§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURN (Banffshire)I beg leave to move—
That this House declines to sanction a sterling loan of £10,000,000 until a Select Committee, on an examination of the East India Accounts, shall have reported that such loan is in the interest of the Indian taxpayer, and will not unduly increase the burden be now sustains.I trust my Amendment will commend itself to the approval of the House. Parliament is ultimately responsible for the solvency and welfare of India, but it is universally admitted that under existing arrangements the House of Commons does not exercise effective financial control over the Indian Executive. What I therefore propose is, not that the House of Commons shall undertake any new duty, but that it shall adopt measures calculated to carry out effectively its existing duty; and that in dealing with the present Bill, which is a most important one, it shall as a trustee for India give to India's financial affairs the same care which it gives to its own. One main object of the present Bill is to raise money for a vast scheme of railway extension, estimated to cost Rx.30,000,000; and the principal question is whether the financial condition of India justifies borrowing in sterling for such speculative enterprises in the shape of railways. Now, upon this point there is a great difference of opinion in India. On the one hand there is the official opinion, and on the other there is the independent opinion of the people of India. Sir James Westland maintains that there is 305 justification, and in support of his plea he has brought forward what has been appropriately called a "prosperity Budget." On the other hand, Indian public opinion, as represented by the Indian representatives on the Viceroy's Council, is unanimously on the other side; and I will invite the attention of the House to the moderate, well-informed, and closely-reasoned speeches of these gentlemen, as reported in the Blue Book just published. The Indian members of the Council repudiate the prosperity Budget, and contend that the alleged equilibrium is only obtained by excessive taxation and by adding to the permanent debt. There exists, therefore, a distinct issue of fact, as between the official authorities and the Indian representatives in the Viceroy's Council, and I maintain that it is the duty of the House to determine this issue, and that this can only be satisfactorily done by reference to a Select Committee. Does any honourable Member think that the House as now sitting is in a position and in the mood to deal adequately with these complex questions so vitally affecting the millions of India? Very few Members attend, and even those who are present are not willing to give me undivided attention for the 20 minutes for which I propose to occupy their time. The subject, no doubt, is not one which lends itself to sprightly or humorous treatment, but I think I may, as an expert, claim the attention of the House for these few minutes, as I have been through the Indian official mill myself, and have besides made a special study of the Indian rayat for nearly 40 years. At the same time I recognise that, although these questions are literally matters of life and death to the Indian peasantry, I cannot now enter upon even the fringe of the subject. I therefore most earnestly ask the House to accept this Motion, and give to the Indian taxpayers' case the chance of a fair hearing. Does this House really desire to know the truth about India? With great respect for the House, I sometimes feel inclined to doubt it. But if honourable Members desire to learn the truth, they must not be content to hear only the official version, which assumes that everything the Government of India does is right, and that the authorities are always well informed as to facts, always 306 wise in action, and always successful in results. I cannot believe that independent Members who have watched the unhappy events in India during the past year will be prepared to accept this doctrine. Are there any good grounds for this blind and unreasoning confidence? No; on the contrary, whether it has been the famine, the war, or the plague, the Government have shown an inability to foresee coming events, and have consequently in each case suffered disaster which might have been averted by timely precaution. Does any honourable Member think that I am prejudiced in saying this? I will refer on this point to the words of Sir Griffith Evans, a nominated member of the Viceroy's Council, who has always shown himself a steady supporter of the Government. Speaking lately in the Council on the Budget Debate, Sir Griffith Evans very pointedly drew attention to this extraordinary blindness and deafness of the Government, and asked—How is it that the Government apparently never has any intimation of what is going to happen? Whether it is a mutiny, an outbreak, or a frontier raid, its first intimation of it appears usually to be the accomplished fact. That the unexpected should happen sometimes is inevitable, but that nothing should happen except the unexpected is unsatisfactory.Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is very true, though "unsatisfactory" is a somewhat mild term to express all the bloodshed and ruin which are the result of this inability to see and refusal to hear. But I can give Sir Griffith Evans the answer to his riddle. The reason why the Government of India cannot see is because it shuts its eyes; the reason why it does not hear is because it will not listen. The Government of India are not in touch with the people. They keep at arm's length men like the honourable Members of the Viceroy's Council. They put too much confidence in secret police, in spies, and in traitors to their own countrymen. They are only too ready to listen to flatterers, and they make it very hot for those who tell them disagreeable truths. If I may use a proverb which has lately become classical, it takes a long spoon to sup kail with the Government of India. It needs a bold man who will give the Government of India a mouthful of truth, considering that he will make himself liable to be sent to penal 307 servitude, or kept without trial for nine months at a time in prison. That is what the people feel in India. I think when I ask the House not to accept all the assurances that they have received from the officials, their own experience should make them a little cautious in this matter. I will not go into particulars, but will simply refer to the case of Chitral. After the expedition to Chitral, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State was publicly warned of the great danger of encroaching on the independence of these wild tribes—
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe honourable Member will not be in order in going into that matter on the present Bill.
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNUpon the point of order, Mr. Speaker, my argument is that the official assurances, which are the only foundation for the present recommendation, are not to be trusted, and that it is within the experience of the House that the House has been very much deceived by official assurances.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe honourable Member is quite at liberty to use that argument, but he cannot illustrate it by going into the history and policy of the campaign.
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNI will not go into the question, but will only quote the noble Lord's wrords. The Doble Lord told the House that the frontier tribes welcomed the occupation of their mountain strongholds. These are his words—
So far were they from regarding it in a hostile spirit, they welcomed the English occupation as the inauguration of a period of security not known before.I say that that is optimism gone mad, because in a few short months the whole frontier was in a blaze, and it took 70,000 of the best troops in the world to suppress those tribes who were officially supposed to welcome the extinction of their independence. I will simply quote the words of the noble Lord on another occasion with reference to what happened in the city of Bombay, when widespread riots were impending. The House will remember that the noble Lord read to the House the celebrated 308 telegram from the Governor of Bombay. This telegram said—In case of rumours of serious unrest among Mahomedans of Bombay, they are untrue.The words had hardly been uttered before the Mahomedan weavers had risen, the city of Bombay was in the hands of the mob, and people were being shot in the streets. I could give many other examples, but as you, Mr. Speaker, consider that I should not proceed upon that line, I think these two examples are quite sufficient. I might refer to the Mansion House Fund. We had the greatest difficulty in persuading the noble Lord to open the Mansion House Fund.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,) Middlesex, EalingThat is not right.
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNThe noble Lord will be able to state his view of the case, but I think we prophesied the terrible nature of the famine long before it was officially known.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must rule the honourable Gentleman out of order. The reference to the Mansion House Fund is irrelevant.
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNWell, I think these instances will suffice, to put it in a mild way, to satisfy the House that the assurances and the prophecies of the noble Lord—I am not speaking of him personally, but as the official representative of the Government of India—should at least be received with caution, and that the House should hear the other side as well before coming to a decision, especially as the taxpayers of India, whose interests we are bound to look after, are so very poorly represented. As regards this prosperity Budget, I do not believe in it a bit. I no more believe in the prosperity Budget than I believe in the affection of the Afridi tribesmen. The fact is, there is no solid foundation for this prosperity Budget at all. The only apparent foundation for it is that there has been one good fall of rain, but one good fall of rain does not make a good harvest for a series of years. The fact is that the Budget has been prepared on the 309 supposition of a cycle of good yeans, but there is quite as likely to be a cycle of bad years. Speculative commercial enterprises, under these conditions, are very unwise indeed. The only results of the famine throughout the country are that the cattle have been destroyed, and the rural population diseased and weakened. Therefore, I say there is no foundation for the optimistic views which have been expressed. In fact, the Government itself does not believe in the golden visions which they open up before our eyes, because, if the finances are in such very nice order, what do they mean by asking for 3¾ millions? Why is it necessary? Surely the application for these vast sums of money shows a certain amount of financial embarrassment. The noble Lord said, to use his own expression, that this money was wanted to tide him over a difficulty.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIAI did not say so.
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNThose are the words. I copied them out of the Report. I daresay the noble Lord will say what his words were presently. I understood him to say that it would tide him over a difficulty which might be expected from unforeseen war or unforeseen famine. I say that that shows that the Government of India expect a disaster, and that it is not in a financial position to embark upon those perilous enterprises. I understand that the loan is asked for, in the first place, to take up the old debentures. I have no objection to that part of the loan, but I move my Amendment because I hold strongly that, without proper Parliamentary inquiry, this House should not sanction further addition to the permanent sterling debt. Another purpose to be dealt with by the loan is the railway extension programme. With regard to that I hold that it is a mistake to hurry on that programme. Give it time, and leave it to private enterprise. Why should not private enterprise do that work on its own basis in India as well as here? Why should this burden be put on the taxpayer? I say that the trunk railways having been completed, these minor rail- 310 ways should be left to be dealt with with proper consideration to the over-taxed condition of the great body of the Indian people. Another object of the loan is to give these 3¾ millions to the Secretary of State. Now, I do not wish the Secretary of State to have a lot of loose gold in his pocket. The effect of his having 3¾ millions at his disposal will relieve him of the necessity of drawing upon India, and will leave the Government of India with balances at its disposal to apply, according to its own sweet will, to any important matter which pleases the Government of India, but which is distasteful and injurious to the great body of the people. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the Amendment.
§ * MR. ROBINSON SOUTTAR (Dumfriesshire)I beg to second the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for Banffshire, and in doing so desire to say that I have no wish to attack the Government of India, nor, indeed, to thwart the wishes of the noble Lord. I have had some experience of the Government of India, though not so much as has my honourable Friend, and the experience I have had has not been unfavourable. I do not know what the future may bring forth, but at present I desire in most things—I might almost say in all—to adopt, if I may use the term, an attitude of benevolent neutrality. I have very considerable respect for the Government of India, and I have very considerable respect for the Finance Minister of the Government of India. The point at present before us is, however, a proposed loan of 10 millions. As my honourable Friend has just said, part of the 10 millions is to replace securities which are at present at a high rate of interest. As regards that, of course, it is exceedingly wise, and no one has a word to say against it. Then the second portion is for railways, and a considerable proportion, as my honourable Friend has put it, is indefinite—it is to be used by the noble Lord in case of emergency arising. Well, like my honourable Friend, I have not very much faith in the voting of indefinite grants of money by the House of Commons. Indefinite grants do not strike me 311 very favourably. We know that in connection with the British Estimates every sum is specifically mentioned. The purpose for which the sum is to be used must be specified, and the money granted by the House of Commons must be used for that specific purpose and for no other; and everybody knows that Parliament took a very long time before it settled that matter. We were centuries as a House of Commons fighting for that principle, and, having so far fixed that principle with regard to Britain, it does seem a pity—I do not want to labour the point—that we should relinquish it with regard to India. I would also like to point out that the scheme of the noble Lord is a little wider, perhaps, than meets the eye. In the first place it is associated with the rupee loan of three millions which is to be raised in Calcutta. In the second place it is associated with what he has called a "systematic programme" for the expenditure of 10 millions per annum for three years in railway construction. Now, I shall not give any opinion on these matters. I only desire to point out to the House that it is not a trifling question, but a very serious one, that we are discussing—that it will add a solid amount to the debt of India; and, though I do not desire for a moment to say it is wrong we should do so, I do think we ought to do so only after serious consideration and with our eyes open. I think the proposal of my honourable Friend to-day as to the consideration of the question by a Select Committee is only a fair and reasonable one. This is not an isolated case; the honourable Member for Cardiff stated in n Debate a short time ago that £25,000,000 had been added to the unremunerative debt of India within the last few years. The late Secretary of State for India, Sir H. Fowler, corrected the honourable Member, and showed that £14,000,000 had gone in reproductive expenditure for railways, etc., but he allowed that £11,000,000 had been recently added to the unremunerative debt of that country. So that, while we here in this country are doing our best to get rid of our debt, India is rolling up her debt, and the ships which are clearing Bombay and 312 Madras and other ports are bringing freights for which there will be no return, because they go to pay interest on debts incurred to foreign creditors. I do not say that this is wrong; we know the United States and our Colonies do the same, but the United States and our Colonies have large resources. I think there are special reasons why careful consideration should be given to the matter when we are proposing to increase the foreign debt of India, and I think the request for a Select Inquiry is reasonable. It is still less unreasonable when we consider the financial statement made by the noble Lord when he introduced his Budget, because, in making his request to us, he used two main arguments—the present prosperity, and the prosperity of the past. With regard to the prosperity of the present, India has had a very serious time. It has passed through a period of war, and famine, and plague. In two years its deficits have amounted to £6,000,000, and I think the noble Lord would even have been pardoned if his Budget had been of a somewhat pessimistic character. One would, at any rate, have expected a more conservative spirit and a greater hesitation to add to the burdens of India. Instead of that, the Budget is extremely optimistic, and the Finance Minister thinks that the whole of the deficit can be paid, and that there can be a balance at the end of the current year. But he attains this happy result by anticipating that there will be no war, no famine, and no pestilence; that there will be a normal opium crop, a fine monsoon, and a bumper harvest. The Finance Minister is a fellow-citizen of my own. He is a man of high ability, and we are proud of him in Aberdeen. I have a high respect for him, and I may say I have received from him not a little personal kindness; but his statement rather reminds me of what I have too often seen in connection with shareholders' meetings, when the chairman makes a very rosy speech, and then announces at the end that there is going to be fresh capital brought in and a further issue of stock. My experience in a case of that kind is that the sooner you sell out 313 your stock the better. I do sincerely trust that it will be just as the Finance Minister hopes, but I cannot help thinking that a small frontier war or a bad monsoon would spoil all his prospects. And, indeed, the noble Lord seems to be of the same opinion, and hedges—because this Measure is a hedging loan. He wants a trifle of £6,000,000 in case of an emergency. I do not say he ought not to have it, but I do say that there is nothing in the present condition of the prosperity of the country which renders inquiry superfluous. Again, we are told that there has been a surplus of revenue during the last 20 years of £50,000,000, which would stand to credit but for famine, war, and special defence works. Perhaps so, but the words "but for" are important words. Most of the honourable Members of this House would be very rich men to-day "but for"! England might be rolling in wealth "but for" her Army and Navy. The fact is that the Army and Navy are incidents in the Government of England, and I am afraid, Sir, we must include in the incidents of the Government of India famine, war, and defence works. Nevertheless, you may say India has paid her way during the last 20 years. Yes, but it is not enough to say that a country has paid its way. There are very few Governments who do not pay their way, whether they are good or bad. I daresay the Sultan of Turkey might claim to have paid his way. Some of the worst Governments in the world have been fabulously rich. Therefore the fact that India pays its way does not prove very much. You must also prove that the taxation, by which it does pay its way, has been wisely raised, and without oppression to the people. No one who understands this subject is in any way satisfied with the taxation of India. The Finance Minister is not, and he declares he is not, satisfied with the way in which it is raised in India. In Great Britain the necessaries of life are free, and we boast of it; but in India they are not free, but taxed. We know that salt, which is the food of the people, is taxed, and we know that oil, the light of the people, is taxed, and that cotton, the clothing of the people, is taxed also. I know the Government of 314 India cannot tax the luxuries of the people, because they have no luxuries upon which they can be taxed; but that shows the poverty of India. But, before the Finance Minister can boast of the condition of the country, the necessaries of life there must be free. Now there is one other remark I wish to make. The whole basis of the statement depends upon the value of the rupee being 1s. 4d. Now you have managed to keep the rupee up in value to 1s. 4d., and you may manage to do so a little longer, but at a serious cost. The rupee is intrinsically worth 11d., and it has been kept up by artificial pressure. The difference between 1s. 4d. and 11d. is 5d., and I ask intelligent men whether somebody has not to be responsible for the 5d. I believe the debtor is responsible for part of it. Every debtor has to pay 5d. more upon the rupee to his creditor than he would have done if you had left the rupee alone. Then I think the merchants pay it, because the bank rate of India is 8 per cent., 9 per cent., and 12 per cent., while we in this country can borrow money at 3 per cent. Why? Because of the stringency which has been created in the money market. You are congratulating yourselves on saving loss by exchange, and you do it by restricting coin. But if that is how you are making India solvent, your policy is not sound. No tax you could impose would be more disastrous, and until the money stringency which is throttling the trade of India is removed, there is, to my mind, singularly little room for an optimistic statement. Doubtless the Secretary of State for India will get his loan, but perhaps I shall be pardoned if I express my regret that when he knew that an increase in the indebtedness of India, was inevitable he did not accept the help which my honourable Friend the Member for Flintshire proposed, and which the House of Commons, at a single word from the noble Lord, would so willingly have given—help which in no way or sense would have pauperised India or endangered her financial independence, but which, whilst being just in principle, would also have produced—morally, financially, and politically—the most satisfactory results in our great Dependency.
§ MR. KENYON (Lancashire, Bury)I have listened very carefully to the speeches made by the honourable Members upon the opposite side of the House in relation to the finances of India, and the honourable Members appear to me to take a remarkably dismal view of the present state of India. I, on the contrary, am proud to think that India is something to be admired and looked forward to. The honourable Member who has just sat down has spoken about the rupee being intrinsically worth 11d. I am not a bimetallist, but I should like to know, what is the intrinsic value of our shilling. References are constantly being made with regard to the military expenditure of India, especially by the honourable Member for Banffshire, but he always seems to forget the terms of the statement which he sent out in respect to that matter in 1895. In that statement he showed the amounts which had been expended in military expenditure in that country. I wish to call his attention to that statement. He referred to several years; 1885, 1886, and 1887; I think, show that the increase in the Indian Budget was caused by the expenditure of adding 20,000 men to the Army, and by the increased pay of the men. I think it is a very desirable thing to increase the pay; but the main point which I wish to bring before his notice is that it is the conquest of Upper Burmah that has caused the great increase. In the whole of the speeches which honourable Members on the opposite side of tin House have made they have failed to point out the great increase in the Indian Empire during the last 10 years. Since 1886 or 1887 or 1890 the Indian Empire has been increased by 90,000 square miles in Upper Burmah alone. Surely if the increase in the Indian finance car be explained in great part by these conquests, we are entitled to see what we have got for the expenditure and what ii is to cost.
§ DR. TANNERHear, hear!
§ MR. KENYONI am glad the honourable Member for Cork has cheered me upon that. Now, the country of Upper Burmah is very fertile; and I think that 316 the increase of the Indian Empire ought to be taken into consideration when you talk of the finances being increased. There is one more matter to which I might allude; the constituency which I have the honour to represent is very largely engaged in trade with India, and we are most grateful to the Indian officials for the way in which they have managed the famine affairs. I shall at all times raise my voice in praise of the works that have been carried on in India, in the time of trouble.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIATwo speeches have been made on behalf of this Amendment of a very different character. The honourable Member for Dumfries has brought forward perfectly legitimate arguments of a purely financial character which appertain strictly to the Motion now before the House. I propose to answer his observations at the commencement of my speech. The observations of the honourable Baronet the Member for Banffshire are of a very different character, and I shall reserve what I have to say upon them until the close of my remarks. I am accused of making an optimistic speech. I simply laid before the House the facts and figures of the financial profit and loss during the last two years. They are very much more satisfactory than I expected, and I am pretty confident that unless some extraordinary difficulties occur between now and the end of the financial year, the estimated surplus will be largely exceeded. I cannot understand why any Minister should be called optimistic because he simply lays before the House facts and figures which are indisputably accurate. They may be more satisfactory than honourable Members of the House anticipated, but that does not justify honourable Gentlemen in doubting their accuracy.
§ * MR. SOUTTARI do not doubt the accuracy of the figures.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIAI quite accept the honourable Gentleman's remark, but I think I shall be able to show that it is advisable to assent to this loan without the appointment of a Select Committee. Now, what are the objects 317 for which this loan is required? In the first place it is required to pay off obligations of the Government of India, contracted when the rate of interest was higher than it is now, for the reduction of interest for which India now borrows. That is an advantage, as everybody will admit. The second object is to give the Indian Government the means of providing a certain proportion of the capital which they annually spend in reproductive works. The practice of the Indian Government is to provide as much as they can out of their cash balances, and then borrow as much as the Indian loan market will provide, and only fall back upon the money market here for the residue of the amount required. Now, it is no doubt necessary to see that the indebtedness of India is not unduly run up, and that, in borrowing for reproductive works, the output is beneficial to the taxpayer, and does not ultimately increase the charge upon him. Noticing the great interest taken in my statement, I had a return prepared to show what has been the result of the capital outlay of the Indian Government during the last 40 years, and if honourable Gentlemen follow me I think I shall be able to show that it has been not only beneficial, but has tended to reduce taxation instead of increasing it. The statement to which I refer includes the total charge for interest on debt, for interest paid to companies, for annuities paid in purchasing undertakings, for surplus profits paid to railway companies, and for surveys of lines not yet undertaken Now, the total charge under those heads in 1861, which was almost the first year that the Crown assumed quiet possession of India, was Rx.5,705,000; for the present year, the Estimates reach Rx. 18,799,000. That is an additional charge of about Rx.13,000,000; and, assuming that throughout the Indian Government car borrow at something like three per cent., that would represent the total sun borrowed in the interval of about Rx.400,000,000. Now let us see what we have got in return for that. The net profit from the reproductive works, constructed by borrowed money, at the commencement of that period was Rx.384,000. For the present year the net profit is estimated at Rx.14,138,000. The upshot is that whereas 40 years ago the net burden 318 on the revenue of India for indebtedness was Rx.5,320,000, in the present year it is only Rx.4,660,000. India has also the benefit of having invested something like Rx.400,000,000, and that expenditure is of inestimable value. The great difficulty of India is congestion of population in certain parts of the country, and unless the railways had been developed and irrigation had been pushed on it would have been impossible for the Indian Government to have dealt with the famine which has occurred, without the loss of millions of lives. I may add, in giving these figures, that I have in both cases included the charge for exchange. I think the House, therefore, may confidently continue to give its support to this policy of reproductive expenditure. As the honourable Member for Dumfries is aware, there is no question which was so thoroughly examined by the Select Committees of the charge for exchange. I think the House, of a Committee on this subject 20 years ago, when expenditure was reduced to the smallest dimensions; and only when the credit of India rose was a larger scheme of construction permitted, and I see no reason why this loan should not stand without going through the unnecessary delay of appointing a Select Committee. Now, with regard to the reserve, what I said was there should always be a reserve behind the Secretary of State for India, because, if you had any exceptional combination of difficulties, such as famine or a serious war, the cash balance would be so reduced that the Secretary of State would not be able to draw sufficient money to meet his gold obligations in this country. Parliament would have to be at once assembled, and at once there would be questioning all over the country as to the reason for it. I ask the House to consider what the effect would be. I think it is apparent to anybody that the Secretary of State should have this reserve power in case the Indian Government are in difficulties. I think I have answered the objection of the honourable Member for Dumfriesshire. I assure him that I do not look forward optimistically to the difficulties which the Indian Government will have to encounter. I have felt the force of the reservations which he made in the previous Debate as to the conditions of agriculture. I can inform him that Lord Elgin had collected materials for 319 legislation on the agricultural distress of the population, and perhaps next Session some measure of legislation will be passed to include that agricultural population. Now, that is all I have to say, so far as the financial arguments are concerned of the honourable Gentleman who has spoken. Now I come to a very different subject. There is no single Member except the honourable Member for Banffshire [Sir W. Wedderburn], who is not proud of the magnificent past service of the Indian Civil Service, to which the honourable Member once belonged, in standing between the Indian people and famine and plague. Not a single word has fallen from the honourable Member in praise of his old service. He never loses an opportunity of attacking and disparaging the Indian Government.
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNThat is an incorrect statement.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIAThe House will remember, and honourable Members who were in the House—
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNAm I to have no right to make a personal statement?
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe honourable Member has no right to interrupt, and to insist on speaking when another honourable Member is in possession of the House. When the noble Lord has finished his speech the honourable Member will be entitled to make a personal explanation.
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNBut, Mr. Speaker—
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIAI will not give way to the honourable Member. Those Members of the House who heard the honourable Baronet's speech, and who heard him attack the Government of India, heard him day amongst other pleasant observations—I do not know whether he spoke of his old experiences—that the only people to whom the Indian Government gave credence were spies and people of that character, while it was made hot for people who told the truth. The honourable Gentleman has a perfect 320 right to make that statement, so far as his own past experience in the Indian Civil Service is concerned. On behalf of the remainder of the Civil Service. I meet that statement with the flattest denial. The honourable Gentleman has chosen to throw doubt upon the accuracy of the information I possess, and which I communicated to the House. Well, I was wrong in one particular. The honourable Baronet is of opinion that the Indian Government should obtain their information from native sources. I quite agree that the Indian Government should do everything they can to try and ascertain what are the views and opinions of the different sections of the community. Lord Sandhurst adopted that course. Hs consulted the leaders of Mahomedan opinion in India. He was assured that there was no reason to apprehend the slightest danger of disturbances taking place. I can only regret that Lord Sandhurst was misinformed from those very sources to which the honourable Baronet alluded. That is the only occasion to which the honourable Baronet can point as showing that incorrect information was given. I protest strongly against the tactics of the honourable Baronet. He comes down and moves a harmless. Resolution of this kind, and then he makes violent statements which are telegraphed out to India and do much harm there. He wants one of two things. If he wants to strike at the foundations of British rule let him be honest and say so openly, but to make speeches of the kind he has just made, and then pretend to be a supporter of British rule, is to take up a position absolutely inconsistent. I would not, but for these statements of the honourable Baronet as to the incorrectness of my information, refer to a painful incident which occurred last year—the House will well remember—when two British officers were foully murdered at Poona. The honourable Baronet produced a petition on which he wished to move the adjournment of the House, and which contained gross allegations against British soldiers. The honourable Baronet proposed to take action on that, and attacked the Government on the strength of the allegations. The statements proved to be false and the signatures to the petition to be forged. Yet the honourable Member collected a number of 321 Members of the House, and provided them with statements containing the grossest allegations against the character and behaviour of British officers and soldiers. These statements were proved to be false, and the honourable Baronet, at the end of the Session, humbly apologised for having promulgated these falsehoods upon his own countrymen. Therefore, I say that when the honourable Baronet questions my good faith—
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether this is in order. Can a charge of falsehood be applied by one Member to another?
§ * MR. SPEAKERI need scarcely say that it would be out of order if the noble Lord imputed to the honourable Baronet that he had knowingly promulgated falsehoods. What I understood the noble Lord to impute was that he promulgated allegations which turned out to be falsehoods.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIAI repeat that the honourable Baronet had to stand up and publicly apologise for associating himself with statements which were proved to be gross and outrageous calumnies upon his own countrymen carrying on the most difficult duties in another part of the world. That being so, I decline to put myself on an equality with him as to the credence to be placed on my good faith.
§ * SIR W. WEDDERBURNThe first point on which I rise to correct the noble Lord is as to his statement that I have never recognised the great service rendered by the Indian Civil Service. No doubt the noble Lord had quite unintentionally misrepresented me. When this Bill was introduced the first thing I said was that I associated myself with what had been said of the Government officers during the famine, and that no praise was too great for them. As regards the other statement of the noble Lord, I think there has been some misunderstanding. I did not promulgate or express any opinion as to what was done at Poona by British soldiers or by anyone else. There had been a petition signed by 2,000 persons against the employment of British soldiers there, and I requested the noble Lord to inquire 322 into the allegations in that petition. I expressed no opinion one way or the other as to the truth of those allegations. The third point is this, that I called together a few Members interested in India to give them an opportunity of hearing what certain native gentlemen had to say with regard to the occurrences at Poona. One of these gentlemen mentioned the rumour of an outrage by British soldiers at Poona. I consider that when such rumours exist it is for the honour of the British name that they should be properly inquired into. If they are true then redress should be made, and if they are untrue then the people who made them should be punished. When the people who made these statements were unable to prove them at the first opportunity I rose and made an apology in the House. The noble Lord seems to think that that was disgraceful, but I think it was the proper, straightforward, and gentlemanly course to take.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)It is to be regretted that this subject has been made a personal matter between the noble Lord and my honourable Friend the Member for Banff. I hope my honourable Friend will not go to a Division. The honourable Member is a member of the Royal Commission, of which I also am a member. That Royal Commission had been sitting for three years to inquire into this very subject. Therefore I do think the appointment of such a committee would be a work of supererogation. There is no one who regrets more keenly than I do the somewhat strong language of the honourable Member for Banff with regard to British officials in India. He knows perfectly well that there is no service in the world that is more unselfishly devoted to public work than the Indian Civil Service, from Lord Elgin down to the humblest member. Therefore it is a matter for regret that my honourable Friend used stronger language than is judicious on such occasions. The subject of reproductive works, and particularly of the railways of India, has been investigated by the Commission, and the Accountant General of India has stated that the capital expenditure on the railways yielded a revenue of 7¼ per 323 cent. I say that is not a bad investment of public money. It has been suggested that the main lines should be constructed by the Government, and the branch lines by native capital in India. That very subject was taken up by the Commission, and my honourable Friend the Member for Banff was himself examined on this subject. There was no lack of evidence on this Commission, of which my honourable Friend and I were members. I certainly, like my honourable Friend, and others on the Commission, regret that the Commission has not yet reported. It would be a good thing if the noble Lord would assist us in bringing our inquiries to an end, for then it would be possible to see what conclusion could be drawn after the investigation of this subject and many other subjects connected with military expenditure, and the increase of expenditure in India during the last 20 years.
§ DR. CLARKThis is only piecemeal legislation. I think my honourable friend would be quite justified in taking a Division, because no action ought to be sanctioned by the House before it is in possession of all the facts. We ought to know exactly in what position the floating debt would be after the proposed financial operation, and whether the money for reproductive works is to be raised upon a gold basis in Europe, or on a silver basis in India. We ought also to have information as to the three millions set apart for contingencies, for I take it that the Secretary of State desires to have three millions, which it may be necessary to use in consequence of the depreciation of the rupee.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIAIt is usual to have a reserve of a considerable amount.
§ DR. CLARKI think the evidence is that before a Bill of this kind is allowed to pass the House ought to have the Report of the Royal Commission, which has been sitting for more than three years. We ought to have the facts before us. The House has never had those facts before it, and we are now as we stand. Ever since I have been in this House there has been a chorus of approval with reference to the Civil Service of India. We are always praising their ability, but I never saw that ability.
§ MR. LEUTY (Leeds, E.)I do not want to say one word against the Government of India generally, but I say there is in India quite enough to employ the time of the right honourable Gentleman in removing their grievances. Under his administration of India the country has suffered from the three curses of famine, pestilence, and the sword, and yet the noble Lord comes here and asks us to increase the debt. I will only say that the noble Lord thinks, in what he says across the Table, that he can do here as he does in India—that he can suppress discussion, as in the native Press. I hope he will not succeed either here or there.
§ MR. SHEE (Waterford)rose to address the House on the stroke of midnight, and the Debate stood adjourned.