said that the Nationalist Members are not representative of Ireland because, perhaps, their ancestors went over with Strongbow. The Parsees have been nearly 1,000 years established amongst the people of India, and are to all intents and purposes true inhabitants of the country; but the value of what a man has to say should be valued not by his race, but by the confidence which he enjoys amongst the people and amongst his fellow-countrymen. The hon. Member for Finsbury enjoys the confidence of the great body of his fellow-countrymen, and that has been expressed again and again in every way in which the people can express their opinions. With regard to the question of class prejudice, I shall have something to say. If the official records are correct—and I have no reason to doubt them—it would appear that one-fifth of that population are rarely able to enjoy more than one meal in the day. That means that one-fifth of the population—say 40,000,000 people, as many as the whole population of these Islands—go through their lives without having their hunger satisfied. The hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Bayley) yesterday stated what the average income of the native of India is—1½d. per day. That is not a very large income to tax, yet the taxation that is placed upon these people is two or three times in proportion to that of this, the richest country in the world. And, to give an example, there is a terrible Salt Tax, which is at the rate of about 2,000 times the cost of production. That is a very cruel tax, because the people are vegetarians, and the poor man must have his pinch of salt. The tax falls as a cruel one upon the very poorest class of the population. I do not wish to trouble the House with figures, but I can speak from what I have seen with my own eyes of the condition of the great body of their peasantry. As a matter of fact, they live so completely on the very verge of existence that one failure of rain, one bad crop, is sufficient to cause widespread starvation. They have absolutely no savings; they can save nothing, because the greater part of the peasantry is hopelessly in debt. The consequence is that in one bad harvest they die, not in hundreds, not in thousands, nor tens of thousands, nor hundreds of thousands. In the famine of Bombay and Madras there were reported to have died 5,600,000 men, women, and children—industrious, frugal peasantry. I say that that fact proves that the people are in a most desperate condition, and my belief is that the land has become exhausted, and that, instead of things getting better, they are going from bad to worse. I say that that condition of things is directly produced by the system of government by officials in India. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir G. Chesney) referred to me personally in a very flattering way, and I will not enter into any defence of the personal views I take, because I consider that unimportant. But I would only say that I have the honour of the Service as much at heart as anyone, and I may say that since the beginning of the century my family have served the Queen in India, and my wish is not to say a word against the Service, but to place it in the proper position. The Members of the Indian Government are not to be the masters and tyrants of the public, but to be the servants of the public, and work for their interests. Therefore, I do not wish to come forward to impeach the Service or individuals. I say that our Government in India is an administration through the officials, by the officials, and for the officials, and that in many important respects their professional interest is directly antagonistic to the interests of the great body of the people. It is highly creditable to them that in spite of this they have, in a great measure, worked with self-sacrifice for the good of the people. Yet, at the same time, I say that the system is a bad one which puts into antagonism such opposite interests. It is easy to know how much their professional interests are antagonistic to the welfare of the people. We know that in this country and elsewhere the great reforms we want for the people are peace, retrenchment, and reform. That is the basis for the welfare of the people. Now, with regard to the great Official and Military Service, their professional interests are strictly antagonistic to all three. ["No, no!"] The greatest military longing is for active service. We do not blame the Army for desiring to distinguish itself, but I do not think it will be denied that the interests of the Army are opposed to peace. ["No, no!"] At any rate, its aim is to distinguish itself in every possible way. Then there come the Departments. How can they be expected to regard with favour reforms which mean the destruction of themselves? With regard to reform, how can we expect them to take the initiative in acts of reform, which mean putting a limit and control on their own arbitrary powers? Reform also means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) has said, more power for the people of the country, and the employment for high objects of the people of the country is directly opposed to the ruling classes, who naturally wish to keep those appointments for themselves. I admit a great deal has been done in the way of giving employment to the people of India, and so far it is creditable that it has been done; but the interest of the dominant class is adverse to the interests of those over whom they rule. The experience in this House of the last few days would show how difficult it is for this House of Commons, sitting in London, to control the great spending Departments of this country—to prevent extravagance, and to prevent waste. Here the taxpayer is the master, and yet the taxpayer as master, acting through the House, finds it very difficult to control waste and extravagance. What is to be expected when the condition of affairs is exactly reversed—when, instead of the taxpayer being the master, it is the tax-consumer who is to be the master? He settles how much is to be paid; he fixes practically his own salary; and what is to be expected when he is absolute and uncontrolled master—when the only duty of the taxpayer is to pay his taxes—what can you expect as regards anything like a reasonable administration of public affairs? We can see what the result is. I will trouble the House with one single figure with regard to that—namely, the increase in the Civil and Military expenditure of India during the last 10 years. It has increased by £10,000,000, while the Civil and Military expenditure of this country has increased £2,500,000.

SIR W. HARCOURT

signified dissent.

SIR W. WEDDERBURN

The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. Perhaps he will kindly tell me what the figure is, if it is not £10,000,000. According to the figures, as far as my limited capacity of examining figures goes, making a comparison of the same class of expenditure, I make out the Indian expenditure has increased by four times what the British expenditure has increased. If I am asked why is that increase, the answer is an easy one—namely, because in the case of the British Exchequer we are spending our own money, and in the case of the Indian Exchequer we are spending somebody else's money. I do not know any other reason why the expenditure has mounted up in the degree it has done. I say that the whole class of officials are not so impartial in these great questions that the public and the House should leave to them absolute and uncontrolled management of the finances of India. As a matter of fact, we know that these affairs are of a very urgent character. We know the Government are told that unless a certain remedy—what I would call a quack remedy for closing Mints—is adopted there will be very great difficulty in paying current expenses. That remedy has been adopted, and even in that remedy there is a taint of the selfishness I deprecate so much from the ruling powers—namely, that its direct effect is to raise the exchange value of the rupee, and in that direction the personal and pecuniary interest of every official in India is more or less involved. I do not wish to lay great stress on that matter, but I wish to say that the Government of India is in very great straits. The people are taxed up to the utmost limit that the people can bear taxation; they do not know where to turn; and I say that under these conditions it is the absolute duty of this House to cause independent inquiry to be made by those whom they trust. I do not ask the House to take our statements for gospel. I say I have seen pretty well the inner workings of the Government, and I approve of them. As far as the voice of a single individual will go, I ask for an inquiry. I say that if reasonable inquiry were made it would establish entirely the points we now ask to be inquired into. I now return just for a moment to the question of the official government of India. It is not only that the officials generally have interests adverse to the people of India, but that the government does not rest with the rank and file at all; it rests with cliques—with official cliques—at headquarters; they are the people who are the real authority in India, those who hold the positions of heads of great Departments. My proposition is that it is impossible for anyone in the Government Service out in India to reach these high positions if they hold independent convictions; if they are not willing to tell unpleasant truths to the authorities, there is not the least chance of their ever reaching those high positions. I take an illustration that will make that clear to everyone. We have Viceroys of very different complexions. At one time it is a Viceroy like Lord Lytton, whose high ability commends itself to gentlemen opposite. At another time we have a Viceroy like the Marquess of Ripon, who recommends himself to persons on this side of the House. It is quite evident that any man in the Government Service who holds a calm conviction either in favour of Lord Ripon's policy or against it could only expect promotion when the Party was in power which he approved of; therefore, the one side would get a step when Lord Ripon was in power, and the other side would get a step when the other side was in power. But the gentleman who carries out orders of any sort gets two steps to one by the other man—the men who walk up the ladder of promotion two steps at a time are the gentlemen who are not weighted with these painful convictions which force them to tell Governments unpleasant truths. But those men who get up are those who can prophesy smooth things. It always reminds me of a great historical character—Doeg the Edomite. The King of Israel told his servants to slay the priests, and when his servants refused Doeg came forward and slaughtered them very readily. That is the man likely to get rapid promotion without any seniority of service. Therefore, the Government of India is really the Government of a clique. How are they to be controlled? It is said they are to be controlled from the India Office, but I say that control is absolutely fallacious, because it consists of Her Majesty's Secretary of State, who, perhaps, is in Office for six months, surrounded by members of that very clique against whom the complaints are made. It is said that when a good American dies he goes to Paris, but when a good official dies in India he goes to the Indian Council, and there he sits. I say that in some cases there is practically no redress for any wrong that may be done, or any wrong that it may be thought is about to be committed. The stereotyped answer which we get to questions in the House about matters the details of which are, perhaps, buried in the India Office is always that "the Secretary of State sees no reason to interfere." Nobody can get redress if treated unjustly in India. My hon. and gallant Friend challenged me to mention any case in which the Party which I favour—what is called the International Congress Party—had brought forward and promoted any practical scheme for the good of the people. We approve of the International Congress because it is the best expression that can at present be given of the public opinion of India. If anyone will suggest a better way of getting at the public opinion of India we shall be very glad to adopt that. The members of the Congress are all collected in open meeting; they are sent there from long distances; they assemble, there is debate and discussion, and resolutions are passed which are circulated among the Members of this House. I think that my hon. Friend hardly gave a fair description of the nature of the results attained there. But I will give an instance. As has been said, the Indian cultivator is in a desperate condition of poverty and debt. The reason that he has fallen into this state of debt to the Indian money lender is on account of the extreme severity with which the Revenue is levied on the Indian cultivator. The other reason is because there have been established Civil Courts which force them into the power of the money lenders, so that they are practically made insolvent. That is a state of things of a most serious kind. The peasantry are being sold up by the money lenders all over the country, and are being divorced from the land. Those who think with me devised this remedy—that there should be a composition between these people and the money lenders, and that there should be established agricultural banks such as we find in every country where there are peasant interests, in order to furnish a fund at reasonable rates of interest and so help them out of their difficulty. This is a scheme which was accepted by both the natives and the money lenders. It was approved by the Government of Bombay. It was accepted by the Government of India that Lord Cromer, who was then Financial Minister, was willing to advance funds necessary to start this composition. The Government of India wrote home to the India Office recommending that a very small experiment should be tried in one or two villages, so that the practical outcome of the scheme might be witnessed. If we could have found out a way of making one village prosperous and contented we had the clue to making the whole of India prosperous and contented. Well, Sir, it is very difficult for any person to understand why such an experiment, approved of by all classes of people, approved by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and other Public Bodies—I say it is almost incredible that anybody should be found to object to such an experiment being tried. We have been working at this matter for 10 years. We had Government assent to carry it out. But when this scheme entered the portals of the India Office it never left them alive. It was stabbed in the dark, and to this day I do not know why the Government of India, the Viceroy, and Council were forbidden to try this limited experiment by which we might have found the means of restoring prosperity to India. Now, as regards the inquiry, I can only urge that it is much needed. I affirm that every good thing done for the people of India has arisen out of an inquiry in this House for reform; every kind of progress accepted and carried into effect in India has been under the direct orders this House has given in opposition to those of the officials. What we ask is that the orders given by this House should be carried out, and above all things that a Commission should inquire whether those orders have been carried out. If they have not, then steps should be taken to put them in force. I say, Sir, that it is the duty of this House and the country to do this. It would be our duty even if it meant a loss to this country. But so far from there being a loss to the country there would be an enormous gain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) has pointed out, the whole trade of India comes to only about 2s. a head per year. With reasonable prosperity, if India took, say only £1 per head of our goods, it would amount, as has been pointed out, to as much as the whole trade we have with the world. Therefore, if these steps are taken, I say that this inquiry is the only means by which they can be accomplished. It is the duty of this House to order the Commission, and it would be beneficial to the people of India and to the people of this country.

SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

The Motion which has been moved and supported is one which cannot actually be put to the House. It, however, no doubt meets with a great deal of sympathy on this side of the House of Commons. If the Motion had been put to the House, I should have felt bound to go into the opposite Lobby to that taken by most of those with whom I usually act. Now, Sir, the Motion as it stands on the Paper to-day is very moderate indeed. The Motion as it stood on the Paper yesterday was much stronger. It has been toned down, and has been improved in such a way as to lead many reasonable Members of the House to give it their support. But, Sir, the speeches we have heard—especially the speech of the hon. Baronet—have travelled beyond the terms of the Motion, and the words which have been expunged from the Motion have re-appeared in the speeches. Therefore, I think that we must deal with this Motion not as the mild Motion which appears on the Paper, but as the far stronger Motion, which has been supported in the speeches we have heard. Now, Sir, as I hold views with regard to India and its government as extreme as those of the hon. Baronet who has just spoken, I must, nevertheless, say that I cannot at all associate myself with the views of my hon. and gallant Friend who has spoken this evening upon the other side of the House. Sir, the hon. Baronet who has just sat down spoke of the deplorable condition of the people of India. He said that only despair lies before them. He has stated in general terms that he gathers such impressions not only from his own distinguished career in India, but also and especially from Government Returns which from year to year have been laid before this House. Sir, it is impossible to deny that in those Government Papers and Returns there are many facts which go to show that the population of India is very poor. No one can for a moment deny that fact. But, Sir, it is hardly fair to quote from Returns and official Despatches without also quoting from the Annual Statement of the Moral and Material Progress of the People of India, to the effect that there is constant improvement. The two statements should be taken together. This Motion will, of course, be telegraphed to India in its stronger form. No doubt means have already been taken to communicate to the papers of India the stronger form of this Resolution, and if at any time this House should be led to adopt the milder Resolution, the result to India will be as if the stronger Resolution had been adopted. On this matter I am bound to say that I agree with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who addressed the House this evening. I think that, as regards the government of India, the appointment of a Commission is calculated to weaken the Government, and therefore that a Commission is extremely dangerous. I have myself a strong-objection to Royal Commissions of any kind in the abstract. But if there is to-be an inquiry it would have to be on a very large scale and very searchingly into both the military and civil administration of India. Such Commission should be able, by the strength of its constitution and the terms of Reference, to go into the foundations of Government in India. I say that such a proceeding would greatly weaken the Government. At the same time, if there is reason to believe-that the condition of India demands a. very large change in the civil and military administration, or in both, then it is the bounden duty of the Government for the time being to carry out these alterations, and for the Prime Minister and Cabinet to make those proposals to the House which they think it necessary to make. There is one particular point to which both my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury and the hon. Baronet have directed the whole of their speeches. They dwelt largely—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury dwelt almost exclusively—upon one particular portion of the expenditure of India. No doubt as regards the home charges the objections which have been raised are based on satisfactory ground, and if these were to be inquired into I do not think the House would be opposed to instituting an inquiry. As must be universally admitted by all who have given their attention to this subject the home charges of the Government of India are increasing, and there is high authority to show that India is not always fairly treated. But, Sir, we have not only to deal with the speeches which have been made and the earlier form of this Resolution, but we have also to remember that Papers have been circulated to Members of the House in support of the Resolution, or rather in support of the earlier form of the Resolution. It is, of course, not desirable to discuss documents which have been circulated to Members. No doubt Members who have perused the documents recognised in full their duties to the people of India. But those Papers have received a very wide circulation, and hon. Members are very naturally inclined to feel strongly on the subject. I cordially admit that we have a very high duty in respect to India. No one can deny that, and I may add that, with respect to the government of that country, it might almost be said that we have even a greater responsibility than to our own constituencies, because the people of India are unrepresented. I admit a great many of the details of which the hon. Baronet has just spoken; I admit the great pressure of the Salt Tax, and I can bear testimony to it being a cruel tax. All taxes are more or less cruel, but the Salt Tax is no doubt severe upon the poor, and is in that sense specially cruel. Unless there is reason to suppose that there can be large economies in the Government of India we cannot attack all our means of resource. I believe that some moneys might be curtailed in India, but not enough to put down the Salt Tax, while the education expenditure must increase. You should not attack the Revenue of India unless you know from where you are to get other revenue. Something might be raised from tobacco, and India, is the only important country which raises no revenue from tobacco. No doubt there are many people in India who escape having to pay taxes, but, on the other hand, there are large Services in India which, so far from giving us room for economy, demand, indeed, an increase, and I am sure the hon. Baronet will agree with me that even with regard to the police, our agents are insufficient to remedy the evils that take place at the present time. The hon. Baronet attacked the Council of the Secretary of State. I agree wholly with him in that particular. I believe with Lord Palmerston and Mr. Bright as to the creation of the Council of India. The Council was set up for special and temporary reasons. It was set up in order to find—I will not use an offensive term—but it was set up to secure a transition from the old form of government in India to the modern form of government of India by England. The reasons for that have, however, passed, away. The Council is, of course, wholly unrepresentative of the people of India. It would be easier to sweep it away altogether than to make it representative of the people of India. It would be fax better if the Secretary of State was directly in communication with Parliament instead of having a Council as a. buffer which, instead of offering resistance in cases of importance, often offers resistance in the wrong case. I thoroughly agree that there might be reduction in, the cost of the India Office, and also a reduction of the expenses of India in the purchase of stores. They might be obtained a great deal cheaper than they are at the present time. There are heads of expenditure in which a reductions might take place. But these are matters upon which I do not believe' any Commission would be able to enter. The hon. Member for Finsbury made a suggestion to the House. He suggested that it might be the duty of Parliament to pay the white soldiers employed in India. He said that we had our Native Army in India which would serve for the defence of the country, and that we sent our white troops to support our own rule

MR. NAOROJI

I said pay a fair share.

SIR C. W. DILKE

I did not catch the words "fair share," and the argu- ment had seemed to go the whole way. The hon. Member who has just spoken was silent on that point. Now, I wish to protest against the mixing up in any way of British and Indian Expenditure. It has never been done, and I hope never will be done. The late Mr. Fawcett, although he was so strong an advocate of the claims of India, always protested against anything of the kind in the strongest possible way. When a question of applying the revenues of this country to India in connection with famine arose it cost him—a man who was prepared to sacrifice even his career in this House for the sake of the natives of India—a great deal to oppose the proposal which was then made by his friend, but he did oppose it. He did so on the ground that he would never be a party to confusing the Revenues of the two countries, and to making this country contribute to expenditure taking place in India itself. The hon. Member for Finsbury and his friends say that a large part of the expenditure is Imperial, and that a portion of it is for aggressive purposes. But it seems to me a dangerous delusion and absolutely inadmissible—this idea that expenditure for the defence of India is in any sense non-Indian, and that the taxpayers of Great Britain should contribute to it. The hon. Member who has just spoken holds, I know, the view that what is called the aggressive frontier expenditure of India might be avoided; but, in my opinion, so far as there has been aggression it has been directed against India. The recent events in the Pamirs—the operations of Russia in that quarter—may be cited. Our frontier expenditure is really a small proportion of the military expenditure of India, and the main expenditure is for the purpose of keeping up the ordinary British and Native Forces. I do not think that it is possible to reduce the expenditure on those Forces except by a complete change of system, which would involve, not only the military arrangements in India, but here also. If you appoint a Commission to go to India to take evidence on that point you will not be able to make changes if you desired it as regards India alone, such as would be necessary to produce any real economy in the Revenues of India. The hon. Member for Finsbury has spoken in like manner of the Civil expenditure. He has suggested that we should make a large contribution towards the white civilians in India. I do not think that this would be possible. To both these great branches of Expenditure the same argument applies. Certainly you cannot by means of a Commission bring a change about which would strike at the foundations of the present system of government in India. If you are to make a change on such a scale as to produce a large effect it can only be done by the Government, and on the responsibility of the Government. I now come to the pleasanter task of stating briefly points on which I am disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Finsbury. I do think that it would be possible to secure the present military force at a cheaper rate, or to secure a larger force at the present rate; but, as I said, it could only be by a very great change of system which would affect the conditions of enlistment of the whole of the Forces of this Empire. There is this remarkable fact—that the gallant General opposite (Sir G. Chesney), and authorities like Lord Wolseley and Lord Roberts, although they differ on points of detail, all agree that it would be possible so to modify the military system of this country as either to give India a larger force at the present rate or to reduce the military expenditure of India. In respect to Civil expenditure, changes might, in my opinion, gradually be made, which would be of advantage to the finances of India and to the prosperity of her future. The remarkable advances in local and native government which have been made by some of the States of India under our protection go to show that there is an opening for the future in that direction. It is impossible for us to part as long as we are in India with our military system, and with the control of the main public finances of India. But I do believe that it is possible—compatibly with our rule and those great military and financial objects to which I have referred—to give more local freedom. The extraordinary progress which Mysore has made since it was restored to native rule is an evidence of what may be done. A very large financial debt upon the State of Mysore has been paid off, modified representative institu- tions have been established, and now Mysore is a model to the rest of the States under our rule. There has been similar progress in the States of the Punjaub. There is a very interesting book on the subject, written by a gentleman who is Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjaub, whose career I may, in passing, say is a striking disproof of the statement made by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Wedderburn) that a man could not rise in India unless he wrote smoothly of the powers that be. Mr. Tucker has declared that the Native States are progressing more rapidly than the more directly governed parts of the country. These facts, coming as they do from a great official of the Government of India, are facts which we ought to reflect upon. I think that there is a chance that in future Government will progress in this direction rather than in the direction of a highly centralised system. There are suggestions which have been made for the greater development of our Provinces in India on the elective system, and there are suggestions which have been made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Paul) and others as to the selection by competitive examination of Natives for employment in the Government of India. I do not believe much in either of these steps. As to the competitive examinations, the great variety in the populations of India, the differences in religion, race, and tongue, place difficulties in the way. It is, however, possible by the other means at which I have hinted to more and more employ native administration, providing the main points—the control of the Army and finance—remain entirely unrestricted in our hands.

SIR A. SCOBLE (Hackney, Central)

said, he desired first to say a word by way of remonstrance to the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn) as to the language he had used with reference to the Civil Service and the Supreme Government of India. Speaking from personal experience, he (Sir A. Scoble) assured the House that, so far from the interests of Civil servants in India being dissociated from the interests of the great body of the population of that country, they were identified most closely, and had always been most intimately connected. It was difficult to understand how it could be otherwise; and to suggest that the paltry consideration of their salaries made the Civil servants forget their duty to the land of their birth or of their adoption was to cast a slur which was as unwise as it was unjust. As to the Army, it was alleged that soldiers preferred fighting rather than anything else, and, therefore, their energies must always be directed to promoting quarrels in which they might have the chance of distinguishing themselves. That was a proposition which needed only to be stated to refute itself. But when his hon. Friend went on to say that the possession of a desire to benefit the people disqualified a man from obtaining promotion he stated what had simply no foundation. The career of his hon. Friend (Sir W. Wedderburn) himself was a proof of the contrary. As for there being an official clique at Simla, he (Sir A. Scoble) could speak with some authority, for he had been one of that so-called official clique, and he could only say that, so far from there being any black mark placed against a man who spoke freely and had ideas of his own, there was one constant unvarying desire to select from every part of the country the men best fitted to fill posts as they became vacant, and to promote those men. There could be no doubt of the complete honesty of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) in the views he took, and there could also be very little doubt that in many of the views he entertained he was supported by gentlemen on both sides of the House. As to the poverty of India, undoubtedly India was a poor country, but the poverty was relative and not absolute. A man might be rich with 10s. in one country who would be poor in another with £5; and when it was said that the average income of the inhabitants of India was only £2, the natural inference drawn by ordinary English people who heard that statement would be that £2 was perfectly insufficient to supply a man, woman, or child with food, clothing, and lodging for 12 months. But that that was not so in India was proved by the fact that in ordinary seasons the mortality in India was not enormously great. A man could not get many luxuries upon the ordinary income of the Indian ryot; but," at the same time, it was perfectly true that he and his family were able to eke out their existence more or less satisfactorily according to the seasons which prevailed. And though it was true that there was this amount of poverty in India, it was absolutely untrue that that poverty had increased during the government of India by this country, or that there had been any general, or indeed partial, retrogression of the population, His hon. Friend the Member for Central Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) published some years ago a collection of pamphlets on the subject of the poverty of India. And what he said in that book was the subject of much discussion by the native newspapers of India. One of them—The Indian Spectator—a very able journal, was published in Bombay, and edited by Behramjee Malabari, a Parsee gentleman. After considering the arguments and statements of Mr. Naoroji, he said— We are not convinced that the country is from year to year sinking deeper in destitution. On the contrary, we think there are proofs to show that, on the whole, India is growing richer. The fact is, that there has been a revolution in the distribution of wealth. The labouring classes are much better off than they were previously. Their wages have increased. The purchasing power of money has become greater. A daily-increasing middle class is growing up. The savings of this class are largely to be found locked up in ornaments. The price of land and of agricultural produce has gone up. The standard of living has risen. The people are better housed, better clothed, and better fed. Even the staple food of the people in certain districts has changed for the better. Putting one Native authority against another, he thought the views of this gentleman were as worthy of consideration as the views of his hon. Friend (Mr. Naoroji), and the views of the former were based upon continued residence in the country of which he wrote. But he would take a still higher authority, and quote a gentleman who had filled the highest positions in the Native States, and whose death a year or two ago was lamented throughout the whole of India. He was a statesman of high rank, a Brahmin of the highest class, and a man well versed in political affairs. He referred to the late Sir Madava Row. Upon the occasion of delivering an address to the students of the Madras University in April, 1877, he made this statement— The truth must be frankly and gratefully admitted that the British Government of India is incomparably the best Government we have ever had. It is the strongest and the most righteous and the best suited to India's diverse populations and diverse interests. It is the most capable of self-maintenance, of self-renovation, and self-adjustment in reference to the progressive advancement of the subject races. But it would be contrary to human nature itself to expect that the British nation should undertake the heavy duty and responsibility of governing and defending India without any advantage whatever to itself. Gentlemen opposite considered that those who were selected to take part in the Government of India by competitive examination were a great deal too highly paid for the work they had to do. Of course, it must be admitted that the Civil Service of India was a well-paid Service, and deservedly well paid. The members of this Service were not paid more than they were worth, and they were not paid more than the services which they rendered entitled them to receive. He supposed there were very few Members of the House who understood to the full extent the duty which devolved upon the British officials in India. There was one man placed in charge of a district as large as Ireland, larger than Scotland, almost as large as England itself; and, with very little European assistance, he had to be responsible for the peace, order, and good government of that great district. How well he had done his duty was matter of history. Peace, order, and good government had been maintained in India, whatever detractors might say to the contrary. It was not too high a price to pay for the tranquillity and the prosperity which India had enjoyed under British rule that the British officers who did their delicate, difficult, and dangerous duty should be amply remunerated for the services they rendered and the risks they incurred. His hon. Friend suggested that a greater amount of native talent ought to be introduced into the Service of the country. It was, however, a fact which was undeniable that the greater part of the administration of India was already done by natives, and all the European superiors had to do was to control, regulate, and supervise the work of these native subordinates. When they were told that a greater number of Native gentlemen should be admitted into the higher ranks of the Service they had to consider what the view of the Natives themselves was with regard to such an increase. It was not as if India were a homogeneous country—a people of one race animated by the same interests. The country was full of the most diverse interests, and populated mainly by two great classes of persons whose religious were apt to lead them into perpetual conflict. It was one of the greatest and the most important duties performed by the British administration in India to prevent the Mahommedans and the Hindoos from flying at each others throats. He would remind the House of the riots that had recently taken place in various parts of India as the result of a special and particular religious agitation. Both at Bombay and in the North-Western Provinces the Governor (Lord Harris), and the Lieutenant Governor (Sir Charles Crosthwaite), had traced the origin of these disturbances to the operation of a Society for the Protection of the Cow. The Society had a very innocent name, and if it had limited itself to the object which its name had in view it would be a Society deserving of very considerable sympathy. But what did Sir Charles Crosthwaite say with regard to this Society? He said— Their object, as declared in their public documents, is excellent, praiseworthy, humane; but from protecting the cow they had gone on to attacking the Mahommedan, to interfere with his liberty, and to molest him in the enjoyment of his property. Supposing, in a district where this Society is carrying on its operations and molesting the Mahommedans, there was a Magistrate who was a conscientious and orthodox Hindoo, what part could he take in regard to the disturbances? On the other hand, if the Magistrate were an orthodox Mussulman who sympathised with that community, how was he to deal with the disturbances? Experience had shown that the only reliable man to have at the head of affairs under such circumstances—and such circumstances were constantly arising without the slightest notice in India—was a man who was neither Hindoo nor Mahommedan, but a man that had been brought up in the principles of fair play, who had the courage and readiness in an emergency which had been found to be the characteristics of Englishmen whenever they had been set in positions of responsibility. The remedy proposed by his hon. Friend would not be an efficient remedy, but would be a cause of weakness, because it was perfectly clear that under circumstances of that kind no reliance would be placed by the Mahommedan community on a Hindoo Magistrate, nor would the Hindoo community place any confidence in a Mahommedan Magistrate. He had no doubt that Members of the House considered that it would be a concession to native opinion if native gentlemen in greater numbers were admitted to the Service. But he assured the House it was not so. Only the other day he was reading an extract from a native paper which was published in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, and which had a very considerable circulation. It had reference to this question as to whether a Baboo or an Englishman would be preferable. A correspondent of The Burdwan Sanjiwani of 29th March, 1887, said— Power exercised by the Baboo is perhaps more abused than power exercised by the European official, and that for the simple reason that the Baboo, being better acquainted than the European with the ins and outs of Bengali life, enjoys a position of greater advantage than the latter for the purpose of committing mischief. A more recent opinion had been expressed by a newspaper of even wider circulation, in fact the only Bengali newspaper and the only vernacular newspaper in India with a very large circulation. It had a circulation of 30,000 a week, and represented the orthodox class, who after all, were the most important class in India. Having regard to a Resolution recently, and he thought inadvisedly, adopted by the House, the newspaper of which he spoke said— We want genuine sahibs, and not excommunicated outcasts, or spurious sahibs such as those would be who went to England to pass the Civil Service examination. Therefore this proposed remedy of his hop. Friend of introducing a greater number of natives of India into the higher walks of the Civil Service would, so far from contenting the vast majority of these natives, offend and hurt them, and at the same time it would not conduce in the slightest degree to the stability or strength of the British Government in India. His hon. Friend (Mr. Naoroji) said that if there were a sufficient number of native gentlemen in the Civil Service the average income of the natives of India would be raised to such an expenditure that, instead of spending 2s. 6d. a year on British manufactures, they would be able to spend £1. As £1 multiplied by 287,000,000 people came to a 'decent sum, he had no doubt the manufacturers of this country would be delighted to have their trade supplemented to that extent. But it was absurd to suppose that anything of that kind would follow. The only people who would be at all likely to buy goods of the character manufactured here would be the very small number of people who belonged to the middle classes, and whose numbers were increasing under the beneficent action of the British Government. He wished very much that exports from England to India could increase at anything like the same rate at which exports from India to England were increasing. But it would be necessary to revolutionise the entire habits and manners of the people before anything of that kind could take place. Men who lived on rice and curry did not want many of the luxuries of civilisation to enable them to eat their meals, and, at the same time, he regretted to say that they could get better and cheaper textile fabrics from native mills than they could obtain from the looms of this country. He did not think that any true friend of India would for one moment wish to discourage the progress of manufactures in that country in order even to benefit their fellow-subjects here. On the contrary, he thought one was bound in that respect, as in every other, to seek to do what was possible to promote the prosperity of India and of the Indians in their own country. He was perfectly convinced of this—that no tinkering of the kind proposed by the Resolution put on the Paper by his hon. Friend would have the slightest appreciable effect upon Indian grievances. He was perfectly sure that the discussion of Indian questions in the House, in the imperfect time and with the imperfect materials it was possible to bring to bear upon such discussions, so far from doing good, was apt to do mischief and harm to the governors and the governed of that country. He was at one with the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. W. Dilke) in thinking that if there was to be an inquiry it should be rather into the financial relations between England and India. He thought England had taken, and was likely constantly to take, an unfair advantage of India. He should very much like to see an inquiry conducted in the House of Commons, or by a Joint Committee of both Houses on that subject. India was called upon to pay charges which the Colonies were not called upon to pay. As Canada was not called upon to pay towards the maintenance of Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, he saw no reason why India should have to pay towards Her Majesty's Ministers at Pekin and Persia. He believed that with regard to Home Charges something might be done, but he did not believe those reductions could be as great as some people imagined. The cost of the India Office was not as disproportionately great as some people believed. The transactions with the India Office came to £22,000,000 sterling annually, and he did not think £120,000 a year was too much to pay for carrying on a business which involved so much expenditure. However that might be, there was no doubt a great deal of soreness felt in India on the subject. If instead of moving for a Commission, which could only have the effect of weakening the Government of India—which he believed in his conscience to be as honest and good a Government as existed in any country in the world—his hon. Friends would assist those who, he ventured to think, took as true an interest in India as they did, in obtaining some remission of the burdens India was called upon to bear, they would be doing better service to those whom they wished to serve.

MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)

congratulated the House on the vigorous interest which was now taken in Indian questions. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) had, as a Member of the House of Commons, discharged his duties not only to the people of India, but to his constituents, in a manner which met with the general approval of the Members of that House. The hon. Member opposite (Sir G. Chesney) had taunted the hon. Member for Finsbury with being a Parsee, and with therefore not being able to feel a true interest in the sufferings of the people, and had suggested that he was not really a representative of the people. He would ask the hon. Member opposite to keep his attention on Calcutta when the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) paid a visit to Calcutta. If he did so, he would see that the hon. Member was received with the acclamations and effusions of the people, and then the hon. Gentleman opposite would be able to calculate by the feeling expressed whether he was in sympathy with the natives. In Ireland they had similar instances. It had always been said that the agitation was a bogus agitation; that it was got up by bad men who looked after their own interests; but they knew that when Lord Aberdeen left Dublin the route was lined with people grateful to him for his sympathy with the Irish people. It was only by instances like these that they could really judge what was the popular feeling. Now the measure for the conducting of simultaneous examinations in England and India was carried this Session by a Party which might almost be called the Indian Party in that House. He thought these were achievements which proved that benefit could be worked to India through that House; but the necessity for the Royal Commission was proved by the remarks they had heard that afternoon. They had heard a party who considered that everything in India was carried on for the best for the Indian natives by the officials, and they had heard a party who maintained the contrary. That seemed to him to show a primâ facie case that this House should appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into this difficult question. As was known, the Opium Question was one upon which contrary opinions have been expressed, and at the present moment a Commission was going to start for India to weigh the evidence on both sides. They wished the same system to be applied to this matter. If the Government would undertake such an inquiry as had been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, he was perfectly certain (he spoke after conference with his Colleagues), they would accept that as a very large instalment of what they were asking for. Therefore, if it was at all in the mind of the Secretary for India, or if he would accept the advice of the hon. Gentleman opposite who came from India, who had pointed out many questions where he was in agreement with them, and where he thought those changes might be made, they should be pleased to see him form a part of that Commission, and they should give the greatest weight to all he said, because they fully endorsed what fell from him, knowing that Indian Civil servants were of the highest class. They did all in their power to improve the position of those over whom they were called upon to rule; but, at the same time, they thought that sometimes these Civil servants were lacking in sympathy. Much had been said about the military expenditure in India, and he much regretted to hear it announced in the papers that morning that Sir Henry Norman was not going out as Viceroy to India, because his ideas were largely in the direction that we ought to lessen as much as possible the forward movement on the frontiers of India, and that the present time was one certainly not for extension, but for retrenchment. This word retrenchment was not a pleasant word in private or in public life; but, at the same time, there arrived moments when such considerations must be the uppermost ones; and he believed that that moment had arrived for India, and that, at any rate, the position of the people of India, their resources, and their finances were matters which ought to occupy the minds of the English nation and of that House. At this moment, when they had the question of the interest of 300,000,000 of our own subjects in the East to discuss, it was to be regretted that the question was relegated to the fag-end of the Session, when there was only a sparse collection of Members present; but, for his part, he rejoiced to see that even at that late hour so many had remained to show their interest and to prove the feeling of responsibility that they had to their fellow-subjects in the East. He desired to take that opportunity of referring to two other subjects which might be looked into by the Royal Commission, or the Governmental Commission, should such a Commission be appointed. He trusted Her Majesty's Government might be able to solve the questions to which he desired more particularly to refer, even before such a Royal Commission issued; but he felt it his duty to bring these subjects before the Committee, because he believed this was the only oppor- tunity when they could be mentioned; and he had long felt a desire to bring these subjects before the House. He referred especially to the coolie migration to Assam. Most Indians and those interested in Indian affairs would know that abuses had for a very long time now existed under the system of coolie labour in the Assam tea-gardens, and he regretted to say that at the present day they still existed. He did not wish to take up the time of the House in discussing the primary question as to whether contract labour of the character of that employed in the Assam tea-gardens was permissible or not. He believed himself that, with such a deprivation of personal liberty as was connected with that service as it unfortunately existed in the Assam tea-gardens, it was utterly unpermissible and absolutely wrong to allow such contracts to be carried out, and to have the support of the law. The United States of America settled that question after a bloody war some years ago, and the same question confronted us in the question of the employment of Kanaka labour in Queensland; but he trusted that the Queensland question would receive the same solution which they might expect from the Government in the case of the coolie question. He considered that the coolie labour in Assam was practically a state of slavery. But he did not wish to base that assertion entirely on his own opinion, because his information had been acquired chiefly through reading, and from conversation held whilst he was in India with many who had carefully considered the question. But that was the opinion of the Chief Commissioner of Assam, Mr. Ward, who said some years ago that the coolie was practically a slave for the whole period of his contract. Now he ought, perhaps, to explain to the House, for the benefit of those Members who might not have studied the question, that the coolie labour in Assam was divided into two classes. The first class was the Act labourers, or those who had signed contracts for five years under the special Act of 1882, and the second class was non-Act coolies, or those who were free labourers, or who had signed a contract for a very brief space of time. He would just read, very briefly, the words of Mr. Stevenson, Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet, who explained the nature of the contract which existed between the Assam tea-planter and the coolie labourer. He said— In this matter the law appears entirely onesided. Everything is in favour of the employer. A labour contract purporting to have been signed by the coolie, but either not executed by him, or, if executed, executed under a misapprehension, is sent in for registration under Section 111, and registered. It may not be verified for a year afterwards, and suppose it is then cancelled, what compensation does the unfortunate coolie receive? He has been, one may say, in wrongful confinement for a year, forced to labour for a master who had no claim to his services, and liable, if he tried to escape from his state of quasi-slavery, to be pursued, arrested, and sent up for trial like a common criminal, or worse, as these even cannot, in all cases, be arrested without a warrant. That was the opinion of a gentleman who, he thought, might be relied upon to state the true facts of the case without any exaggeration. Now it was very strange, but it was a fact, that all the non-Act labourers—that was to say, the free labourers, or those who had got a very short contract—were employed at the healthy plantations; but that all the Act labourers—that was to say, the coolies who were bound for five years under very penal circumstances and laws—gravitated to the unhealthy districts, and to the estates where there was very grave danger to life and health. This was, perhaps, not to be wondered at, for it was only quite natural that the free labourer, if he should arrive by chance or by mistake on a plantation which had these unhealthy conditions attached to it, should at once, not being bound to any extent, free himself, and, as soon as his short contract was out, return to his native land. But that was not so with the contract coolie. He was bound to carry out his five years, and to undergo all the risks which the unhealthy conditions of the estate exposed him to. The mortality, therefore, amongst the labourers on those estates which were worked under the Acts was very considerable indeed. In some isolated estates of a very unhealthy character the death rate amounted to as much as 500 per mile. Of course, admitted those were very exceptional cases, but yet the average of the estates which were healthy and which were worked by non-Act labourers was much below the mortality of those estates which were worked by those who were contract labourers. The chief things that they suffered from were, of course, the unhealthy situation of the estate, poor food, and over-work. It was true that by Section 115 of the Act of 1882 these coolies, or contract labourers, and the estates on which they laboured were supposed to be subject to the inspection of a Government Inspector. But he was sorry to say that the Government Inspector had a very large amount of ground to cover, and very often he was only able, perhaps, to appear on the estate once a year; and, therefore, the moment his back was turned, it was very possible for the planter to make exacting demands for labour upon the coolie. But he would have scarcely ventured to refer to this subject were it not that a very recent case had occurred in Assam, which showed the dangers which the coolie ran and the hardships which he was bound to endure at the present day. He referred to the case of Mr. Murray, and he would like to draw the attention of Members of the House to the judgment of Justices Prinseps and Trevelyan, the latter of whom, he believed, was a relative of the right hon. Gentleman who held the Office of Secretary for Scotland in Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Murray had appealed against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Jalpaiguri, who had convicted him under Sections 341 and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to one month's simple imprisonment, and a fine of Rs.500; and the Judges, in upholding the conviction, remarked— That the evidence showed that particularly the coolies employed on this tea-garden were always in a state of durance; when off work they were kept within a guarded enclosure, and even when they were at work on the tea-garden they were watched by guards; that the manager dealt with his labourers in such a manner as completely to deprive them of any freedom of action, and thus practically reduce them for the term of their engagements to a state of slavery; that Mr. Murray had the assistance of the police, and that the circumstances of this case went to show the necessity for efficient inspection of the gardens. He had no doubt they would hear that the very fact that Mr. Murray was brought up and convicted for a month showed that the inspection in Assam was very complete; but when they read the judgment of the Justices through it became evident that the malpractices on the estate of Mr. Murray were of long continuation, and it was that which caused him to be brought up and to receive judgment. The papers of India had teemed with cases of children who had been cajoled away—sometimes girls under the promise of marriage, and sometimes the elder sons of widows had been cajoled by coolie recruiters to leave their homes, and take service under these contracts in Assam. The fact was that these Acts were absolutely unnecessary. There was no necessity why both these Acts, or, at any rate, the penal portions of them, should not be swept away. The Deputy Commissioner of Kámrúp said that the Act of 1882 was no longer wanted in his district— As only 11 gardens had availed themselves of its provisions, the improved communication rendering access to Bengal a matter of only two or three days' journey. The Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong said that— The Act is not unpopular in his district; that the majority of gardens work outside it; and that the repeal of the Act would affect only a few unpopular gardens, which would then have to spend more money to get coolies to go to them; for, of course, the effect of the Act was to supply the proprietors of unhealthy estates with coolies who would otherwise probably demand a higher price or wage for the conditions under which they worked and for the risks they ran, or they would have to go to other estates. He believed it was the duty of the Government and of the English nation to insist upon the employment of free labour and cheap labour without any injustice being perpetrated either in India or in Queensland. He thought, then, they could ask the Government to do all that was in their power to influence the Indian Commission and a very powerful body of cultivated opinion in this direction. He was afraid that would not meet with the approval of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, who seemed to think any Commission of Indians was highly reprehensible, and who had read to them some old wives' tales and selections from the low-class journals in India, which could be easily matched in sane England at the present time, if they liked to take some low-class journals in London, and make excerpts from them which bear on the present Government, and even on many other subjects. He did not think that such extracts should have the slightest weight with that House, unless they came from some very responsible autho- rity. There was another matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Under Secretary of State for India. That was the question of the combination of the Executive and the Judicial Courts and work in India. In Ireland they had often seen many drawbacks of the government of one nation by an alien nation, or of a different nation; they had seen there the ill-effects of the Executive and Judicial functions being combined in one and the same man. It was impossible for a man to set up compartments in his mind, and for him, when he was on the Bench, to use only one special compartment of his brain, and when he was acting as a police officer to use another compartment of his mind. The fact was that, where you had a combination of this character, either the police officer must be lax or the Judge must be prejudiced. It might be thought necessary to bring such a proposition home, but the recent case of the Rajah of Marinasingh and the conduct of Mr. Phillips, which had been brought before that House on several occasions, drew attention to the condition of things arising from such a combination in India, and he thought he could say that they pointed the moral and adorned the tale. The Rajah whom he had just mentioned was, unfortunately, under the jurisdiction of Mr. Phillips. The Rajah was much esteemed in his own country and in his own district, and had given most munificent gifts to all charitable and public matters. He had been publicly thanked by more than one official on leaving the government of their districts, and he was a man who was a thoroughly estimable and splendid citizen, and one whom he should have thought it would have been the last desire of anyone to insult. He would not weary the House with a recapitulation of the full details of the case, which had been discussed in another place, but he would state the main facts briefly. It appeared that while the Rajah was building his new palace he, unfortunately, interfered with one of the drains of his neighbours. The Rajah was not at home at the time, but Mr. Phillips gave instructions to his subordinate Magistrate to summon the Rajah before the Court. Directly the Rajah heard that this was taking place, as he was a man of honour and did not wish his good name to be besmirched at all, he at once made an offer to the Municipality that he would build an absolutely new drain which was to cost 4,000 rupees, and he forwarded his cheque for 4,000 rupees -to show his bona fides in the matter and his intention of carrying out the offer he had made. When the action came on Mr. Phillips insisted upon the Rajah being brought into Court, and upon his being placed in the dock beside a Mahommedan of low caste. There was no greater insult which could be offered to a Hindoo of high caste than to ask him to come into near connection with a Mahommedan of low standing, but Mr. Phillips insisted upon this being done; and even finally when the Mahommedan had been sentenced and the subordinate Magistrate asked him to leave the dock the Rajah insisted on staying where he was, because he felt it was an insult which be could not condone in any way. But while the trial was taking place, what did Mr. Phillips do but send some soldiers and policemen and actually pulled down the walls which had been erected without any more ado, and took the law entirely into his own hands. That he thought pointed the contention that it was not a wise thing to combine the Executive and Judicial attributes of office in one man; and as bearing upon the point he would just read to the House the judgment, or rather the remarks, passed by Sir Charles Elliott on this case on the 31st of December, 1892. He said— In respect of the latter question—whether a sound discretion was exercised or not—Sir Charles Elliott must at once say that he considers that the prosecution of the Rajah need not have been instituted. Looking to the position and status of the Rajah Bahadur in the district, to the fact that the Rajah has been honoured by the Government, and has been a great benefactor of the town of Mymensingh, it was the obvious duty of the Magistrate of the district to have exhausted every means in his power of amicably settling a matter of such a nature as the obstruction of a drain before resorting to the extreme measure of prosecuting the Rajah in a Criminal Court, and it does not appear that he did exhaust all such amicable measures, or even accept them when proffered. Mr. Phillips' indiscretion was aggravated by the fact that he instituted the prosecution of his own motion, without consulting any medical authority or sanitary expert, and without complaint having been made to him that the filling up of the drain had caused a nuisance. His subsequent procedure was not less unwise. After the prosecution had been instituted, but before process had been taken in Court, the Rajah arranged with the Municipality to construct a pucca drain to carry off the water which had been obstructed, and actually deposited 1,000 rupees with the Chairman for this purpose. The Municipal Commissioners, in meeting, then thanked the Rajah for his action. Mr. Phillips did not, however, withdraw from the prosecution, but recorded an order that he would do so if the Rajah would knock down the wall which obstructed the drainage, reopen the obstructed drain all along the bye-lane, and then build the pucca drain above referred to. Moreover, after the prosecution had commenced, although the counsel for the Rajah proposed to make a temporary drain within a week to carry off the water, and then to complete a pucca drain according to any plan which might be approved, and although it appears that the Chairman of the Municipality was prepared to accept this proposal, Mr. Phillips rejected it at once, and on the same day, while the prosecution was still pending, caused an opening to be made in the obstructing wall, and re-excavated and restored the bye-lane drain. It appears to the Lieutenant Governor that throughout all these proceedings the action of Mr. Phillips was indefensible, and characterised by a regrettable want of that discretion, suavity, and common sense which the Government has a right to expect from a District Magistrate of his experience and standing in the Service. Mr. Phillips was severely reprimanded, and since then he had been removed from Mymensingh; but he had been removed to a district which was far more agreeable and pleasant, though he believed he was receiving a slightly reduced salary. The question of the principle of whether Judicial and Executive functions in India ought to be divided was pretty well settled at a very early stage—namely, in 1860, shortly after the transfer of the government of India from the East India Company to our own Government. One of the principal enactments of the Commission of 1860 was set forth in these terms— The golden rule to be borne in mind was that the judicial and police functions were not to be mixed up or confounded. That the active work of detecting or preventing crime was to rest entirely with the police, and was not to be interfered with by those who were to sit in judgment on the criminal. Now, fortunately, they had had an expression of opinion in another place. They had the opinion of Lord Kimberley and Lord Cross, who both admitted very fully the correctness of the principle, and the only question was whether it could be carried out. He believed the House would agree with him that it was a question which ought to be brought home very fully to the Government, and that they ought to take means, if possible, to introduce the principle into India. The objections to it, of course, were as to the District Magistrates, and the question was where they were to get the officers from. The plan which had been suggested was to practically divide the offices in each district between a district officer and a Judge. He would add to what he had said that, according to the suggestions made in 1884 to Lord Ripon by Mr. Richard Gough, this was an elaboration of that proposal. The Under Secretary of State for India had given this matter his attention. It would cause no additional cost by the re-arrangement. The places of collectors could easily be taken by professional Excise officers who were now specially occupied in collecting the Excise alone. He regretted, in the Indian Councils Act, that they had not seen any enlargement of the representative principle in India; but, at the same time, they were grateful to the Indian Government and to the Home Government for the advantage which at present existed in having in the Legislative Councils Indian gentlemen who were able to express exactly the wishes and aspirations of their own people. He trusted the way might be found to get more of this native advice, and to increase the loyalty and advantages to be gained by the presence of those gentlemen in the various Legislative Councils. He hoped the Government would be led to increase their numbers, and possibly, in the near future, to give a more thoroughly representative system to the Indian people.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,) North Beds.

Having regard to the fact that we have now been discussing Indian problems since the commencement of Public Business to-day, and that the whole of the financial business of the year has to be considered this evening, I hope I may be permitted to make a few observations in respect of, and in reply to, the speeches which have been already delivered. I will deal with the speeches in the inverse order to that in which they were delivered. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker, and express regret that we have lost already the eminent services of Sir Henry Norman, whom we had hoped to see placed in the greatest of all positions of responsibility and power under the British Crown. In associating myself with these remarks, I will say that Sir Henry Norman's withdrawal from that great trust is not, as has been foolishly reported in various sections of the Press, due to any disagreement or difficulty with any of his colleagues or the Government at home, but is simply and solely due to the personal reasons which have been assigned in the newspapers published to-day. I pass now to two points which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Schwann) made; and first with regard to the simultaneous examinations. I would lay stress upon this point, as it was the point to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Paul) wished to call attention. It may be in the recollection of the House that in my official capacity it was my duty, earlier in the Session, to oppose a Resolution in favour of simultaneous examinations; but the House of Commons thought differently from the Government. That once done, I need hardly say that there is no disposition on the part of the Secretary of State for India or myself to attempt to thwart or defeat the effect of the vote of the House of Commons on that Resolution. We have consulted the Government of India: we have asked them as to the way in which the Resolution of the House can best be carried out. It is a matter too important to be carried out without the advice of the Indian Government, and it is at present impossible to state explicitly what will be done. As to the coolies in the tea gardens of Assam and contract labour, the decision of the Secretary of State has not been actually given; but when the House meets in November I think I shall be in a position to lay the whole of the Correspondence on the Table. I may say now that the Secretary of State will instruct the Indian Government in a sense favourable to the coolies, and in a sense pointing to the ultimate extinction of contract labour. With regard to the union of Judicial and Executive functions in India, there we are at one with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Schwann). As at present advised, I am not acquainted with any reason against separating the two functions except that of expense. My hon. Friend said that the word "retrenchment" is not pleasant, but it is a great deal pleasanter than "bankruptcy"; and, as we have always been threatened with bankruptcy in India, it is not the moment to increase public expenditure or public charges. I now come to the speeches delivered earlier in the evening, and I take leave to group together the speeches of the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Bayley), the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji), and the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn), as being practically speeches tending to one and the same end. I desire, in the fullest way, to associate myself with the expressions of cordiality and respect which have been accorded to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) from all parts of the House. He has fought what has appeared at times to be a single-handed fight with singular gallantry. The speeches of these three hon. Members were all based upon the hypothesis that the poverty of India is not only great, but is increasing. I will not spoil a good cause by exaggeration, and I am not going to say that the pecuniary position of India is altogether satisfactory. We can hardly say our fellow-creatures are as well off as we could wish to see them, when we note that the occurrence of a single bad season reduces them to a state in which there is a terrible mortality. But I am bound to part company with hon. Members when they speak of the poverty of India as an increasing poverty. I have here actual masses of statistics upon this point, and, so far as it is possible to judge, the condition of the poorest classes in India is better than it was 10 years ago. And this is true even of the districts which have been most desolated by famine. There is more irrigation, the natives cultivate more land, build better houses, and furnish them better. They seem to have more meat and more salt; they travel a great deal more than they did; and they enjoy much greater facilities than formerly of procuring medical and surgical assistance in times of illness. That, so far as it goes, applies to the mass of the cultivators of the land, and I consider it a satisfactory view of the state of India. Of course, it is not wholly satisfactory; one would wish to see greater advances in these directions, but it is a contradiction to those who contend that India is going from bad to worse. The hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wed- derburn) referred in rather animated language to the Service of which he was once an ornament, and I think I may, with prudence, leave him to settle matters with the hon. Member for Hackney (Sir A. Scoble).

SIR W. WEDDERBURN

I specially stated that I made no objection to individuals. I objected to the system, but I complimented the Service on the way in which it had performed its duty.

MR. G. RUSSELL

If I have misrepresented my hon. Friend I am extremely sorry, and I will only add that what he has to say in derogation of the Public Service in India can best be met by the hon. Member opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn) spoke with some contempt of the practice of the India Office with respect to Memorials and appeals from India. He said it was a common thing at the India Office for it to be said that the Secretary of State saw no necessity to interfere. I admit that that form of answer has sometimes escaped my lips, but it was not lightly uttered. Every case is simply investigated at the India Office on its merits, and the decision which is arrived at is based on a careful consideration of the facts. Even I have been instrumental in saving the life of one of our fellow-subjects in India since I have been at the India Office, and the interests of the native population of India are constantly brought under the view of the Secretary of State, and as constantly receive his thorough and careful attention. Now I come to the main object of this discussion—the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the financial condition of India. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) in the extremely racy remarks he made in regard to getting up Royal Commissions. Royal Commissions are all very well when the scope of inquiry is strictly limited, and when there is genuine ignorance of the facts. But often they are used merely for dilatory purposes. In the year 1871, a Committee of this House was appointed to consider the pecuniary affairs of India, and it sat for four Sessions. It asked 30,000 questions, and received considerably more than 30,000 answers, because some of the questions were answered more than once. At the end of the four years that Committee reported something like this—"The question which is referred to your Committee is beset with difficulties. Your Committee can make no practical recommendation, but only express a hope that the Government will find means of reconciling views altogether divergent." The one practical recommendation which they did make was this—"No financial arrangement in England can hope to be satisfactory to India until and unless the Indian Budget is presented in the first three weeks in every Session." That was the one practical admonition which that Committee gave, and my hon. Friends know how loyally that recommendation has been acted upon by successive Governments. No, Sir; we are not able to consent to the appointment of the Royal Commission. We are absolutely willing to inquire, with the means already at our disposal, into any grievance, any question of overcharge or extravagance, misuse of public moneys, or undue burdens for which a primâ facie case can be made out, either here or in India. We regard the appointment of a Committee or a Commission as altogether too vast an undertaking, and one that is not likely to lead to a practical result; and I cannot, therefore, consent to the appointment of either a Committee or a Commission.

MR. A. C. MORTON

Will the hon. Gentleman make an inquiry into the extravagant expenditure in India, and especially the home charges?

MR. G. RUSSELL

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would concur with me in saying that there would be no unwillingness on our part to enter, with the means at our disposal, into grievances relating to the finances of India, where a primâ facie case has been made out. Something has been said in disparagement of the Indian Council, and it was suggested that the Indian Council might be disestablished with a saving to the purse of India. I have only to remind the House that, whatever the merits or demerits of the Indian Council may be, it has one great and useful function, and that is that it is an absolute check upon any extravagant tendency on the part of the Secretary of State. In anything which concerns charges the Indian Council has an absolute veto, which it is not slow to exercise, and, so far at least, it makes for pecuniary righteousness. I have said all I have to say on the various points raised. I could, of course, have entered into them at much greater length, but the time is not suitable, and I will reserve anything else I have to say for my more detailed discussion on the Budget.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

Before the House goes into Committee on the Statement of the hon. Member, I hope they will allow me to make a few observations on this great and long - threatened attack upon the Government of India, and the observations I have to make need only be few, because every point brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn) and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) was answered, point by point, by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Sir G. Chesney) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir A. Scoble); but I should especially like—having been some time in official connection with the Government of India—to associate myself with the remarks made by the learned Member for Hackney respecting the honour, zeal, and integrity of the Civil servants in India. I regret the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India could not also have associated himself with those observations, and I hope that a longer experience in the administration of India will enable him to do so.

MR. G. RUSSELL

I was hastening to dissociate myself from my hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire, when he explained that he had not said what I thought he had said.

SIR J. GORST

I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman can already associate himself with the very just observations, not beyond the merits of the case, which were made by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney. Turning to the question of a Commission, it is quite evident that a Commission of this kind is not wanted for any purpose of information. The information already laid before this House upon the subject of India is ample and exhaustive, and there is no point in connection with the administration of the affairs of India upon which this House asks for information upon which the Government of India is not always able and willing to furnish the most exact and the most exhaustive details. I confess I was a little surprised to hear the Royal Commission so energetically denounced by the Under Secretary of State. I should have thought that, after the Commissions which the present Government have set on foot, he would have spoken of that institution with more respect than the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and myself feel for Royal Commissions. But this Motion is really made, not for the purpose of gaining information; it is made with the idea that the appointment of a Royal Commission would be a step in the revolution of the Administration of India. That is what I want to bring before the House. I am quite sure that both sides of the House—Members of the Government and those who sit on these Benches—will agree with the proposition so well stated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke)—that if there is to be any fundamental change made in the system by which India is governed, such a change would have to be proposed by the responsible Government of the day, and would have to be submitted to the House by them on their responsibility. It is impossible that we should allow so important and imperial a question as the administration of the greatest of our Dependencies to be referred to the chance of a Royal Commission, however carefully such a Commission be constituted. I will not go over the details, because time is very precious—I will not go into any question whether any case has been made out for such a revolution in the Government of India. I was very much surprised at the particular instance the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn) gave in the interests of the ryots or the cultivators of the soil, and he said that their position was the direct consequence of the European official administration of the country. Now, there I would venture to join issue most positively with the hon. Baronet. In Oriental countries there is nothing which protects the cultivator of the soil like the intervention of European officials. What the cultivator of the soil wants is the knowledge that the rent or revenue exacted from him shall be limited in amount, and shall not be increased by extortion of any kind. And everybody who has had experience of Oriental officials knows very well that it is most difficult to protect the cultivator of the soil from extortions and exactions of every possible kind. It is when the European Government undertake the administration of a country that the cultivator of the soil becomes certain of the enjoyment of the fruits of his labour, and is able to increase in worldly prosperity. If time permitted, I could point out the exact state of things which exists in Egypt; and the extraordinary prosperity which even at this moment is the lot of the Egyptian cultivator of the soil is directly due to the intervention of the English Authorities by whom his rent is fixed, and under whose protection he is well aware that nothing more than his rent will be exacted from him. There is another subject to which I may be allowed to refer, because it is a matter on which there are very often questions arising in this House, and that is the Salt Tax. Now, I think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn) spoke with great exaggeration when he said that the Salt Tax was 2,000 times as great as the cost of production.

SIR W. WEDDERBURN

Twenty times.

SIR J. GORST

It is, as a matter of fact, only 12 times; and, indeed, I have extracted figures from the Moral and Material Progress Report of 1891, from which it appears that the selling price is six times the cost. What I want to say is this—No Government has ever denied that the Salt Tax ought in India to be reduced to the lowest amount it is possible to reduce it. It was with the greatest reluctance and financial distress that the Salt Tax was slightly increased a few years ago. But when people talk about the dreadful burden this tax is putting on the country, they ought to remember that the tax really only amounts to 7d. or 8d. a head of the population in the year. That is what this terrific burden amounts to in the year. And there is another point which ought to be remembered when the Government of India is being denounced for this Salt Tax, and that is that owing to the improvement in the communication the price of salt (tax and all) has been greatly reduced in a great many parts of India during the last 40 or 50 years. Since this country undertook, in 1858, the direct government of India, over immense districts of India the cheapening of salt by the improvement of communication has been so great that it has actually sold to the natives at a much lower price than it was sold before we undertook the government of the country. There is just one other point I should like to notice, and that is the necessity of protecting the Revenue of India in its relations with this Imperial Parliament. I have had the honour in former days of holding two official positions. At one time I had the honour to hold the Office of Under Secretary of State for India, and at another the position of Secretary to the Treasury; therefore, I could see both sides of the question, and I am quite sure I can appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether, in reference to the necessary negotiations which have to go on between the Imperial Treasury and the Indian Treasury as to the cost which each ought to bear in any joint matter, the Council of India is not an extremely valuable body for protecting Indian interests. It not only checks the extravagance, or the intended extravagance, of the Secretary of State; but it is also a fact that not a single rupee of the Revenue of India can be spent without the consent of the Council of India; they have the most absolute control over the whole of the Revenue of India. When I heard the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke) speak of the desirability of abolishing the Council altogether, I could not help thinking to myself how helpless the Secretary of State would be in any contest with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he were not supported by an independent body of that kind, which was able to control the whole of the finance of the country. In any project which is made for the alteration of the whole arrangements for the government of India, if you abolish the Council of the Secretary of State I am sure you will have to invent some other body, independent of Parliament and the Government, to whom you will be able to trust for this check over the expenditure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not want to accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Member for the St. George's Division (Mr. Goschen) of rapacity, but it is undoubted that both of them, in their duty to the British taxpayer, have to look carefully to see that the English taxpayer gets justice in any of these questions. In the same way, it is absolutely essential that there should be some perfectly independent body, which is not controlled by Parliament or the Government of the country, which should protect the interests of the Indian taxpayer. There has been an instance this Session of the facility with which burdens that ought to be thrown upon the Imperial taxpayer can be cast upon the Indian taxpayer. I refer to the expense of the Opium Commission. That Commission has been appointed in accordance with the wishes of some people in this country, and no native in India wanted or approved it. Yet half the cost of the Commission is to be thrown upon the people of India. This shows how necessary it is that India should have somebody to protect her financial interests in transactions in which this country is concerned. The attacks that have been made in this Debate upon the Government of India have proved how little ground there is for them. Of course, no one will say that the Government of India is a body so perfect that it cannot be improved; but these wholesale attacks and charges, these attempts to prove that our administration in India is something of which this country ought to be ashamed, are of no utility whatever. They only prove the unwisdom of those who make them. I do not think that speeches such as that made by the Member for Banffshire are really likely in any material way to contribute to the improvement of our Indian administration.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby

With regard to this preliminary discussion, I think my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State has expressed the views of the Government, so that there can be no mistake as to what view the Government really takes on this question. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has just said—and we can agree with him—that because we are opposed to an inquiry it does not prove that we say nothing needs reform in the Indian administration, whether financial or economical. It would certainly be fatal to the system of Government in India were we to appoint an independent Com- mission. Has anybody considered what these Commissions are? A Commission with such a vast task as that which is imposed would not be able to accomplish anything within several years. What would be the condition of the Government of India during the course of these years, when the Government of the Empire was put upon its trial? It would lose the whole of its authority, and would probably reduce the whole of the Indian people to a state of discontent and chaos. If it be true what has been said to-night, then all I can say is that the foundations upon which the statements are made have been of the most slender description I have ever listened to. The consequence would, as has been pointed out, lead to disastrous results. The Government has no desire to shirk its responsibility, nor to shuffle so great a task as this on to an independent Commission. An independent Commission, as I understand it, means a Commission principally composed of gentlemen who are not especially responsible. The task is not to be performed by an independent Commission, but by the responsible Government of the Crown. The Government of the Crown is responsible for all parts of the Empire, and probably more than anything responsible for the Empire of India. If it be true there is the slightest foundation for such sweeping denunciation of our Indian Government, it would be the last thing for us to permit referring such a matter to an independent Commission. The duty of the responsible Government of the day would be to take the matter in hand, and to propose a complete and radical change of the Government of India. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to the proposals that have been made on the subject of a Commission. Now, as regards grievances, if gentlemen who bring them forward are desirous of rendering public service, they are doing so by ventilating them before the public. The statements they have made have been asserted on the one hand and refuted on the other, just as in all Debates. This has been done in the manner in which we deal with our own Government. I remember Mr. Disraeli in this House saying, when there was a Motion to refer the Reform Bill to a Committee, that he was not prepared to refer the British Constitution to a Select Committee. I think that remark applies, in the same way, to the Government of the Empire of India. It has to be dealt with on the responsibility of a Government. If my hon. Friend brings forward specific cases and abundant proofs of grievances existing in India, they will do a great service in making these things public, and they are certain to be redressed, either by the Government of India or by the Government of the Empire. I am not going to rise to the financial fly which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge. There is room, no doubt, for a great deal to be done in connection with the Exchequer. The Government of India is, no doubt, endeavouring to protect its interests. I, for one, think it is only natural that a Government should desire to see the Treasury expenses reduced, whilst, on the other hand, it is perfectly natural that the Treasury should wish to see the Indian expenses reduced. If they both operate in that direction, no doubt, they will render great service to the interest of the English taxpayer. These, however, are matters which we may leave to fight out for themselves. I hope that the House will now be disposed to proceed to the real business of the evening, and allow my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India to make his Financial Statement.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

I was quite prepared to take part in this Debate, but I can say, not only for myself, but also on behalf of another hon. Member behind me, that after the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a great portion of the observations we might have been inclined to make may now be made in Committee in discussing the Statement of the Under Secretary. I had intended to take some small part in this Debate, for we have heard this evening some very excellent speeches, and I wish to congratulate hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. The speeches have been worthy of all admiration, and the House may congratulate itself on the accession to its ranks of gentlemen who have taken a high position in the Administration of India. I think the preposterous suggestion of the Commission has been adequately dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I may frankly say, after his declaration on the subject, that I think nothing more need be said in support of his refusal to grant this Royal Commission.

MR. SEYMOUR KEAY (Elgin and Nairn)

I merely rise to say that I also desire to respond to the appeal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. I do not intend, at this period of the evening, or at this period of the Session, to detain the House with a series of extremely alarming facts with which I had prepared myself. I will merely make one remark, which is that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considerably mistaken as to the object of our Motion. We do not dogmatise for a Royal Commission; the chief thing that we desire to do is, that the real state of India, as ground down with poverty, should be known, and not merely, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think, that mere casual and petty grievances should be redressed. I am speaking from 30 years' personal experience, and I wish to press upon the House the necessity for an inquiry. However highly hon. Gentlemen may think of the qualities of the Government of India or its officers, supposing we adopt to the full the observations of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the excellence of the Government, yet we are bound to take into consideration the fact that the economic condition of the people is getting much worse year by year, and that if we sit quiet the Government of India, excellent though it may be, will necessarily fall to pieces owing to the weight of its enormous cost.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

I intended to speak with regard to the changes being made in the currency of India, but I understand that I shall be able to do so on the Budget.

Question put, and agreed to.

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. G. RUSSELL

I rise, under rather dispiriting circumstances, to open the Indian Budget of the year. The word Budget conveys the idea, perhaps, that I am about to make some new and original statement—to make some financial revelation to the public with which they were not previously acquainted. In that sense the word is a misnomer, considering that the main outlines of the Statement I am about to make were made known as long ago as March last. It is also a dispiriting circumstance that I should have to address the Committee on so intricate a matter on the last night of a protracted Session. In order to keep my statement within reasonable limits, I shall be obliged to confine my remarks to the more salient features of the Budget, and in accordance with custom I am compelled to deal with the figures for the last three years, those of 1891–2, which are closed; of 1892–3, a revised Estimate of which is before the Committee; and of 1893–4, which constitute the Budget proper. In dealing with the figures I shall give them in tens of rupees, unless I specifically mention them in pounds sterling. The formal Resolution for 1893–4, which I shall place in the hands of the Chairman, and which is technically the Resolution of the night, is a mere statement of facts. The figures of my predecessors have been confirmed. The surplus has been improved by Rx.113,435, making Rx.467,000 altogether. When I come to 1892–3 there are some unusual variations. The net Revenue has increased by Rx. 1,891,600; the net Expenditure by Rx.3,120,100, and the anticipated surplus has been turned into a deficit of Rx.1,081,900. As to the increase of Revenue, half of this is due to opium. For three years the crop was a partial failure; therefore the Government reduced the number of chests sold. This increased the price offered: and the increased price during the official year 1892–3 made an improvement of Rx.331,900. There is also less expenditure in production; so that, though it may sound paradoxical, the failure of the crop led to a total gain of Rx.971,600. The rest of the improvement in Revenue is made up by land, salt, stamps, Excise, forests, and other minor heads, making together Rx.920,000, which, added to the increase on opium, gives an increase of Rx.1,891,600 on the estimated Revenue. Of this sum, Rx.451,000 is credited to the Provincial Governments, and Rx.1,440,600 to the Imperial Government. Turning to the increase of Rx.3,120,100 in net Expenditure, I should state that a considerable portion is only a forestalment of charges which must have been incurred sooner or later, and is not really additional expenditure. (1) The Government of India converted a large amount of 4½ per cent. Debt into Debt bearing only 4 per cent. interest; but, while this effected a large saving, the dividend on the 4 per cent. Loan fell due at an earlier date than that on the 4½ per cent. Debt, and thus payments of interest had to be made in 1892–3 to the amount of Rx.114,700, which otherwise would have fallen into 1893–4. (2) The Secretary of State had long been urged to issue furlough pay and pensions monthly instead of quarterly, as in India, and in English payments at the Paymaster General's Office; but the change was postponed owing to the heavy immediate cost involved. In 1892, however, it was decided to alter the system to monthly payments, and the result was to bring into the charges of February and March, 1893—that is, of the year 1892–3—a payment of about £300,000, or with exchange Rx.480,000, which otherwise would have been made in April or May, 1893—that is, in the year 1893–4. (3) The Expenditure of 1892–3 was enhanced by the settlement of the accounts with the War Office under Lord Northbrook's Commission. When the Budget for 1892–3 was being prepared it was known that the final award was coming, and provision was made in the revised Estimates of 1891–2 for the probable payment. In fact, the award was not delivered till March 22, when there was not time enough left to make the necessary adjustment before April; so that a payment of £175,000, or, including exchange, Rx.280,000, fell into 1892–3 instead of 1891–2, as had been expected. (4) On the other hand, there was an exceptional receipt of Rx.81,600 from the Bengal-Assam Railway; and, deducting this from the three exceptional payments, the Expenditure of 1892–3 was unexpectedly enhanced by Rx.33,100 in India, £475,000 in England, and Rx.285,000 in exchange, or altogether Rx.793,100. I must next speak of the fall in exchange. In the Budget for 1892–3 the gold value of the rupee was taken at 1s. 4d., the rate in force when the Estimates were under consideration. The rate realised on the drawings in 1892–3 was just below 1s. 3d. On the net expenditure in England this fall of about 1d. in the rupee enhances the exchange by Rx.2,055,500. Adding this to the sums just mentioned as exceptional pay- ments, of Rx.33,100 in India and £475,000 in England, there is a total of Rx.2,563,600 explained, leaving only Rx.556,500 to be dealt with. Of this, Rx.464,400 occurs in the military expenditure, owing to special expeditions, transport, and the higher price of food, and the remainder is distributed under various heads. I now approach the Budget proper—1893–4. In 1891–2 the Government had a surplus of Rx.467,000; in 1892–3 a deficit of Rx.1,082,000; and in 1893–4 the Budget shows a deficit of Rx.1,600,000. The gross Revenue is Rx.90,000,000, which is made up of Rx.29,500,000 from Departmental receipts, and Rx.60,500,000 from principal heads of revenue. Against this must be set Rx.10,400,000 cost of collection and Rx.81,200,000 of outlay, which gives an Expenditure of Rx.91,600,000, against Rx.90,000,000 of Revenue, showing a deficit of Rx.1,600,000. The principal heads of Revenue bring in Rx.60,500,000, and this Revenue has gradually increased during 10 years by Rx.8,500,000. The Revenue and Expenditure might be analysed as follows:—Revenue.—Land, Rx.25,200,000; opium, Rx.7,300,000; salt, Rx.8,600,000; stamps,&c, Rx.4,400,000; Excise, Rx.5,200,000; Provincial rates, Rx.3,700,000; minor sources, Rx.6,100,000. Expenditure.—Army, Rx.23,000,000; railway charges, Rx.21,500,000; Civil government, Rx. 14,500,000; buildings and roads, Rx.6,100,000; interest on Debt, Rx.4,100,000; canals, Rx.2,900,000; Post Office and Telegraphs, Rx.2,600,000; miscellaneous, Rx.6,500,000—total, Rx.81,200,000. Applying these figures to the Budget for 1893–4, as expounded by Sir D. Barbour on the 23rd of March last, it will be found that the net Revenue—i.e., the principal heads, less the charges of collection—was Rx,50,100,000 and the net Expenditure—i.e., the expenditure, less Departmental receipts—Rx.51,700,000, giving a deficit of Rx.1,600,000. As in the previous year, nearly the whole of this, or Rx.1,426,000, arose under opium and exchange; and it is necessary to enlarge on these two heads. As regards exchange, only one exception will be seen to the steady fall which has lasted for 20 years, and that one is very suggestive. In 1890 the American Legislature took steps which led to a very sudden rise in the value of silver followed by a yet greater fall, the consequent variation in the charge for exchange illustrating in a very pointed manner Sir David Barbour's remark in paragraph 31 of his Financial Statement— Our financial position for the coming year,"he said," is at the mercy of exchange, and of those who hare it in their power to affect in any way the price of silver. If we budget for the present deficit of Rx.1,595,100 and exchange rises 1d., we shall have a surplus; if it falls 1d., we shall have a deficit of more than three crores; if we impose taxation to the extent of one-and a half crores of rupees a turn of the wheel may require us to impose further taxation of not less magnitude; another turn, and we may find that no taxation at all was required. I will put the figures before the Committee in another way. In 1890–1, with a net sterling Expenditure of £15,177,000, the net charge for exchange was Rx.5,448,000. The Expenditure of the three following years in England had been rather higher; and if exchange had remained at 18d. per rupee the charge on that account would, in the aggregate of the three years, have been higher by Rx.730,000. But, according to the Account and Estimates, the actual charge for exchange in the three years was higher by Rx.11,649,000—that is to say, the Government of India had in those three years to pay very nearly 11 crores more than if exchange had not fallen. And now, Sir, I must approach the question of currency, which I do with much misgiving. One of the wisest men I have ever known is accustomed to say that mankind may be exhaustively divided into two classes: those who do not understand currency, and admit they do not; and those who do not understand currency, and pretend they do. This is the position in which the Government of India found themselves in 1892—the exchange value of the rupee falling 3d. in two years, which, at the then value, implies an addition of two-and-a-half crores or more to the charge each year; a strong agitation in the United States for the repeal of the Sherman Law, which would throw a vast quantity of silver on the market, and heavy imports of silver into India for coinage—far, apparently, beyond the requirements of trade; a Monetary Conference was about to meet at Brussels, but the expectations of an International Agreement on the joint use of gold and silver in currency were very small, and the Government of India felt that if they waited till the deliberations of that Conference should be concluded before taking action in their own defence they would be in a very dangerous condition. Accordingly, they proposed that, failing a satisfactory agreement with the United States or other nations, the Indian Mints should be closed to the free coinage of silver for the public, and that arrangements should be made for the introduction of a gold standard into India. Lord Kimberley referred to a Committee over which Lord Herschell presided, and which included prominent representatives of both the monometallic and the bimetallic opinions, the consideration of those proposals with the view of their advising Her Majesty's Government whether they should permit the Government of India to carry their proposals into effect; and if they should consider that there was not sufficient ground for overruling the Government of India, but that modifications in their scheme might be desirable, of offering suggestions accordingly. In a closely-reasoned Report, dated May 31st, the Committee showed how great were the financial difficulties of the Government of India through the fluctuations in exchange, how strong was the probability that they might be increased by the action of the United States, and how little could be done to alleviate the burden of any immediate large addition to their charges, either by increasing the taxation or reducing the expenditure. Reviewing the proposals of the Government, the Committee considered the objections that might be raised to them, either on the ground that the object proposed was impracticable, or that the methods were inexpedient; they showed what course had been followed by other nations in recent years with respect to their currency, and what effect an alteration of the system in India might be expected to have on the trade, either with other countries or in competition with them. They examined other schemes which had been proposed, and decided that none presented greater advantages or fewer objections than that of the Government of India. But they held that the latter failed to make sufficient provision against a possible rise, at once great and sudden, in exchange. Finally, they came to the conclusion that no sufficient reason existed for Her Majesty's Government to refuse to allow the Government of India to close its Mints against the free coinage of silver; but they advised that such a step should be accompanied by an announcement that the Mints would still be used by the Government to coin rupees in exchange for gold at some fixed ratio, such as 1s. 4d. per rupee, and that at the Government Treasuries gold would be received at the same ratio in satisfaction of public dues. The Committee's Report was sent to the Government of India, who concurred in the suggestion, the object being to prevent a further fall in exchange rather than to raise the gold value of the rupee. And, Her Majesty's Government having given their consent, an Act was passed on June 26 by the Government of India stopping the free coinage of silver on behalf of the public. At the same time, notices were issued authorising the reception of gold at the Mints and Treasuries in exchange for, or in place of, rupees, at a ratio of 1s. 4d. to the rupee, or 15 rupees to the sovereign. As some misunderstanding has arisen as to the declarations and intentions of the Government, it is important to notice that, however glad they would be to see the value of the rupee stable at 1s. 4d., they have in no way attempted to fix that rate. What they have done is to prevent its undue depreciation by. the coining of silver into rupees in future, leaving the superabundance, which apparently exists, to be gradually absorbed, and to prevent any violent rise, which might be injurious to trade, by providing that it should be open to anybody who prefers to pay gold at the fixed ratio to do so and obtain rupees in exchange. The Committee foresaw that a sudden rise might occur in the value of the rupee, and they thought that it might be disastrous to trade if it should be allowed to go to 1s. 6d., the ratio indicated in the proposals of the Government of India as a maximum. But probably no one anticipated such a very rapid rise as actually occurred. Owing to a heavy speculation in rupee paper, of which the sterling value was improved by the measures adopted, there was a great demand for bills on India on June 26 and 27. They were sold, in accordance with the usual practice, at a rise of l–32nd of 1d. per rupee for each five and afterwards for each three lakhs, the object of the Government being to avoid any step on its part which should force up exchange beyond what the natural competition of trade prompted. The latter force was, however, sufficient to raise the rate in 30 hours from 1s. 3 3–16d. to 1s. 4 l–32d. for telegraphic transfers. It was evident that the trade demand did not justify such a price; and accordingly, when tenders were made at 1s. 3⅞d. on the following Wednesday, they were accepted in the usual manner. Since July 5 there have been either no tenders at all, or they have been usually for small amounts at reduced rates, which it is the ordinary practice to refuse. Recently, in the hope of preventing a further fall, it was decided, for at any rate a little while, to sell no bills below 1s. 3¼d., and the tenders accepted have been only at that rate, or a little higher; but the Secretary of State will on each occasion exercise his discretion according to his wants and the circumstances of the day. It is not surprising that the tenders for bills should have fallen off for a time. I have mentioned the large purchases of rupee paper. Some of that might be returned to India at a higher rate of exchange than existed when it was brought over. The stock of European cotton goods is low in India, and the better prices will naturally lead to large exports from Lancashire. Again, a very large quantity of silver has been exported to India during the later weeks of the Currency Committee's sitting, after its being announced that the Report would be made shortly, and until this has been absorbed it prevents further remittances. Moreover, owing probably to the cheapness of the metal, very large orders have been given for it, whether for ornament or for coinage at Native Mints, since the Indian Mints are closed. And, finally, while the change of currency is adopted at the moment when the monsoon season is imminent, and exports are at the lowest point, and, therefore, trade is least likely to be obstructed by a rise in exchange, it is the time when the demand for Government bills on India is very small. It is certain that the trade will effect its remittances to India in the cheapest manner possible; but there is no reason to doubt that, the imports of silver for coinage being stopped, the demand for bills will again spring into activity, and when it does it will depend on the competition of the trade whether the rate of 1s. 4d. per rupee will be attained. The Government of India have not decided whether the ratio should be permanently fixed at 1s. 4d. the rupee, or what further measures they will adopt for bringing the gold standard into effective operation. Other nations have waited a long time after suspending free coinage, and have gradually accumulated a store of gold. If, through the working of the measures now taken, gold should be sent freely to India and paid to the Government, it might accelerate the time when gold could be coined and gold coins declared a legal tender; but the Government of India do not, for the present, make any promise as to their future action in this respect. Before passing entirely from the subject of exchange, I must refer to the case of the servants of the Government, who have long suffered from the constant fall in the value of the rupee, and who have, in a very large number of memorials and deputations, laid before the Government the hardships which they are suffering. While the question of currency was under consideration, it was impossible for the Secretary of State, fully as he sympathised with the officers, to deal with the subject, for until some idea could be formed of the probable future value of the rupee, it was not practicable to say whether the finances would bear the strain of the additional charge that might be needed to afford adequate compensation; nor was it possible to say what form such compensation ought to take. All that could be done was to say that, in the matter of furlough allowances and family remittances, the officers should not be placed in a worse position than before through the delay of a settlement on the currency question; and therefore, temporarily, payments were made at the exchange of 1s. 4¾d. applicable to 1892–3, although, in the meantime, the official rate had fallen to 1s. 2¾d. Family remittances at a privileged rate were granted as a boon to the East India Company's military officers some 60 years ago, owing to the difficulties experienced by them when on a campaign, and in the absence of banking facilities in providing for their families; but the reasons for the concession have long passed away, and it has for some time been considered doubtful whether it was right to give such a privilege to military officers and refuse it to the Civil servants of Government. On the other hand, the extension to the Civil officers would have greatly added to the home charges, and would have intensified the difficulties of exchange. Moreover, many officers might be desirous of providing for those dependent, or likely hereafter to be dependent, on them, and yet be unable to effect remittances through the Government if the persons to be benefited did not come within the relationship specified in the rules. Accordingly, a plan has been adopted which will supersede the system of family remittances for officers—unless, in a few exceptional cases, where contracts have been made; and an exchange compensation allowance will be given to all civil and military officers in India, based on a rate of 1s. 6d. to the rupee. For example, if the market rate of the preceding three months should have been 1s. 4d., the officer would be granted an additional allowance, which would give him sufficient to make up one-half of his salary to a ratio of 1s. 6d. the rupee. The cost of this concession is estimated at 64 lakhs; but, as 16 lakhs of this would be paid to officers employed by the Provincial Governments or on works chargeable to capital expenditure, only 48 lakhs (Rx. 480,000) will fall on the Budget of the year. Furlough allowances will be made payable at the same rate of 1s. 6d. the rupee, the cost of which is estimated at four lakhs (Rx.40,000). The result of these measures is very materially to alter the Budget, which in March showed a deficit of Rx.1,595,100. The following are the improvements anticipated:—Exchange, very uncertain, but estimated, if a rate of 1s. 4d. were maintained for the rest of the year, at Rx.1,460,000; Civil Revenue, Rx.30,000; railways, net, Rx.150,000; total, Rx. 1,640,000; and the following are the expected points of deterioration:—Opium, net, Rx.600,000; Army, Rx.50,000; discount on loans in India and in England, Rx.l50,000; interest, Rx.30,000; compensation for exchange. Rx.520,000; total, Rx.l,350,000; making a net im- provement of Rx.290,000, and bringing down the deficit, as now estimated, to Rx.1,305,100. It will be observed that the deficit would have been very much smaller but for the reduction in the net opium revenue. On the announcement of the closing of the Indian Mints one of the first effects was naturally a great disturbance in the trade with China, as it was obvious that the gold value of silver was likely to be much reduced, and consequently merchants would be unable to give in India so high a price as before for articles for sale in China, chief among which was opium. Hence, at the auction at Calcutta on the 3rd of July, during the days of panic immediately following the closing of the Mints, the average price per chest, which at the beginning of June was 1,187 rupees, fell to 971 rupees; it rose to 1,155 rupees in August, but fell again to 1,049 in September. In discussing the prospect of the opium trade with China, the Currency Committee assigned reasons for doubting whether the diminution in the receipts was likely to be considerable. The Government of India have, however, recently announced that the monthly sales at Calcutta, which had in October, 1892, been reduced from 4,500 to 3,642 chests, would be further reduced on the 1st of January, 1894, to 3,525 chests a month, so that they will receive in 1893–4 the proceeds of 351 chests less than they anticipated in the Budget. And, coupling this with the fall in price, they now expect a reduction of Rx.600,000 in the net receipts this year. So far I have been dealing with the expenditure chargeable on the Revenue of the year. I must now speak of that which was incurred outside the Revenue account, and met from loans on accumulated balances. As a general rule, the outlay so incurred amounted to 350 lakhs, of which about 280 were allotted to railways and 70 to irrigation works. It must not, however, be supposed that this was all which was spent on such works. There was, usually, a considerable allotment from Revenue under the heads of famine insurance protective works, and of construction of railways, and there was also a large outlay by companies guaranteed by the Government, and, from the summary on page 23 of the Memorandum, it will be seen that, altogether, the Government have in the three years to which the statement refers sanctioned an outlay of 555,675, and 755 lakhs, or Rx.19,850,000 on the whole. This has been done with comparatively little addition to the debt. In India it will during the three years have been increased by only Rx.3,406,000, and in England there has been an addition of £2,522,000, of which £1,357,000 is to discharge railway debentures. Taking the remainder, £1,165,000, as equal to Rx.1,770,000, the Government of India have been able to allot about Rx.9,000,00 from their balances for productive works without incurring debt for the purpose, besides guaranteeing the interest on Rx.5,500,000 spent by companies. In connection with this subject, I may point out that, as will be seen from the statement of assets and liabilities on page 23 of the Memorandum, the Government possess public works of improvement sufficient in value to balance the whole of its Debt and obligations, except about £28,000,000, so that the uncovered Debt is not greatly in excess of half a year's net Revenue. The Debt which is being incurred this year consists of two parts. In England a loan of £1,300,000 Three per Cent. Stock has been issued at an average price of £98 17s. 3d. per cent., in order to provide funds for the discharge of railway debentures to the amount of £1,249,200, which are bearing interest at 3½ per cent. As regards the Debt in India, there was in 1890 an amount of about 20 crores, bearing interest at 4½ per cent.; by successive offers of conversion some 18½ crores were converted into 4 per cent. Debt, and only about Rx.1,350,000 remained outstanding. The Government of India have given notice to pay this off on October 14 next, and, in order to provide funds for the purpose and for the construction of public works during the year, they raised on August 15 a loan of Rx.3,500,000, to bear interest at 3½ per cent. It was subscribed at an average rate of about 96¼ per cent., and the holders will receive about 3⅝ per cent. interest. I have mentioned the outlay on railways, and I will now state what progress has been made during the past year in their development. Fourhundred and ninety miles of new line have been opened, making the total mileage open on March 31 last 18,042. The first section of the East Coast Railway, from Bezvada to the Godavari river (91 miles), was opened in February, and it was expected that two more sections, with a length of 171 miles, would be opened during 1893. An important bridge also was completed over the Kistna River at Bezvada, 12 spans of 300 ft.; it has been constructed to carry a mixed standard and mètre gauge line, as it connects the Southern Mahratta mètre gauge system with the standard gauge lines of the Nizam's and East Coast Railways. On the Western side of India the first sections were opened of the railway from Hyderabad to Umarkot, 59 miles, and of that from Godhva to Rutlam, 25 miles. In the South the section from Dharmávaram to the Mysore frontier was completed, and in Burma the section of the Mu Valley Railway from Shwebo to Wuntho was opened for public traffic. The principal new work taken in hand was the Assam-Bengal Railway, with a total length of 742 miles, for the formation of which a company was formed in April, 1892, with a capital of £1,500,000 raised on a guarantee by Government of a minimum dividend of 3½ per cent. till 1898, and of 3 per cent. subsequently. Further money will be supplied by the Government, unless they prefer to allow the company to raise it, and the profits of the line will be divided between the two parties according to their contributions. Taking the outlay on all the open lines, whether commercial or military, the average returns in 1891 were 5.80, and in 1892 5.45 per cent. On several lines the net earnings are between 5 and 10 per cent.; the East Indian gave 9.79, the Rajputana-Malwa 10.47, and the Jodhpore 11.11 per cent. Railway construction in India should, therefore, be sufficiently attractive for local capital, and it is the most satisfactory of all their forms of public outlay. Turning to the moral and material condition of the people of India, I can only reiterate what I have stated in my previous speech, that, in spite of the gloomy prophecies with which this subject is so encompassed, according to all the tests we have been able to apply, there is a distinct advance in the material prosperity of India. That material improvement is exhibited in the increase both of exports and imports; in the accumulation of treasure; increase of comforts, arts, and ornament in the houses of the people; increase in the quantity of food consumed; the prices given for land, and the amount of salt consumed. I cannot say as much when I turn to education, because, if not absolutely stationary, it is a great deal more nearly stationary than I should wish to see it. I can trace an improvement in the appliances for public health with beneficial results. There has been a Commission inquiring into the opium traffic and one on ganja, as well as one on the Cantonment Acts. Steps have been taken to restore to the people of India the right of trial by jury; and in Local Councils we have provided the readiest means of redress against any grievances which could not be properly dealt with by reference to the authorities at home. My object has been to show the actual financial condition of India and what its state is likely to be in the near future; and, secondly, to show in the briefest outline the various steps the Government have taken, are taking, and intend to take with the view of promoting the material, moral, and social well-being of the people. The object which every Indian Government must set before itself is the maintenance of a strong, orderly, and progressive rule; but even the maintenance of such a rule is not quite an end in itself. It is a means to an end. The object of such government is, in my view, to blend the various races and faiths of India into one harmonious whole; to raise the Indian people in the moral, intellectual, and social scale of nations; to stimulate their progress in the sciences which prolong life and the arts which beautify it; and in all those beneficent enterprises of well-ordered intelligence, where All men find their own in all men's good, And all men join in social brotherhood.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it appears, by the Accounts laid before the House, that the total Revenue of India for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892 was Rx.89,143,283; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged against the Revenue was Rx.88,675,748; that there was a Surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.467,535; and that the capital outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx. 3,500,000."—(Mr. G. Russell.)

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

I am sorry that the Under Secretary of State for India has not returned in time to allow me to give him the customary congratulations for his interesting statement just before we adjourned for dinner. However, I must offer my congratulations even to the Green Bench in his absence, and I am sure that our friends the reporters in the Gallery will duly report to him the congratulations which are nevertheless offered in perfect sincerity. On the whole, the statement was as satisfactory as the circumstances permit; and the circumstances of the time, no doubt, are grave. There was one thing which I did not quite understand in his statement. He showed us the amount of the deficit and how the deficit was caused, but he did not, so far as I gather, explain how that deficit was to be met. Subject to correction, I understand the Government are going to meet this deficit out of their cash balance, and not by the imposition of any new taxation. That may appear a very extraordinary thing; but in India they do keep a very large sum in these balances, not necessarily in the Government Treasury, and it is quite possible—at least it was in my time—to meet a deficit of even £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 by drawing upon these cash balances. But I need hardly say that is a process which cannot go on for more than a year or two. Among the various points which the Under Secretary mentioned was that of the development of railways. According to the statement which he made, one would think that the railways in India, especially those which are now being constructed, were one of the most profitable investments in the world. A more rose-coloured statement I have never yet heard in regard to the railways, though I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman states it on good authority. As regards moral progress, we never know how far the question of moral progress can be discussed in this purely financial debate, and I must remark, in reference to what the Under Secretary of State said about my having by my action precluded him from alluding to the matter of contagious diseases, that one hardly sees how this is to come within this debate. If I blocked the Motion it was for the reason that (in the absence of a block) it might have been discussed while the Speaker was in the Chair, and might have raised a very inconvenient debate lasting for some time—two or three hours, perhaps—all of which would have been deducted from this purely financial Debate upon the Indian Budget. It was partly in order to prevent time being taken up in this way, and being deducted from the time that belongs to the Under Secretary of State and those who follow him, that I persisted in my blocking Motion; and, therefore, I hardly think I deserve any reproach from my hon. Friend. In fact, I have indirectly been conferring a benefit upon him, for surely no serious Member in this House on either side would say for a moment that such a subject as that being interpolated in the middle of a Debate regarding the government of India and the progress of the Indian population would be anything but a very unfortunate occurrence; and, therefore, I cannot, with all deference to the Secretary of State, take any blame to myself for such action as I have ventured to adopt. Now, I must, say just a few words upon the subject of the closing of the Mints for the coining of silver. Although I do not mean to say that this action can be defended upon the strictest grounds, yet the Government of India had to do something, and those who criticise it and those who attack it most fiercely have never attempted to show what alternative was open to the Government. What were they to do? Its critics do not look to the other side. It is like the obverse and reverse of a medal. They look to the obverse and never think of the reverse, and suggest positively no alternative. What, I repeat, was the Government of India to do? I think we should show a generous consideration for all the difficulties which they had to encounter, and the gravity of the situation in which they found themselves. No doubt some injury—very indirect, remote, and hardly appreciable—has been inflicted upon those classes of natives who hold silver, but that cannot be fairly described as public plunder. Those Members on my side of the House who have applied such terms to the action of the Government were hurried, no doubt, in the heat of the Debate into expressions which could not, strictly speaking, be justified. I will ask the Committee for a moment to consider what exactly is the position of the natives in India in respect to this holding of silver? The quantity of this metal coined is far greater than is generally supposed; but, as regards uncoined silver, what is the purpose for which the natives of India hold it? They do not intend to turn it into money; they intend to keep it. No doubt it serves in time of peace for ornament, and in time of trouble and danger it will serve for sustenance. But what is the kind of danger for which they will use it? When they get distressed for food they will endeavour to get food for this silver, and the burning question in their minds will be not so much the price of silver as the price of food. When food is raised four or five times in price they think less of the price of silver, but they think immensely of the price of grain. Therefore, as regards the use to which they put uncoined silver, I contend the action of the Government in India will have a most remote and inappreciable effect on the natives of India, and that thus they will not suffer in the manner that has been supposed by metallic authorities on this side of the House. But there is this further in the matter to be considered. Supposing that the difference of 1d. or l½d. in the rupee, which has been produced by that action of the Government, did appreciably affect them, that is only a slight increase of the disadvantage which they have been suffering now for 10 or 15 years past; and if their prosperity had depended on the rupee remaining at par, that prosperity would have disappeared long ago. We have never heard all this time that the natives were supposed to suffer from the depreciation of the rupee. On the contrary, the difficulty was this—that you never could show that India herself was suffering or that the natives were complaining. And now, after all this has been going on from 10 to 15 years, when the rupee has fallen from 24d. to 16d. or 15d., when the value of silver is lowered another 1d., all this complaint is raised for the first time; all these dangers are conjured up, and the measure stigmatised as a public danger. I must say that is an exaggeration; and the same remarks apply to the ryots. It is said they are to suffer severely now because the rupee is depreciated by 1½d. or 2d.

MR. SEYMOUR KEAY (Elgin and Nairn)

The rupee is appreciated.

SIR R. TEMPLE

Allow me to put my case in my own way. I should have said that the rupee is appreciated by the action of the Government, but that silver is depreciated. It is supposed that the ryots are to suffer because silver is to be depreciated by 1½d. or 2d. by the recent action of the Government of India; and I reply, if that were so, what must the ryot have suffered all these 10 or 15 years from the depreciation of the rupee from 24d. to 16d.? Has he been suffering? Has the Land Tax been going down? Have there been complaints by the ryots (the land tax-payers) of the depreciation of the rupee? Up to quite recently, I, for one, have never heard that the native landholders have been suffering all these years from the falling price of silver. Quite the contrary is the general opinion. Is it not strange that when no complaints have been made all these years, a complaint should suddenly be made at the eleventh hour of this assumed depreciation of uncoined silver? Now I wish to make a few remarks about the land taxpayers. I believe, Sir, that will come very properly within the scope of this discussion. My purpose is to address the Committee on the economic condition of the ryot, the laud taxpayer, who forms 80 per cent. or more of the entire population. Now it has been asserted very often in this House, as well as outside, that the condition of the land taxpayer is very oppressed at the present time, and is getting gradually worse and worse, and that he is becoming poorer and poorer. That, I understand, is the sum total and effect of that allegation, which has been made in strong and strenuous language. If such a statement were at all true, it would, of course, be a very unhappy state of affairs; in fact, one cannot imagine a statement more damaging or more disadvantageous than that if there were any foundation for it. I am within the recollection of the Committee when I say that these statements were made with great stress; but beyond the bare allegation not one particle of proof is adduced; not one single fact that can be proved statistically, tested, or verified has ever been brought forward to support that view. I speak in the presence of several statisticians; and I should like to ask, supposing such a statement could be proved, what sort of proof would be necessary? What are the strong points it is necessary to know if you are to say that the condition of the peasantry is depressed? I propose for a few minutes to enter into these considerations, because they are at the very root and foundation of our Indian finance. If you are to prove that the peasantry are growing poorer and poorer, it should be inquired whether this depression is caused by the system of tenure. No; because they have tenure as good as anyone in the world. No small freeholder in England has a firmer tenure in his holding which he cultivates than the ryot has, and that has been secured by settlements based on cadastral surveys.

THE CHAIRMAN

This is not material to the Question. We have passed the stage at which it can be discussed.

MR. GOSCHEN

May I put it to you, Sir, that the power of the ryots to pay taxes comes from the resources of India generally to which attention is being drawn? When the Speaker was in the Chair the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to us to shorten the Debate, and we fell in with his view, and hon. Members on this side reserved their remarks with a view of making them at a convenient time. I put it to you, Sir, that the prosperity of agriculture must certainly form a considerable element in the power of the general population of India to pay taxation.

MR. SEYMOUR KEAY

With regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, I would beg to say that I also was stopped in the Debate for the same reason as the right hon. Gentleman; and if you rule that the general question of the ability of the ryot to pay taxes can be raised, I shall feel it my duty to reply to any remarks of the hon. Gentleman.

SIR R. TEMPLE

I had said what little there was to be said about that point of the surveys. A large amount of the ability to pay taxes depends on the stability of the tenure. At all events, I presume it will be open to remark upon the number of the agricultural population. Now, if the agricultural population were depressed you would consider that the population would decrease. On the contrary; it is increasing at a most rapid rate. Why, during the last 10 years it has increased by more than 30,000,000—nearly 35,000,000. There is no proof of depression in that. Then it is said that this increase is pro- ducing a sort of congestion; but that is not so, because the increase of population has occurred not in the densely-populated places, but in outlying districts, which hitherto have been sparsely populated. Then proof might be found in the increase of the area of population. All the information given shows that the increase of population has been in the new districts which have been brought into cultivation. So there is no proof of congestion there. Is there any proof of depression in the produce? Well, no; not in the cereals, nor the oil-seeds, nor the produce. All the world knows that a population which is said to be starving is sending so much food to England as to astonish our British farmers. Is there any proof of depression with respect to the falling-off of the Land Tax? On the contrary, that goes on, and is slowly but surely increasing. Is there any proof in the dwellings or the houses? No; on the contrary, the cottages are improving and the houses are far better than they have been at previous periods. Is there any proof in the falling-off in the quality of domestic pottery? No; on the contrary, brass is being substituted for earthenware. Is there any proof in wages?

MR. SEYMOUR KEAY

Are you prepared to prove these things from Returns?

SIR R. TEMPLE

Yes, certainly. I am about to state how all this information is derived. Is there any proof in wages? On the contrary, wages have increased. Why, they are double what they were when I first went to India. Is there any proof in savings? On the contrary, so far as Savings Banks go, they are being developed from decade to decade. Surely every Member of this House will recollect our discussion on bimetallism, and the particulars that were given about the amount of silver specie and bullion in the hands of the natives. The arguments are turned one way or the other to suit the case. One day we are told that the natives have nothing, and another day we are told they have any amount of silver, whenever statistics of that kind have to be brought to bear on the currency. Is there any proof of depression to be found in their accumulations of food grain? Certainly not. In that respect the natives are setting an example to most nations. I venture to say there is no nation in Europe that has so large an amount of food stored as the natives of India. If such a calamity as the Indian famine occurred in this country, I am certain that it would be far worse for our countrymen than ever it was for the natives of India. I have been struck with the large accumulation of food in the hands of the natives of India, which is sometimes kept underground. Is there any proof of depression in their resources of irrigation? No; for in this respect the wells are ever increasing, and the works of irrigation are developed to such an extent that they are the admiration of every foreign nation. Is there any proof with regard to communication? No; for the district roads and the provincial roads are much improved, and they are slowly but effectually advancing, and the natives are crowding by thousands of passengers in every railway train, mostly drawn from the agricultural population. Then is there any proof as regards sanitation? On the contrary, tanks for drinking water and things of that sort have been lately improved everywhere. In every small town there are waterworks.

THE CHAIRMAN

I am clear this is not in Order.

SIR R. TEMPLE

Then I will delete that part of my argument. My point is that the material condition of the peasantry cannot be proved to be depressed, and therefore their power of paying taxes cannot be shown to have diminished, and consequently there is no fear for the Budget of India or for their finances on that account. And if this financial depression cannot be proved from the system of tenure and the other things I have mentioned, I want to know whence it can be proved? Where can the proof come from? If it cannot be found in these things, where on earth can it be found? Take my argument, and I challenge all those who say that there is this financial depression to show me a single source from which the proof is derived. The hon. Member opposite asked how I knew all these things. I have no occult moans of information, and I get my knowledge from the Returns and Reports which are accessible to every Member of this House, and any hon. Member can satisfy himself by a reference to the Libraries. I thank you, Sir, for allowing me to make these remarks about the revenue from Land Tax. I must submit to this House that it is impossible to separate Land Tax from revenue; it is impossible to separate finance from revenue, and it is impossible to separate revenue from the condition of the taxpayer, and if the condition of the taxpayer cannot be entered into in this discussion, what is the use of having a debate at all? I do not know, Sir, whether you will consider me in Order if I allude to the indebtedness of the taxpayers. During all my time in India I was strongly of opinion that the law could be so modified as to offer considerable relief to this indebtedness of the taxpayers, and I did my best for the purpose, and effected some good; but I fear I left a great deal of good to be done in this respect by my successors. A great deal of the indebtedness of the peasantry is caused in this way. Men of humble means will insist upon expensive festivities upon the occasion of their marriages. They have many ceremonials of a quasi-religious character, when considerable sums of money are spent, and upon the priests and the priestly classes. Upon all such occasions these poor people simply outrun the constable. And debt is so easily contracted, because we have given these people the means of mortgaging their property. Many cases of indebtedness could be, to some extent, avoided by improvements in the law. Our law gives too great facilities to the money lenders.

MR. SEYMOUR KEAY

I rise to Order. Is the hon. Baronet in Order in his present remarks?

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Gentleman is perfectly in Order.

SIR R. TEMPLE

continuing: Of course, it will be urged on the other side that one cause of the indebtedness is that the Land Tax is too high. But that has been constantly lowered, although prices have not fallen in the way they have in this country. Perhaps the system of cash payments may be given as a cause. But of all the reforms we have introduced into India, the greatest is this—that we have substituted payment in cash for payment in kind. And now there is only one remark I desire to make, and it is this. A comparison has been drawn between some of the Native States, and it is asserted that some of these States are advancing in pro- sperity more rapidly than the Government territories. Some of the Native States are, no doubt, in abundant prosperity, and that is a fact, I think, upon which we ought to congratulate them, especially as they have largely imitated. But anyone who knows what Northern India and the Deccan once were will feel that nothing but British rule could have effected the change we see in those regions. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to make some statement about moral improvement, and to convey a gracious message from the House of Commons to the vast population of our Indian Empire.

MR. SEYMOUR KEAY (Elgin and Nairn)

It struck me, Mr. Mellor, that the hon. Member was absolutely and diametrically in error with regard to the whole course of the argument with which he sought to inform the House on a previous occasion. He said that there was no diminution of the prosperity of the people of India, because of the international depreciation of the rupee which has taken place within the last 12 or 15 years. I am prepared to admit more or less that that is the case. There is no doubt whatever that if we accept this proposition that the depreciation of the rupee which has taken place has not injured the people of India perceptibly it must follow that any artificial appreciation of the rupee might have the effect of producing injury. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that the purpose the Government of India had in closing the Mints to free coinage of silver was to still further depreciate the rupee. He said, if his argument meant anything at all, that as the rupee falling from 2s. to 1s. 4d. has not injured the people of India, therefore, how could anyone say that a further depreciation of the rupee beyond 1s. 4d. could injure them? I ventured across the floor of the House to suggest to him that the only idea and view of the Government of India in closing the Mints to free coinage was not further to depreciate the rupee, but to appreciate it. The hon. Baronet somewhat hastily accused me of discourtesy, and appealed to the protection of the Chair. The only object the Government of India avowedly have in closing the Mints to the free coinage of silver is to appreciate the rupee artificially. Ap- preciation is always made by scarcity, and when we want to appreciate any coin we do it by making the coin scarcer. The Government of India cannot stop the depreciation of uncoined silver, and, therefore, they appreciate the coined silver. Whenever they artificially restrict the output of rupees they not only do, but they intend to appreciate that coin as against international exchange, and as against gold and everything else in the world. I do not suppose that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) will for a moment dissent from that doctrine. The hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Temple) went on basing his argument upon the absolutely false assumption with which he started—namely, that because it could not be shown that the past depreciation of the rupee had injured the people, therefore no injury could possibly be inflicted by closing the Mints. That is the point which compels me to rise to-night and detain the Committee for a few moments. I have had a more extensive experience of international banking and Indian Exchanges than any other man in this House, and I can inform my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State that closing the Mints to coinage would have a very early, a very enormous, and a very severe effect upon the general population of India. By appreciating the rupee the Government depreciate all produce. Let me take a general all-round figure to illustrate the matter to the Committee. Supposing that at this moment, with free coinage of silver, the Indian ryot or cultivator cultivates 10 acres of land. He has got to pay the Government, say, 10 rupees for Land Tax. He is at present able to raise the 10 rupees by selling 100 lbs. of rice. What will be the effect of the Government of India's edict? By artificially appreciating the value of the rupee you bring about this position—that the man will have to sell 125 lbs. of rice instead of 100 lbs. in order to enable him to pay his Land Tax. But his land will not grow a single ounce more of rice, and, therefore, the outcome of artificially raising the rupee, and making it scarce, will be that that man's wife and children will simply have to eat 25 lbs. of rice less than they did the year before. I do not think I can venture to detain the Committee by entering into some of the general subjects alluded to by the hon. Baronet. Some of them were in Order, and some of them were not. I must say that I got a little confused as to which of the hon. Baronet's subjects I mght venture to reply to, and which I might not. The hon. Baronet wanted to convince this Committee, and indicated that he could give chapter and verse showing the prosperity of India in 15 or 20 ways. When I ventured to ask him if he was quoting from official Returns, he declared that I must not interrupt him. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that when he sat down he had not given the Committee one single proof in support of the statements he made.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

There are only two points connected with Indian finance on which I would ask the Committee to allow me to say a few words. At an earlier period of the evening the home charges of the Indian Government were discussed to a certain extent. It is clear that the amount of the home charges would seriously affect the Budget of our Indian Empire. Those who have been connected with the administration of India, I know, take a a particular view. My hon. Friends behind me seem to be under the impression that India has been harshly treated with regard to those charges which are imposed upon her in connection with the home Government. Possibly there may be some hon. Members who think that the British Executive Government is in a position to impose on the Indian Government a settlement with regard to disputed points of finance. Now, I think it is important that impression should be removed. I think it has been pointed out by several Members opposite that the belief prevails in India that there is much injustice in connection with home charges. I have had some experience in which the Indian Government, supported by the Indian Council, have defended the interests of the British taxpayer. My right hon. Friend beside me has already said a few words upon that subject, and I can only emphasise what he has said—namely, that the Treasury find it extremely difficult to come to any arrangement with the Indian Government as to what the Treasury think it fair to the British taxpayer. The hon. Member for Hackney alluded to the want of equity with regard to the charges exacted from India in connection with the Persian Embassy and with regard to the representation of this country at Canton. I think everybody will admit that India is deeply interested with Persia, and is deeply interested in the Chinese Empire. Therefore, at sight, it would seem only equitable India should pay some proportion towards the maintenance of these Embassies. The hon. Member for Hackney said that Canada had not to pay for the maintenance of the Embassy at Washington, although Canada was eminently deeply interested. That may be an argument for impressing upon Canada she ought to contribute towards the Embassy at Washington, but it is not an argument that you should not ask India to pay towards the Embassies in Persia and at Canton. The position of the British taxpayers is that they are generally called upon to pay the whole of the Imperial charges of the country. I think it is to be regretted that arrangements have not been made for our Colonies to contribute on a more systematic and broader plan a portion of the expenditure in which they are clearly deeply interested. The Empire is deeply interested in many portions of our foreign policy. I am glad of the opportunity of pointing out to those who are specially charged in their consciences with the defence of Indian interests that, having had some experience in the matter, some of these questions are dealt with with extraordinary care by the Representatives of the Indian Government to defend their taxpayers. I do not know what may have been the experience of my successor at the Treasury, but I can assure the Committee that the permanent officials at the Treasury considered the Indian Government is far stronger and more obstinate in insisting upon the rights and privileges of the Indian taxpayers than the Representatives of the British taxpayer. I do not think it is wasting the time of the Committee if I dwell for one moment on details which illustrate the system. The Indian Government quite properly, from their point of view, and following the Members who are eminent Representatives of the Indian Government who have spoke this evening, and object to a portion of the cost of the Embassy at Teheran. The Treasury thought they were not paying enough. There was a long controversy. Neither the Treasury nor the Indian Government would give way. A compromise was, however, effected. The Prime Minister requested the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for India to meet. We were supported by certain permanent officials of the Treasury, and the Indian Government were supported by some of the most eminent Members of the Indian Council. The matter was threshed out in the presence of the Prime Minister, and a compromise arrived at. The question of the cost of the representation at Canton was dealt with in the same way. I mention this to show that the Indian Government presses upon the Treasury precisely as hon. Members would wish the Committee of this House to press it. The Imperial Parliament have not power to impose any charges upon the Indian Government, as some Members of this House may be inclined to believe. I am quite certain that the taxpayers of India are defended with precisely the same amount of energy as by those who represent the British taxpayer. I agree with the observation made at an earlier period in the evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, who said we ought to be particularly anxious that in our relations with India we should treat them with no want of generosity, and no want of appreciation of the situation. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was my duty vigilantly to defend the English taxpayers in controversies with the Indian Government, and I can assure the Committee that I feel confident the present Government do not wish to press unduly upon an Empire of fellow-subjects, with regard to whom we have such a grave responsibility. That I am certain will be the spirit in which every Government would wish to approach this question. There is one charge from which the Indian Government is almost entirely free, and one subject with reference to which the English taxpayer has some cause for complaint. I think the British taxpayer has his rights in this matter equal with the Indian taxpayer. While we are discussing whether we bear too hardly upon India, it is right to consider whether in some matters India pays sufficient towards the cost of this Empire. India has a coast which is very expensive. India has to be protected by sea as well as by laud. The contribution which the Indian Empire pays towards the maintenance of the Navy is quite a trifle, quite a bagatelle. That must be looked upon as a set-off with regard to many of the home charges my hon. Friends are likely to think excessive. Supposing India was a self-contained Empire: think of the cost India would have to incur in order to protect her coasts. I think I am right in saying that India pays £100,000 a year towards the maintenance of our Navy. It is a question whether that amount should not be increased. We have the greatest difficulty in getting the Indian Government to pay it. The British taxpayer is charged with the Navy, which is to defend our Colonies, India, and Dependencies, and the amount of contributions in return is insignificant. The whole weight of taxation really presses upon the British taxpayer. It is one of the reasons why the cost of the Navy seems so excessive in the eyes of many persons. We have all this immense responsibility, and the contributions made by other portions of the Empire are absolutely insignificant. Therefore, I would entreat hon. Members, when they consider whether India is unfairly treated by this country, to bear in mind that for a most trifling contribution Britain incurs an immense expense of guaranteeing, as we believe we guarantee, the naval safety of India. 'Now, the second subject on which I would like to touch is that of the closing of the Indian Mints. Mr. Mellor, I have received a number of letters, and also personal representations have been made to me expressing surprise that I have not spoken at length upon a subject with which I am supposed to be more or less specially cognisant. I have been asked why I have been reticent with regard to this matter. I will be perfectly frank with the Committee. I will say at the outset that when I read the resolution of the Government to close the Indian Mints it was a most startling announcement to me. I was extremely surprised. I think it was a most serious step to take. But I admit the extreme difficulty of the situation and the seriousness of the crisis, and the great difficulty which anyone, however cognisant with the subject, would find in presenting any remedy for an undoubtedly difficult and most complicated condition of affairs. I remember the composition of the Departmental Committee which had made this recommendation. On that Committee there were some of the ablest men connected with finance with whom I am acquainted. There were men upon it of a most orthodox view with regard to the currency. They were men whom I am sure would never have put their names to a Report of that character unless they all felt that some heroic remedy, or some remedy at all events, was absolutely necessary. I did not wish to embarrass the experiment by any premature declaration on my part, if it would have any influence at all on the public mind; but I wished the resolution at which the Government had arrived to have the fairest possible trial. Therefore, I thought, as I had no counter remedy to propose, that no public advantage would be served at that time by any hostile criticism of the measure which, at the same time, greatly surprised me. It was a bold step to recommend, and it was a bold step on the part of the Government to adopt it. I do not know to what extent the Indian Government are satisfied with the result. All I can say is, she has wished it success; but it would be difficult for anyone to say whether success is being found. The measure is on a more gigantic scale than has ever been tried before. You have an enormous currency, which is practically a conventional currency, and which does not represent in any degree the value of the metal in that currency.

SIR W. HARCOURT

What about France?

MR. GOSCHEN

The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned France, but France is not in the same position. France has her double currency and some £50,000,000 of gold in her possession. France is a gold and silver country; India is only silver. But I do not wish to enter into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman, or any gentleman, because I do not wish to lay down the doctrine that the Indian Government have done wrong. I think they have taken a very serious step-Much has been said with regard to the damage that may have been inflicted upon India. Whatever changes are introduced, either one interest or another must suffer. You cannot, of course, by law touch a currency without its having some effect either upon one class or another. I do not say whether it is right or wrong, but the whole action of the Government is rather to the advantage of the creditor than to the advantage of the debtor. Those who have to pay find that the value of the coin with which they have to pay has been artificially raised. That, of course, is satisfactory to the creditor, but must be unsatisfactory to the debtor. So far the artificial increase given to the value of the rupee has not been great. I am perfectly prepared to listen to arguments on the part of those who recommended this measure. You might say, notwithstanding the disadvantages at which the debtor would be in consequence of this large measure having been passed, it might possibly be proved an advantage to the interests of the Indian Empire as a whole, and so, at the disadvantage of a certain class, compass the general welfare. If the general welfare of India is promoted by this step, possibly the debtors might put up with being hampered by the payment of their debts by the appreciation of rupees, and find advantage in the general prosperity of the country, which may compensate them in some respect. I make no charge against this measure which has been introduced, but it is a scientific fact that the effect must be to assist the creditor rather than the debtor. As to whether the experiment may succeed, I think the Indian public ought not to be too impatient. They have accepted, apparently, that the rupee should be kept at 1s. 4d. This has led to the expectation that the Government would keep the rupee at 1s. 4d. I confess I did not read the declaration of the Government in any sense of the kind. It was, however, an expectation which I thought sanguine at the time. With such enormous transactions it would be an immense task to keep the coin at a particular value.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I said it was rather an arrangement to prevent the exchange rising too rapidly. The Government never had the idea that it would keep up the price.

MR. GOSCHEN

I was rather defending the Government on that point. I do not know that the Government hoped to keep it up to that point, but I gathered from all I read there was a kind of expectation, which had been disappointed. The Government certainly said that 1s. 4d. was to be the point beyond which artificial action should not come in. This was interpreted by a great portion of the Indian community to have meant 1s. 4d. was to be the fixed value. This expectation was founded not upon any economic truth, but probably upon misreading Government Despatches. I have seen a great deal of blame has been attached to the Secretary for India for selling below that price. When the Secretary for India cannot get 1s. 4d. he is obliged to take 1s. 3½d., or even less. Whatever may be the result of this experiment, it appears to me there are limits, or the action of the Government may wreck the Indian currency. Whether the general expectation will be realised is a matter of opinion. Even the most sanguine advocate of the means cannot but think it is only a makeshift and temporary solution of a very great difficulty. I think that must be patent to all. What I say is in no spirit of criticism, either to those who drew up the Report or of the Government of India. I acknowledge the very great difficulties, and I only hope that by these means, as preliminary means, the Indian Government may surmount their financial difficulties, and in the meantime they may possibly be able to make further proposals, which may settle this extremely difficult question upon a more permanent and more satisfactory footing.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has addressed us with his usual caution. There is no one in this country who more thoroughly understands the currency question than the right hon. Gentleman. But I sometimes think he owes it to his country to pronounce more decisively as to what he really thinks ought to be done, rather than to spend his time in giving sitting-on-the-hedge kind of speeches such as he has given us again to-night. It seems to me that in this long Session we have left the greatest question to the end. Although it is a great question we are discussing we can only now make short speeches upon it for lack of time. I desire to congratulate the Under Secretary of State for India on the able and comprehensive speech he has delivered with such ability and clearness, and with his customary modesty. His is, perhaps, the most interesting Financial Statement for India that has ever been made in this House, for it proposes a great change in relation to one of the most important matters affecting the welfare of the country. Enormous is the responsibility of those who have devised a change such as this, and of those who assent to it. I rise to speak because I am deeply impressed with the fact that we are perpetrating a grave wrong upon the people of India, who are comparatively unable to speak for themselves, and who are helpless in our hands. We are deliberately proceeding to contract their currency. The contraction of the currency is one of the gravest evils that can afflict a country. Short of war, or famine, or pestilence, I know of no evil which cuts so deeply into the vitality of a nation as the contraction of its currency. Let the Committee recollect what happened in this country after 1819 when we contracted our currency. The next 20 years form the most miserable period in our modern history. It is a matter which all economists are agreed upon that abundance of money stimulates industry, and that contraction depresses it. Increase of money raises prices, increases profits, multiplies employment, and raises wages. The reverse of it has the reverse effect. What are we doing? What have we begun to do in India? We have decided to close the Mints. What is it that comes out of the Mints? What has been coming out of the Mints there for years? Coins; silver coins, full legal tender coins. I contend that every one of these coins was a blessing and nothing else to every man who was fortunate enough to get that coin into his possession. It was a blessing to him to pay his debts; it was a blessing to him to Spend it in shop or bazaar, and I cannot understand a policy of artificially stopping the issue of coins, which are in themselves so great a blessing. It is not only so, but coin, money, is a most essential necessary of life. You may say bread is more necessary, but you cannot buy bread; you cannot buy clothes; you cannot procure shelter without money; and to deliberately cut off the free and unrestricted supply of money which the country has been enjoying is, in my view, to do that country as grievous an injury as the law can possibly inflict upon it. There are two classes in every country differently affected by a policy of this kind. There are those who possess money, or who have money owing to them—what I will call the creditor class, of whom the right hon. Gentleman just spoke, and of whom he is looked upon as a very worthy representative in this House and country. But you have a far more numerous class in every country who have no money except what they win with their toil, or with the exchange of their produce for it. It is the few that possess money, while it; is the many that have to win money by their toil or to suffer privation or pinching for the want of it. What is proposed to be done here? The stopping of the Mints will, of course, enrich the class who possess money; it will raise the value of the money which is owed to them, and it will, in the same proportion, bless all those of the official classes who have their salary payable to them in these rupees, the value of which will be increased. And, mark you, Mr. Mellor, this increase of value is artificially brought about. It is Protection in the most naked and offensive form. There is the right hon. Gentleman who comes from the Isle of Thanet, who openly advocates protection of produce, and ridicule is sometimes heaped on him from these Benches; but now the very Government which heaps that ridicule on him is lending its authority to protection of the money-lender. I cannot see anything worse in protecting produce than in protecting the money - lender. I am amazed as a Liberal and a follower in most respects of right hon. Gentlemen who sit below me—I am amazed that they have consented to take this retrograde step. They would be ashamed to close the ports of the country against food, but they have closed the Mint against that money without which the people cannot buy their food. I hope the House will condemn that conduct as severely as it deserves to be condemned. While they are doing this the toilers of that country are cursed by the deed. From Cashmere to Cape Comorin, from the mouths of the Indus to the Bay of Bengal, every man working in a tea or coffee garden, or cultivating rice, or growing wheat or cotton or indigo in the fields, every man working in a factory, every man who has to win his money by his toil, will be cursed by this legislation. His difficulty in getting the money necessary to pay his way with is artificially increased by the extraordinary action to which our Government, I am sorry to say, has given its consent. Industry and trade will become unprofitable, because prices will be forced down by this unnatural step; and as you force down prices the cry of the unemployed will be heard in India as it is being heard here. This measure is a measure to reduce profit, to lessen employment, to throw people out of work, and to increase the toil with which men win the money necessary to pay their way, and, at the same time, it is a measure to increase the weight of debt, and to enrich the money lender and the usurer. Sir, this will be the effect in India of closing the Mints there. Now, just look at the effect on the external trade of India. This policy creates a great chasm, opens a wide gulf, between the rupee and the silver of which it is made, and all those countries with which India trades and which use silver as money will see a divergence between rupees and the money of those other countries, and unless the Indian merchant can sell his produce for more of the free silver of the countries to which he sells, he will receive home fewer rupees, which will take away his profit, so that he will have to discharge some of his men, because he will not be able to raise his price in the free silver, and will have to put up with fewer rupees and so go into bankruptcy, or squeeze the difference out of the working men that work for him. Look at those countries, too, which compete with India in open markets. The people who have free silver will be able, as the difference between the value of silver and of the rupee widens, to sell their produce for less gold than the people who have only the appreciated rupee. This will place India at a disadvantage as regards external trade with gold standard countries. It does appear to me that we are doing a grievous wrong to the people of India. I am sorry to use this strong language, which may, perhaps, be reported there, but I cannot help thinking it is worse to do the thing than it is truly to describe the thing which is now being done. Then, Sir, what are the objects for which this remarkable and extraordinary change in India is being made? The first is to steady the relation between silver and gold, or rather the rupee and the sovereign. That object I admit to be a thoroughly good one, but I contend that the action which is being taken will not do this. When you want to steady the relation between two things you have to study the operation of both of them; you have not only to consider the operation on the rupee in order to get at what you want to arrive at. What will be the effect of the change you propose upon gold? It will increase the demand for it, because more of it will be wanted in India. And the example we set in giving silver another blow in the face will very likely encourage America to do away with the Sherman Act there, and we shall then have a greater demand for gold from there. The effect of these new demands will be that gold will be driven up in value faster than you will be able to appreciate the rupee. Sometimes when I am out walking my dog; starts a hare, and though the dog runs fast, the hare runs faster, so that the distance between the two gradually widens. That will be the case, I think, with silver and gold under this measure. What is being done now will so act in. appreciating gold that the sovereign will get wider away from the rupee, instead of being made to cling more closely to it. The second object is this. What has made India wish for a change is the weight of her gold debt; this is a scheme which is intended to ease the burden of that debt on the shoulders of the people. India may be compared to a mortgaged farm. India has borrowed money in gold, and has yearly to pay something like £18,000,000 or £ 19,000,00a as interest. Unfortunately, I happen to know that there are many mortgaged farms in England. Their owners borrowed money 20 years ago, and they have found they have to give more and more produce every year to meet the burden of their indebtedness. It is exactly so with India; she has to give half as much produce again to pay the interest on her debt as she used to do. I should like to know what effect the tampering with the rupee will have on this payment which has to be made in England in gold? It does not appear to me it will touch the evil we want to remove in the least. What affects their gold debt is what happens to gold, and not what happens to silver. If, as I have said, gold is driven up still higher in value by what is being done, the effect with regard to the gold debt will be that this closing of the Mints, while it will do cruel hurt to the industrial population in India, will not ease the burden of her gold debt in the very least. What would ease that debt would be to lower the value of gold. Closing the Mints to silver while opening them to gold will have just the opposite effect. In concluding, I wish to say a few words to the Leaders of our Party. I want to ask them why they will not give themselves the trouble of looking the monetary position full in the face? This danger from which India suffers is new. Nobody heard anything said about it 20 years ago; it has all arisen since 1873. India herself was bimetallic—it had a free coinage of gold and silver—down to 1835, but in 1835 we made her go upon a single silver standard. While other nations continued the free coinage of gold and silver their free coinage maintained the balance between gold and silver all over the world, and India suffered no trouble. But when the free coinage of silver was forbidden in nation after nation, the two metals became divorced, and gold was driven up in value. The natural remedy for the existing troubles was to return to the old state of things, when the two metals were treated equally, and were as one money. There was wanted now an international agreement to restore free coinage of silver as well as of gold. The people of India know that well. Anyone who has read the Papers connected with the Currency Commission knows that the Government of India has been imploring the English Government to end the present troubles by bringing about an international agreement to restore the free coinage of silver as well as of gold. The answer given, I am sorry to say, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on our side of the House to this entreaty was to add to the delegates who were appointed to go to the Conference at Brussels two strong gold advocates who were against—dead against the free coinage of silver. The Government of India have expressly said that they did not recommend this closing of the Mints as being the right thing and the best thing. It is only because they are forbidden by our Government to have what they believe would permanently settle the difficulty that they propose this rather than go on as they are. I believe the Government of India have acted with ill judgment in the matter, and that they have jumped out of the frying-pan into the fire. Our Government, too, have mistaken the disease to be dealt with, for, as Sir G. Molesworth said at the Conference at Brussels, it is not silver that is sick, but gold. What has brought this trouble about is not a fall in silver, but a rise in gold. In a country where you are judging everything by a gold standard, it looks as if silver has gone down, while if you live in a country which has a silver standard it looks as if gold has gone up. If you measure the two metals by the same commodities you will find that in India they have had a stable standard, while we have been tortured by a standard which has been for ever fluctuating, and with that standard it is now proposed to afflict India too, and to make the fluctuation greater. Nothing but trouble can come from increasing the demand for gold, which has already appreciated 40 or 50 per cent. since 20 years ago.

MR. MONTAGU (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)

I have listened with great attention and interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Everett); but, while sympathising with many of his arguments, I think that at the bottom of his arguments there were two great fallacies. The hon. Member had a notion that the action of the Indian Government contemplates a contraction of the currency in India. As I understand it, however, there need be no such contraction, because India is not prevented from coining silver for the requirements of circulation, nor is India prevented from coining gold. The other fallacy was that with an International arrangement the rupee would be more appreciated than by closing the Mints. But at the same time, while agreeing with the Government in the measures they have taken, I think there may be some blame attached to the mode in which they have endeavoured to carry out their financial policy. There is no doubt that the closing of the Mints against silver is a very important and grave step, but the Government were forced to take that step owing to the failure of the Monetary Conference at Brussels, and also owing to the proposed legislation in the United States against silver. It was, as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said, a very general belief that the object of the Government was to prevent India becoming the receptacle for silver rejected by the United States, and also to give stability to the rupee. It was a very important object to endeavour to give stability to the rupee, because the commerce between the two countries depends in a great measure on that stability. And no doubt the Government also wished to benefit India by attracting British capital to that country by means of investments or trade; but up to the present time all those objects have been defeated. Silver has been sent recently to India in larger quantities than the average, for from the 23rd June down to the 21st December no less than £1,300,000 of silver has been shipped from this country alone. With regard to the stability of the rupee, instead of the value of the rupee being rendered stable, it has fluctuated from over 1s. 4d. to under 1s. 3d., almost as widely as before; and so far from attracting capital to India, it has been rather warned off, and investors in Rupee Stock have sold out their holdings, and they have been sent out in competition with Council drafts. I should think the cause of failure has been the want of bold and vigorous action to sustain what the Government desired—that is, the stability of the rupee. I have no doubt that the Government will be forced to take further steps. They ought certainly not to allow the natives of India to be tempted to buy the uncoined silver that is being sent out, and they should have power to put an Import Duty on silver. That is not a protective measure, for there is no silver mining industry in India. That measure would help to steady the rupee. You can never have prosperity in commercial matters where you have these constant fluctuations. If the Indian Government had a little more backbone I think they would be able to keep the rupee steady, and not contract the currency or depreciate the exchange as they have been doing.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I only rise to make a few observations upon what has been said upon the monetary question, and I will leave the rest of the discussion to be dealt with by my hon. Friend. I think that the speech of the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk (Mr. Everett) is a remarkable example of the saying that "the ruling passion is strong in death." The hon. Member was able to revive the subject of bimetallism at half-past 10 o'clock on the last night of the Session. He will always be forward in what he believes to be a good cause. He believes that what he calls "an abundance of money" is the greatest of all blessings; but the question is, "What is money?" He appears to think that any amount of currency issued is necessarily a blessing. But the real point here is the bearing which this question has upon the people of India. It is now too late in the day to reverse the decision of the Committee of 1819.

MR. EVERETT

I did not condemn the policy, but merely stated the consequences that flowed from it.

SIR W. HARCOURT

That certain inconveniences took place in the transition state of the currency is perfectly true, and that was inevitable. But I do not mean to go into that question at all, but merely to say a word or two upon the bearing of this question upon the people of India. I should be sorry if any course sanctioned by the Government of India had been a means of injury to the people of India. What is the injury to the people of India which my hon. Friend has suggested? He said— It tends to raise the price of the rupee, and, consequently, is a hardship to the people who most needed the rupee. The hon. Member advocated a plan which was to fix the price of silver. There was another advocate of bimetallism who is happily absent to-night—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin). He said we had ruined the Indian population by making them hoard uncoined silver, but it turns out that what the people do hoard is coined silver, and, so far from being an injury to the people, our action will enhance instead of lower the value of the rupee, and then I listened with very great attention and respect to what the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor in Office said upon this subject. I think the right hon. Gentleman spoke with commendable caution upon what everybody admits is only an experiment, and nobody can exactly tell how it will result. The closing of the Mints has had a beneficial effect in other instances in other countries. France closed its Mints to silver 20 years ago, and it was satisfied with the result of the experiment. So far, that is all encouraging. But the most important part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was when he said the Government had set before themselves the object of keeping up the rupee at an original value. That was never proposed. If it had been, we should have undertaken to establish a ratio and to maintain it. I cannot accept that proposition, because, if I did, I should at once become a convert to bimetallism. To profess to believe that any Government can fix any ratio which would establish any price is exactly the proposition which we mono-metallists deny. That is an entire mistake, and all the censure which my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets passed upon the Indian Government was founded upon an entire misapprehension. No doubt, as I have said, this closing of the Mints is a great experiment. The depreciation in silver had taken place, to a great extent, before the closing of the Mints. This depreciation was not the consequence but the cause of the closing of the Mints. When it is said, "If you had adopted another system, you would have done good instead of harm to India," I must point out that the plan we declined to adopt was the plan of bimetallism, which, in the opinion of the Royal Commission upon that subject, would have worked a greivous injury to India. It would have injured the export trade. It would have persuaded the Indian native that, for the benefit of the Anglo-Indian Service and of English monopolists, we had operated upon the exchange so as to injure the Indian producer and the Indian exporter, and that for selfish objects we had adopted a plan which would have been injurious to the people of India. That is one of the strongest reasons which the Royal Commission advanced against the adoption of the bimetallic system, and it is one of the principal reasons why we did not adopt the suggestion that there should be an attempt to establish bimetallism in India or for India. Indeed, this is a great experiment with a people where there is an immense circulation of silver. My hon. Friend behind me does not believe in the depreciation of silver. He is a remarkable man if he thinks that all that has taken place within the last 10 years has not depreciated the price of any commodity, whether it be silver or anything else. The depreciation of silver had taken place before we decided to take this step of closing the Mints. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford has been saying that there has been an extraordinary fall in the price of the rupee in consequence of this action. It was not this measure which caused the fall in the price of the rupee. The rupee had fallen from 2s. to 1s. 4d. before this measure was adopted. The further fall is insignificant in comparison with that which had already taken place. He also made that singular error which was pointed out in a letter to The Times. When there was a fall of 3d. in the ounce in silver he interpreted it to mean a fall of 3d. in the price of a rupee. That being the fact, I do not wish it to be understood here or in India that the fall of the rupee has been the result of any policy adopted by the Indian Government. The difference between the price of silver before this measure was adopted, and the price to-day is, I think, not more than 1½d. in the ounce, as I understand before the measure was adopted it was 36d. the ounce and now it is about 34½d.; therefore the difference is extremely small. It should be thoroughly understood that the fall in the rupee has been the consequence, not of this measure, but of the over-production of silver in the world; and that, I believe, is the real fact. I quite believe that we must be patient in the matter. We cannot expect a change of this kind to produce at once the expected result. You close the Mints because you wish to control the quantity of this coin, which seems to be in superabundance. We all know that a very large quantity of silver on its road to India goes to neutralise the effect for the time of the closing of the Mints, and then there has been since that time a remarkable export of silver to India. All these things prevent the measure from immediately having the effect required of it, and therefore we must wait for a time to see what the result is; and in the meanwhile we are entitled to ask this House and the people of India, as well as the people of England, to believe that this course has been adopted after careful consideration, and upon the recommendation of the persona who are most competent to judge and most fitting to advise the Government upon it.

SIR J. GORST

The hon. Member for Suffolk's (Mr. Everett's) speech was entirely directed to the future. He prophesied, with the greatest confidence, the misfortunes which were about to fall upon the people of India and the people of the world at large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered him, and he has admitted that the measure taken by the Government of India is an experiment; but I think he has adduced reasons which may induce us to doubt the absolute certainty of the forebodings of the hon. Member for Suffolk. I should like, in the few words which I shall address to the Committee, to direct their attention, not to the future, but to the past, and to ask them to consider the position in which the Government of India was, and the choice of evils which it had to make. The charge of exchange has been growing steadily year by year. There has been one year, when the Silver Bill was passed in America, when the steady Increase was for a moment, and for a moment only, arrested; but the evil had grown to such magnitude that in the last financial year the charge which the Government of India had prepared for exchange amounted to upwards of 8,000,000 tens of rupees, which actually neutralised the whole improvement of the Revenue of India, and it turned the surplus which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport announced to the House last year into the deficit which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India has had to announce to-day; and in the Budget Statement today that charge amounted to no less than 10,000,000 tens of rupees, and when you consider that the whole net expenditure of the Government of India is in all about £50,000,000, these 10,000,000 which India has to pay, by reason of the depreciation of silver, is an enormous and startling item in her annual expenditure. What can the Government of India do under such circumstances? The charge was thus continually growing larger. It could only be dealt with in one of two ways. Either the Expenditure must be diminished, or the Revenue must be increased. I do not think anyone will say that the people of India are able, at the present moment, to bear any increased taxation. Well, then, if that is so—and I think it is so—the Indian Government had to face either certainly a deficiency which would annul the increase until they were on the verge of national bankruptcy, or they had, in some way or the other, to diminish this charge. Could they diminish the sterling payments which India has to make? I have heard a good deal said to-night in this House about the home charges. It is, of course, these home charges, which form the sterling expenditure of India, which cause this enormous charge upon exchange. I do not know whether hon. Members have examined these home charges. If they have, they will see that upwards of half on the whole amount of the sterling charges, which amount in round numbers to £ 15,000,000, consists of the interest on the Debt, which is chiefly a debt for public works and railways. Money has been lent in this country to India for the purpose of developing railways and carrying out remunerative public works. Only a very small part of the Public Debt of India is for war expenditure or anything of that kind, and, of course, the interest on that sterling Debt has to be paid in sterling, and no ability on the part of any financier in the world can alter that part of the sterling charge which represents the interest upon railway capital. Then there is the smaller half which remains, and in reference to that half I may remind the Committee that when the late Government were in Office Lord Cross had a very strong Committee appointed at the India Office which went into every item of these home charges, with a view of recommending any possible reduction. Reductions were made, so much so that the charges are now reduced. They could not be brought down any lower, and I do not believe any Commission, or any Committee, or anybody in the world, would be able to make more than an infinitesimal reduction in these home charges. It is impossible to make any substantial impression upon them. The only course before the Government of India to save the country from bankruptcy was to endeavour by some means or other to stop the depreciation of the rupee, so that, at all events, the fall, great as it is, might not be annually increased. What was the expedient? I suppose the hon. Member for Suffolk and I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), if he were here, would answer "Bimetallism." But bimetallism, if it is a remedy, is a remedy which could not be applied in time. The hon. Member for Suffolk will admit that you cannot carry out the system before you have got the chief commercial relations in the world to agree to it. That would be a work of some years. It would be too late to save India, and while negotiations were going on the extended charge would have been continually mounting up still further. Well, then, what else could be done? What the Government of India have proposed and the Government have sanctioned and carried out is, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, an experiment. It is a bold experiment. It is an experiment of which none of us, except the Member for Suffolk, can predict the consequences, and I should like to ask the critics who find fault with the Government of India what else could have been done? What would they have proposed themselves? I do not think it is fair to criticise or censure the Government of India for the course they have taken, unless you are at least prepared to suggest some alternative course which, in your opinion, would be a wiser one than that which the Government of India take. Now, from all the critics of the Government of India I have never heard any alternative suggestion, and I think until those who are disposed to find fault with the course that is taken are prepared to suggest some alternative scheme which would have saved the Government of India from this imminent financial peril which has been hanging over it for years, and which has lately become very acute. I do not think they have any right to find fault with the method they have adopted. The danger had become so acute and the necessity so urgent that the Government of India were obliged to take some step or other. Unless some step could be suggested which would be wiser and safer than the one they have taken, I think the Committee ought to approve it, and await with anxiety the result of the financial expedient.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN (Pembroke, &c.)

I hope I may be allowed to take up a very short time of this Committee to call attention to what is a crying grievance in Burmah. Although the inhabitants of Burmah deserve consideration from the Government in the matter of the financial administration, I am sorry to say they do not get it. Burmah has returned as revenue to India 5,487,400 tens of rupees, and it has had expended on it 4,127,400 tens of rupees—that is to say, that 1,360,000 tens of rupees have been taken out of Burmah, and expended, of course, on other parts of India. If the Indian Government could show that they provide fairly and reasonably for the wants of Burmah, of course they would be welcome to take any surplus revenue they could get from that Province; but in various ways Burmah has a grievance that the money spent on it is not nearly sufficient to provide for its wants. I only wish now to bring forward one of these grievances. It is a grievance which can be easily understood by the Committee in a very few figures and a very few words. I ask the Committee to allow me to occupy a short time in putting this grievance before you. It is connected with the administration of justice in Burmah. The cost of the administration of justice is very small compared to the importance of the commercial interest of the Province. Everyone knows Burmah contains three large commercial towns. Rangoon is the fourth or third important town in all India. These commercial interests evidently and clearly require a strong judicial administration to take charge of them. Burmah is worse off in the matter of judicial administration than any other Province in India, and it suffers from a most extraordinary system, which no other Province does. Every Member of this Committee is familiar in Macaulay's Essay on Warren Hastings, and knows that in the time of the old Company the greatest friction arose between the Company's Judges and what were called Westminster Court Justices. The Westminster Judges had complete jurisdic- tion within the town, and the Company's Judges complete jurisdiction outside the town. That was merely a compromise and a makeshift, and when the Company gave up its administration to the Crown that makeshift was, as a matter of course, cleared away, and the High Courts were established in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, and all the administration of justice throughout the country was committed into the hands of these Courts—that is to say, there was no longer this absurd distinction between one set of Judges who had power in the town, and another set of Judges who had power throughout India. In 1863, just at the time this absurd anomaly was swept away in the whole of India, it is set up afresh in Burmah. There is no object in it—no reason for it. The absurd distinctions had been merely brought about by a conflict between the Company's Judges and the Westminster Judges in the time of Warren Hastings, and there was no kind of reason why it should have been adopted or set up in any other place, and yet it was set up in Burmah. The Judicial Commissioners outside Rangoon have power everywhere except in Rangoon. The anomalous and extraordinary system cripples still further the incapacity of the Judges, who are in the country to do justice. The expenditure on the Burmese Courts is only 212,800 tens of rupees a year; the expenditure of the Punjaub Court is 305,000 tens of rupees. Now, Members of the Committee will easily apprehend that, although the expenditure of the Punjaub is so much larger than in Burmah, the business done in the Punjaub cannot be in any respect as important as the business done in Burmah, as the business done in the Punjaub is merely land and railway business. There is hardly any commercial business. There is a little native trade in Lahore; but compared to Burmah you may as well compare a small Provincial town to one of our large commercial centres, and the thing stands clear on the face of it that it is an injustice to the large commercial interests of Burmah that they shall be worse served by a judicial administration which costs so much less than the much less important interests of the Punjaub. I urge upon the Government most strongly that they should set up in Burmah a Chief Court similar to what has been set up in Lahore. We ask, and Burmah asks, for the same amount of attention that has been paid to the interests of the Punjaub. I hope I have shown that they have at least as important interests, and that, they have suffered under a peculiar and anomalous system which never had any basis in reason. The matter has been thrashed out over and over again. Everyone has consented that it ought to be done. Nothing stands in the way except the want of money. I hope that the want of money will not be allowed to stand in the way in the future, because, as I have shown the Committee, Burmah is one of the very few paying Provinces in India, and it is most unjust and unfair that the surplus money should be taken out of Burmah for the general purposes of India, when Burmah requires that money itself. I say that Burmah will amply repay any money spent on it, and I do hope that the Indian Government will listen to this matter, and will also see if it can give Burmah better Court accommodation. I do hope that there will be no complaint made at any future period regarding the want of money, for in my belief the Government will be well rewarded for any expenditure on Burmah.

MR. G. RUSSELL

I can assure my hon. Friend that, although I cannot promise him a High Court off-hand, his suggestion shall receive the consideration of the Secretary of State. I will endeavour to answer the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Temple). He is quite right in surmising that the deficit will have to be met out of the cash balances. With regard to the moral progress to which I alluded in my speech, I have not the statistics of the moral progress which we have in England, and cannot, therefore, furnish the hon. Member with them. I must point out that the statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston as to material progress, which was called into question by the hon. Member for Elgin, is perfectly accurate; and that if my hon. Friend will refer to a certain Blue Book, published in 1889, he will find that the statement of the hon. Baronet is confirmed in every particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. S. Keay) said that our object had been to raise the value of the rupee, but that, I say, is a mistake. Our object has been to prevent its still further de- preciation. As regards what he said of the effect of this change in diminishing the food of the people, it seems to me that he forgets that there is such a thing as surplus food, which can be eaten instead of being exported. With regard to the question of compensation, I may say that it is really paid on account of the depreciated state of the rupee. We feel that at the present value of the rupee we cannot get men up to the work we require in the Service in India, and therefore this compensation is really given so as to keep their pay up to something like what may be called a fair rate. There is no obligation to continue it longer than the pecuniary circumstances of the country seem to require. Now, Sir, I think I can bring this Debate to a close, and, as the Session is also concluding, I think I may say that I have always endeavoured to facilitate the work of those who have the interests of India at heart, and to promote the harmonious working of the Parliamentary machine. I hope that I have shown that I have not the slightest sympathy with the idea of exploiting India in the interests of Englishmen or Scotchmen; or of saddling her with great pecuniary burdens for the sake of any wretched scheme of annexation or self-aggrandisement. My object is so to administer this great change that the people of India, without distinction of class, or creed, or sex, may have reason to bless, and not to curse, the providential dispensation which placed them beneath the rule of a country professing to be Christian.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he only rose to suggest to the Government that they would make some points more easily understood if they were to give a little more explicit information with regard to certain matters on page 14, under the heading of "Home Charges." There was another point which he wished to bring under the notice of the Under Secretary. There were certain non-effective charges. Now, he thought that the attitude generally of this House was against any increased charges for the non-effective portion of the Army. It did not justify the expense, and he thought the money would be better expended on educational matters.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1892, was Rx.89,143,283; that the Total Expenditure in India and England charged against the Revenue was Rx.88,675,748; that there was a Surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.467,535; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.3,500,000.—(Mr. G. Russell.)

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.