HC Deb 16 June 1898 vol 59 cc425-55

Question proposed— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

I will direct the attention of the House to the object of the Amendment to this Bill which is now before the House. The sum of £10,000,000 is to be raised in this country for military purposes, and for any other purpose the Government of India desire or wish. The memorandum in this case is perfectly misleading. I will ask the noble Lord to give me his attention. In both his statements he said this sum of money was to be applied for specific purposes. He repeated that in the official memorandum in this Bill. Looking at the object of the Bill itself, we find that while the noble Lord gets the power to raise this £10,000,000 of money the Indian Government can apply it in any way it pleases. There is nothing to limit the appropriation of the sum; no words have been adopted showing how the money is to be applied. There are, however, some general indications as to how the Government intend to apply it—such as for the purposes of war, famine, railways, and other purposes. The noble Lord says that in all probability £3,500,000 of that £10,000,000 will be applied to present debts, and £2,500,000 is to be applied in the development of railways. On that point I will say a few words later on. There is a balance of £3,500,000, which is to be given to the noble Lord to do anything he likes with. Now, the noble Lord is well versed in public affairs, and I would appeal to him whether, if any Minister came to this House and asked far £3,500,000 in the way of the confidence trick, he would not be relieved of his office, and also of the trouble of carrying his head on his shoulders. This £10,000,000 is to be a primary charge on the unfortunate people of India. Having described the object and scope of this Bill, which he does not attempt in the slightest way to justify—I say that in both the speeches of the noble Lord—one of which extended over three and a half columns and the other over two and a half columns—I could not catch any inference which showed that he had any idea of the circumstances of the people, or that he had any sympathy with them. I have never had any quarrel with the noble Lord: he has always fought me and I fight him fairly; but I am in a state of nervous trepidation at the present time, because if anyone attempts to speak about India all the vials of all the Hamiltons are poured upon him. Yet I promise to give him as good as he gives me. The noble Lord has made an attack on my honourable Friend who has done more than any Member of this House, who has stuck up for the Indian people through thick and thin—the Indian people at large. I am not optimistically inclined in regard to this Bill. The noble Lord, in a cursory manner, got up and made a statement affecting enormous sums of money; and yet I saw that an ex-Secretary of State for India got up and congratulated the noble Lord upon his statement. The thought struck me, what is the meaning of "India paying its way"? The noble Lord has stated that India pays its way. Let him tell me what would happen in this country if the inhabitants had an average of 1½d. a day, and there were in addition the horrors of war, pestilence, and famine. These men are taxed up to 250 per cent. of their value. I should like to sea the Chancellor of the Exchequer get up and congratulate this House, under the same circumstances, upon England paying its way. Here he has to deal with representatives of the people, whereas in India it is different; the people have no voice whatever in the matter. I will ask some Minister to give us a distinct and definite answer. According to the noble Lord, the sum of £2,500,000 out of this £10,000,000 is to be a prospective charge for the advancement of railways. Now, I have got the figures before me. I learn that there is a net loss on the revenue of those railways of no less than £58,500,000 in 40 years. And now the sum of £2,500,000 is to be expended on the railways. There has been an enormous railway development already. If there is to be this railway enterprise. why is it not a matter of private company promotion? It is because no private company will promote it. The noble Lord has stated that the railways are not a commercial development, but a strategic development. Why is there to be a fresh sum of £2,500,000 expended on railways? I say that that sum is to be expended in the interests of English capitalists who will invest their money and bring over their plant to the railways; it is in the interest of the iron-and steel trade and not in the interest of the people of India that the expenditure is incurred. While I see this enormous expenditure on railways I see the greatest stinginess in regard to all sums for irrigation purposes. Every farthing that goes to that purpose is grudged. It looks too horrible to be true, but really the people find out that nothing is too horrible, and no proposal is too monstrous to be made by the Government. I will now refer to the noble Lord's statement about India paying her way. The noble Lord is a master of finance, but his first speech is the work of several hands; it is a mosaic speech, and there will be no difficulty to any man acquainted with literary style in segregating the various portions of it. There is one statement of enormous importance to which I hope will be given as extensive a publication as possible both here and in India. It really should be the charter of Indian finance. It is the passage in which the noble Lord draws a comparison between English and Indian finance. He says in tones of great triumph that notwithstanding the famine and the plague and the pestilence and the war, Indian finance is recuperating. That is the most astounding confession that could be made. Those who take an interest in the difference between our fiscal system and the fiscal system prevailing in India will know that a much larger proportion of taxation in this country is raised by indirect means than in India, and that here, owing to the greater wealth of the community, we consume a much larger proportion of those taxable articles included under the head of luxuries. In India the very means of life are taxed. I challenge the noble Lord to deny my statement that one pennyworth of salt is taxed to the extent of 1s. 8d. Salt there is an absolute necessity of life, considering that they are a rice- eating population. When you want to get a pennyworth of salt there you have to pay 1s. 9d. for it; and it is proposed now,, and after the famine, to raise the enormous sum of £10,000,000, every farthing of which must be paid out of the resources of the people, and must come from their emaciated means of living and their starved resources. I wish the people of England could only realise these things. If the right honourable Gentleman wants money to make India pay its way, I will tell him how he can do it: he has got an excellent chance, and this would be a perfect way. The home charges of India amount to £16,800,000. Nearly £17,000,000 goes out of India for what are called home charges, but it is paid away for the support of half-pay officers and people of that description. [Interruption.] Well, we shall say £8,000,000 of this enormous sum goes to the residents in the county clubs and half-pay society. The other half is absorbed in the investment on railways for which the people pay. If we had only irrigation works instead they would be cheaper and more useful to the revenue. If you would only give the people of India some power of managing the affairs of their own country, India would be managed for the country's good, and not for the good of another people. Of course, it is useless to speak of those things. The European is always preferred to the Indian; you don't like even the young men of India to enter the Indian Civil Service, unless they come over to England to pass an examination. I thank the House for the attention with which they have heard me. I confess I have always had a very strong feeling in this matter. I have always felt that we ought to take more care in reference to the people of India than with other subjects; and I will tell you why. They are a trust reposed in us. They cannot affect a single one of our votes, but they can affect us in our own conscience, and then we know that we are bound in season and out of season to protest against the wrong and injustice that are being done. It is a horrible thing to think that the humblest member of the community who has a vote here is more to us in the legislation of the Empire than the 300,000,000 of people of India, and it is a terrible thing that every person who espouses their cause- must be again and again subjected to the hostile and unfriendly and discourteous criticism of the noble Lord. I will ask the noble Lord to think that we are doing our best to promote the real and true interests of the people of India, which we think should be governed for its own advantage. Many a time, by his speeches, the noble Lord has revived a recollection of the time when, as John Bright said, the foundations of our Indian Empire were laid in blood, and has also recalled the fact that India is governed, not for the benefit of its own people, but for the benefit of a class in England. It is to me an astonishing study in psychology how the noble Lord can get up and make optimistic speeches such as he has made. No less than three and a half columns of the Times are covered by the reports of those two speeches, crying out the prosperity of India. There is no prosperity in India except the prosperity of those who wring money out of the starving people.

* MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)

The honourable Gentleman who has sat down has spoken as if he considered that the Government of India, actuated by an unnatural malignancy, were grinding the faces of the poor of India for their own amusement and satisfaction. I have on different occasions taken exception to the financial proposals of the Indian Government, but I cannot associate myself for a moment with the attack that has been made upon them, and I say so with all respect for the earnestness and sincerity of the honourable Member who has just spoken. It would serve his own case better if he gave credit for the same earnestness and sincerity to the men who are governing India. He complained that the predecessor in office of the noble Lord was no better. What kind of Government does he hope for if he is anxious to benefit the people of India? I should have been most glad to associate myself with this Amendment if it had been moved and supported in the way in which it was seconded by the honourable Member for Dumfriesshire. With all he said I find myself in perfect agreement. He criticised—as I criticised, and venture again to criticise—the financial proposals the noble Lord has put forward. He pointed out as a matter of the greatest concern the enormous difference in the silver value of the rupee in India and the value to which it has been forced up by artificial means by the Indian Government An honourable Member on this side of the House said, "What about our English shilling?" But there is no analogy between the rupee and the shilling, except that they are both made of silver. The rupee is an integral part of the wealth of India, and on the rupee its credit is based, and its credit depends. The English shilling is a mere token, only passing in this country and only allowed to be used for the payment of small debts, and it does not matter for the credit of the country whether the silver in the shilling is worth fourpence or whether it is worth its nominal amount—namely, that portion of a sovereign of which it is a token. But an honourable Member has said that India is under a token currency. If so, of what is the rupee a token, and what does it represent? It only represents the antiquated method which has been adopted by the Indian Government in this, matter, working the country by means of a forced currency. It is a token that the schemes of South American republics are again being attempted—schemes long ago abandoned by all civilised men and countries, and which can only lead a country to disaster—which can only have one effect in India, as everybody can see if they have studied the latest phases of Indian finance. The equivalent in England to what has been done in India would be this: if our Government were to sweat or clip our sovereigns, and force them into circulation at their full face value, that would be a fair analogy. Now, having dealt with that matter, let us pass to the observation of the noble Lord the Secretary of State. The noble Lord said, speaking upon this subject, that we must not speak of him as being optimistic. No one can deny the oratorical ability of the noble Lord and the pleasantly insidious way he has of conveying to our minds a most attractive picture; but what does he say? He says the main cause of this satisfactory state of things is the steady rise in the exchange value of the rupee during the last three years. Let us see what that is, and how it has been brought about. If it had been brought about by natural causes it would, of course, have indicated prosperity for the country, and have been a feature which the noble Lord might have been entitled to dwell upon with enthusiasm. But how has it been arrived at? By restricting the trade of the country, of which evidence has been pressed upon the noble Lord from all quarters, and by people of the largest experience. It has been done at the expense of the people of India. But when rebuking honourable Members for their language I must remember that I spoke myself of the Indian Government as having acted unfairly in this matter, and I was severely rebuked by both Front Benches for so doing. It is distressing, but there is the fact. In that speech what I ought to have said was that they acted in a manner, no doubt entirely against their own intentions and wishes, which resulted in injustice being done—and I say the grossest injustice—to the poor of India. Then the noble Lord pointed out the numerous advantages which this artificial rise in the exchange value of the rupee had given to Indian finance. He did not point out the great disadvantages that the people of India had suffered from this rate of exchange. I should like to remind the House of the enormous figure of Rx. 17,000,000 which the noble Lord alleged would have been the additional loss entailed on the Indian Government had they kept their minds open to silver if a hypothetical figure of the value of the rupee 10 years ago was taken and another hypothetical point had been taken quite at the bottom value—

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA

At the point it was three years ago.

* MR. VICARY GIBBS

Yes, but why? Because the Indian Government had closed the mints and depreciated the rupee by 7d. Its exchange value—

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA

No; by 2d.

* MR. VICARY GIBBS

Very true, by 2d. or over in each rupee, but the value of silver was depreciated by 7d. an oz. If I remember rightly these points were not touched upon by the noble Lord. He did not apparently realise that there was another side to the shield; that, although this had enabled the Government to balance the Budget, it was done at the expense of the commerce and by injuring and crippling the resources of the country. And no one who has traded with Ceylon and met people who have been engaged in trade with these countries and have great experience in this matter can dispute what I say. What I say is that the noble Lord asked us to look at one side of the shield only. He did not refer to the fact that the rise in the exchange was putting India to the enormous disadvantage and danger of Mexico and other countries, which are still on a silver basis. Not a word. What he did say was that if the Indian Government had stood still and had done nothing they would have gradually drifted into a position in which they would not be able to meet their obligations. He said that, but he did not take into consideration that if the exchange had remained low an enormous stimulus would have been given to production. So strangely did the noble Lord distinguish the Government of India from the people that he said that the exports did not belong to the Government, and that they could not pay their debts with the exports. But, after all, no Government can pay its debts in any other way than by the excess of exports over imports.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA

Not the individual debtors.

* MR. VICARY GIBBS

I am afraid I cannot take the point as to individual debtors. I say the Government cannot pay its gold debt except by excess of exports over imports, and if the noble Lord's policy had the effect of reducing the exports that ought to be taken into consideration. The noble Lord told me he deprecated strong language in me. I hope I have taken the lesson to heart and have not said anything for which he may have to reprove me to-day. It would ill become me to reproach him with using strong language; but men of the greatest experience in this matter pointed out the great advantage of opening the Indian mint, and the noble Lord said it would be an act of lunacy to do so. In a question of this kind the House might say this is a matter between the noble Lord and a mere private Member who happens to have some knowledge of the subject, and that the noble Lord must be right and that I must be wrong. Therefore I must bring evidence to bear me out, evidence which is not immaterial, as I think. The House will admit that the whole matter turns upon whether the surplus of exports over imports was increasing. Up to the time when the mints were closed in 1893 the Indian exports were increasing over the imports, but in 1893 there was another country in a somewhat similar position to India, to which I would invite the noble Lord's attention—the country of Mexico. That is a country on a silver basis; it has a large gold debt in England, and it is similar to India in this respect, that it has borrowed large sums of money for railways, and it is similar in many other respects. It has external debts which must be paid in gold, and the amount of those debts was so large as to create alarm in the Mexican Government. Mexico is not in the position of India in this respect: it has not a large and wealthy country at its back which enables it to borrow cheaply. It borrows dearly. Now, they were very anxious about this matter: they saw silver being depreciated by the Government of India, and they saw a terrific blow was being aimed at silver. They became very anxious, and considered whether it would be advisable to have their country made what the noble Lord has called "a dumping ground for silver," and, having considered the matter, they decided that it would be an act of lunacy to close their mints. They came to the conclusion that it would be an advantage to have silver dumped down in their country if it took away their produce, which they did not want, and gave them metal, which they required. They took exactly the contrary course to that which was adopted in India in 1893. Now, remember what I have said—that up to 1893, while the exchange was low, the Indian exports had been rising. Now, since 1893—I will take the Indian figures first, and I will show what the ratio of exports and imports in India has been since 1893. Coming to 1894–95, the balance of exports over imports was 37,000,000. The figure which I wish to point to is the 37. In 1895–96 it was 36. Therefore you see it had dropped slightly. In 1896–97 it was 23, and in 1897–98, the last year which we have got, it was 14. Therefore I fail to see the advantage which has been derived by this unfortunate policy, seeing that the excess of exports over imports shows a fall of 60 per cent. Since the time upon which the Indian Government entered upon this policy the ratio between exports and imports has continuously and heavily fallen. Now, let us contrast the Mexico figures. I will only read the balances; the excess of exports over imports for the corresponding period to which I have referred are: 1893–94, 49; 1894–95, 56; 1895–96, 63; and 1896–97, 66. There was thus a steady, remarkable, and startling increase in the prosperity of the country. While India was declining 60 per cent. Mexico was advancing 40 per cent. I think the House will recognise that the above figures establish my contention that the action of the Indian Government in closing their mints to silver has brought evils to their country which have more than counterbalanced the immediate relief afforded to the Government. In conclusion, I would say that, having regard to the fact that the Committee which the noble Lord has appointed to consider the Indian currency question has not met with the satisfaction of the great commercial communities of the country, I should have unhesitatingly supported the Motion for a Committee had it been proposed that the inquiry should be confined to financial matters. That, I think, is evidence that the House will consider, and will believe that there is something to be said on the other side. I thank the House very much for the kind way in which it has listened to the very dry figures I have put before it.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

The honourable Gentleman has spoken with considerable authority from the point of view of trade relations. I have taken a profound interest in the condition of this teeming population, and, as a Member of this House, I feel that I have a great responsibility in following the honourable Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. I shall regard the matter from a different standpoint. Honourable Members who, during the last 20 years, have watched the transactions of the Indian Government, will, by this time, be only too familiar with the methods which are adopted on these occasions. Sometimes the method adopted is to raise a temporary loan in one year and renew it in the next year, perhaps to renew it the year after, and then, when nearly everybody has forgotten the circumstances in which the transaction originated, quietly to convert the temporary loan into a permanent debt. That is the mischief on the present occasion. The second method, when the Indian Government comes to Parliament to authorise a loan, is to put in the forefront of the powers alleged for the Bill the paying-off of an existing debt, bearing, perhaps, generally a higher rate of interest than that at which the Government can now borrow money. Well, if the matter stopped there, the Indian Government would be acting in a perfectly legitimate and meritorious manner; but, unfortunately, it has invariably happened that the amount required to pay for existing debts only forms a very small part of the total loan powers which are asked for. On the present occasion the loan required to pay off the debt is under £3,500,000 sterling, whereas the borrowing powers extend to £10,000,000, and the residue is to be devoted to the construction of railways, and to enable the Government, as the noble Lord said the other night, to tide over prospective difficulties. Now, Sir, with regard to those prospective difficulties, what I desire to point out is, that the root of the difficulty to which the noble Lord alluded the other night consists in the excessive amount of the home charges. Some time ago a committee was appointed to inquire into these home charges, and to ascertain whether or not they could be reduced. Therefore I am quite prepared to concur with my honourable Friend the Member for Banffshire who has put forward this Amendment. The time for the introduction of this Bill is singularly inappropriate. You have appointed a committee to inquire whether those home charges cannot be reduced, and before that committee has reported you are putting it in the power—I will not place it much higher than that —of the Indian Government to increase the amount of the home charges. We have heard a great deal about the optimistic views with regard to the present state of things in India. I concur with the view taken by my honourable Friend below, the Member for Wolverhampton. It cannot be denied that daring the last few years the aggregate debt of India has very considerably increased, and it is not too much to say that during the last 10 years India has had to give the entire value of the excess of her exports over her imports in order to cover the home obligations of the Government. We have been told that we must not call this a drain upon India. Sir John Lubbock has told us that we ought to consider the case of other countries, and that this is not really a drain upon India; that the advantage is mutual, and that these young, growing countries have the advantage of cheap capital. It is very misleading to compare India with young countries like Canada and Australia. India is not a young country. India, on the contrary, is a very old country. India was already far advanced in the arts and industries, and was exchanging her highly-wrought fabrics with the merchants of Palmyra, when England was still primeval forest, and the site of London was a swamp. It is very misleading, and I strongly protest against the contrast of India with young countries which are able to bear a strain which is absolutely fatal in the case of older countries. The right honourable Gentleman distinguished between productive and non-productive expenditure. I wish he had pursued his analysis a little further, and had also distinguished between productive works which pay and so-called productive works which do not pay. The noble Lord, in the last speech he addressed to the House, produced some figures with the object of showing that the net burden in the revenue for indebtedness in respect of capital expenditure on railways had diminished. But, in order to effect this, he compared one single year—1861—with another single year. Surely that is a very unscientific method of comparison. The noble Lord should have compared the annual average over a series of years at different periods. I demur to taking as your starting point a year so near the assumption by the Crown of the direct government of India as 1861, when there had been no time for the financial advantage inseparable from that great change to come into operation. The broad fact remains that, whatever may be the indirect benefits to India from your railway policy, it has involved the Government of India in an enormous loss. We have the Return contained in Mr. Gracy's Administration Report, issued about 12 months ago. We have the broad facts relating to the total loss. The total loss to the State up to 1895–96—the commencement of the famine period—was 530 millions of rupees; and we must remember that there has been a very considerable addition to the losses since that time. In connection with this part of the case, I should like to refer to the statement made in the Debate in the Viceroy's Council last year by Mr. Trevor, the head of the Public Works Department of the Indian Government. He said— It is no doubt very discouraging that the first year of renewed activity in regard to railway development should have coincided with a year of plague, pestilence, and famine, and that we should have no better result to show than that the net loss on the railway revenue account should have been increased this year to a total of some 2¾ crores, with a prospect of a similar loss next year, and an extremely tight money market to work on. That is the condition of the Indian money market now, only in a still more aggravated degree. Now, Mr. Trevor has, I think, said that it is not fair to take the famine year, and therefore I will compare two periods of five years, according to the figures given by Mr. Trevor himself in the same speech. For the five years ending 1877 the average annual loss was something under 1¾ crores, whereas for the five years ending 1897 the average annual loss was something over 2 crores. It is obvious, therefore, that you have not been improving your revenue account during the last 20 years, although you have been spending these very large capital sums in the development of railways. But, Sir, it is said that, whatever direct loss the railways may have occasioned to the Government of India, the indirect benefit has been very great, and especially in regard to the difficulty which the Government has to encounter in time of famine. But what I should like to ask is this: what does it avail if in your professed policy of developing the country you have produced the impoverishment of the people? Of what avail is it to have spread—as you have spread, I admit—a network of railways all over the country, and to have been able—as I admit you have been able—to carry food into every part of the suffering districts, as you were not able to do in the previous famine—I ask, of what avail is all this if by the very same policy the ryots have been reduced to such extremities that they have absolutely less means than they had to buy food? And this, the last, famine has, I believe, taken a larger grasp upon the people of India than any within historic memory. And then, Sir, I think the existence of the plague is not without throwing some light upon the extreme poverty of the Indian people. Sir William Wedderburn has pointed out that in all parts of Asia, as well as in all parts of Europe, there has always been a close connection between the appearance of the black plague and insufficient food; and it is a very significant fact that the European community in India have enjoyed almost absolute immunity from the plague. This terrible disturbance, I submit, is in itself very largely the outcome and the result of poverty. There are some who may regard it as a visitation of Providence, and this loss as one of those extraordinary items of expenditure over which the Government has no control; but I venture to regard it as the natural outcome of your former policy, and the impoverishment of the people which follows that policy as the shadow. Now, Sir, may I just for a moment return to the question of railways? The plea in favour of railway extension as a means of preventing famine is now no longer available. That is a claim which you yourselves make, and it is a claim upon which you have considerable right to congratulate yourselves, that you have spread such a network of railways over India, that you are now able, in case of famine, to go through every part of the district which, may be affected. Therefore I say that the plea which has been so often urged in advance of expending money largely upon railways as a defence against famine is no longer available; and if railways cannot be constructed now without the Government loan contracted in this country they ought not to be constructed at all. This is not a time for what the Minister of Public Works in India calls a "forward policy" in regard to railways, and yet it is proposed to spend next year 11 crores in railway extension. Now, Sir, instead of pursuing still further the present policy, I think the time has come when the Government ought to look to more practical methods for bettering the condition of the people; for instance, to irrigation work, to stimulating improved methods of agriculture, to establishing agricultural grants in India, and also to such methods of moderate land assessment as shall relieve the cultivators of the present strain, and also encourage enterprise. With regard to irrigation works—

MR. SPEAKER

The honourable Member is not in order in discussing that question at the present stage.

MR. PICKERSGILL

Very good, Sir. I do not propose to press alternative methods. I ask that the activity of the Government should be exerted; but, of course, I bow to your ruling, and will not further press that part of the case. But, at all events, I think, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill does raise, to some extent, the question of the condition of the Indian people and of their capacity to pay off increased taxation in the matter of the home charges. The noble Lord himself has dwelt at some length upon the ability of the Indian Government to bear the proposal which he has made in his Bill; but, Sir, I must say that we are justified in scrutinising somewhat carefully the representations which the Indian Government have placed in his hands, and which he has conveyed to the House. My honourable Friend the Member for Banffshire the other night gave us some striking examples of the ignorance, on the part of the Indian Government, of what is really happening in India—ex- amples which were so telling that the noble Lord sought to divert attention from them by making a personal attack of a most ungenerous character, as I think, upon the honourable Baronet. But Sir Griffith Evans has made a statement similar to those which have been made by the right honourable Baronet. How is it," he says, "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, the Government's first intimation of it appears to be the accomplished fact. Well, then, Sir, with regard to the capacity of the Indian people to bear the burdens imposed upon them, I should like to refer to the land revenue. Now, I find that the net, land revenue for 1894–95 was 26.7; for 1895–96, 27.5; for 1896–97, 25.4; for 1897–98, 27.4; and for the current year, 29. Thus we have had a loss of two crores in the first famine year; we have an average year in the second famine year; and for the third year we have a record collection of land revenue. So much, Mr. Speaker, for the claim of the Government that it has been tender to the taxpayer in his years of trouble. With regard to the current year, Sir James Westland says— The estimates are high in all provinces, but the local governments all expect to realise the amounts entered. Now, Sir, I say it is neither wise nor humane thus greedily to clutch at arrears of rent accrued through a calamity so terrible as the recent famine. But, Sir, we have something more. How is it that the Government is able to secure a record collection of land revenue in the current year? Why, it is simply through the medium of the Famine Relief Fund, as I have shown. We have the official account as to the mode of application of a large part of the Famine Relief Fund. This is the official account.— Over two-thirds of the fund (i.e., one million sterling) have been spent in giving a fresh start in life to those who had lost all in the struggle, principally the peasant farmers, whose bullocks had died from want of fodder, and who had neither plough, cattle, nor seed, nor credit on which to procure them. Now, Sir, I say it was not the intention of the contributors to this fund to enable the Government of India to secure the record collection of land revenue in the year immediately following the famine. It was to save human life in the first place, and, secondarily, for the purpose of setting the Indian peasant on his legs again; and for the Indian Government on the one hand to refuse the financial help which the House would most cordially and heartily have given, and on the other hand to pounce upon the Indian peasant, and to take from him, in the form of land revenue, what generous donors throughout the world had put into his hands in order to enable him, it may be, to renew, in this terrible famine, his hard struggle for subsistence, is, I say, a mean policy which I cannot think the people of this country will adopt. Now, Sir, in conclusion, a high authority in India once said, "The true remedy against famine and scarcity is the frugality of the people." The noble Lord himself, in his speech the other day, bore witness to the same characteristic of the Indian people. He said— In India there is a great population, frugal and industrious and orderly, a prolific soil, and a large amount of mineral wealth at present untouched. I am the more anxious not to increase the financial burdens upon these people so ably described by the highest authority, because the Government has recently enacted a new Press law, and assailed the principle of local self-government. I am sorry that one of almost the last acts with which the present Viceroy of India will be associated is this Bill to increase the burdens of the Indian people by 10 millions. Both sides of the House, Sir, have joined in pæans of congratulation to the Viceroy of India. The noble Lord opposite quoted the historic inscription in the Council Chamber. I must say that to apply to Lord Elgin language which would only be appropriate in the case of a Warren Hastings or a Clive is not really to do any service to that noble and, no doubt, able man. It has been the misfortune of Lord Elgin that he has been Viceroy of India in difficult and troubled times, and one can only regret that he has to a great extent allowed himself to be misled by military Jingoes on the one hand and by the Press martinets on the other.

* SIR H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton,. E.)

I had not intended to take any part in this Debate or to take up the controversial matters raised by my honourable Friend behind me. Some misstatements—or, perhaps, misunderstandings of facts—have been set before the House, and I think that I should not be doing my duty to the House if I did not attempt to correct them, more especially as under the Rules of the House the Secretary of State is prevented from again interposing in this Debate. Now, I am going to confine myself exclusively to facts. I have expressed my opinion again and again in this House of the admirable manner in which India is governed, and of the admirable character which the great Indian Civil Service bears, and which it has pre-eminently sustained during the past 12 months; and I feel sure that those gentlemen who have been betrayed into expressions of censure upon that Department of the public service will find that they are not to any degree or extent expressing the feelings of honourable Members of this House or of the country outside. I was rather amused just now at my honourable Friend behind me, who, though he was full of admiration for the great Governors of bygone times, such as Warren Hastings and Lord Clive, intimated that the present Viceroy should not have the same meed of honour awarded to him as has been awarded to them so far as the well-known motto, mens œqua in arduis, behind the chair of the Governor General is concerned. But, Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that if Lord Clive and Warren Hastings had had their proceedings discussed in this House, and Committees of this House appointed to investigate what they were doing, and how the money was being raised—I am not going to defend the latter part of it at all—I am afraid that we should have had no Indian Empire at all now. There are four points upon which I want to address the House, on which honourable Members who have spoken have completely misunderstood the facts of the case. I will first deal with the statement of the honourable Member for Donegal, who always deals in superlatives, and we are obliged, when he addresses us about India or Ireland or England, to have discount tables with us for immediate use. He stated that £16,000,000 was wrung from the taxpayers of India for the purpose of paying charges which he describes practically as being appropriated by half-pay officers and other gentlemen who had retired from the Indian Service. Now, I did venture to correct him to the extent of half that sum, and he said he did not dispute my facts, and he took that difference between £16,000,000 and £8,000,000 as if I had corrected him by a few sovereigns. Now, I am sure he would not misrepresent any facts wilfully, but just let me tell the House what the figures are for the present year. I am not going to take advantage of bygone times, but this very year we are now in. Now the amount which will have to be remitted to London from India this year is £16,286,500 sterling.

MR. MACNEILL

It is an enormous sum.

* SIR H. H. FOWLER

Yes, it is an enormous sum, but out of that £16,000,000 there has to be £8,815,000 sent over to pay interest upon the capital advanced by persons in this country for the purpose of constructing railways, canals, irrigation works, and the great public works of India. That £8,000,000 does not represent the entire revenue of the railways of India. I am now speaking from memory, and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. My present impression is that the gross receipts of the Indian railways last year were between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000. Now one-half of that goes in working expenses paid in wages to the people of India, and is spent in stores consumed in India. I am speaking from memory only, but my point is this, that one-half of the gross revenue of the Indian railways is expended in India amongst the population of India in wages. Now let me come to the £8,000,000. Well, Sir, I am quite willing to make my Friend a present of the home charges in connection with the Indian Army, which is a matter of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000. These charges, as my honourable Friend is aware, have now Royal Commissions sitting upon them. Now this is a question which has been a matter of dispute between Secretaries of State, Viceroys, and the English Treasury for a large number of years. My honourable Friend behind me is a member of one of these Commissions; and that Commission will not report, although we want its Report. I remember that I was very much censured when I was in the India Office for having proposed arbitration in a dispute about the Navy charges. There was a dispute between the Indian Government and the English Admiralty as to what India should pay, and we could not agree, and so we referred it to the arbitration of the Prime Minister, and he settled it in a very few weeks, and that award made by him was accepted by the Indian Government and the Treasury. I will not now discuss whether those charges are too much or too little, but that disposes of this fearful figure of £16,000,000. One-half of it comes from railway fares and railway rates paid by the inhabitants of India for services rendered and for value received, and those gross receipts are now increasing by leaps and bounds. The ultimate result, as I ventured to tell the House the other night, of all our railway expenditure, including the famine railways, which are purely military railways f which are not producing revenues, putting the whole railway expenditure together—commercial, military, and famine—the net return in India on the capital cost of these lines in 1895 and 1896, when the returns were seriously affected by famine and plague, the returns fell to what? Why, only 5.3 per cent. That is the result of this terrible drain. Then it is said that you are consulting the interest of the capitalists in sending the money out there. Well, the Secretary of State is doing just the contrary, for he is going to pay off the capitalists, who are receiving, some of them 4 per cent. and some 3¾per cent. He is going to get rid of these "blood-suckers" during the present year, in which he proposes to borrow at 3 per cent or less. That, Sir, is giving India the benefit of the credit of England. Now with reference to the statement of my honourable Friend behind me, I have always contended that the true commercial policy for India was to extend its railway system as much as possible; and, Sir, when I propounded that policy, when I had not such sparse benches as we now have, my honourable Friends behind me encouraged me in that policy. The commercial men representing the commerce of the country, and who knew what this policy meant, got up and said that that was the true policy, and they gave figures showing the enormous discrepancies between India and other countries with reference to the total mileage of her railways. Then I was not challenged, and the House sanctioned my scheme, and I venture to congratulate the noble Lord upon having carried on that expenditure under very great difficulties. It was not initiated, I assure him, without considerable trouble and debate, but the result was satisfactory. If we are to do any good to Indian commerce I believe we shall have to adopt these facilities for the transit of goods, and the transit of her products, in order to develop fully the great natural resources of India. If India, as I admit it is, is a poor country, on the other hand it has enormous natural resources, and in that respect it is a rich country. Now, the one link which is wanted between production and consumption in India is the link of rapid communication. Now, my honourable Friend made a still more serious charge with reference to the salt tax, and I should again like to correct him. Now, what is the real position of this salt tax which he has described as 1s. 8d. in the £. I have never been an advocate of the salt tax in this House, and there is nothing which I deplore more than this military expenditure, preventing the present Secretary of State from making a reduction in the salt tax. But let us look at the actual facts. In 1888 the tax on salt was fixed at 2½rupees on 82 pounds. Honourable Members will be able to calculate what that is in their own minds. Now, there has been a great increase in the consumption of salt during the last 10 years, an in- crease far exceeding the proportionate increase of the population. I worked it out with the assistance of the statisticians in the India Office, and I find that the average consumption per head in India is 10¾ pounds per annum. Taking the average of an Indian family, at five members, the taxation would fall at the rate of one and a half rupees per annum per family, or five annas, equivalent to fivepence, per head. Now, that is the taxation, and I do not say it is not a heavy taxation. My honourable Friend was very indignant about irrigation, and asked why more money was not spent on it. He stated that he preferred irrigation to railways, and my honourable Friend who has just sat down shares that view. Let us take the facts about irrigation. The Indian Government has not neglected irrigation. Since 1877, the year of the last great famine, what has been done? The canals and great works have received an extension of 14,000 miles, and there has been an increase of 3¼ million acres in land irrigated, while the Indian Government has spent on great works 130 millions of rupees, and on small works 30 millions. That does not look as if the work had been neglected. But you cannot irrigate all the land in India: it is not a process like making a railway. First, you have to deal with the great sources of irrigation, which are the wells, and scarcely less remarkable has been the enormous development of well irrigation. Wherever wells could be dug they have been dug. But it must be remembered that only one-eleventh of the whole area of India is available for irrigation, and that reduces the figures very materially. My honourable Friend says, "Why do you not tap the rivers?" Certainly; but they must be tapped at a point where there is sufficient water, and the water must not be taken at a point where it would create a swamp, or else there would be malaria—a still worse evil. These irrigation works have been a satisfactory investment for the Indian Government. Irrigation pays them, because they charge for the water supply. The work is now carried out so perfectly that at the present time the irrigated area of India is capable of feeding 120 millions of population. To say, therefore, that the Indian Government have neglected irrigation, and that they do not spend money on it, is not fair criticism. One word more about the land tax, which is rent, and not taxation at all. How has that been affected? My honourable Friend behind me drew a picture of the Indian Government "clutching"—that was the word he used—at the sum given by the charity of Great Britain in order to repay themselves the land tax which had not been discharged owing to the famine. Now, let us look at the figures. The entire cost for the two years 1896–98 of the remission of the land revenue and the temporary suspension of the land revenue was Rx.3,000,000. What is Sir James Westland's estimate for next year? He has estimated that out of this temporary suspension—not remission—amounting to Rx.2,000,000 of land revenue temporarily suspended to people not being in a position to pay Rx.700,000 will be repaid. He may have taken a too sanguine view of the position. I will not dispute that, but, at all events, it is not that terrible oppression which appears to be indicated by my honourable and learned Friend's speech. Now, with reference to one other matter—the burden of taxation—India has been described as a terribly overtaxed country, and we are told we ought to commiserate, as we are bound to commiserate, the poverty of the people, and bound to do everything we can to encourage agriculture, and to help by every possible means the people of India, which I think we do, with the aid of English capital and English credit, to a large extent, and I should be glad to see more of it. The hope of the Committee over which I have the honour to preside is that it may be able to increase the flow of available capital into India on safe terms. But what is the taxation of India? The official statement of the noble Lord which has been placed on the Table of the House, and for which he is responsible, and which is strictly accurate, says that, without making any deduction on account of the Excise and Customs which fall on the natives in the native States, the burden of taxation per head for 1898–9 is one rupee four annas and nine pie, which at the exchange value of 16 pence per rupee is 1s. 9d. per head.

MR. S. SMITH (Flintshire)

Does that include the land tax?

* SIR H. H. FOWLER

There is no land tax in India. What he calls land tax is rent. My honourable Friend might as well include the rent of his house in Liverpool. When the average land revenue is added it amounts to two rupees seven annas, or, at the present exchange value, 3s. 4d. I cannot sit still and hear the Government of India unfairly criticised. With reference to the Bill being discussed, it is about as ordinary a Bill as can well be submitted to the consideration of Parliament. The noble Lord proposes, as he has told us—and a British Minister, when he makes a statement in the House of Commons, rigidly adheres to it—to raise £6,000,000 in the course of the present year. He is going to pay off a portion of the debt, and the noble Lord tells us that the net increase in the debt is £2,625,000. That exhausts the £6,000,000. At the same time, he takes borrowing powers. Lord Kimberley took borrowing powers ten years ago, but they are exhausted. You could not have a Secretary of State with the prospect of an emergency without power to borrow money. It seems to me to be a fair and a reasonable proposal, and I can only say I am rather surprised at its moderation. I feared it would have been a great deal more, and I am not sure it will not have to be a great deal more; but, so far, it is as ordinary a financial operation as can be submitted. I therefore venture to express the hope that my honourable Friend, having regard to all these explanations, and being himself a member of the Commission which has not yet reported on the very question he has raised in this Amendment, will withdraw it, and let us go on with the other business.

* SIR W. H. HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.)

The right honourable Gentleman has made a very clear statement on many matters connected with India with which some of us are not so familiar as he is. I have no intention of prolonging the Debate, and certainly I have no intention of supporting the Amendment moved from the other side of the House. I do not join in the criticisms made very freely on the other side of the House on the general administration of Indian affairs by the Indian Government. I should like to say that I cordially agree with the right honourable Gentleman in the expression of opinion he gave with regard to railways in India, which seem to have been denounced so much by Members on the other side. I should have thought that at this time of day it was well understood that in India and elsewhere you could not do anything better to develop a country, to benefit its inhabitants, and to increase its produce than to construct railways. At the same time I do feel bound, with reference to the views of the noble Lord the Secretary of State on the future commercial prosperity of India, to say that those views are not shared in the slightest degree by those who I think are competent to give an opinion on the commercial and financial position—I mean those engaged in commerce and industry in India, and those engaged in this country in commerce with India. They are agreed that under present conditions there is every prospect indeed of the commerce and industry of India being very seriously jeopardised. The fact is, that under present conditions, as my honourable Friend the Member for Herefordshire has already shown the House by figures, the margin of exports over imports is very seriously diminishing; and although I am quite aware that the noble Lord's defence or explanation is the plague and famine from which India has suffered, and to which we must give a certain amount of weight, they do not explain, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, the whole of the decrease in the margin of exports over imports. I am bound to say, further, that, at the present moment, those engaged in industry in India and engaged in commerce with India have little—I am almost inclined to say no confidence whatever in the financial policy of the Indian Government. I am only alluding at the present moment to the financial policy, not the general administration of affairs by the Indian Government. The fact is that some of us hold, amongst commercial men, that the Indian Government take too narrow a view of the situation, and that they fix their minds, naturally perhaps, simply upon the ex-exchange question, so far as it affects the indebtedness of the country. They have disregarded altogether the other effects which are produced on its general welfare, development, and commerce. The fact is that they do not seem to realise that the fabric of the Indian Empire does not depend on questions of exchange; it depends upon the development of the country and the increase of commerce between India and the rest of the world, and any policy which affects that commerce will react on the Government and on the Government finances. I feel certain that if they could take a wider view of the whole circumstances of the case they would come to the conclusion on this question of exchange, that this would be found to be a small question as compared with the policy which would develop the resources of the country, and so increase the revenue. As a matter of fact, the policy pursued at present of closing the mints has had the effect of strangling the resources of the country and depressing the trade of India. I am convinced that a very great part of the diminution of our exports has resulted from the money stringency in that country. I must say I think there is some good ground for a considerable amount of distrust of the Indian Government in the matter of finance. I should like to bring before the House an extraordinary statement in one of the dispatches of the Indian Government to the noble Lord. I do not wish to say anything against the Committee over which the noble Lord presided. He said he will do all he possibly can, with the information at his disposal, to find a solution of the difficulty. But how did the Indian Government treat this Committee? When they got wind that it was to be appointed they absolutely insisted that if the Committee were appointed it must be told that the question of principle was no longer in issue, and that opinion was only invited on the practical methods of introducing and effectively establishing a gold standard. Now, this, I understand, is not the position of the Committee, but it was the demand of the Indian Government, binding the Secretary of State, if they possibly could, and I think that is a reason for some distrust. I hope the noble Lord will be strong enough to resist this mandate of the Indian Government. He is in a position to do so; but there is a very great feeling of uneasiness at the present moment with regard to the way in which this matter is going to be considered; and I am also bound to say that the amount of secrecy which is being observed in regard to this Commission is doing a very great deal of harm indeed, because it is making many people feel that it is a foregone conclusion, and that there will not be full play given to public opinion, and especially to those who know something about the subject, and who are in a position to give information to the Commission. There is one other point I wish to refer to. It has been pointed out that there will be a reserve balance under this loan which will be in the hands of the Indian Government to be dealt with as they think best. I have no objection that there should be a balance in the hands of the Indian Government, but I do trust that it will be perfectly understood that no portion of this balance is to be devoted to the establishment of a gold standard in India. I think the noble Lord gave an assurance that there would not be, but I think it necessary to emphasise the point, and to get a full assurance that under no circumstances whatever will the Indian Government set up a gold standard. The artificial nature of the exchange is doing a great deal of harm to the trade and industries of India, and I hope that at any rate the noble Lord and the Indian Government will proceed no further in the direction of maintaining a 1s. 4d. rupee, except under the gravest emergency. I have no intention of opposing the Bill before the House,

but I do think it right, as representing a commercial constituency, and also knowing the opinions of very important authorities in London, to make these remarks in order that we may thoroughly understand the position we stand in, and I trust the noble Lord will see his way to allow us to have the proceedings of this Committee as they go on, because they will be important.

MR. S. SMITH (Flintshire)

I wish, to say that with regard to the statement as to the nature of the debt of India to this country we are considerably agreed. There is no doubt that that debt is in the nature of interest on reproductive expenditure. I will mention to the House that I made a calculation this week of the average yield per acre of land in India compared with land in England and France, and I found that the land yields only £1 sterling per acre, against £4 16s. per acre in England and £4 12s. per acre in France —little more than one-fifth of what the land in these countries yields. Therefore I do not agree with the honourable Member for Wolverhampton, that the burden of taxation in India is light. He said that the whole amount of taxation in India amounts to only two and a half rupees per head. Well, the whole income of the people is only twenty-seven rupees per head. That is nine per cent., and I find that in this country the people are taxed to the extent only of six per cent.

Question put— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.

The House divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 83.—(Division List No. 139.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'I)
Aird, John Balcarres, Lord Bethell, Commander
Allhusen, Augustus H. B. Baldwin, Alfred Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.
Allsopp, Hon. George Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r) Bill, Charles
Arnold, Alfred Balfour, Rt.Hon.G. W. (Leeds) Blundell, Colonel Henry
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Banbury, Frederick George Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Banes, Major George Edward Bousfield, William Robert
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth Barton, Dunbar Plunket Brown, Alexander H.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Graham, Henry Robert Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray, Col. W. (Bath)
Bullard, Sir Harry Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Myers, William Henry
Burt, Thomas Gull, Sir Cameron Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Gunter, Colonel Nicholson, William Graham
Carlile, William Walter Haldane, Richard Burdon Nicol, Donald Ninian
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Causton, Richard Knight Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W. Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)
Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbysh.) Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Parkes, Ebenezer
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.) Hare, Thomas Leigh Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)
Chamberlain. J. A. (Worc'r) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Perks, Robert William
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Helder, Augustus Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Charrington, Spencer Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) Pryce-Jones, Edward
Cochrane. Hon. T. H. A. E. Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol) Purvis, Robert
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Colomb, Sir John C. Ready Hobhouse, Henry Reckitt, Harold James
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Hornby, William Henry Richards, Henry Charles
Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Howell, William Tudor Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cranborne, Viscount Hozier, Hon. J. H. C. Rothschild, Baron F. Jas. de
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Round, James
Crombie, John William Hudson, George Bickersteth Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton) Hutchinson,Capt.G. W. Grice- Savory, Sir Joseph
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Curzon,Rt. Hn.G. N.(LaneSW) Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Johnston, William (Belfast) Shaw, Thos. (Hawick B.)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Simeon, Sir Barrington
Denny, Colonel Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D. Kenrick, William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Dorington, Sir John Edward Kenyon, James Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Knowles, Lees Spicer, Albert
Dunn, Sir William Lafone, Alfred Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. Laurie, Lieut.-General Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.) Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts) Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Stevenson, Francis S.
Engledew, Charles John Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Evershed, Sydney Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fardell, Sir T. George Lock wood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Talbot. Lord E. (Chichester)
Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith) Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Talbot, RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'dUny.)
Fergusson,RtHnSirJ. (Manc'r) Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Thornton, Percy M.
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.
Finch, George H. Lowles, John Tritton, Charles Ernest
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Loyd, Archie Kirkman Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Lubbock, Right Hon. Sir J. Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)
Fisher, William Hayes Lucas-Shadwell, William Wallace, Robert (Perth)
FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose Macartney, W. G. Ellison Warde, Lt.-Col. C, E. (Kent)
FitzWygram, General Sir F. Maclure, Sir John William Warkworth, Lord
Flannery, Fortescue McArthur, William (Cornw'll) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Flower, Ernest McIver, Sir Lewis Wayman, Thomas
Folkestone, Viscount McKillop, James Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Forster, Henry William Martin, Richard Biddulph Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Forster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd
Fowler,Rt.Hon.SirH. (Wolt'n) Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Garfit, William Melville, Beresford Valentine Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Gedge, Sydney Milward, Colonel Victor Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)
Gibbons, J. Lleyd Monckton, Edward Philip Willox, Sir John Archibald
Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.) Monk, Charles James Wills, Sir William Henry
Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) More, Robert Jasper Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)
Gilliat, John Saunders Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)
Godson, Augustus Frederick Morley, Chas. (Breconshire) Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B.Stuart-
Goldsworthy, Major-General Morrell, George Herbert Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Morrison, Walter Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(S.Geo.'s) Mount, William George TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Muntz, Philip A.
NOES.
Abraham. Wm. (Cork, N.E.) Hogan, James Francis O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) Holburn, J. G. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.) Holden, Sir Angus Oldroyd, Mark
Ashton, Thomas Gair Horniman, Frederick John Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Atherley-Jones, L. Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Price, Robert John
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Jacoby, James Alfred Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Barlow, John Emmott Jones, David B. (Swansea) Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Robson, William Snowdon
Billson, Alfred Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth Schwann, Charles E.
Brigg, John Lambert, George Shaw, Chas. Ed. (Stafford)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Shee, James John
Burns, John Leng, Sir John Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Caldwell, James Lewis, John Herbert Steadman, William Charles
Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow) Lloyd-George, David Strachey, Edward
Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.) Logan, John William Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Colville, John Lough, Thomas Tennant, Harold John
Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Dalziel, James Henry Macaleese, Daniel Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) MacNeill,.John Gordon Swift Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles McEwan, William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Donelan, Captain A. McKenna, Reginald Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Doogan, P. C. McLaren, Charles B. Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)
Doughty, George Maddison, Fred. Woods, Samuel
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Fenwick, Charles Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) Yoxall, James Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley Moss, Samuel TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Wedderburn and Mr. Souttar.
Harwood, George Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.
Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bill read a second time.

Amendment negatived.