INDIA: COST OF THE FRONTIER OPERATIONS.

HC Deb 22 February 1898 vol 53 cc1384-428

*MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)

gave notice— To call attention to the extreme poverty of the mass of the people in India, to the serious condition of the Indian finances, and to the need of a more effective control over Indian expenditure; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the expenditure involved in the recent operations beyond the Frontier of India ought not to be charged entirely upon the revenues of India. The hon. Member said: Some apology is due to the House for again raising the question of India, after so much discussion on the Address. My excuse is, that the Resolution I move is of a definite, practical character. It is wholly free from Party bias, and is not intended to embarrass the Government; and I am not without hopes that it will be unanimously accepted by the House. I do not think that anyone who is acquainted with India will deny that last year has been the worst through which India has passed since the Mutiny; the famine was the most extended of the century, and affected sixty millions of people; the mortality from the plague has been excessive, and the Frontier war has been very costly both in blood and in money. I say, without fear of contradiction, that at no time since the Mutiny, has there been such deep and widespread discontent in India. The Press prosecutions and the Bill now pending to restrict its liberty show the anxiety of the Indian Government, and I am sure that no more urgent matter can be brought before Parliament. The poverty of the Indian people, even in the best years, is excessive; it is far worse than is realised by the British people. A very large part of the Indian people are always on the brink of famine; they are never removed from it more than a few weeks or months. They are a great deal underfed. I make bold to say that many millions of the people of India are not in the habit of eating more than one meal a day, and that of the coarsest food. They hardly know what it is to have a full stomach. Their clothing is so scanty that I have often seen them in winter in the North-West Provinces shivering in a thin cotton cloth, with frost on the ground, when I was glad to wear two top coats. I will make one quotation which, I think, ought to satisfy the House on the question of the extreme poverty of the people of India. It is the opinion of Lord Lawrence, one of the most noble and best of governors. He says— The mass of the people of India are so miserably poor that they have hardly the means of subsistence. It is as much as a man can do to feed his family, or half feed them, let alone spending money on what you would call luxuries or conveniences. I will cite another. Lord Cromer was once Finance Minister for India, and one of the ablest financiers we ever had in India, and I commend what he says to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I am glad to see in his place. Lord Cromer made an estimate of the average annual income of the people of India, and his estimate was Rs. 27 per head, which is rather less than £2 sterling. Just imagine—£2 per head against an average income of £36 per head, which, according to the best authorities is the average income of the people of this country. There are other statists who have placed the Indian average income even lower than this, and one good authority has placed it at only Rs.20, but I take it at £2 per head of the population of the people of India against £14 per head, which is the average income of that very poor country, Italy, according to Mulhall. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this shows the enormous and desperate poverty which exists in India; if anything more on that subject is required to be stated I will add this: A penny in the Income Tax in India yields only one-tenth of what it does in this country, although it applies there to 220 millions of people, whereas here it only applies to a little under 40 millions.

AN HON. MEMBER

Not 220 millions.

*MR. SAMUEL SMITH

Yes; 220 millions of people directly under the British Government. I think all under the British Government are liable to Income' Tax excepting incomes derived from land, but as against that the Income Tax in India begins at Rs. 500, that is to say at about £35 sterling a year, whereas here it begins at £160. I put the one thing against the other. I put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, taking it all in all, the income assessable to Income Tax is only one-tenth of what it is in England. Under present circumstances and conditions now existing in India it is utterly impossible to squeeze more out of it than is already done. The chronic condition there is one of great poverty, which is now very much aggravated by this awful famine, through which 60,000,000 of people have passed, and which has in a great number of cases destroyed the cattle; in other cases it has left the people absolutely penniless, without means of cultivation, and in many cases they have sold even their utensils, implements of husbandry, and possess nothing beyond the clothes that they stand up in. That, Sir, is the condition of millions of people in India, and unless the Government deals very mercifully with them by relaxing taxation, many of them will suffer nearly as much this year as they did last year. Now, I have to make a statement which causes me sorrow, and which, I think, the House will scarcely believe, and it is this: that a fresh land assessment has recently been made in these very districts, and the rent on the land has been considerably raised. In the Central Provinces, the part of India where the famine was most severe, the rent on the land has been considerably raised. An appeal was made about a month ago in the Viceroy's Council to delay the operation of this additional assessment for some time in order to allow these poor people to recover themselves. I have got here the question and the answer. I will not trouble the House by reading them, but the answer was simply a refusal. I am very much afraid, Mr. Speaker, that India is destined to go through pretty much the same experience it went through in the last famine, which was in 1878, the year of the Afghan war; that was what I call a criminal and unrighteous war brought on by Lord Lytton as part of the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. India was therefore plunged into this most expensive war, although a great part of it had scarcely recovered from famine. I will call the attention of the Secretary of State for India to what happened in 1878, by reading an extract from the book of Colonel Osborne, entitled "War in Afghanistan." He says— At this time (1878) India had been scourged by a series of famines. … But, with, an Afghan war on their hands, the Government could not afford to be either just or generous. The revenue collectors were ordered to go out among the famished villages of India and wring from the wretched inhabitants the utmost farthing that was due from them. To satisfy these demands, the starving peasant was compelled to sell even the household utensils which enabled his family to cook their scanty meals. In the North-West Provinces no less than a million and a quarter of men, women, and children perished of hunger, the Government wringing from them, in this season of dire distress, no less a sum than two million pounds.… It is no exaggeration to say that for every hundred Afghans whom we have slain in this unrighteous war, we have caused a thousand of our native fellow-subjects to perish of want and hunger. That is what happened in 1878, and India stands to-day in the very same position as she did in 1878. She has scarcely recovered from a dreadful famine. She finds herself burdened with another expensive war on the North-West Frontier. The Government are also extremely short of money. The finances of India are in a very bad condition, and there is a very strong inducement for the revenue officers to squeeze money, under any circumstances, out of these poor people. I do not say this is done willingly or consciously; but when a Government is short of means, when orders are put forth to the revenue officers to make the revenue as much as they possibly can, the screw is put on in all directions. From the higher-placed officials it works down to the multitude of the lesser agents, people who do not even know or come in contact with the higher officials, and the result is that there is much distress and suffering; and I repeat that there is a danger of the same sort of thing happening now as happened in 1878. The fact is that there can be no real prosperity in India until a permanent settlement of the land tax is arrived at, because whilst the present uncertainty exists there will be a tendency to raise the assessments as much as possible. Over much of the land of India the assessment is for 20 or 30 years, in some places less, and the result is that, with this chronic state of poverty, the peasant never feels sure how the land will be assessed, and the Government of India seem to be afraid to make this permanent settlement on which so much depends. It is the Irish Question over again in India on a much larger scale. My belief is that no greater boon can be conferred on India than by granting a fixed and permanent assessment of land in perpetuity, so that the peasants will know exactly how they stand with regard to this important matter. When that is done, and when the peasant knows that the additional improvements he makes on his holding will be his own, things will be better, and that would be one way to mitigate these recurring famines. This way is, at all events, as practicable as any other that can be devised, and I do earnestly call upon the House to grapple with this question, which lies at the foundation of the happiness and welfare of hundreds of millions of people. Now, with regard to Indian Finance. This House relies for its knowledge of Indian Finance on hearing the Budget statements of the Secretary of State for India year by year. Last year the Budget estimated a deficit of Rx2,500,000, and the year before there was a deficit of Rx2,000,000. But since this Estimate was framed the Frontier war has occurred, costing, as it has done, Rx4,000,000, which has to come into the present financial year, and there will be probably as much again for the coming year, as a great part of the Bills will not be paid till next year, so that allowing for gains from Exchange and from other sources, the deficit this year cannot be less than Rx5,000,000. Indeed, I do not think an accurate Budget could show a deficit of less than that sum. I say "an accurate Budget," because you may make up an Indian Budget to show things very much as you choose. If the conditions of the Indian peasantry were properly taken into consideration, and remissions made on account of that condition, I believe that the deficit will be much more than. Rx5,000,000—possibly it will be nearer Rx10,000,000. But that is not all. I have to call the attention of the House to another very great financial danger, which, I think, we will hear more about before long. Only those engaged in the trade of India know how very serious it is—I refer to the financial danger which arises from attempting to introduce a gold standard into India. The Mints there have been closed for five years, and the object is to force up the price of the rupee so as to prevent the Government losing so very heavily on exchange. As the House knows. India has to remit on the average £15,000,000 a year to England, payable in gold, and the idea was, as I have said, to push up the rupee, and so save themselves from some of the loss. Well, the Government succeeded by these artificial means in forcing up the rupee to 1s. 4d. The condition of Indian Finance at the present time is most unsatisfactory, as people do not believe in the permanency of the rupee at 1s. 4d., and, consequently they are remitting home all the money they can, because they believe mat this artificial rise in the price of the rupee cannot be of long duration. The result is that the Government cannot pay their debts. Their debt to this country is about £15,000,000, and I do not believe that the Government can remit home more than £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 this year. How does it supply the balance? By borrowing gold in London—the very worst plan which India could adopt. This was done in order to escape the collapse of the monetary policy of India. The Indian Government is borrowing money in London like a spendthrift, to conceal the unsound condition of the Indian Exchequer. I call this juggling with finance. It is not, at any rate, sound finance. The Indian Government is in a terrible dilemma. It has only two courses open to it, and each of them is beset with difficulty. If it raises the price of the rupee, to save the loss of exchange, it forces the peasant to take fewer rupees for his produce. The masses have to suffer, and grave discontent is appearing among the people, and all the uncoined silver which the people of India possess falls enormously in value. This is a peril that many in this country are practically unaware of, and yet it is one of the most serious dangers that besets our rule in India, and all this is done in order to save the Government the loss on the exchange. The Government of India looks too much to the opinion of this country, and to the opinion of this House, and forces up the rupee by these artificial means in order to save acknowledging the semi-bankrupt condition in which it is. This is practically the position of affairs in India just now, and I do not think that the Government here can fully realise what this state of things is causing in India. This artificial contraction of the currency is producing a kind of asphyxia, and is causing such a fall in the price of Indian commodities that great discontent is spreading amongst the agricultural population. I do not know whether the House has paid attention to those striking letters which have appeared in the Times on Indian affairs. I will give the House a quotation from one of the letters, which dates from Bombay. It is as follows— The truth is that the official and mercantile classes in India have a widely divergent interest in the future of the rupee. Although it may appear sound in the eyes of the Finance Minister to produce a famine in rupees, and a consequent fall in the prices of commodities generally (including sovereigns), to all students of monetary science such a course is nothing less than a crime of the most serious and comprehensive order. A false rupee, an artificially created scarcity of money, and a 10 per cent. bank rate, are not the most favourable conditions amid which to conduct business. A food famine is a very serious matter; but a money famine, such as is now being deliberately induced by the Government of India, is far more serious, for it involves not only the gradual asphyxia of trade enterprise and a certain decline in the rate of commercial progress, but also a consequently widespread feeling of unhappiness, misery, and disaffection, which it should be the continuous endeavour of the British Government to avoid. Up to five years ago all uncoined silver was equivalent to rupees, just as gold is worth £3 17s. 9d. an ounce, so you could take all this silver to the Indian mint and coin it into so many rupees. So that when a man put into a cellar a certain weight of silver he had a potential right of having so many rupees. Now the price of the raw material of silver has gone down fully 40 per cent. below the price of the coined rupee, and so the peasant who has hoarded bars of silver finds nearly half their value gone, losing half his capital. These poor ignorant people all over India, after having struggled to hoard silver, cannot understand why it has fallen to nearly half of its value compared to what it was before. They measure it by rupees, and to them it seems an incredible thing that by some hocus-pocus this great mass of silver should lose over 40 per cent. of its value. I believe there is a much greater risk in this matter than the Government is aware of, and I may tell the House that I was very much struck by a letter I received from one of the old residents in India, a gentleman who was through the Mutiny, who married an Indian lady, and who has had close connections with the Indian people, and understands the sentiments of "underground India." If the House will allow me, I will read a paragraph of it, so striking that I hope the Secretary of State for India will give his serious attention to it— I am here on the spot and see much of underground India, and I also see the Government set on going to ruin blindfold. Just 41 years ago, Lord Dalhousie left India, having, as he wrote, left the Empire in peace, and not a cloud on the political horizon; but in a short five months English men and women were either murdered by hundreds, or flying for their lives from Dacca in the North-East to Peshawur in the North-West, and so it is to-day. Our Governments are dining, dancing, and playing cricket on a smouldering volcano of discontent, which they think to suppress by gagging the Press, and imprisoning the editors, and on the other hand fostering the evil by insane Currency Bills. I fear there is more truth in this than the House will like to acknowledge. There is great discontent simmering in that vast country, and many of us fail to realise the perils of the situation. The fact is that the Indian Government cannot apply the rigorous financial tests of England; judged by our standard, the financial state of India is unsound. We are really squeezing out of these poor Indian people more than we ought to squeeze, and no person can invent a new tax which would yield any considerable amount, because we have reached the limit of taxation. In place of raising we ought to lower the land assessment. Let me tell the House there are parts in India where the laud-lord is taxed 50 per cent. on his rental, and 15 per cent. in addition for local purposes, making the total taxation 65 per cent. of his income. Taxation there is too high, and it ought to be lowered. Then there is that other harsh tax, which brings in a large revenue—the salt tax, which I say is one of the most cruel taxes that we can impose. The salt tax at the present time is 16 to 20 times the first cost of the article, and on the North-West Frontier, where a poorer kind of salt is supplied, it is 32 times the cost of the original article. Upon this question Lord Lawrence, before the Royal Commission, gave this evidence— When I was a magistrate, many men, accused of smuggling salt, were brought before me, and I had to try them and punish them under the Customs law. I thought it was a very hard and very severe system. Here are the people of India paving an excessive price for the salt. I think it is an enormous rate. And not only does it limit the consumption as regards human beings, but, I think, it limits the consumption very much as regards cattle; and I believe myself that a great deal of the loss of cattle from murrain in India has arisen from want of salt. Now, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for India a question, and I hope he will reply. I put this question to him, whether it was not the case that the duty on the Kohat salt was raised to 32 times the price of of the salt, and he replied: "Only six and a-half times." The statement I wish to make is this: the Secretary of the Punjaub Government writes to the Calcutta Government, as given in the Blue Books, that the cost of this salt is less than one anna per maund, and the duty put upon it was 32 annas. That is 32 times the price of the article. Instead of raising the salt tax, the Government ought to reduce it. I may say, having been in India about that time, that we never had a more popular Viceroy than Lord Ripon, who was in touch with the people, and, by wise administration, kept the country out of war. One of the objects of all Viceroys ought to be to lower the salt tax, and I think he lowered it, and there never was a more popular Viceroy, or one who attached the people to him more. We are extracting from India quite too much taxation, and we are pressing very hardly on the poor. Our system of government is far too expensive for so poor a people. By the Afghan wars and the Frontier wars we have squandered 60 or 70 millions on the North-West Frontier in the last twenty years. As a consequence, the Government had to raise the salt tax, although it is well known that great suffering arises from want of salt. The cattle do not get as much salt as they require; neither do human beings. I say, speaking broadly, you cannot extract more taxation out of that country. It is as dry as a bone, and you cannot squeeze any more out of it. The difficulty is just this: our officials in India are most able, they are upright, and they are doing their best, I do believe, but the system keeps them from being in touch with the people. What is the cause of the trouble? I say it is principally the wasting of our substance on these Frontier wars, which have cost us nearly Rx. 70,000,000 in 20 years. The present expenditure for the Army in India is Rx. 24,000,000 a year. When Lord Northbrook was Viceroy it was only Rx. 15,000,000 or Rx. 16,000,000, and that was considered to be quite sufficient. I listened with great interest to what was said by the late Secretary for India the other night. I believe, with him, the military party is endangering India. They are dreaming about an imaginary Russian invasion, which may never come, and to prepare for this they squander the resources of one of the poorest peoples in the world, and are thus poisoning their minds against British rule. By this policy the Indian Government is raising a real danger of far more importance than this imaginary danger. What I ask for tonight is but a feeble palliative. I only ask that some portion of the cost of the Frontier war shall be placed upon this country. I hope the Government—I believe there are many upon the other side of the House who agree with me, and will accept my Motion and come to the help of India. But some object to grants, especially for the Frontier war. So long as you accept the principle that some help is to be given to that poor country, which God has placed in our hands, I do not mind, what name is given to it. Whatever the alleged cause may be, I feel sure that we shall touch the feelings of the people of India if the House adopts my motion. The Indian people are a sentimental people, and an emotional people, and kindly words spoken in this House do far more good than the House is aware of. Sharp words are sometimes spoken across the floor of this House which appear in a hundred papers next morning, and are read by multitudes, and we ought to be most cautious as to what we say here, so as not to excite ill-feeling among those dense masses. In speaking about India in this House, which is a whispering gallery open to the world, we ought to be most careful to say nothing but what is kind and sympathetic. The permanent difficulty of our Indian Government lies in the fact that it is impossible for a small handful of officials at Simla to govern satisfactorily 280,000,000 of people, even with the aid of the finest Civil Service in the world. These high officials pull the strings that move India, and live mostly on the hills. In the old days of the East India Company the officials did not go to the hills, they lived amongst the people often for a lifetime, but now we have Civil Servants of great mental powers, but who spend all their holidays in this country; their heart is here, and it is not in India. They are not sufficiently in touch with the people, and as they rise to higher positions they spend most of their time in the hills far away from the masses. There is nothing but comfort and well-being amongst the Europeans who live at Simla, and they are removed from that close contact with the suffering masses which is so useful an education for the rulers of India. I say this is one of the reasons why these expensive wars are devised. High officers at Simla, well fed and clothed, with a single stroke of the pen can put upon India millions of expenditure, notwithstanding that the money has to be squeezed out of people who are living on 2d. a day. This is the essential drawback to our rule in India. It is not that the men are not able. I do not believe there are more capable men anywhere than in the Indian Civil Service, or at the head of those great departments. But I say you cannot govern India economically under such a system as that. You require an overhauling of the entire system, and a reconstruction of Indian Administration. One thing ought to be done, and that promptly. We ought to send out a first-class financier—one of the strongest men that can be found—with great powers, to cut down the expenditure. It will not be done unless the man sent out be made of cast-iron—a man who can stand against official pressure. You send out too often an untrained man to India, knowing little of the country, surrounded on all sides with old officials: what can he do? He is bound to go to them for advice. If you wish to reduce expenditure in India you must select of of your strongest men, and send him out with large powers, and in no other way can you put the finances of that country in a sound position. What I ask for at the present moment is that a moderate grant should be made to India—a grant even of three millions would be of great value. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has had large surpluses, amounting to 6¾ millions. And what has he done with those surpluses? Like a very parsimonious man, he buys up the National Debt.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. E. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

I beg your pardon. The surpluses have gone in the furtherance of works for the benefit of the country.

*MR. S. SMITH

Then I am not quite right there, but I do object to Consols being bought at 112, which is like buying annuities to yield 2 per cent. I am told that this year we shall have another urplus of between two and three millions, but probably it will be pounced upon for some other purpose. Now, I do not believe in using our Surplus to buy up the National Debt. Surely, it is better to use this money in helping our famishing fellow-subjects in India than in buying up Consols. There are times for generosity, and there is a time when a little sympathy counts far more than dry financial economies. I say, use a little generosity to India just now, and it will bring back a rich reward to this country. I appeal to the humanity of this House, I appeal to the benevoence of this rich country. I do not believe that public opinion in this country would have the smallest objection to a handsome grant being made to India. My own opinion is that it would be most willingly given, and I believe, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do it, he would find that nearly every newspaper in this country would support his action This is the feeling of the country. I will conclude my remarks by quoting from a speech of the late Secretary of State for India, which, I am glad to say, does as much credit to his heart as it does to his head. He says— We have yet to deal with the cost of the present expedition. What that cost is I do not know; but if it approaches the figures I have seen the Indian Revenue cannot meet it, and I go further, ought not to be asked to meet it. Parliament in 1880 voted £5,000,000 towards the cost of the Afghan War. The reasons which justified that Vote are more forcible to-day than they were then. To throw upon India, in addition to the enormous cost, and the loss by the famine and plague, the entire cost of the present war, would be an injustice which would rankle in every part of the Indian Empire. I thank the House for the indulgence accorded me, and I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

*MR. R. SOUTTAR (Dumfriesshire)

I beg leave to second the Amendment. The first plea I would put forward is based upon the poverty of the Indian people. My honourable Friend has spoken of that poverty, and I am able to testify to having witnessed that poverty. I lived for five years of my life in India, and owing to the work upon which I was engaged I spent those five years directly amongst the poor people in India, in the streets and in the lanes of the various cities. I can assure hon. Members here that, however much they may have contemplated the poverty of India, they have no real conception of what poverty is until they have lived in that country. I have lived in various countries, and have seen poverty of various sorts. I have seen poverty in Africa, but it is a lazy poverty that arises from the beneficence of nature. I have seen poverty amongst the negroes in the Southern States of America, but it is largely of the idle "laugh and grow fat" kind of poverty; I have seen poverty in this country, but it generally arises from dissipation; but the poverty in India arises from none of these causes, and is like none of them. In India you will see that, which you will, perhaps, not see anywhere else in the world. You will see men toiling from morning till night with all their strength, and receiving at the end of the day a miserable pittance—a pittance which they do not waste in debauchery, or drink, but which they will lay out, not in halfpence and farthings, but in cowries, which is the smallest shell coin that they can get. And when all has been spent, and the poor result earned home in a handkerchief, with all their exertions they have not provided one full meal for themselves and their families. This goes on from lay to day, and from the cradle to the grave. I have only seen one sort of poverty that has ever struck me as comparing in any degree with the poverty you see in India. Hon. Members have seen the hollow-cheeked poverty of the poor wretch who is dependent in London upon the sweater's bounty. Well, the whole of the Indian poverty is just like that. The second plea I would put forward is the poverty of the Indian Exchequer. Now, it has been said by my hon. Friend that there would probably be a deficit in the Indian Exchequer this year. But I do not measure the poverty of the Exchequer by deficits at all. I know that, even if there were a surplus, there would not be half enough to spend as money should be spent on public works in India. I know that in India you require to spend millions and millions, far more than ever you have spent, if you want to properly ensure that country against famine. I do not know that irrigation is a cure for all the evils of India. I think that the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord two or three days ago, when he stated what the Government had in their minds, were excellent suggestions, which showed that he had thoroughly grasped the agricultural part of the subject, and I am sure they will do almost as much good as irrigation ever can. At the same time, irrigation is also necessary, and every penny that can be spent should be spent on irrigation, works, if you want to provide against future famine. My belief, with regard to the poverty of the Indian Exchequer, arises also from the consideration that the money which is raised in India is not raised in a natural way. Even if you had a great surplus, where would it come from? Five millions of it would come from opium, and there are some of us on this side of the House, and on that side of the House, too, who would rather that India should get along without this five millions. Then, eight and a half millions would come from salt, and my hon. Friend has already told you what a terrible tax that is upon the poverty of the Indian natives. In this country, if a man does not take tobacco or spirits, he may practically escape taxation. In India every mouthful that the poor, wretched coolie puts in his mouth has already paid toll to the British Government. We know there is no other way to raise the money, and that circumstance is the measure of the absolute poverty of India. The third plea that I would urge arises from the special circumstances in which India is placed. I will not enlarge upon this. We know perfectly well, if India ever needed help, she needs it today. India got help in 1881, and she needs it to-day, far more than she did then. She has famine and pestilence, the twin sister of famine. I don't know if hon. Members have ever just quietly considered how famine and pestilence almost invariably go hand-in-hand in that country. The fact of the matter is, Europeans, who are well fed, are rarely touched by pestilence in India, but the poor, miserable native is so absolutely starved that he has no vitality, and the moment pestilence touches him, he just lies down and dies. But, now, my fourth plea with regard to this matter arises from the justice of the case. I am not going to press anything that would be in the slightest degree of a Party character, but, as far as I can study the question, we were promised, in the Statute of 1858—which has been corroborated constantly by the declaration of statesmen since—that India would not be in any way dragged into any question of Imperial policy. I am not going to say the Frontier War—in connection with which money has been spent—which we are considering to-night, that that has been a purely Imperial matter; but it would have been absolutely impossible for any conscientious man to have stood in this House, and listened to the speeches which have been made on both sides, without realising that Imperial matters had, to a certain extent, at any rate, entered into the question of the Frontier war, and to the extent that Imperial matters entered into that question, to that extent are we bound to absolve India from the cost. My last plea would be that we have precedent in its favour. Honourable Members who have been in this House a long time, know far more about that than I do. This would be no new thing. There have been wars carried out by Indian soldiers not paid for by India. The Persian War was not paid for by India, the Abyssinian War was not paid for by India, the Chinese war was not paid for by India, and we know that in 1881 an almost precisely similar state of things existed in connection with the Afghan War, and this House, without a dissentient voice, voted five millions in favour of it. I know perfectly well, in conclusion, that something may be said against it, and something may be said on lines of true political economy. I know that it is of very great consequence that the financial independence of India, as well as the financial independence of every one of our possessions and dependencies, should be very carefully maintained. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe in doles, whether they are doles to individuals, or whether they are doles to our dependencies; but if ever there was an occasion when strict political justice might be departed from, the House knows perfectly well that that occasion has now arisen. I know also that the maintenance of responsibility for warlike policy is of very great consequence, for we have a very strong war party in India, and we do not want to make it any easier for them to make war; and I am always glad to realise that such men as Sir James Weston are sitting at the same Council table and are able to say to these men—"It is all very well for you to talk about war, but we cannot raise the money to pay for it." But the worst of it is, these men have not got to pay for it. We know that the men who voted for the war, and who carried the Indian Frontier War against the wishes of the civil representatives—if I am not incorrect—are those military men to whom a war, if it brings a certain amount of risk, also brings commensurate advantages. At the same time, I am glad that there is even a half cheek kept with regard to warlike expenditure, but I would point this out to the House—that there is another side to that question. It is all very well to check the warlike spirit in India, but it is equally important to check the warlike spirit in this country, and I don't think it is good for Englishmen that they should be able to have a spirited Foreign policy, and that they should throw the burden of it upon somebody else, especially when that somebody else is a poor, wretched, impoverished, and unrepresented nation like India. I second the Motion with extreme pleasure. I believe if the Government would accede to the Motion, there would not be a dissentient voice In this House, there would not be a dissentient voice in the whole country, and. I believe the acceptance of this Motion would cause untold happiness and satisfaction to India. I also think the policy, which is suggested by this Motion, is calculated to prevent a recurrence of the calamities of war, and therefore I consider that, the Motion is not only in the interests of India, but is framed in the higher interests of a great and united Empire.

SIR H. SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central)

I think the speech we have just listened to is one of great importance, and, as a large taxpayer in India myself, I can feel a good deal of sympathy with it, but, at the same time. I cannot say that I go any great distance with either of the honourable Gentlemen who introduced this Motion, either as regards their arguments, or the conclusions which they have drawn. It seems to me this question might have been dealt with on larger grounds and in a larger manner, and in that way it might have commended itself more to the House than on the very narrow lines put forward by the hon. Member for Flintshire and the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire. Sir we must have great sympathy with India in the position in which she finds herself at the present time. That is common ground, but there is a great danger to allow sentiment to run away with one, especially upon matters of finance and matters of business. I am one who, all my life, since I have been concerned in these matters, have taken a very strong view in regard to the duty England owes to India, and the relief which India has a right to claim from England. I say on that ground, the views which have been admirably set forth by such great Viceroys as Lord Northbrook, Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Brackenbury, are views which I entirely share. It will be admitted that in the past India has not been well treated by England in financial matters, especially when we think of the sums charged to the Indian Exchequer for such things as the entertainment of Sultans and Shahs, for which we have had the glory, while India has had merely the privilege of paying. And when we reflect on the Abyssinian War, when we remember the Egyptian Expedition—undertaken for purely Imperial reasons—we must come to the same conclusion. £1,200,000 was charged against India for the Suakim expedition alone. Surely there is some reason for a readjustment of the accounts between India and England. The hon. Member said we maintained in India a greater army than was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of order there, and that we should not do so if it were not for Imperial considerations, and for that reason again a readjustment of accounts is desirable in order to give relief. There are also quasi-Imperial questions, such as those in connection with the North-West Frontier—questions which arise out of our relations with Russia. There is also the Burmah Frontier question; and intertwined with these questions are considerations as to policing the Frontier for the protection of our own people against raids from outside. In addition to that, we have to promote British trade, and these are points which make it so difficult to decide whether England or India should pay. I do, however, think that the Indian Exchequer should be relieved of the heavy expenditure charged in connection with the maintenance of Departments of the India Office in this country. The chief argument put forward by the hon. Member has been the extreme poverty of India. To my mind that is not the real question, which is—Are the claims just or unjust? It is not a point to be considered whether India is rich or poor; if she is responsible she should pay the money; if she is not, then England should bear the burden. The mere fact of the poverty of India imposes no special reason why England should find the money. I was sorry to hear retold the old story about the average income of the Native being 27 rupees; the fallacy of that story has been exposed again and again. As a fact the 9 rupees a month which is earned by the Natives, is not a bad way as things go in India. India is undoubtedly a poor country judged by Western standards, but, although that is unfortunately true, you must not set up those standards of comfort when judging the condition of the people. A country should be judged by the wants of its people, and our capacity to satisfy them. There is another point which the House ought never to forget. It is all very well to talk of the poverty of India, but is not that due to, and caused by, the habits and customs of the people themselves? Is it not due largely to early child marriage, and the consequent overpopulation of the country? The people multiply up to the limits of existence, and the problem is one which it is almost hopeless to deal with. There are many curious things in connection with the Indian people. You cannot get them to migrate from one district to another. It may be that in one district there may be ample employment to be obtained, and in another district over-population, with a scarcity of work. Yet the people will not migrate from one district to another. I have myself suffered the greatest difficulty in getting coolies for tea gardens, although frightful poverty was existing in adjoining districts. I should like to say one word upon another aspect of this question of poverty. The hon. Member for Flintshire has made a good deal of it, but he seemed rather to contradict himself. I do not quite understand how, if the people are so frightfully poor and have an income of only 27 rupees a year, they have managed to save the millions of silver which they have stored away as a reserve. It cannot be true that they have saved hundreds of millions, and yet, at the same time, are never much above starvation point. Another cause of poverty is that agriculture is the mainstay of the country, and there is little diversity of employment. What we have to aim at is, by the introduction of more capital, to increase the number of industries, and to employ more people in mills and factories where they can earn better wages, and are far better off than when employed on the land. There is a reverse side to this poverty of India—or rather, of the people. In the first place, in spite of what has been told to the House, there is no question but that India is the most highly-taxed country in the world. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to come down here and talk about Income Tax, but they ignore the fact that only a few favoured individuals have the privilege of paying it, and the great bulk of the people of the country do not know that such a thing exists.

MR. S. SMITH

Their incomes are so small.

SIR H. SEYMOUR KING

You have no right to speak of the Income Tax, unless at the same time you deal with the number of people taxed. There is another side of the question to be looked at. In eight years out of every ten—I might almost say out of every nine—the Indian Budget shows a surplus, and I must enter a strong protest against the suggestions put forwards as to the unsatisfactory condition of the Indian Budget. It is not fair, it is not honest for hon. Members on either side of the House to argue from the particular to the general, and to base their case on the state of things which arises in years of famine and plague and war. That does not correctly show the average condition of affairs. As a fact, except during the last two years, there has been a steady increase in the revenue, and a steady, although not a large, increase in the deposits in savings' banks. These things do not prove an increase of poverty in the country, and I repeat the hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake in arguing from two years of famine as showing what is the average condition of affairs in India. He should remember what was said by Lord Cromer (then Sir E. Baring) when speaking as Finance Minister in 1882–83— We do not profess to finance for a surplus in a year of famine. When a serious famine occurs it is inevitable that the expenditure of the year should be greater than the revenue. I cannot conceive a worse argument than that, because, as a result of two years of famine and plague, the Indian Budget shows a serious deficit, therefore, India is in such a state as to entitle it to come to this House for assistance. In the 15 years ending 1895–96, what has this poor, miserable, bankrupt Government been able to do? It has been able to put on one side 17½ crores of tens of rupees for the purpose of meeting the very emergency which has arisen, and the cost of which, as stated by the noble Lord, will be about 12 crores. This money, it is true, has not been put into the bank, but it has been used for the benefit of the country. Rx18,13,000 have been spent on irrigation works, Rx65,50,000 on protection and railways, and Rx53,27,000 on the reduction and avoidance of the debt. This shows how carefully the finances of India have been husbanded for the last 15 years. I said' at the start that I have some sympathy with the Motion, but while I think there could and should be some re-adjustment of the burdens between this country and India, I cannot conceive a worse method of helping than by starting a series of grants in aid. I think that system most objectionable and pernicious in every respect. What we want to do is to keep the financial rein tight in the hands of the Financial Secretary in order to prevent the military Party getting hold of them, and running away. If, directly we get into a difficulty, the Indian Government are to shelter themselves behind the English Exchequer, we shall be always having frontier wars. I agree with my noble Friend, that— It is much better to keep the two Exchequers as far apart as we can. The Mover of this Motion talked of the necessity for more effective control over Indian expenditure, but I do not think he could go to work in a worse way than by initiating a policy of grants in aid. What after all is the real trouble from which India is suffering? To what must we direct our attention if we are to arrive at a proper decision? It is not so much a deficit on the Budget, not so much the results of famine and plague and war, as the present position of the currency. There can be no worse position than that brought about by a forced currency—and the currency of India is a forced currency, just as unsound as is the forced paper currency of Argentina. If hon. Members were as well acquainted as I have been during the last six weeks with the position of the Calcutta money market, they would feel that this is a matter which demands the attention of the House, and that that is the direction in which the aid of this country might best be given. The position in January in Bombay and Calcutta was that the banks would not errant loans on Government paper, or even on bars of gold. They had not the money to lend. Think what it would mean if the Bank of England were not able to lend, and if there were no possibility of any expansion of the currency, and we were left with a fixed or gradually contracting currency. I admit that the experiment tried in India was the only possible one at the time, other than that which I hope and believe my noble Friend will yet carry into effect—namely, the establishment of a currency on a gold basis, because the pressing need of India at the present moment is, undoubtedly, that of a staple rupee—a staple exchange, which can only be obtained on a gold basis. It is not a question of the re-opening of the Mints, for that would only bring about the invariable ups and downs. It is true there may be some opposition from the agricultural industry, which no doubt has greatly benefited by the fall in exchange, but I believe that the rapid and incalculable fluctuations in exchange far outweigh that benefit. In India, money at present is almost unborrowable, even on the very best security, and if only capital could be introduced which could be lent at a moderate rate of interest, it would do far more good to the planting interest. The establishment of the currency on a gold basis—although I admit a serious undertaking—is not impossible if faced with courage, and with the advantage of English credit at its back. India by herself is not strong enough for this gigantic undertaking. This, of course, is not the occasion to go into details how to establish a gold currency. I trust we may, later on, have another opportunity to go into the much larger question. It is only necessary that I should indicate the amount necessary for India and England to raise for the purpose. I think it would be about 15,000,000 sterling. Russia has succeeded in doing this, and so have Japan and Austria-Hungary. Then why could not England and India do it? There is plenty of gold in the world. India has always been a country which absorbs the precious metals, and I believe there is no country in the world in which the experiment of establishing the currency on a gold basis could be more easily made.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! The hon. Member's remarks do not appear to me to come within the terms of the Motion.

SIR H. SEYMOUR KING

I recognise, Sir, that I was going rather beyond the Motion, but the terms of it are intimately bound up with the financial questions generally. Some relief may have been given by the Bill dealing with the deposits of gold, but, after all, it appears to me to be a somewhat sentimental feeling of relief, and I am afraid it will not prove substantial, for people will not send their money out unless they know they can get it back without serious loss.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! I must again call the hon. Member's attention to the terms of the Motion—namely, whether the expenditure involved in the recent operations beyond the Frontier of India ought not to be charged against England?

SIR H. SEYMOUR KING

I apologise to you, Sir, and to the House, for having gone beyond the terms of the Motion, but my feelings carried me away. I will ask the House to consider, from another point of view, what would be the relief to the Indian Exchequer if a grant in aid of £3,000,000 sterling were made? It would represent about £75,000 a year and would be almost inappreciable to the people of India, while it would inflict an incalculable blow on sound finance and introduce a most mischievous principle. It would, too, weaken the restrictions put upon the military party by the Finance Minister. I hope, therefore, such a policy will not receive the support of hon. Members.

*SIR W. WEDDERBURN (Banffshire)

I am very glad my hon. Friend has brought this matter forward, and I do not think the Government will continue to refuse his request. The conscience of the nation has been aroused, and I do not believe the people will allow the Government to place the whole burden of this great war on the shoulders of the poor people of India. I think we ought to make a substantial contribution. The resources of the people of India are crippled at the present moment, and the sum suggested by my hon. Friend would go far to help them again on to their feet. I do not suppose the money would be expended exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull suggests—for the reduction of debt. It would be used as far as possible to meet the immediate financial needs of the people; and I join in asking for what may be called a dole, not because I like the system of doles, or because the people of India like it. What they want is fair play in order to enable them to develop the almost boundless resources of their own country, and that cannot be done unless we have administrative economy in India, which I do not believe we shall have until we get more stringent control in this House over Indian finance. The fact is, the two countries are bound together; they must stand or fall together; if one droops the other must sink. There never was such a partnership in the history of the world as the partnership of England and India, and there never were such magnificent assets in any partnership. On the one hand, this country has the command of the sea—she can give India peace and advance her industrial wealth.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Baronet is going into the general question of the relations between England and India. That is not the Question before the House. It is a perfectly plain Question; and, although I have perhaps allowed the Debate to travel somewhat outside it, I must request the hon. Members to confine themselves to the Question really before the House.

*SIR W. WEDDERBURN

On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I not refer to financial relations?

*MR. SPEAKER

That is not the Resolution.

*SIR W. WEDDERBURN

So far as the poverty of the people of India justifies, a contribution to the finances under present circumstances?

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is at liberty to refer to the poverty of India as being a reason why the expenditure involved in the recent operations ought not to be charged on a poor country. I will not prevent the hon. Member from referring to it in that view.

*SIR W. WEDDERBURN

Well, Sir; of course, I do not wish to press it, or to deal specially with the financial question, for the reason that I have the honour to sit upon the Royal Commis- sion which is now occupied with its deliberations, and one of the main questions they have to decide is the apportionment of the charge between India and this country as regards these great and costly wars. I, therefore, thought it would hardly be suitable that I should go in detail into the argument on that question; but I feel strongly that if, instead of merely helping India, from time to time, by doles, we could exercise such control over her finances in thin House as would enable her to develop her resources, she would not be able to meet all her necessary expenditure, but would be a source of the greatest strength Mid advantage of this country. My main point is this that the people of India are immensely skilful. They are mainly an agricultural population; they are extremely skilful; and they have a rich soil and a fine climate. There is abundant labour, both skilful and cheap, and if they only had a reasonable supply of capital, and with good irrigation and manure, instead of being as miserably poor as they are, they would become very wealthy. That is the reason why I am so anxious at this time, when they have broken down from want of capital, that England should find them in a little capital now, so that they might complete their irrigation works, and take other means for improving the condition of things. I consider that the money will be well invested by this country. At present their difficulty is this, that owing to the poverty into which they have fallen they have got no store in reserve. They fell terribly into debt. They not only possess nothing, but they possess less than nothing. Therefore, what I would say is that the people of this country have behaved kindly and charitably by assisting in the famine, but the critical time is not only during the famine, but just after the famine, and a liberal sum of money put into the hands of the Government of India to enable the people to start again, will be money very well bestowed, and I trust the House will kindly and generously give approval to the Motion of my hon. Friend.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,) Middlesex, Ealing

Mr. Speaker, in the few observations which I have to address to the House, I will conform strictly to your ruling, Sir, by keeping to the Resolution before the House; but I hope I may be allowed, incidentally, to allude to the argument on which, to a large extent, the Resolution is based—namely, the poverty of the people of India. Well, Sir, I do not deny that, measured by our standard of comfort, the great mass of the people of India are very poor. But what I think we really have to consider is, not whether they are poor or not, but whether their condition, under our rule has improved or the reverse. That is the real question, and I am bound to say that, although there is much poverty, yet, tested by every criterion which you can apply, whether by statistics or any other way which experience can suggest, the condition of the agricultural population of India is, I believe, improving. Now, Sir, two of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have given very pathetic accounts of the terrible condition in which the famine districts were left, and the hopeless condition in which the cultivators found themselves. There is a Paper now in the hands of the printer, which will very shortly be distributed to the Members of this House, dealing with the famine, which is written by Sir Anthony Macdonnell, Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces. That document is well worthy of perusal, for it is by far the ablest summary of the famine operations which I have yet read, and it has special importance attached to it, inasmuch as Sir A. Macdonnell, I think I may say, is not only the ablest administrator in India, but is a man whose ubiquitous energy brings him into contact with every class of the community. He does not get his information at second hand, but mixes freely with the people, and uses his own eyes and ears. And this is what he says at the conclusion of his Report. I am sure it will interest the House very much, because it gives a much more sanguine estimate than I should have been prepared to give. His report deals with the North Western Provinces, where, with the exception of the Central Provinces, the famine was most severe, and where a very large portion of the population felt its pressure very greatly. He says— It would be too early to attempt an estimate on the future effects on the Provinces of the trial, the severest within the century, through which they have just passed; but it is possible to observe the unprecedented rapidity with which agriculture is recovering as soon as natural conditions permitted its resumption. Then he goes on to say— This statement of the existing condition of agriculture goes to show that the people have resumed the usual tenour of their lives with energy, undemoralised by the hardships or the incidents of the preceding year. Further on he adds— All observers are combined in thinking that the high prices of recent years, together with the increased facilities for transport, have enabled the cultivating classes to derive much profit by the sale of their surplus produce. This has added to their wealth and enabled them to improve their general standard of living. How long this improvement will last, how long the surplus which makes it possible will continue to be produced, depends on the growth of population, the progress of agricultural improvement, the maintenance of moderate taxation, and, finally, on the advance of general enlightenment. Into speculations on these interesting subjects the Lieutenant-Governor will not enter now, but he has faith in the future, in the people, and in the equity and resource fulness of British statesmanship…… The general conclusion, then, which the Lieutenant-Governor is disposed to draw, is that the cultivating classes, whether tenants or proprietors, have displayed in this famine a command of resources, either in the shape of capital or credit, and a power of resistance, which have not been paralleled in any previous period of scarcity, but that this improvement has not been materially shared by the labouring classes. To come now to other aspects of the question. Without in the least alluding to those vexed questions of currency reform which are outside the four corners of this Resolution, I am bound to state that the real want of India is capital, and under present conditions unquestionably owing to the fluctuations of exchange, there is now a stoppage in the flow of capital from England to India, which would unquestionably be resumed with more stability of exchange. And it should be borne in mind that although the mass of the population of India are poor, they are very lightly taxed. I should say that they contribute less to the suppert of the administration under which they live than almost any large population living under anything like a civilised Government.

MR. M. DAVITT (Mayo, S.)

But in what proportion to their income?

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA

Well, I think I may go so far as to say that, independent of the land revenue, the average contribution is 1s. 8d., and with the exception of salt, and possibly the higher cotton goods, the mass of the population do not contribute to the taxation at all. But I am not stating this with any desire in any way to minimise the condition of hardship under which they live and toil; but I do not think that the fact that a large number of the people of India are poor, is quite a sufficient reason why this House should vote a large sum of money from the taxation of the people of this country to the people of India. Now, the position we have taken up from the first, in reference to the financial situation of India, is one which I think any responsible Government would be bound to maintain. We have carefully watched the financial crisis through which the Indian Government has been passing during the last few years, and we let them know that if they wished for assistance from the Imperial Government, the Government would not refuse favourable consideration to such an appeal, provided it was attended by certain conditions. The conditions were these: they must show either that there were practical difficulties in providing the ways and means necessary to carry them through the crisis, or that there was a serious depreciation of credit in regard to the money they had borrowed already, or that additional taxation was necessary in order to maintain future equilibrium between income and expenditure. I think nobody will deny that those are absolutely sound conditions, and conditions which any Government who occupied our place would be bound to adhere to. Well, the Indian Government were unable to accurately forecast their financial position until the close of the last calendar year; but at the end of December they sent to Her Majesty's Government a forecast of their financial position. Sir, I have heard with regret some expressions, which, I think fell involuntarily from the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution, in which he spoke of cooking and juggling with figures. I do not think those are proper expressions to use in this House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to cause pain by his remarks to the officials of the Finance Department of India, whose figures and accounts are prepared with the greatest care.

MR. S. SMITH

I admit that I used, perhaps, too strong an expression in what I said on that point.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA

I, on the other hand, feel sure that if the hon. Gentleman will look into the accounts of Indian expenditure he will find the forecast with regard to the Frontier expeditions is marvellously accurate. The expenditure on the Chitral Expedition, undertaken before we came into office, was actually under the estimate; and I am fully confident that the estimates of expenditure now given will not be materially exceeded. Hon. Gentlemen have attempted to show a deficit of over five crores. We received in the month of December a six months' estimate—that is, of course, for the present year, 1897–98. Taking the exchange at 1s. 3d. per rupee, it shows a deficit of six crores—that is, 663 lakhs of rupees. These figures include 361 lakhs in addition to some sterling expenditure on account of the expeditions on the Frontier, 180 lakhs excess expenditure in regard to famine relief works, and various minor items which balance one another, and which I need not read to the House. Now, of course, a deficit of 663 lakhs is a very large deficit, but, unsatisfactory as it is as regards the year to which it relates, it is, in one sense, not unsatisfactory with regard to the future of India. The famine expenditure, which is an extraordinary expenditure, is estimated at 540 lakhs, and taking the Frontier War at 400 lakhs, and other extraordinary expenditure at 12 lakhs, we get a total of 952 lakhs of extraordinary expenditure. But the total deficit is only 663 lakhs, and therefore the normal revenue will be able to meet 289 lakhs of the expenditure of this year of abnormal expenditure, or, in other words, in a normal year there would probably have been a considerable surplus of income over expenditure. Having got these figures, as regards the past, we telegraphed to the Indian Government to get more accurate information as regarded the past, and we sent the following telegram— Budget forecast. Please let me know by telegram, for the information of Her Majesty's Government, whether the present financial condition of India and prospects for coming year are such as to justify anticipation that all necessary expenditure can be met without additional taxation or unduly increasing the indebtedness. To this we received the following reply— Financial position.—Twenty years' accounts up to March, 1898, show a surplus of ordinary revenue amounting to 45 crores, against extraordinary expenditure on war of 21 crores. famine relief 8½ crores, railway construction, charged to revenue, 13½ crores; showing a net surplus for the 20 years, after meeting these charges, of 2 crores. And then they go on to say, without committing themselves to figures, that they are fully confident that a substantial surplus can be forecasted for the next ensuing year, that no additional taxation will be imposed, but that the examination of the figures, both of revenue and expenditure, is not complete. In addition, we got this further information from the Indian Government— Official telegram to-day (i.e., 11th January) succinctly states the facts bearing on the financial position, and warrants our considering external assistance unnecessary. Why, therefore, Sir, should we override the Indian Government, and force this assistance upon them? I think there are most conclusive reasons why we should not do so. The hon. Gentleman opposite criticised the method of control adopted in India over the expenditure of the Government, and seemed to indicate that it ought to be controlled in the same way that it was in England. Now, we believe that the present system of control over expenditure in India is most efficient. I recollect that two years ago I drew up a comparison between the growth of expenditure in India during ten years and in this country, and whereas in India it was almost stationary, in this country it had enormously increased. I do not hesitate to state that I really believe that the Indian Government get a better return for their expenditure than we do in this country. Their system is not so elaborate as ours. It is not a joint system of control between the House of Commons and the Executive Government. In India, whenever a department finds it unnecessary to expend the whole of the sums placed at its disposal within the financial year, the Government can, without difficulty, transfer that which is not required by one department to another department, and in this way I believe that, on the whole, they get, I will not say a better, but as good a return as the Treasury does in this country. Well, now, Sir, this control over expenditure in India is largely exercised by the personal influence of the Finance Minister. We have an exceptionally strong Finance Minister at the present moment in Sir James Westland, and I know that he agrees strongly in the opinion of the Indian Government that it is not wise, under the present conditions, to have outside assistance. I believe the main reason why he is desirous that such assistance should not be given, is because he is conscious that if once it is granted on the ground of sympathy and benevolence—because this case has not been argued on the ground of justice at all, but simply on the ground of humanity, benevolence, and sympathy—if once this House gets into the practice of granting doles to India on these grounds, the control of the Finance Minister in India would be gone, so far as checking expenditure is concerned. Sir, I do not attach much importance to the idea that military men and others are always pushing the Government of India on frivolous pretexts into warlike projects, but I do hold this view: that it would be absolutely inconsistent to say that the Indian military authorities require further checks to be placed upon them in order to prevent unncessary expenditure, and then to remove all checks upon large expenditure. Well, then, turning from the point of view of sympathy, let us examine the proposition from the point of view of justice. I can understand this House wishing to assist India in defraying some of the military expendi- ture of an expedition which had been more Imperial than Indian; but no one for a moment can contend that there was anything Imperial in the recent operations on the Frontier. Those operations were purely Indian in every sense, as part of our administrative policy. The late Government in their day sanctioned an expedition to Chitral, and nobody ever proposed that the expenditure on that expedition should be defrayed by the Imperial Parliament. Well, Sir, I hope I have given to the House good, reasons why we should not accept this Resolution; but, at the same time, I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has moved it, that it is with reluctance that I speak against any Motion which is prompted by a sympathetic impulse, and which would in any way help India. While I feel that I cannot assent to this proposition, I can assure him, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen on the other side, that in regard to any practical proposals they can make for the amelioration of the condition of the population of India, or for improving the financial condition of that country, they will always meet from me with at least an appreciative hearing.

SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I am sorry that the noble Lord has announced so definitely the decision of Her Majesty's Government upon this question. I had hoped, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Bristol, and also from what the noble Lord said to myself in reply to one or two questions, that they had still an open mind upon this question, and that they recognised that they had both a responsibility to India, and, I think, a responsibility to the people of this country, in accurately representing what I think there can be no doubt their general feelings are, which would have induced them at all events, to have looked upon this Motion in a favourable spirit, to say the least of it, and to have reserved their final decision until the figures were really before them. I can assure the House and the noble Lord, that I entirely concur in the opinion the noble Lord has expressed with regard to the Finance Minister for India. I am sure my hon. Friend behind me was betrayed into a mistake when he talked of there not being an honourable Budget in India, and implied that there was some inferiority in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as personal honour and honesty were concerned, over the present Finance Minister in India. Now, I have had official relations with the one, and I have had the honour of sitting in opposition to the other, and I venture to say that, high as is the standard of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, both for financial ability and for stainless honour in the administration of the great responsibilities of his office, the Finance Minister of India is not one whit behind him in any one of those respects. Sir James Westland is as incapable of presenting to the Secretary of State or this House a dishonourable, or delusive, or deceitful Budget, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be of doing so in Committee of Ways and Means. Now, Sir, let us look at the information which has been received from India. If I follow the noble Lord's figures correctly, the present estimate is that at the end of the present financial year there will be a deficit of six and a half crores. The extra expenditure for the financial year has been nine and a half crores. Of course, when the "time comes for analysing these figures—they are sent over from India shortly after the commencement of April—we shall see how much of that £2,000,000 has been derived from normal taxation, and how much has been derived from a reduction of expenditure from the improved rate of exchange. Assuming that there is in India a deficit of six and a-half crores, a certain proportion of that would be due to the famine, and a certain proportion to the Frontier expedition. I did not quite understand the famine figures, I am bound to say, and that makes it difficult to follow the noble Lord. But in following the figures given last week in the Gazette of India, we find they stated that the cost of the famine would be £7,500,000 sterling, which, stated in crores of rupees, is 10,000,000. They included in that an immense decrease in the land revenue, and the great reduction in general revenue, but the statement, as I read it, represents a deficit of something like 1,00,00,000 of rupees, ten crores, and, in addition to that, we have this heavy expenditure in the shape of the Frontier war. The noble Lord says this has not been discussed in the spirit of justice, but rather in a spirit of benevolence. But for myself I rather prefer to discuss it as a question of justice. I object to the word dole; it is not to be discussed as a dole to India, and it is not a grant-in-aid. If it came within the limits of a grant-in-aid, it would be recognised by the Government and Parliament of England, at all events, as an honourable debt, owing to our fellow-subjects in India under exceptional circumstances, which contained the three elements never, perhaps, combined before—plague, famine, and war, all resulting in an enormous depression. Before I pass on, I should like to say a word or two upon the words used in the despatch of the noble Lord. In his despatch he was, no doubt, correct in saying that if any grant was refused he must be satisfied that there would be no increase of taxation, but I do not quite understand what he meant when he said there must be no undue pressure with reference to the terms on which they could borrow. I object to their having to borrow at all. That simply means increasing their liabilities; but there is no doubt that a very large share of this deficit will be met by borrowing money, and that is the point where I do think the case arises for this House to step in and interfere. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend behind me with reference to the condition of India. I think he may possibly have made some exaggerated statements with reference to the poverty of India, and I am not going to trouble the House by controverting them. On the general statement, I will assume that India—and the hon. Member will admit this—is a poor country. Well, Sir, Great Britain is a very rich country. Great Britain is passing now through a period of almost unexampled prosperity. What has been the result in the last 20 years? In India the result has been that, without paying off any debts, she has a yield of two crores of rupees. In England I think 70 or 80,000,000 have been paid off during that time. And then we have the big surpluses of the last three years. I understand the surplus of 1896 to be £6,000,000, and the surplus last year was £3,000,000. I will not attempt to anticipate the pleasant announcement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to make in the course of a few weeks as to the almost incredible and enormous surplus, with which he will have to deal, if we are justified in placing any reliance on the figures published in the Times. I should, perhaps, be not very wrong if I said that the Budget surpluses for the last three years will not be very far short of £12,000,000. I do not think it will be denied that Great Britain is financially at this period, not only strong, but exceptionally strong, and Great Britain can afford to behave with liberality, as well as justice, to India. The noble Lord said there was no Imperial question here, but the sending of the expedition to India was more an Imperial than an Indian question. It was our duty to rescue our officers who were interned in Chitral, and I would not shrink from putting all the expense on the Imperial Treasury, if necessary. We were bound to rescue Sir George Robinson, and how they can say that the expedition to Chitral and its retention were not Imperial questions I cannot understand. There I am unable to follow the noble Lord, for I think if ever there was a question of Imperial expenditure this was one. For this reason: The people of India had no voice in it, and I do not think the noble Lord will dispute that it was decided on Imperial grounds. The whole foundation of the policy of this North-West Frontier rests upon Imperial grounds, and, to a great extent, on European politics. We are fighting the battles of Europe on the confines of British India, and these expenses would not be incurred but for that, and the Indian people have some right to say that it was not an ordinary and normal expenditure for Indian purposes. I am not going to cumber this question with arguing that we are right and they are wrong. That is no part of my argument. Can we not look at it on broader grounds of statesmanship than even that? First, on the ground of precedent. This country has never shrunk from lavishly helping any of her co-partners when they have been labouring under exceptional suffering. We have done it over and over again in Ireland and various of our Colonies, and we have done it in India in the case of the Afghan War, when this House voted £5,000,000 towards the cost of that war. If it was just to relieve India of part of the expenses of that war, then it is equally just, it seems to me, to assist her in the payment of the expenses of this Chitral War. We have also to look at the relationship between us and India. I do not quite agree with what my hon. Friend behind me said, but it is of vital importance to strengthen our friendship with India in order to make the people believe that the House of Commons looks fairly after their interests. I will not trouble the House again with what I troubled them some six or eight months ago, but they will remember they received information of a very important speech which was made by one of the Native Princes in the Legislative Council of the Viceroy, and he argued it on the ground of that good feeling that it would engender between Great Britain and India if a contribution was made, and I say, looking at it from a statesmanlike point of view, that that is a point that the Government ought not to ignore. It is to our advantage to obtain a stronger hold on the affections and generosity of these people, and give them a stronger idea of the justice and generosity of this House. My hon. Friend behind me spoke as to our being very careful as to what we said in this House. I think he said the speeches rankled like barbed arrows, but I think I may be excused if I say we ought to be very careful on both sides. I should be very sorry to hear anything said in this House which will reflect upon the Government of, or give pain to the people of, India, or to give sanction to any opinion which they may entertain adverse to the Government under which they live. I think it is a very doubtful thing to attack the Government of India, either on account of their luxury—debauchery, I think, was the word used in these Debates—or on account of their indifference to the difficulties of the duties which they have to discharge. I believe there is no body of men outside Great Britain, or in any other country on the face of this earth, who could discharge the difficult duties of the ruling of India, and the defending of India, better than can the Indian Civil Service; and, although I have said strong words with reference to the policy of the Military Department—and I will say them again on the question of policy if necessary—I have no desire to say anything that will in any way east any reflection upon the Indian Civil Service. Nevertheless, these things are said, and said in India. My hon. Friend says they have been said in the Indian newspapers. It was my fate to read the Native newspapers while I was Secretary of State for India. There are some pleasant, and some unpleasant, duties for the Secretary for India to do, but I never, until I read those papers, knew what a bad man I was, what a bad Government I represented, and what a bad House this was. When I say bad. I am using a much milder adjective than was actually employed. But this is a feeling we cannot ignore, and we cannot express, and which I do not think it would be wise to suppress. At the present time I do not want to supply them with any opportunity to justify them. I do not want to supply those people who are bombarding the best Government that India ever had with additional ammunition, and I think the refusal of this House to entertain the question as to whether we will, or will not, come forward to help India in a crisis in which it is clear beyond all doubt she will have to borrow and add to her debt. I say that with no idea of conveying the impression that India is insolvent. I do not believe that for a moment, but she is not paying off her debt. Now, there is another ground. My hon. Friend behind me referred to the extremely heavy taxation of the people of India. He alluded to the land revenue, and stated that he thought a great deal of indignation would have been aroused in the people of Ireland if it had keen employed there. He said the land revenue was forced up, and that people were compelled to pay more than they ought. All I can say is that, if the people of Ireland had had the land revenue system of India for the past 70 years, you would not have had a tenth of the distress and of the oppression there of which my Irish Friend so constantly complains. I cannot leave this point without dealing with one case that he cited. He said that rents were raised on the tenants' own improvements. Now, it is impossible for that to occur except in direct violation of the law, which upon that point is very plain, and states that no increase of rent shall be allowed on land which has been improved by the tenant, or from improvements made with his own private money. My hon. Friend said we ought to have a permanent settlement there. We had a permanent settlement 100 years ago, and what has been the result? And then we had a settlement once in 30 years, and at the end of that time the conditions of the land were considered, and the price of produce taken into account, and, as I said just now, no increase of rent was allowed in respect of improvements made by the tenant out of his private means. It must be Government money spent on the land in order to justify an increased rental. The gross area of land under cultivation in British India is 196,000,000 acres, and the gross rent—it is not a tax—paid for that to the Government is £25,000,000; and the average rent under this oppressive tax is half a rupee an acre on the cultivated land of India. All the grass and pasture land in India, at all events, is exempt from this. It is all charged upon cultivated land, and the rent varies from half a rupee to three rupees. The large increase in the revenue to which our attention has been called, comes entirely from the building land in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, and I would now ask whether the average percentage of the gross value represents more than about eight per cent. of the value of the crops. There are no such rents paid in this country. Rents here are on a much higher scale; and in pressing this question on the House I do not agree that the people of India are oppressed with the tax on their land, but I do agree with what has been said as to the oppressiveness of the Salt Tax, and I think we ought to reduce salt duty; and I am sure it is the ambition of every Secretary of State for India to endeavour to do so. In supporting this motion, I put it simply on the broad basis that we can afford it, and that we ought to do it, and that it is a matter of justice to the people of India. And, as a matter of policy, so far as the relations of India and Great Britain are concerned, in the opinion of this House, before almost the universal opinion of the country, of men of all shades of politics, it is wise that England should behave wisely, justly, and generously to India, and that such a policy would not only be of inestimable value in benefiting India, but in strengthening the relations between this country and the Indian Empire.

*MR. J. M. MACLEAN (Cardiff)

Whether the land revenue is called a tax or a rent, it takes as much from the people of India as they can possibly pay, and when the right hon. Gentleman points to Bengal, I would point out that she pays more than her share of the Imperial expenses of the country, and that she is the most prosperous province in India. Turning to the question raised by the hon. Member, that, in case of need, England ought to come to the financial assistance of India, I think it is admitted on all hands that the Secretary of State has based his refusal to do anything entirely on the representations made by the Financial Department of India, and he is perfectly justified in saying that, under the circumstances, the India Office is not justified in doing so. If the Financial Department of India said they did not want help, none could be offered. But I should like to know what representations were made to the Financial Department before that communication was received from them by the noble Lord the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton has laid it down that the Indian debt has increased, and has urged that no undue increase should be made in it. I hope we shall hear, before the end of this discussion, what is meant by "undue increase of debt," because that debt has been largely increased by the recent Frontier operations. Now, a great deal has been said about the Financial Department of India. I believe the Financial Department is very careful in its expenditure, and I give it every credit for being so; but when you remember that the Budget for any particular year cannot be completed for three years, the Government cannot say what the expense of the present year has been. I think, therefore, the House cannot get a very accurate estimate of what the ultimate outcome will be. The weak part of the Financial Department of India is that it has no control over the British policy in India. It is a policy of the Council of the Viceroy, and, if it is approved by the Secretary of State for India, you may immediately have an increase of expenditure without the assent of the Finance Department at all. That is what has actually taken place with regard to the recent war, and when we are considering what is just and right towards the people of India in this matter, we must also consider where the responsibility really rests. The responsibility for this Frontier war seems to me to rest, first of all, on the Council of the Viceroy, and immediately afterwards with the noble Lord the Secretary of State. The noble Lord hold his present position through the favour and confidence of this House of Commons, and consequently this House shares his responsibility. And if he assents to a war in India, which is carried on, certainly without the consent of the Indian people, it is not for the noble Lord, or the House of Commons who placed him in his position, to shirk their responsibilities. We have no share in, the Indian expenses of wars of this kind, and that is why we sanction the war; but for the people of India, who pay for it, it is a very different thing. It is a very easy thing for an eloquent Minister to come down to this House, and in accents palpitating with patriotic emotions, ask us to rise to the height of our Im- perial mission, and conquer all Central Asia, without pausing to look back, but they never, while they speak of the honour and glory of defending the Empire, say a word as to what is all-important to the unfortunate people of India—the financial aspect of the case. What should we do if a similar case to that which has occurred in India happened in Canada? Suppose you found it necessary to have a war on the Frontier of Canada, in order to protect the country from an invasion we refuse to come of Canada with Imperial assistance? There is not a colony in the whole of the Empire which we are not assisting in some way. Why should we make an exception in the case of India? If this country had to bear her fair share of the Imperial expenditure on the Frontier of India, this House would be very much more careful in sanctioning the wars we have had on the Frontier than it is at the present moment. I have only one other point to mention, because we, have heard a great deal about India lately; but I would ask the question whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has money at his command for purposes of this kind? I sympathise with my right

hon. Friend in the enormous demands that are made upon the public purse at the present moment. He has to provide millions in order to find a new market, for our trade in the Mountains of the Moon in East Africa. He has to provide for another expedition in West Africa, and then, finally, he has to give a substantial dole to the sugar planters in the West Indies. These are claims upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I am afraid it is impossible for him to deny, because they are pressed upon him from quarters which he cannot possibly resist; but I can assure my right hon. Friend that India is worth much more to us than all these places, and we should beware lest in spending our money elsewhere in search of new markets, we are not sacrificing the oldest and best market which this Empire possesses.

Motion made, and Question put, That, in the opinion of this House, the expenditure involved in the recent operations beyond the frontier of India ought not to be charged entirely upon the revenues of India."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)

The House divided: Ayes 96; Noes 188.

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)	M'Ewan, William
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	M'Ghee, Richard
Allen, Wm. (Newc-under-L.)	Finucane, John	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)
Asher, Alexander	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Maddison, Fred.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Molloy, Bernard Charles
Baker, Sir John	Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Hy. (Wol'tn)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Gilhooly, James	Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)
Blake, Edward	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno. (Montrose)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hazell, Walter	Murnaghan, George
Burt, Thomas	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Caldwell, James	Holburn, J. G.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Holden, Angus	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Cawley, Frederick	Joicey, Sir James	Paulton, James Mellor
Clough, Walter Owen	Jordan, Jeremiah	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Colville, John	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pinkerton, John
Crean, Eugene	Kinloch, Sir Jno. Geo. Smyth	Pirie, Captain Duncan
Daly, James	Kitson, Sir James	Price, Robert John
Dalziel, James Henry	Lambert, George	Priestly, Briggs (Yorks.)
Davitt, Michael	Leng, Sir John	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Dillon, John	Logan, John William	Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Robson, William Snowdon
Doogan, P. C.	MacAleese, Daniel	Roche, Hon. Jas. (E. Kerry]
Dunn, Sir William	MacNeill, Jno. Gordon Swift	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)	M'Dermott, Patrick	Schwann, Charles E.
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)	Tully, Jasper	Wilson, Jno. (Durham, Mid.)
Spicer, Albert	Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)	Woodall, William
Stevenson, Francis S.	Wallace, Robert (Perth)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld.)
Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Wedderburn, Sir William	Woods, Samuel
Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)	Weir, James Galloway	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer	Mr. Samuel Smith and Mr. Souttar.
Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)	Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.)
NOES.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Garfit, William	Milward, Colonel Victor
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Gedge, Sydney	Monckton, Edward Philip
Arrol, Sir William	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	More, Robert Jasper
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Morrell, George Herbert
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Mount, William George
Baird, Jno. Geo. Alexander	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsb'y)	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Banbury, Frederick George	Gretton, John	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'hm (Bute)
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Greville, Captain	Myers, William Henry
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Gull, Sir Cameron	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bris.)	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beckett, Ernest William	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.	Penn, John
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bethell, Commander	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Pryce-Jones, Edward
Bigwood, James	Heath, James	Purvis, Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Helder, Augustus	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Brassey, Albert	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Richards, Henry Charles
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hill, Col. Sir E. S. (Bristol)	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Bucknill, Thomas Townsend	Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth'r (Down)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstd.)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Robinson, Brooke
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh	Round, James
Cecil, Lord Hugh	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Howard, Joseph	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Howell, William Tudor	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Charrington, Spencer	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Hozier, Hon. Jas. Hy. Cecil	Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Savory, Sir Joseph
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Seeley, Charles Hilton
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Sharp, William Edward T.
Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Kemp, George	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Kenrick, William	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	Kimber, Henry	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cox, Robert	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lafone, Alfred	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Laurie, Lieut. -General	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc S. W.)	Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)	Thorburn, Walter
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpl.)	Thornton, Percy M.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Usborne, Thomas
Davenport, W. Bromley-	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpl.)	Verney, Hon. Richard Greville
Dickson-Poynder, Sir Jno. P.	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Waring, Col. Thomas
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lowe, Francis William	Warkworth, Lord
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Doxford, William Theodore	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Drage, Geoffrey	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Drucker, A.	Macdona, John Cumming	Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.)
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Maclure, Sir John William	Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mncr.)	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)	Wyndham, George
Finch, George H.	M'Killop, James	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Finlay, Sir Rbt. Bannatyne	Malcolm, Ian	Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Younger, William
Fisher, William Hayes	Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Melville, Beresford Valentine	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Galloway, William Johnson	Milner, Sir Frederick George