Commons Sitting of 21 November 1902

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petition from Luddenham Foot, for abolition of restrictions; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Chipping wycombe, and Oldham; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Dendron; Newbury; and Luddenham Foot; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Toxteth Park: Kirby; and Burscough Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petition from Luddenham Foot, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions from Ormskirk, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY AND HARBOUR GUARANTEES (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th August;Mr. Thomas O'Donnell];to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 376.]
  PARLIAMENT (DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th November;Mr. Hayes-Fisher];to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 377.]
  COLONIES (GENERAL).
  Copy presented, of Circular Despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 12th December, 1901, relative to the parliamentary and Muncipal and Local Representation of Trading Companies in the Colonies under responsible Government, and the Reply of the Commonwealth of Australia thereto [by Command];to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 378.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, That this House, at the rising of the House this day, do adjourn till Monday next.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Meteorological Grant Committee.
  SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL (): To ask the First Lord

  147
  of the Treasury whether he will state what progress has been made in the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject of the meteorological grant.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am not yet in a position to announce the names of the Committee who will consider the question of the administration of the grant to the Meteorological Society; but some progress has been made with the selection of the Committee, and I hope at no distant date to be able to make a statement on the subject.

  Newton Abbot Postmen's wages.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devonshire,): To ask the Postmaster General why there are four different scales of pay in the Newton Abbot post office, although all the postmen are doing similar work; and whether, seeing that the cost of living is the same in that town as in the neighbouring towns of Teignmouth and Torquay, and in some respects higher, he will consider the desirability of according to the postmen of these three towns the same maximum of 24s. per week.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The town postmen at Newton Abbot were formerly on too high a scale. The wages were accordingly reduced some years ago, but the postmen then in the service were allowed to retain their old scale so long as they remain, and the new scale was applied to postmen who entered the service subsequently. This will account for there being temporarily two scales for town postmen at Newton Abbot. The rural postmen are, as is usual, upon a separate scale of wages; but I am not aware of any fourth scale, unless the payments to auxiliary postmen, which are at a lower rate, are referred to. It is not considered that there are sufficient grounds for placing the Newton Abbot postmen upon the same scale as those at seaside towns of summer resort like Torquay and Teignmouth.

  Great Western Railway—Accident near Cardiff, 14th November.
  MR. PHILIPPS (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the accident on the Great Western Railway, near Cardiff, on 14th
  148
  November, in which several persons were injured; and what Report, if any, he has received as to the cause of this accident.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Yes; under an Order of the Board of Trade, inquiry into this accident is being held by an Inspecting Officer of Railways. His Report has not yet been made, but as soon as it has been printed for issue I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy.

  Naval Ordnance Depots Staff.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Sub-Committee, who have visited the ports in order to inquire into the question of the staff at the out-ports, with reference to filling up vacancies in the Naval Ordnance Store Department by the appointment of Naval Warrant Officers, have finished their investigations; and, if so, will he communicate to the House the nature of their Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The consitution of the clerical staff at the Royal Naval Ordnance Depots has now been dealt with by the Sub-Committee referred to, but that of the storehouse and workshop staff at these depots is still under consideration, and I am unable at the present time to add anything to my previous replies on this subject.

  East India Railway—German Locomotives.
  COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that out of the forty engines placed in Germany by the East India Railway Company, and which were all due to be delivered by August last, only one engine and two tenders have been shipped; and does the India Office intent to ask the East India Railway Company to impose the penalties prescribed in the contract.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am not aware of the facts stated in the Question. As regards the imposition of penalties, that is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the East India Railway Company.

  Indian Opium Revenue.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON (): To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the average net opium revenue of the last three years.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The average opium revenue for the last three years is £3,075,084.

  South Africa—Martial Law—Advertising Account of the "Het Oosten".
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the early part of the year 1901, Lieutenant Keeton advertised notices and regulations under martial law in a paper called Het Oosten, published at Somerset East by Mr. J. A. Vosloo, the account for which amounted to £56 5s. 9d.; that in March, 1902, Mr. Vosloo complained to the War Office of non-payment of this account; and that on or before the 25th of June, 1902, Sir H. Settle reported that he had directed the sum of £56 5s. to be paid to Mr. Vosloo; and if he will state why this account for advertising had not been paid up to the 17th October, 1902, being at that time one year and eight months overdue.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am aware that Sir H. Settle reported that he had directed that this account should be paid, but I have no information concerning the delay. I will cause inquiry to be made.

  South Africa—Foreign Subscriptions for Relief of Concentration Camps.
  MR. LABOUCHERE (): To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that Holland alone subscribed during the late war 1,325,510,04 1/2 florins for the relief of Boer women and children, of which amount 498,161,04 1/2 florins were sent to South Africa either in money or goods in the later stages of the war, whether in estimating the contributions made by foreign subscribers for the relief of the concentration camps at £562 and 2,646 packages, this was at the rate of exchange of 12 florins and a trifle to the pound sterling; and whether, if this was the rate, he can explain what
  150
  became of the rest of the money and goods sent to South Africa by Holland and other foreign countries, and into whose hands it fell.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The figures of £562 and 2,646 give the information at our disposal as to foreign contributions expended in concentration camps in the Transvaal. I have no information on the figures given in the question.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  Order read, for Adjourned Debate on Question [10th November], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for Committee on the East India Revenue Accounts." — (Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)
  Question again proposed.
  *(12.5.) MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire): — In resuming the debate on the Indian Budget, may I say that it was only a sense of duty which impelled me to move the adjournment of the debate on the last occasion. The Prime Minister and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, taking into account the great importance of the many interests connected with our vast Indian Empire, and possibly influenced by the fact that many Members connected with India had not obtained an opportunity of expressing their views, have arranged to give a second day for the discussion, and for that I wish to convey to them the grateful thanks of all who are interested in Indian affairs. The Motion of which I have given notice is—
  "To call attention to the Report of the Famine Commission of 1901, and to move— "That the Indian Government be encouraged to act immediately on its recommendations, especially those referring to an increase of the means of irrigation; and to make if a special instruction to the Commission now dealing with this subject, that it should thoroughly investigate the question of irrigation works for some part of India, on a scale similar to that of the recently-constructed works in the Nile Valley.'"
  I wish in the first place to express my appreciation of the lucid manner in which the Secretary for India placed his Budget Statement before us. It was a model of concise information. I wish also to congratulate the Under Secretary on the ability which he has

  151
  shown in dealing with a minor subject—a good augury, I think, for the manner in which he will be able to deal with more important topics when they come under his care. Before taking up the more important topic I wish to deal with another point. In the general discussion on India reference has been made to the depression in the opium industry and in the tea trade. The depression in the latter has, in my opinion, been caused very much by over production, and in a short time will right itself. But no notice has been taken of the still greater depression in indigo, not a very large trade, it is true, the average turnover in normal times being about three millions, but which has now been reduced to less than one-half of that amount owing to the fact that it has to enter into competition with a chemical substitute which has been energetically pushed by the very same Germans who, by the invention of alizarine, swept the madder trade off the face of the earth. It is an interesting study in national economics how these long-haired, short-sighted, spectacled German professors, savouring of midnight oil, have been able to dispossess us of a great deal of trade, both in the East and West Indies. In the case of the West Indies, aided by the bounties, they have done so by reason of the great improvements they have effected in the cultivation of beet sugar, and in the East by the introduction of various dyes they have been able to oust, in a great measure, native dyes. A few years ago the leading director of one of these German firms told me it was one of the principal object of his life to invent and perfect an artificial indigo. His firm has been spending an enormous amount of money on the research and has met with a considerable amount of success. But natural indigo still retained properties which they had not been able to impart to its artificial competitor, and the fact remained that well-grown, carefully manufactured indigo was still able to hold its own. Carelessly-grown and slovenly manufactured indigo — which was the characteristic of the great proportion produced in India — has no chance, and is rapidly being dispossessed from the various markets of Europe. To prevent the extinction of the trade
  152
  I recommend that the Indian Government should adopt the same system as has been adopted by the German Government in regard to the manufacture of beet sugar—viz., send experts into the indigo districts, and teach the natives how to improve both the cultivation and the method of manufacture. It is nonsense to say that India is too conservative to adapt herself to new ideas, for the people there have shown a marked appreciation of railways and other improvements. They have also displayed considerable aptitude in dealing with artificial dyes and in palming them off on their fellow countrymen.
  I now come to the Report of the Famine Commission. The immediate cause of famine in India is the failure of the usual rainfall, which failure occurs at very irregular intervals, and generally lasts for one year, in some cases two years, and in very rare instances, as in the last awful famine, for three years consecutively in some of the districts affected. The Commissioners estimate that drought will come on an average every twelve years. It is one of the inexorable laws of nature with which every Government of India is bound to reckon. But the effects of this great natural cause, which acts inexorably and relentlessly, are very much aggravated by the people of India. Their standard of living is wretchedly low. A few handfuls of rice per calico loin cloth for clothing, being deemed by them quite sufficient for their maintenance. Their fecundity is enormous, and keeps them always on the very brink of starvation. In ancient times the drastic remedies of the sword, pestilence and famine did their work remorselessly and without let or hindrance in keeping down the superabundant population, but under the benign influence of British rule, the sword has been sheathed, the ravages of pestilence and famine are more successfully combated and alleviated, and the population has been increasing at an enormous rate. From 1881-91 it increased 33,000,000, an amount equal to the entire population of Britain at the time, and this was an addition to an already densely crowded population.

  153
  During this period, and notwithstanding the shorter duration of life in Eastern countries, its population increased by 13 per cent., whilst that of Scotland increased by 7 3/4 per cent., a rate of increase in India which, if continued, represents the doubling of its population in about sixty years. And at the present time there are now about 1,250 to the square mile of cultivated land, as compared with about 700 in Egypt. With these great natural, economical and social causes before us, it is idle, therefore, for hon. Members to assign as the principle causes any dereliction of duty on the part of the Indian Government in dealing with the land question or any other. A section of the native Press and a few philanthropic, but not wellin formed, gentlemen on this side look upon an extravagant civil and military expenditure as the great cause of the poverty of the natives, and others put the Land Revenue Laws in the forefront, but there was more loss to the cultivators, representing only about a fourth of the population of India, by the last famine than the total amound of the yearly expenditure by the Government on all objects put together; and in the Central Provinces the agricultural population lost more by famine in one year than the total Land Revenue for fifty years. I do not think it is fair to the Indian Government to blame it for bad management in connection with the famine, when at its height in 1900, a population of about 85,000,000, of whom half were in the native states, was affected, and the number in the relief works or in receipt of gratuitous relief was considerably over 6,000,000. No other Government in the world had the organisation ready to deal with such a gigantic calamity; and the officials of the Government, many of whom laid down their lives in the work, deserve the highest credit for their unremitting and heroic efforts.
  I next come to the remedies for famine recommended in the Report. They are threefold—material, legislative, and moral. Of the moral remedies, the Report naturally does not speak very much, except as advising thrift, etc.; but everything that tends to assist the moral progress of the people of India, that helps their self-control, that promotes their education, raises their standard of living, and improves their economical position,
  154
  is helping to fight against the evil effects of famine in the future. Of the recommendations of the Commission as to the institution of agricultural banks, reforms in revenue, law and administration, designed to free the cultivators from the clutches of the money-lenders, and Amendments to the famine codes, I thoroughly approve. I approve also of their recommendation, so far as it goes, for a more through examination of possible irrigation projects. In the Report, paragraph 351, the Commissioners state as follows—
  "The evidence which we have taken, and our own experience, show that there is a wide field for the construction of irrigation works. All provinces do not present practicable schemes for the construction of great canals, but the possibilities of smaller protective works have in no province been exhausted, while in some provinces they have as yet hardly been examined. For storage tanks, reservoirs, and, above all, irrigation wells, the scope and the necessity are very great."
  The Commissioners have done good work in fostering the construction of wells and smaller irrigation works, the appointment of experts to guide the natives in the direction, and with power to sanction the granting of loans for these purposes. But they have done better work when they point to the confirmation which their inquiries afford, to the conclusions of the approval of a new departure in famine policy, which would place irrigation works in the place that protective railways have hitherto occupied in the famine insurance programme. This is one of the most noteworthy paragraphs which has every appeared in any Indian Report. It is an indirect indictment of the former negligence of the Indian Government in regard to irrigation, and of their policy of starving canals in favour of railways. It endorses the two former Commissions in this respect, and I believe it has been the immediate cause of the appointment of a Commission to deal specially with irrigation, and of the increase of a quarter of a crore of rupees to the irrigation protective works fund. Led away by the Report of the Commission on Public Works of 1878, the Indian Government have for many years ignored the Reports of its Famine Commission of 1882, and even of 1898, both of which agree with the present Report on this subject, and initiated the policy of starving irrigation in favour of railways. From 1882 to 1898 the expenditure on railways was £246,609,305,

  155
  while on canals it was only £39,359,065, and recent policy has been on the same lines, but to double the proportion. This is not in accordance with the policy recommended by this or the two preceding Famine Commissions, and it would be well for the House of Commons to give a decided expression of opinion on this subject.
  Besides their great advantages for irrigation, in some cases the canals offer the cheapest and most convenient carriage in the world. The United States and some Continental countries are beginning to wake up to their importance. Irrigation works are, besides a great protection against floods, much famine having been caused by flood as well as by drought. Calculations showing only financial profit on investment from irrigation sources are quite misleading. Lord Curzon, speaking at Lyalpur of the result of the work on the canal which he had just inspected, says the expenditure of 16 lacs is yielding a return of nearly 71/2 per cent. on the money invested, while the total crop in a single year equals the capital cost of the entire works.
  For all these reasons, therefore, it would, in my opinion, be good for India that her Government should be encouraged by the House to act immediately on the recommendations of the Famine Commission of 1901, especially those referring to increased means of irrigation. Every Commission yet appointed has put this recommendation in the place of paramount importance. The Indian Government has recently appointed a Commission, under the Chairmanship of Sir Colin Scott Moncrieffe, to take up the subject of irrigation where the Famine Commission left off, but I understand that its scope is limited to minor works. My Motion indicates that it should be a special instruction to this Commission to investigate thoroughly the question of irrigation works for various parts of India on a scale similar to that of the irrigation works recently constructed in the Nile Valley. These immense dams, constructed at a cost of about £3,000,000, are capable of containing over 1,000 million tons of water, which, in the season when it is most required, will flow out in a stream twice as big as that of the Thames as it passes under Westminster Bridge. In making these suggestions I am aware
  156
  of the magnitude of some of the irrigation works already existing in India, costing, if you include their tributary canals, some of them between two and three millions, and that the great Nile dams have actually been planned and superintended by engineers from India. I am also aware of the great zeal which the present Viceroy and Council have shewn for the promotion of irrigation works: I also concur with what the Secretary for India said when speaking on the subject in February, that those who thought that famine could be banished from all districts of India by irrigation are very much mistaken; but there is no doubt an enormously greater number of districts could be made like Sudh, which, with the lowest rainfall in India, viz., 1.5 inches, completely protects itself against famine by irrigation, and the fact remains that no Government has yet constructed a reservoir of any capacity in India.
  I will not detain the House by going into details of this question, but conclude by saying that, as the immediate cause of famine is want of water, so the first and great remedy must be to supply water in time of drought, and as in India there is, speaking generally, and taking one time with another, more than an ample supply the question resolves itself very much into a problem of engineering, and I cannot help thinking, and I say it deliberately and with a knowledge of the great irrigation works which do exist in India, that his country, which is first amongst the nations for engineering skill and resources, has not sufficiently availed itself of this skill and of these resources. In Egypt, this engineering skill has just now shown magnificent results, and Egypt with her 13,000 square miles of cultivated land and small population of about 9,000,000, has been put into such a splendid position of irrigation supply by the aid of India's engineers that it may well stand out as a brilliant example to many of the districts of India which has a cultivated area 26 times, and a population 33 times, greater. The rainfall is so abundant in some parts of India that as much sometimes falls in one day as during the whole year in some parts of the United Kingdom, and India possesses one of the finest river systems in the world, in many cases fed not only by the great monsoon rains, but also, line the Nile, even in times of fiercest

  157
  drought, by the eternal snows lying along the southern slopes of the Himalayas, which tower to a loftier height than any other mountain range in the world, and if the Indian Government will undertake colossal irrigation works on a scale like those which have recently been so successfully completed in the Nile Valley, and assiduously promote the minor means of irrigation recommended by the Commission, it will do much to mitigate the periodical visitation of famine in some districts, and in many districts do away with them altogether.
  *(12.40)COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs): We have listened with interest to what my hon. friend thinks should be the policy of the Government in India in combating the poverty of the country. He recommends the irrigation of India by water. I wish to recommend its irrigation by gold. My hon. friend's policy demands works; my policy requires only faith. My hon. friend asks for the construction of a dam; I ask for the removal of a dam. India is a poor country, and there are many cures for poverty; but they all in the end result in the application of cash. At the present time private capital, which is invested to such and enormous extent over the rest of the civilised world, is practically debarred from entering India. Lord Curzon has spoken about this most seriously: he has entreated British capitalists to put their spare cash into India, but they refuse. And why? Any person can raise a loan, and the noble Lord the Secretary of State can always, if he chooses to pay the rate of interest demanded, raise loans, but these loans will never cure the poverty of India. What is needed in India, is what goes on in every other civilised country, the importation of private capital, taking its own risk and serving the people for what remuneration they are able to give in return. At the present moment India is groaning under the burden of interest, and it is only the firm value of the rupee that enables her to bear it at all. What happens to a private capitalist if he goes to India and offers to erect public works, or in other ways introduce private capital? The following may be
  158
  taken as a summary of the treatment meted out to him. First of all, you have to find your official. When you do, you find a courteous English gentleman. You will produce to this English gentleman you scheme, involving an expenditure of a million. He receives you politely, but the moment you turn your back he begins to ascertain where you have stolen that million, for it is impossible for him to conceive of any one with honestly found, and therefore hardly earned, money coming to India to worry the Public Works Department, and compete with the Government, and from that time every impediment is placed in your way. That is what restrains people from going to India with money. They are not wanted. Officials have a low opinion of capitalista—not always unjustified—but there is surely no use in slumping all together. That spirit arises from the old principle that used to govern India when John Company ran India, and no opposition to John Company was permitted in India; the idea has not yet been driven out of the heads of Indian officials. Lord lawrence once said, when asked if private enterprise were not good for India, "I know what private enterprise is; it is robbing the Government." Now, if India is to prosper, this spirit must be got rid of; restrictions must be abolished, the public must be allowed to compete with the gigantic monopolies of the Indian Government. I know of instances where means that no one would dare to adopt in this country have been taken to stop competition. I know of an instance where a bridge was projected across a river so low that no steamers were able to pass below it, and it was only the far-seeing kindness of the Secretary of State of Lord Curzon that prevented it being thus built. Another grievance of capitalists arises from the short term of official office. There was a case of a tramway which was badly wanted in Assam. A company proposed to the Commissioner to construct it, and the Commissioner wrote a despatch stating that in his opinion it was a necessary work. Then he discovered that his term of office expired in six months, and so he tore up his despatch, and said he could not bind his successor. In a case where it was

  159
  proposed to set up electric lighting in one of the great Indian towns, three different and successive sets of experts had to be convinced, beginning de novo, before the contract could be settled. Every expert reported in favour of it; but before he retired so arranged matters that he had no responsibility for what happened. Nine years were spent in getting that electric lighting system established. Thus is enterprise discouraged. A private company proposed to establish the electric light at Cawnpore. The City Corporation and Local Government supported the scheme, but the Public Works Department made impossible conditions and brought the negotiations to a standstill. Again, take the extremely unfair discrimination made in regard to the enforcement of the Carriers Act. The Indian railways are exempted from its operation, but private steamboat services and other means of communication are rigidly subjected to it.
  You will for these reasons never get private capital into India until the whole administration is changed. The administration is extremely honest, but often rather stupid. Dislike of responsibility is so great that private enterprise is discouraged in the highest possible degree. I am aware that what I have said is known to the noble Lord the Secretary of State and Lord Curzon, and that they have nobly struggled against the system, but no man, however gifted and determined to thrust through improvements, can do so in the short period of time which is given to Indian officials. The system must be taken up by the roots and altered. I was in the City this morning and happened to run across a City financier who could turn gold into India as easily as my hon. Friend would turn water into it, and in reply to a question I put to him, he said, "Sir, India and Indian methods stink in the nostrils of the City of London." The noble Lord cannot draw private capital into the country with a loan and a guarantee. What is wanted is inquiry. There are men in the House willing to devote their time to sitting upon a committee to inquire into the origin, acts, and results of the Indian Public Works Department. Such a Committee the noble Lord should appoint, and the
  160
  sooner it is appointed the better, if he desired to help our great dependency.
  (12.54.)MR. JOSEPH WALTON (): It is a matter of congratulation to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are able to discuss the Budget this year with the knowledge that the Indian Empire is practically free from famine. During the last two years we have not been in that position. I have had opportunities of visiting the famine-stricken districts; I have witnessed the pitiable condition of the patient and uncomplaining population, and I can testify to the self-sacrificing endeavours of the civil servants to mitigate the famine in every possible way. It must, too, be a matter of rejoicing that the great Durbar will be celebrated when India is practically free from famine and pestilence. There is to be considerable expenditure drawn from the Indian Exchequer in connection with the celebration. That will be largely for the benefit of English visitors, and I cannot help contrasting that fact with the ungracious and mean treatment contemplated towards our Indian guests who came to the Coronation. It is true that the noble Lord made certain statements as to the financial exigencies of this country in connection with the South African war, but has he forgotten that the Welby Commission declared emphatically that more than a quarter of a million sterling and been drawn from the taxpayers of India more than they were justly entitled to pay for years, and that the British Government had not the honesty to make restitution, but merely reduced the charge from the year 1901. This question of the payment of the expenses of our guests is, however, a closed incident, but I hope that such a thing will never occur again.
  It is a matte for congratulation that the Indian Budget for the first time in the history of the association of this country with India, shows a balance of assets over liabilities; and from an examination of the statistics, I believe that the financial position of India is better than it is commonly believed to be in this country. Last year the assets fell short of the liabilities by no less a sum than nine and a half millions sterling, but this year they exceed them by one and a half

  161
  millions. This is an extraordinary change in the financial situation. The total obligations of India, both in the shape of Funded and Unfunded Debt on the 31st March last, amounted to 226 millions sterling, and the assets to 2271/2 millions. Included in those assets there is no less a sum than 160 millions sterling invested in State-owned railways, earning and average dividend of 51/3 per cent. If you capitalise those railways at 31/2 per cent. You get a capital value of 247 millions sterling. Then we have included in the liabilities twenty-four millions which has been expended on irrigation works. I agree very largely with the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire as to the value of irrigation works, but I hold that their construction and the making of railways should go on hand in hand. The money spent on the irrigation works last year produced a profit of 71/3 per cent., and if that were capitalised, we should get an addition of 48 millions to our assets, bringing the total up to 294 millions sterling, or 68 millions surplus over the liabilities. The debt of India is thus much more than covered by revenue producing assets in the shape of railways and irrigation works owned by the State, and leaving out the posts and telegraphs and, also, the land and forest revenues. I am glad that the British investing public are beginning to realise what good security taking up and Indian railway loan rally is. I think the result of the railway and irrigation works already constructed is such as to justify more rapid progress being made in the future with similar undertakings. I do not altogether agree with the views of the hon. And gallant Member who last spoke. I think that the railways in India should belong to the State rather than to private companies. A great mistake was made when the Government of India, having leased important railways to private companies, failed to take advantage of its power to take them over at the end of twenty-five years. When they did eventually take them over, they had to pay and enormous premium, to the permanent detriment of the Indian Exchequer. With regard to the whole of the railways in India, there is the encouraging result that the net average profit upon their working last year was 51/3 per cent. Whereas those railways showed a deficit of £480,000 ten years ago, last year,
  162
  in addition to the repayment of £590,000 for redemption, they showed a profit of £817,000. It is satisfactory to notice that sanction has been given for the construction of 2284 more miles of railway, and I hope the policy of the Government in construction railways will be continued, especially in constructing feeder lines to the great trunk lines. These feeder lines will not only pay in themselves, but will make the trunk lines sill more profitable. I am glad to see that a sum of £8,000,000 has been allocated by the Government and private companies for the construction of railways during the ensuring year. That is a fact upon which the Government of India are to be congratulated.
  Before leaving the question of finance, I wish to draw attention to the complicated nature of the accounts. I find on going through the Financial Statement upon which the Budget of India is based that it is extremely difficult to discover, with regard to revenue producing works, how much money is borrowed and how much comes out of the revenue for the year. It is highly desirable that the accounts of these revenue-producing works should be kept entirely separate from the civil and military charges.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): So they are.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: The accounts are kept in such a form that it is very difficult, at any rate for me, to ascertain clearly the respective results of each class of undertaking. Although in many districts the people of India are extremely poverty-stricken, the financial results of the last three years have been most surprising. I think, in view of the fact that when in 1888 the salt tax was raised it was clearly understood that the increase was to be regarded as only temporary, and early opportunity should now be taken to reduce it. I am glad to see that the Indian Government has remitted one million and a quarter of rent to the land cultivators. But that remission will not benefit the cultivators to the same extent as a reduction of the salt tax would have done, and it is extremely desirable that the salt tax should be reduced at the

  163
  earliest possible moment. It must be remembered that, after all, a remission of rent only increases the security of the money lender. Still, as £16,000,000 has been spent by the Government on the relief of the famine, and as that amount represents nearly the whole of the yield of the salt tax of r three years, I am bound to admit that the tax is largely used for the relief of the famine-stricken natives.
  It was a source of great satisfaction to me to hear the statement made by the Secretary for India in the House last Monday with respect to our position and influence in Afghanistan, especially as we are incurring enormous expenditure on our North-West frontier in a military sense, and have also spent large sums in Afghanistan in order to keep our influence predominant there. I do not know how much truth there is in the rumour that Russia is endeavouring to acquire a closer association with the Court of the Ameer by having a commercial representative there but if the rumour is true it may be taken for granted that political influence will also be exercised by the Russian representative, because it is absolutely impossible to separate political influence from commercial influence. Commercial influence would be the thin end of the wedge, and would be sure to lead to complications. I hope, therefore, that he House will receive and assurance from the noble Lord the Secretary for India, that the arrangements between this country and the Ameer and the Russian Government are in no danger of being upset.
  Then there is the question of promoting trade between India and Persia. I think the Government are to be congratulated on having taken in hand the Quetta-Nushki railway and have opened up caravan routes from Baluchistan to Seistan and other regions of Persia. The trade has developed enormously, but I should be glad to hear that certain hindrances to it had been removed. I refer more especially to the interference of Russian medical officers on the ground of the possible importation of plague—and interference which is seriously hampering the development of trade with Persia. I think that the Government of India, as the trustees of the people of India, have an enormous responsibility resting upon them of using
  164
  all their influence to carry out the settled policy of the country in preserving the integrity of Persia.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! I do not see how the question of the relations between this country and Persia arises on the Indian Budget. That is surely a matter rather for the Foreign Office.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I do not want to transgress, but I think you will see that I am in order, inasmuch as there is included in the Indian Budget a sum for what is called the Persian Mission, and I desire information about it.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There is no Mission.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: A sum of £6,000 is given in the budget for the Persian Mission. Then there is also the question of the India-European-Persia telegraph line. A sum of £232,500 has already been spent upon the line, and the present Budget provides for a further expenditure with respect to it of £87,000. This telegraph line is really the main line of communication between this country and India, and, if I am not out of order, I desire to urge that no portion of the line should cross through Russia, as in case of any disagreement with that country the line would be liable to be cut. I would also urge that it is highly desirable, in the interests, of the proper protection of the line, as well as of our commercial interests, that a road should be constructed from Bander Abbas to Ispahan, which would enable the more rapid repair of the line should it break down at any time. I should like to point out that any disturbance of the status quo in Persia would seriously endanger our Indian Empire.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in dealing with that point.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Very well, Sir. I understand that the Persian Mission has been sent by India to Persia in order to uphold British interests in Persia.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (): What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the Mission to Persia? Does he refer to the Consular service?
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I am referring to the item of £6,000 for what is called the Persian Mission, and should like some information as to how the money has been spent.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: For Consular services.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: As the salary of the political officer in charge of the Mission appears on the Budget, I think I am in order in referring to it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would be out of order in going into the question of the relations of this country with Persia and of maintaining the status quo. That is a matter quite outside the region of Consular officers.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I only want to impress on the Government the fact that any alteration of the status quo in Persia would seriously endanger the safety of India, and I want them to use all the means in their power to prevent any such thing happening.
  (1.25) SIR EDWARD SASSOON (): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down referred to the extraordinarily high level at which the salt tax is maintained, and the state of stagnation of that revenue appears to give a very strong confirmation to his view. I think that we in this House have reason to feel uneasy at that state of things which appears to argue that less salt is consumed by the poorer people than is consistent with a wholesome condition of life. It is to be hoped that the Government of India will be able to recur to the former low level of tax in the best interests of the community. Then he referred with some misgiving to the fact that money was being spent upon the Indo-European telegraph line. The hon. Member omitted from his consideration the fact that we have already a direct cable to India, but even that is not sufficient, and I would ask my noble friend the
  166
  Secretary of State for India whether any steps have been taken to connect Keeling Islands, by means of a spur cable, with Ceylon. I need hardly impress upon the noble Lord the advisability of getting that done, because it would afford us a duplicate cable to India by way of Vancouver, Australia, Keeling, and Ceylon, and thence on to India. I have already mentioned the matter to the Colonial Secretary, under whose jurisdiction Keeling is, and he promised to see to it at the earliest possible opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire has very pointedly drawn the attention of the House to the shortcomings of successive Indian administrators, to the absence of large and comprehensive schemes of irrigation. I can endorse a good deal of what he said, while not being able to blame the Indian Government. After all, they, like any ordinary individual, have to cut their coat according to their cloth, and I am not sure that they have not exercised a wise and salutary discretion in disposing of their limited financial resources by encouraging the construction and promotion of branch railways, so that wheat and grain from districts where there is a plethora of them may be transported into other districts where there may be scarcity. At the same time, I am far from wishing to throw cold water upon the views and arguments advanced with so much ability by my hon. Friend, and I would fain hope and believe that the Government may soon be in a position to undertake and to establish schemes of irrigation which would tap large sources of supply, such as those afforded by the mighty rivers there, and so bring large tracts of land under cultivation.
  I now desire to associate myself, though in a guarded way, with the congratulations tendered to my noble friend on the Statement presented to the House. Substantially it exhibits on the surface, at any rate, a progressive and a prosperous development of the financial and economic position. The elasticity displayed by the various branches of revenue is certainly remarkable, but one is naturally led to enquire in estimating whether there has been an improvement or a relative set-back, whether these

  167
  sources of revenue are sources to which the riots and the masses of the agricultural population to any extent contribute. That is one point. The other is whether the general expansion of activity is co-extensive with and at all proportionate to the increase of the population, which, in spite of famine, has undoubtedly taken place in the last two decades. The House will remember that within that period the whole of the province of Upper Burma, with its eighty odd thousand square miles and three to four millions of inhabitants, has been incorporated with British India. What are the sources of income which have increased in bulk and in volume? My noble friend tells us that they are from imports, such as cotton goods an d beet sugar, which the proletariat certainly do not use, and again from such heads as post office, stamps, excise, and income tax. Sir, the increase in stamps is held to be a sign of greater combativeness and a litigious spirit, and as regards excise, the debate has shown that in spite of the determination of the Government to discourage the provision of facilities for drink, drunkenness is not on the decrease, and therefore and addition to that head of revenue can be no matter for gratification. What I mean to say is that these are not categories of State income obtained from the poorer people, and I submit that they can scarcely be considered as affording any reliable evidence of a widespread increment of the margin of prosperity and purchasing power. My noble friend has told us of the rate at which surpluses have accumulated. I beg leave to examine and to dissect analytically the conclusions he so readily draws, or which seem to be so glibly drawn, as to the people's well-being, and when my noble friend assures the House on the warrant of the expansion of the revenue shown by the last two accounts that this is the case, I feel bound to part company with him.
  After the choruses and paeans of rejoicing shown indifferently on these and on the Benches opposite, I rather feel like a skeleton at the feast. What are, broadly, the factors, the co-efficients of a country's progress? In a country like India, I would say the state of the export trade, the condition of the manufacturing industry and of the railways, would be
  168
  the best criteria to guide one's opinion. Now as regards the export trade, we are told that it has increased by 16 per cent. True, but that increase is shown on a comparison with the exports in years of famine, and after two or three years of enforced rest the soil is bound to show its recuperative power, and I therefore question whether that increase is quite as satisfactory as under former currency conditions it might reasonable have been expected to be. It is also true that railway receipts have improved, but let us remember that even during the last year the effects of famine had not altogether disappeared, and I do not know to what extent these receipts may have been affected by transport of men and of grain in connection with famine relief, and therefore paid for by the State. And when we come to the state of manufactures, it indicates a high water mark of stagnation, if not of decadence and retrogression, and so one feels impelled to ask whether these surpluses have not been derived at the cost of numerically and economically two of the most important classes of the community, by the insidious operation of currency changes. The staple manufacture in Bombay consists of cotton goods. I refer principally to that presidency because I happen to know something of it, but I am assured that my remarks equally apply to kindred industries in other parts of India. In Bombay no less than fifteen to twenty corers of rupees have been invested in cotton mills. Out of the sixty that were flourishing before the closing of the mints, no less than fifteen are now eking out a precarious existence and ten others are utterly unable to cope with the critical conditions which now confront them. Sir, I have the authority of a native gentleman, whose expert knowledge of the subject my noble friend will not deny—I mean Mr. Tata—who says that "market values declined even in '95 below the point reached in '90 that in nearly every case the value of 1900 is much lower than that of '90 and '95, and lower than the par value."
  So much for the textile industry. If the House turns its attention to the tea, coffee and indigo enterprises, it will find that they experience the greatest difficulty in maintaining the competition

  169
  against the products of similar industries coming to Europe from silver standard countries. Does my noble friend think it so inconceivable that the disturbance of values, necessarily of a far-reaching character, brought about by the alteration of the standard and the closing of the mints to the free coinage of silver, may have exercised a powerful influence in contributing to these untoward and prejudicial results? I am told that other causes have been at work, extraneous, alien, and beyond the will or the ordering of the Indian Government, and that these are substantial factors in the phenomena which I am endeavouring to submit to the judgment of the House. Well, granted that, I ask how are we representatives of the highest tribunal, to which are committed the interests and the welfare in the last resort of those hundreds of millions of poverty-stricken peasants? We are, according to the felicitous phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, each of us a "Member for India," who owe it to our consciences, as my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean says,—
  "To see that these millions do not suffer from the misplaced and ill-judged administrative initiative of the Indian Government."
  How are we, without the facts and the data and the testimony of those who suffer, to discriminate between those elements in the economic situation which Government is capable of redressing or largely mitigating, and those other elements which, resulting from causes outside the purview of their control, must consequently be beyond their power to affect? with all due deference, I submit to my noble friend whether it is not a reasonable proposition when an issue of such gigantic magnitude is weighing in the balance, when the origin of that issues apparently connected with and has become progressively acute since the inauguration of those currency laws with which the House is familiar, that some kind of serious and searching inquiry, not necessarily a public inquiry —I should rather say that inquiry by Government officials in India should be instituted—to ascertain, as far as may be, the subtle play of the economic
  170
  forces which you have created, and so endeavour to reach a solution of the problem in the interests of the teeming, toiling masses of the community. That was a stupendous change. It was, after all is said and done, decided upon under the spur and stress of a difficulties and an increasingly awkward Budget situation. Sir, that situation cannot be held solely to be a justification to that step, irrespective of its effect upon the wealth-producing members, however that situation has undoubtedly been relieved, but whether relief has or has not been procured at the cost of transferring the burden from the shoulders of classes, I mean those who have to send money home and those who use articles and luxuries of European origin—as the House will see, a relatively insignificant class—on to the shoulders of another, by far the most important, and from their helpless and uncomplaining nature the class that compels the consideration and commiseration of this House—I mean, of course, the agricultural people. My noble friend brushed aside, with perfect courtesy, but with an easy nonchalance, the whole matter by informing me that the Commission of 1899 had disposed of the whole thing, and that there is nothing in the allegations to invalidate its finding. That was a question-begging reply, as I hope to show recently. He entirely missed the gist of the point of the case. The Commission presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite commenced it labours in May, 1898. I beg to ask the attention of the house particularly to this point. The rupee had then barely attained the steady equilibrium of sixteen pence, because it was only in May, 1898, curiously enough, that it touched the magic figure, and beyond infinitesimal oscillations has remained there ever since. My noble friend will see that the economic disturbance and transference of the incidence of the burdens, if such things have taken place, consequent upon the diversion of the rupee from the intrinsic value of silver, had not had sufficient time to operate. I think hon. Members will acquiesce in the contention that that Commission investigated a state of things against which we have no complaint to make, and not the fixed sixteen penny rate which, since its

  171
  Report, has been crystallized as a permanent factor. What is it that in the main has enabled the rupee to be screwed up to, and to be maintained at a parity of forty-two pence per ounce, when the metal of which it is composed has gradually dwindled, until it has now reached the abnormally and unprecedented low price of not much more than twenty-two pence by manipulation and contraction of the currency? That is incontestable—at any rate I have not seen in successfully disputed. The policy was admittedly and avowedly a tentative policy. The Indian Government categorically refused to name a minimum for the sale of their drafts, which it shows that in their view it was in the nature of an experiment. It would seem that now, after the lapse of four years, during which equilibrium in exchange has been secured, it is reasonable to ask that some review of its action and its effect upon Indian commerce, trade and industry, should be undertaken. India is a poor country, and the gold standard suddenly introduced there cannot have been without its effect upon interests which have from time immemorial been based upon a totally different standard. The employment of gold enters infinitesimally, if it enters at all, into the daily transactions, consequently the restriction of the coinage, and during the last eight years something like five and a half to six corers less has been coined judging from the average of former years, and not allowing for any expansion of the people's needs, tends, and must from the nature of the case tend, to produce periodic disturbance in the money market and harassment to the multiplicity of business transactions.
  We see this curious phenomenon, that while the rupee has been artificially increased in value, it has to-day scarcely any greater purchasing power in India than it had before the mints were closed. On the other hand, let me very briefly illustrate what has occurred. the exporter in India sells his produce, say wheat, at forty shillings a quarter in England; as a matter of fact it is rather less, but that does not affect the argument. For these forty shillings he gets about 40 per cent. less in rupees, so that he is mulcted to that extent. He is obliged to part with a larger percentage of produce, while the weight of taxation remains the same. There is no point in the argument that he should hold out for a higher gold
  172
  price, and for this reason, that the price of a commodity is ultimately determined and governed by the cost of its production at the largest sources of supply and centers of production and distribution, so that while American and Australian and Russian cereals are selling at a certain level of price, Indian wheat must obviously adapt itself and conform to that level. If the House desires and authoritative confirmation of what I am advancing, I beg leave to read a very short extract from a letter of the Treasury to the secretary of State for India, bearing date 24th November, 1879. Referring to the proposal of the Indian Government to restrict the coinage of rupees—
  "My Lords say in general the object of those Governments who embark on that course is to diminish the amount they have to pay to their creditors. In the present case the object of the Indian Government appears to be to increase the amount they have to exact from the taxpayers. My Lords fail to see any real difference in the character of the two transactions. If the present level of exchange be due to the depression of silver, the Government scheme if it succeeds a my relieve the Indian Government and others who desire to remit money to England. But this relief will be again at the expense of the Indian taxpayer, and with the effect of increasing every debt of fixed payment in India, including debts due by ryots to moneylenders."
  Then again the Indian Government, writing to the Secretary of State in 1886, freely admits that
  "So far from the value in exchange having proved injurious to the people of India, the Indian cultivator appears to have actually gained."
  I feel sure the noble Lord would be the last person to dispute the soundness of the opinions I have quoted, and if the Indian cultivator gains by a low exchange, the converse of the proposition, that he absolutely suffers from high exchange, must hold good. They further seem to bear out what he himself told us of the increasing indebtedness of the Indian peasantry.
  Now, Sir, if these effects are such as I have stated them as regards gold standard countries, as regards the country further East where the exchange varies with the movements of the white metal, the effect is still more disastrous. The Indian manufacturer, having to sell his goods in dollars, finds that when he convert those dollars into rupees, he only gets 130 for every 100 dollars, while

  173
  formerly when the exchange between the two countries was on the same basis, he got no less than 220 rupees. Sir, this is a serious loss, and when we consider that these disabilities are coincident with the growing competition of Japan, the question of India's loss can be perfectly well measured by the House. And now comes the gravest blow of all. You have by a stroke of the pen reduced to a considerable extent the intrinsic value of the savings of the people. These are invested in ornaments or ingots of uncoined silver. They are hoarded against a rainy day. They used to be disposed of weight for weight against the rupee. Now they can only obtain one-half. Has this arbitrary knocking-off of half the garnered wealth of the poor had no effect upon their power of resistance, their capacity of self-sustenance on occasions of famine? Does not this lend point and substance to the accusation freely made by demagogues and agitators, interested agitators if you like to say so, in whose mouths a weapon of this sort can be used with the most telling and damaging effect, that the last famine was more a rupee than a grain famine. We hear paeans sung in speaking of the surpluses achieved, and yet in 1894-1895, though exchange was at its very lowest, the Budget was balanced with a substantial surplus. While all the economic manifestations point to the great probability, I put it no higher than that, that the poorer classes are being ground out of existence by the juggernaut car of the State rupee, and while the lines of the peasant appear to have fallen in anything but pleasant places, the manufacturing classes, as I have already tried to show, are about as badly off. And why? You have imposed—and both Parties are tarred with the same brush — excise duties on the handicraft of the Indian, out of sheer pusillanimity, ostensibly in the name of some pedantic sacrosanct doctrine, some Cobden Club heterodoxy, but really to prevent,—and with all deference to the altruism of the Member for Oldham—the coarser kinds of yarn and cloth, and these constitute the chief productions of the Indian mill, from interfering with and shutting out, some portion of Lancashire goods.
  174
  Where in the name of all that is reasonable is the justice or justification of your action? I see no redeeming feature n this sordid squalor of electoral pre-occupation. In our Colonies protection is rampant, and more flagrantly and more outrageously rampant in that the goods from the mother country are indiscriminately attacked with those of the foreigner. We have reduced that value in rupees of the farmer's produce, we have caused his hard-earned savings to shrink to one-half, we have brought the various industries to the brink of ruin; and does my noble friend, with all this cumulative evidence before him, seriously believe that he has allayed the apprehensions or met the objections of those who, rightly or wrongly, think that substantial grounds exist, that there is a strong presumption in favour of investigation since the 16-penny rupee was crystallized into stability, by riding off on the conclusions of the Fowler Committee? I would ask my noble friend what self-respecting economic observer would be satisfied with the deductions and conclusions gained under the circumstances of the Committee. I would appeal to him, not to turn a deaf ear to those plaints and remonstrances, faint though they be, which reach this House from the people of India. I appeal to him, as the Member for Kilmarnock did in his vigorous philippics, not to be inveigled and overpowered by the miasmic opinions of the bureaucratic element that abhors change and inquiry as much as nature abhors a vacuum. I have had some experience of this inertia, of this aversion to the brushing away of cobwebs, of secret arrangements and mystifications in the region of cables. A sacred charge lies on each of us, and my noble friend, if he spurns their tribulations, if he disdains to inquire into them, would be gratuitously assuming responsibility of the gravest kind. If so, I would venture to hope that, with the assistance and sympathy of this House, I may be allowed to appeal to the tribunal of public opinion to make effective these representations, and while in no way pre-judging the issues that cluster round this matter, we may send an

  175
  eirenicon of hope to the sorely-tried, though staunchly loyal, people of India.
  *(2.0) MR. WEIR ()expressed his satisfaction that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India stated in the speech he made the other day that the Land Revenue in future would be collected with moderation, that the subject of technical education would receive more attention, and that a larger amount of money would be spent upon it. He was glad, also, that the noble Lord held out some hope that the salt tax would be lightened. That tax pressed heavily upon the millions of people in India. Perhaps for the present, however, the Government of India had adopted a better course in writing off a large portion of the arrears of the land assessment. Last year the amount cancelled was £1,300,000. These arrears were largely attributable to the famine. The holdings of the ryots in India averaged two and a half acres of land, and their arrears averaged fifteen rupees, or £1 sterling. He regretted the large number of evictions which had been carried out—the number in the Presidency of Madras during eleven years, from 1879-80 to 1880-90 inclusive—were 840,713. It was terrible to contemplate the suffering which this involved, for it meant the turning of families out of their homes and taking everything from them. As the result of those evictions 1,963,364 acres of land were put up to auction, but the Government were only successful in selling 779,142 acres, the remaining 1,184,222 acres being bought in by the Government at an average of 1 1/2d. per acre. That fact illustrated the extreme poverty of the people. They were unable to buy land even at that low figure. It was through no fault of their own that they fell into arrears, and he could only hope that the money-lenders did not reap much benefit through the remission of arrears of assessment. He trusted that the noble Lord would take care that more agricultural banks were established. These banks were in the experimental stage at the present time, and he hoped they would prove successful, for it was important that everything possible should be done to get rid of the money-lender,
  176
  who undoubtedly was one of the greatest curses of the ryotwari of India. Next to the prevention of evictions, about the best way in which money could be spent was in the spread of technical education. On his recent visit to India he inspected the workshops and technical school which had been established by the Gaikwar of Baroda, where he found a large number of young men anxious to get technical instruction and a knowledge of mechanical work. He also visited the boot and shoe and saddlery factory at Gwalior. There the best American and European machinery was in operation, and the establishment was being run on the most satisfactory lines. He looked for good results from the development of industrial pursuits, which would enable the people to get away from agriculture, in connection with which there was nothing but misery and starvation. In support of his contention that the Government of India should encourage technical education and the development of manufacturing industries, he quoted from a lecture recently delivered in London by Sir H. Cotton, late Chief Commissioner of Assam. The greatest good, said the lecturer, that could be conferred on India was technical education and the restoration of industrial enterprises.
  The hon. Member condemned the system with respect to official service, which resulted in the burdening of the finances of India with enormously heavy pensions. This arose in a large measure from the fact that Government officials were allowed to retire too soon. He advocated longer service for the officials. He did not know, after all, that the climate of India was so trying as was sometimes stated. An Indian official drove down to his office at twelve or one o'clock and spent two or three hours there. The sahib was waited upon by a number of servants, and on the whole, the conditions of his life were such that he should not be able to retire at the early age he did now. Many of these Indian officials, on coming back to this country, engaged in all sorts of pursuits. If they were obliged to serve a few years longer that would be one way of lightening the burden of Indian finance which, he thought, would certainly give satisfaction. He was glad that Lord Curzon was realising the importance of dealing

  177
  with the question of the Indian police. In regard to Indian railways, he said that, while it was true they had been constructed at a heavy cost, it was a good thing they had been constructed, for, looking to the hostile feeling entertained towards the British by some of the frontier tribes, it was if great importance that we should have facilities for the rapid transport of troops and guns. Moreover, railways were of the greatest value in the development of the country. The time had come when a great deal more should be done in the way of irrigation. The Maharaja of Jeypore during the famine put a large number of people to work on irrigating a tract of land which now looked like a beautiful garden. All around there was nothing but desert, and what had been done at that place was an illustration of what could be accomplished by means of irrigation. He suggested that loans might be raised specially for irrigation purposes. Irrigation works had done much to improve the condition of the fellaheen of Egypt, and he had no doubt that similar works would do much to benefit the people of India. He was glad to find that so able a man as Sir Colin Scott Moncrief had been despatched to India to investigate the whole question would submit the report of that gentleman, who was so able to deal with matters of that kind, to the House of Commons. Then there was the question of the housing of the native troops. He had been very glad to notice that the housing of the European troops was all that could be desired everywhere; but the Native troops were atrociously housed in places not fit for pig-styes. Now they should do what they could to house these men comfortably. We had to depend upon them to fight our battles, and to stand by us in times of need. He could assure the noble Lord that there was very considerable dissatisfaction amongst them in regard to the condition of their cantonments. He was told that there had been a slight improvement in getting better houses in some districts, and he hoped that the Government of India would see to it that all the Native troops were housed in places in which human beings could live. He must refer the noble Lord to the question of currency notes in India. It
  178
  was a surprise to him to find that, after supplying himself with a sufficient number of currency notes in Bombay or Calcutta, he could not change them everywhere in India. In Darjeeling, for instance, they could not be cashed at all, except through the courtesy of a merchant. That was rather hard lines, and there was something wrong somewhere. He knew that the answer would be made that the currency officials in Calcutta were against any change in the present system, because they said it would cause additional trouble in the Department. That was nonsense—it would give them a little more work to do; the Government offices ought to be run on business principles. The noble Lord had said that there was great credit due to the Works Department. He did not think so. He had called at the Works Department in regard to the overcrowding of third-class carriages and other matters. He was glad to hear that Lord Curzon was looking into this matter, and that India has in him a Viceroy who spared no pains in his work. As to automatic brakes, the law in this country was that there should be automatic brakes on every passenger train, but there were many trains in India that ran for hundreds of miles without automatic brakes. And yet that was on State Railways! There ought to be an automatic brake on every passenger train in India. The noble Lord said that our rule in India was a rule of justice, and not of force. He doubted that . There was the case of Sirdar Natu and his brother, both of Poona, who had been arrested and kept in prison for two years without trial, and then the prison doors were thrown open and they were told to go. They got no compensation for alleged illegal seizure of their personal property, and no attention has been paid to their representations, which, in fact, have never been acknowledged. Again, there was the case of Krishna Rao Raghunath, grandson of Bapu Raghunath Dewan of Dhar. Bapu had six sons, one of whom, Ramchandra Roa, was suspected of complicity in the Mutiny. Not only was Ramchandra's property confiscated, but that of every member of his family, although all these had been true to the British Crown. That was not the rule of justice, but the rule of force. Two of the descendants of Bapu, viz., Krishna Rao Raghunath

  179
  and Shanka Rao Bhagwant, are respectively entitled to a sixth share of Bapu's estate, and they should not be made to suffer because a relative was not true in his allegiance to the British Crown. He trusted that the noble Lord would look into these matters himself. He had heard nothing but praise everywhere about the government of Lord Curzon. It would be a God-send to the people of India if Lord Curzon's stay were prolonged for five years beyond the ordinary term. His Lordship had done magnificent work in India, and he urged the India Office at home to support him in his efforts to bring about a better state of things in India.
  *(3.0) COLONEL LEGGE (): I would ask the indulgence of the House for a short time while I call attention to a matter which has been much commented upon in the Press, and has been the subject of Questions in this House. I refer to the punishment by the Government of India of the 9th Lancers. On Monday last I put a Question to my noble friend the Secretary of State for India as to whether he would cause a full and independent inquiry to be made into this case, and I was informed that my request could not be granted because the matter was a question of military discipline. If it were merely a question of military discipline I would not bring the matter before this House, but I think it is a question of much greater importance, affecting the administration of justice in India and the relations between the white and coloured races in that country.
  The circumstances of the case are briefly these. In April last the 9th Lancers returned to India from South Africa, after two and a half years' service in that country. They were sent to Sialkote, in the Punjab. On the night of their arrival they were entertained by the other regiments on the station. That same night a native cook employed in the regiment, who had been turned out of the cook-house earlier in the day for being drunk, was found lying about two miles from the cavalry lines cruelly ill-treated—so cruelly that he died within a few days. Steps were at once taken to find out who was implicated in this ill-treatment, and a regimental inquiry was held. They could get no information on
  180
  the point. A second independent inquiry was ordered by the General Commanding, and he was unable to get a trace of the offenders. A civil inquiry was held, with practically the same result. This native made a statement to the effect that he had been ill-treated by soldiers, and, as he believed, by the 9th Lancers. Another native, who was with him, stated that the man had been ill-treated by soldiers, but the night was so dark that he could not distinguish who they were. The officers of the 9th Lancers offered a reward of 500 rupees for the apprehension of the offender, and that led to no result. The Government of India were not satisfied with the evidence that had been adduced; they made up their minds that the 9th Lancers were guilty, and they ordered them severe punishment. All officers and men on leave in India were recalled, and it was ordered that no leave should be given until June, 1903. Extra sentries were posted on all regimental buildings, and the regiment was ordered to be removed to another station not so popular as their present one, and they were further ordered not to attend the Durbar at Delhi. That part of the punishment has been remitted. I am not sure that it would not have been better if it had been retained. The 9th Lancers formed part of that small army which, in the year 1857, held the Ridge at Delhi against all the assaults of the rebels until the city was taken. On that Ridge stands a memorial to all those who fell—"Erected by their comrades who lament their loss, and the Government whom they have served so well," and it would be perhaps better that that regiment should not be brought back to Delhi after forty-five years absence, suffering under a punishment which had been inflicted by a Government which they believed had served them so badly. The evidence in this case was that of the injured man himself and that of another native. Native evidence is notoriously unreliable, and anyone acquainted with India knows of the four-anna witnesses who surround the courts there, and who, for the payment of that small sum, are prepared to give evidence for either side. It might possibly be said in this case that the man was dying, and that his statement should be received as a dying declaration, but that could hardly be contended, because in the "Manual of Military Law," with

  181
  which all officers make themselves acquainted, it says—
  "Dying declarations," said Mr. Justice Byles, "ought to be admitted with scrupulous, I had almost said, with superstitious care. They have not necessarily the sanction of an oath; they are made in the absence of the prisoner; the person making them is not subject to cross-examination, and is in no peril of prosecution for perjury. There is also great danger of omissions and of misrepresentations, both by the declarant and the witness. To make a dying declaration admissible, there must be an expectation of impending and almost immediate death from the causes then operating. The authorities show that there must be no hope whatever."
  Therefore I do not think it can be contended in this case, that the statement of this native can be looked upon as a dying declaration.
  The reason I have brought this question forward is not, as I have said before, because it is solely one of military discipline, but because it affects the administration of justice generally. I desire to enter my sincere and emphatic protest against this general punishment of a regiment for an offence which might have been committed by one or more of their number, and it is for that reason I have brought this forward. In reply to a Question put on Monday last by the hon. Member for Essex, my noble friend the Secretary of State for India stated that it was reasonably certain that the assailants were men of the 9th Lancers. I do not think the law admits "reasonable certainty." Reasonable certainty admits a doubt, and it is, I believe, the law of this country that in a case of doubt the accused gets the benefit of it. The noble Lord went on to say this punishment had been inflicted because the regimental authorities had been guilty of neglect. I do not know what further inquiry could have been made, but if any officer has been guilty of neglect of duty, then it is for the authorities to deal with that question, as they are perfectly able to do under the King's Regulations. I submit that every attempt has been made to discover the offenders in this case. Another Question was put to my noble friend the Secretary of State, which was as to whether this punishment met with the approval of the military authorities, and
  182
  his answer was that it did. The information which I have in my possession leads me to believe that that is not so. I am informed that the military authorities and the Government of India are not at one upon this point, and that is the reason why I thought it my duty to bring it forward, because it is not a question of military discipline, but a matter of justice.
  What is the punishment in this case? It is one which I suppose is intended to uphold military discipline and protect the natives of India. With regard to military discipline I am convinced that a general punishment of this sort is not the thing to maintain it, and my experience is that discipline is best maintained by absolute fairness, and not by harsh and indiscriminate punishment. The effect of a general punishment is to make those who are perfectly innocent discontented and unhappy. But this case goes far beyond that. I have seen letters in which it is said that the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men feel this military slander deeply, especially after the way in which they have maintained the name of the regiment. It is not the officers and non-commissioned officers and men only that it affects. It affects the officers of the past, and all those who have friends and relations in the regiment now. Among other things I am informed that the draft that is on its way to India now is to suffer the same punishment, and that the punishment will apply to all those drafts that go to India to this regiment, and all the officers who may join the regiment between this and the 1st of June, 1903. I have said that I desire to protest against this general punishment which I consider antiquated, barbarous, and vindictive. It is a punishment which I believe is Chinese in its origin, and it is vindictive because it will be made to apply to those who could not by any possibility have been guilty. I have asked that a full and independent inquiry should be made into all the circumstances of the case. I ask that that inquiry shall be full, shall be independent of the military authorities, and independent of the Government of India, and I make that request in the interest of this distinguished regiment, to which India owes so much.
  *(3.20.) LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (): In my opinion, this is a very serious case, on grounds other than those on which my hon. and gallant friend has based his statement. We are gradually getting into a state in which the public and the Press and this House are constantly interfering in questions of discipline. Such intervention must be absolutely fatal to the government of the services. At the same time I think that this deplorable state of affairs has been brought about through the agency of those in authority. What has raised this feeling in the Press and the public? It is a question of collective punishment, and anybody who has ever had anything to do with the administration of men and boys knows that collective punishment is absolutely futile for the purpose of finding out anything at all. I can give my experience in the Royal Navy, and I have some experience of regiments. Those that have experience know perfectly well that discipline is often very irritating, but they also know that we have to suffer from that irritation in that barrack room, or on the lower deck, seven-eighths of the men are entirely on the side of authority, and endeavour to dissuade those who are inclined to insubordination from making fools of themselves. What is the result? In the 9th Lancers you may depend upon it that seven-eighths of the men and non commissioned officers are trying to find out who in the regiment killed this man. The authorities thought it right to punish the whole regiment, and the result is that you have the seven-eighths of the men who desire to support authority 20 percent. more angry than the others, because they feel they are suffering the injustice of the punishment. Justice and discipline are not by any means synonymous terms. In justice you have the admission of extenuating circumstances, but in discipline you have not. A breach of discipline has to be punished, and the punishment has to be accepted. Sandhurst is a case in point. At Sandhurst there were some fires lit in the college, the authority inflicted a collective punishment. What was the result? Althouth seven-eighths of these young
  184
  men were probably loyal to authority, they lost their tempers, went outside, and broke the rules. That was an offence against discipline and had to be punished. If it had not been a question of discipline, but of justice, there would have been extenuating circumstances to take into account, because a number of these young men had been punished for something with which they had nothing whatever to do.
  There is another point with regard to collective punishment. Take a school, a regiment, or a ship's company. Who is regarded with the greatest horror? The informer and the sneak. Collective punishment is a premium on the informer and the sneak; and collective punishment never yet brought out information among such communities. The Secretary of State for War appears to doubt my word. I can only say I have never been a shipmate or a schoolmate with a sneak. As far as discipline goes it is necessary, no matter what discipline you enforce on the men under your command, to be strict, and men will submit so long as the matter is one purely of discipline, in which they do extra duty or something of that kind. If you administer your discipline badly you will get the men irritated and insubordinate and have to punish them collectively. Now, it might be asked what punishment would I give?
  The punishment which I would have given in the case of Sandhurst would have been to call these young men before me and tell them I was going to put so many of them on duty as sentries in pairs day and night, and that if a fire occurred where they were sentries they would be discharged with disgrace. There would then have been no mutiny. I would have dealt similarly with the 9the Lancers. I would have put extra officers on duty, extra pickets. If the non-commissioned officers' pickets had not been enough, I would have put on officers' pickets; and if that were not enough, the whole regiment. Men will never refuse to do their duty. In the case of a difficulty on board a ship, I would not order the ship to remain at a certain place for a month and forbid the officers and men to go ashore. That would bring about a mutiny

  185
  to a certainty. I would send the ship steaming out to sea and give the men extra duty, or march them twice round and island if necessary, and there would not be a word said. As to the plea of "reasonable certainty" a court of law would not hang a cat on a reasonably certain charge. Here a whole regiment is punished because it is thought reasonably certain that one or more men had beaten this unfortunate Hindu. My noble friend said that the regimental authorities had not made reasonable attempts to discover the offenders. I am sorry to say I do not believe a word of it.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Do you know what they did?
  *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: The noble Lord is quite right; I do not know; and if the noble Lord instead of saying that had told us what they did do he might have prevented needless irritation. I only base my speech on my personal knowledge of that distinguished regiment. For many years I had a distinguished brother in the 9th Lancers, and from what I have known of the regiment for years, I am confident that the officers used every effort to find whether any soldier in the regiment beat the Hindu. The authorities are to blame for the way in which they have dealt with the case of Sandhurst, and they are to blame for the way in which they have dealt with this case. Possibly, the distinguished administrator who is viceroy of India has some reason which has not been made public for punishing the regiment, but the manner in which the punishment has been inflicted is entirely wrong, and I hope the noble Lord will give some explanatory reason why it occurred at all; but whatever reason he gives, from my point of view, the collective punishment of the 9th Lancers was injurious and a punishment not calculated to find out who was the offender. It is bad for the service that such a punishment should be given, and it is a bad thing for the public to raise matters of discipline before the whole country.
  *(3.30.) CAPTAIN NORTON (): In taking part in this debate I
  186
  desire to make it perfectly clear that I have had no communication, either direct or indirect, with anyone in this regiment since this occurrence. I do not wish to deal with the matter from the narrow point of a regimental scandal—there are far greater issues at stake. We have here under review the three questions of discipline, justice, and expediency. The question in which I naturally, like the two hon. and gallant Members who have already spoken, take deep interest is that of discipline. Recently there has been a tendency, especially on the part of civilians, to look upon discipline as a secondary consideration, because in the recent war the Boers made a gallant defence without having had any special military training, such as that imposed on Continental armies. But I would point out that there was in the Boer forces discipline of the highest kind, inasmuch as the men were serving under officers up to whom they looked as their natural leaders in times of peace, men who were closely associated with them, and who knew their characters in all respects. Therefore, in addition to the ordinary physical discipline, there was what I may call moral discipline.
  The questions I ask are these: Has the action of the Indian Government been such as to improve discipline, or has it not been rather to defeat it? Has the course adopted by the Viceroy effected its purpose? Have the culprits been discovered? I think not. I may point to an analogous case, which will be in the recollection certainly of some of the military Members of the House. In 1891 a Captain Von K— in the German army was murdered near the Prussian frontier. Whilst standing outside the riding school this officer was shot through the heart, and the smoking musket with which the deed had been committed was discovered in the vicinity of the school where he had been drilling some of his men. There were also a number of men in the stables and barracks close by. What action did the German Government take? It cannot be denied that the German army is the first army in the world, more especially where discipline is concerned. The German Emperor, who is the head of the army, who occupies a position which no person in this country occupies, and who, besides being a man of great ability is of undaunted courage, having a free hand, did what? He did

  187
  not punish the regiment collectively, but he sent special detectives from Berlin to inquire into the character of the particular squadron, and into the sayings and doings of the men. Four months afterwards three men were brought to trial, and acquitted. Why? Because there was a reasonable doubt, as there is in this case. It is well known that it is a simple matter to get Russian escaped convicts, some of whom are always endeavouring to cross the frontier, to commit any crime for a mere nothing, because they carry their lives in their hands, and it was quite within the bounds of possibility that one of these men had been procured to commit that crime.
  I may say that many years ago I served at this particular station of Sialkote for three or four years with another Lancer regiment. I took one of these very cook boys on an expedition to the hills; he assaulted a native of the country, and I had to pay for his misconduct. It is well known that in this district there are a number of ne'er-do-wells and criminals who, having escaped into the native city of Sialkote, try to obtain service as cook boys. Like all conquered races, East Indians are very subtle, and would have no hesitation whatever, having perpetrated an outrage themselves, in endeavouring to throw suspicion on the shoulders of some European regiment, and if there is one regiment more than another that they would select it is the 9th Lancers, because that particular regiment did most gallant and distinguished service in the whole of the Punjab War and the Indian Mutiny.
  Before passing to the question of justice, I may state that I have not a word to say against the noble Lord, who has had such a distinguished career in India, and who, I frankly admit, is to be excused in a great measure for the action he has taken, because it is his duty and our duty to show the natives of India that they cannot be ill-treated with impunity by Europeans, that their lives and property are under the protection of the Emperor of India, and that they can appeal with confidence to us to protect them in all respects. But what effect will this punishment, if it is continued, have upon the people of India? This collective punishment will be
  188
  resented by the European soldiers in India, and there will be a reflex action on the part of the natives. The latter, with their great astuteness, will know how to insult the European soldiers, who will, of course, retaliate. This system of general punishment may sometimes succeed with school boys and with uncivilised races, who are practically children, but there is a great difference between boys and men. Men have greater fixity of purpose; their characters are more formed; they have greater fortitude and wider experience of life, and this form of punishment is bound to fail, particularly where the British soldier is concerned. By moving the regiment to another station you are only sowing the dragon's teeth, because every European soldier in the station will take up the quarrel, and there will be a state of perpetual friction between the people of India and the between the people of India and the European garrison. It will be only human nature for every one of the 200,00 men in the Indian Army to side with their kith and kin, and thus a deplorable state of affairs will be created. And what effect will it have in this country? A large number of time-expired men are about to come home from India, and in a year or two, if not now, there will be a great difficulty in obtaining sufficient men to replace those whose time has expired. We should be face to face with a great recruiting difficulty, and what will be the story that these time-expired men will be spreading about the country? That any man who joins the army will be liable at any moment to be punished for an offence of which he is totally innocent. It will be the death-blow to recruiting.
  In conclusion I would ask the Secretary of State to suggest to his noble friend the Viceroy that now he has shown to the natives of India his desire to protect them, he should, in the interests of expediency, put an end to this punishment. He has ample excuse for doing so, because in a short time we are to have this great Durbar, when India is to rejoice at the accession of her new Emperor. A good opportunity presents itself, therefore, for doing that which will help discipline, is nothing but bare justice, and is undoubtedly most expedient.
  *(3.45.) LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have no right to speak in this debate, as I have already addressed the House, but as speeches have been made directly impugning the action of the military authorities in India, I am sure the House will allow me for a few minutes to occupy their attention. It is with great regret that I am compelled to say what I shall say in the next few minutes. If my advice had been taken, this case would never have been brought up in the House of Commons. It is a very serious matter to bring forward a case of this kind, for two reasons. The action taken has been disciplinary, it was taken on the authority of the highest military personages in India, and it is bad for military discipline that action so taken should be reviewed in this House. I have no fault to find with the tone and substance of the speeches which have been made, but unquestionably my hon. and gallant friends have been supplied with ex parte statements. I am compelled, therefore, to do that which I would rather not have done—to state the facts of the case, the exact nature of the punishment inflicted, and the consequences of that punishment. It is perfectly true that this is not a military question alone, but a question of the administration of justice. I am glad that my noble friend the Member for Woolwich expressed in such clear and emphatic terms that, so far as he was concerned, he would do everything in his power to stop Europeans in India in any way misusing their position by assaulting or attacking natives. That is a feeling which unanimously animates this House; but I am bound to state that during my tenure of office cases have come up where natives have been violently assaulted, maltreated, and in some cases have died, and I am bound to add that the investigations made into those malpractices were not so prompt as they should have been, nor so quick as they would have been if the assaulted had been a European. It must be borne in mind that we have in India an absolutely unique Empire, consisting of 300 millions of natives, subject to 200,000 white people at the outside, including men, women, and children. Nowhere is the British soldier treated with greater consideration, and nowhere, on the whole, does he behave better.
  190
  But these cases of violence and outrage have from time to time occurred. Lord Curzon, from the time he took up his office, has exercised the whole of his great powers and influence in impressing upon his white countrymen that it is their duty to investigate such outrages with the utmost promptitude, and with just as sincere a desire to bring home justice to the culprits as if the conditions were reversed and it was a white man who had been assaulted by a native.
  What occurred in this case? The 9th Lancers, a magnificent regiment, with as fine a record behind it as any regiment in the British Army, after most distinguished service in South Africa, arrived in India and went to Sialkote. It was entertained on the night of its arrival, and I am afraid there was some heavy drinking. At 9 o'clock, or a little past, on that night a native cook, who had been taken on in connection with some work in the kitchen, was brutally assaulted within twenty-five yards of one of the kitchens of the cantonment occupied by the 9th Lancers. The poor wretch managed to crawl away, and in the morning he was found in an almost moribund condition not far from the officers' mess. His eyes were bunged up, his head and body bore marks of fist—natives do not fight with their fists&two of his ribs were broken, and he was a mass of bruises and contusions. The police traced clearly the place where the assault took place; there were large patches of blood on the spot. The man at once made a statement to the effect that he was assaulted by two members of the 9th Lancers, and that they assaulted him because he failed to procure for them native women. He lived only for a few days, but from the time he made his first deposition until he died he always adhered to the statement that he had been assaulted by two men of the 9th Lancers. The officer commanding at Sialkote telegraphed to the Indian Government to say that an assault had been committed on a cook by two members of the 9th Lancers, and that he had ordered officers commanding 9th Lancers to hold an immediate inquiry. No immediate inquiry was held. Nothing was done till the man died, six or seven

  191
  days afterwards. Then a court of inquiry was held of a most perfunctory character. Two captains and one subaltern constituted the Court. They summoned four native witnesses. The evidence of those witnesses certainly tended to corroborate the dying statement of the man, because two of them asserted that they saw the cook assaulted by two men, but it was so dark, and they were so frightened that they ran away and could not actually identify the persons who committed the assault. Not a single white man, not a single person connected with the regiment, was called before the Court. The Court reported to the commanding officer, and the commanding officer, in forwarding the report, stated that it was difficult to detect the guilty persons because there was only native evidence to rely upon. The case went on to the Lieutenant. General, who at once characterised the inquiry as one of a most meagre and perfunctory character, and ordered a fresh inquiry; and on that Court no officer of the incriminated regiment sat. I have no doubt the carelessness or heedlessness was not intentional; but still it must occur to any one that, when a regiment like the 9th Lancers, with such a record, had an outrage of this kind imputed to them, it was the bounden duty of the officers to lose no opportunity and to exhaust every means at their disposal to clear their regiment from the stigma which had been cast upon them. The second court of inquiry failed to obtain sufficient evidence to identify the culprits. The military authorities then sent down General Combe, who addressed the 9th Lancers and used very plain language to them, imploring them to assist in bringing to Justice those who had perpetrated this outrage. A day or two afterwards a native was killed by a mamber of the 9th Lancers. It was one of the old stories. He was a punkah coolie, who had been kicked violently by some soldier, and died in consequence. [An HON. MEMBER: He had no boots on.] The soldier swore he had no boots on, but the natives swore he had. He was brought up before a civil court, and fined. This was the second case of a native—assuming for a moment that the 9th Lancers were responsible for the
  192
  first case—being done to death in the course of about two months. The military authorities took a serious view of the situation, and suggested that punishment should be inflicted upon them, and they further suggested that the 9th Lancers should not be allowed to attend the Delhi Durbar. The punishment inflicted, therefore, originated with the military authorities, and had their full sanction throughout.
  Collective punishment has been strongly condemned, but I will undertake to say that my noble and gallant friends who take that view have in the course of their lives constantly and perpetually inflicted collective punishment. It is of the very essence of military discipline. It is the beginning and end of it. What is the most ordinary punishment in the Army? If a company or troop does not, through the fault of a few, drill well, the whole body gets extra drill.
  *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: That is duty.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is collective punishment in order to bring up the company or troop to the standard of efficiency. My noble friend says that if he had had charge of this case he would have inflicted a commonsense punishment, which, as far as I understand it, was to put the whole of the 9th Lancers on extra sentry duty. My noble friend is a much severer task-master than the Indian Government, because all the latter have done is to put an extra sentry at every bungalow for a year. Would my hon. and gallant friend exempt the officers from punishment, or would he put them on extra sentry go? Sentry-go, however, would be more resented by an officer than having his leave stopped. The Government of India hold that a regiment must be treated as a military unit, and that, if punishment is inflicted on the men, the officers could not be exempted. Therefore they stopped for a year the leave of the officers and put the punishment mentioned on the men. Not very long ago collective punishment was inflicted upon another regiment, and great exception was taken. A very serious and discreditable outrage occurred in

  193
  Rangoon in a British regiment. I do not want for a moment to liken the case we are discussing to that outrage. But there again justice was baffled, and baffled for want of energy on the part of the civil and military authorities. It was a disgraceful case. Lord Curzon told me that he was co-operating with the military authorities and would do everything in his power to bring the perpetrators of that outrage to justice. A collective punishment was imposed on that regiment with the consent of the military authorities. What is the sequel to that? In the middle of the Boer war, when calumnies and falschoods were being circulated all over Europe against our Army, a friend of mine, who has taken a bold part, and wielded a facile and powerful literary pen, was living abroad and exercising that pen on behalf of the reputation of the British soldier and the credit of the British Government. That gentleman wrote to me to say that a scandalous lie was being circulated in the papers throughout Central Europe. That statement was an exaggerated statement of this case at Rangoon, and he asded me to authorise him to say that the statement was untrue. I was unable to do that, but I was able to show my friend that when the Government failed to detect the perpetrators of that outrage they showed their displeasure by inflicting collective punishment, and to save the reputation of the British Army and the credit of the British Government by showing clearly that they had no desire to connive at or hush up the outrage. In this case also it is the duty of the Government and of the military authorities to show their disapproval of the failure to bring the perpetrators of this outrage to justice. What has occurred? I have received a telegram from the Government of India which contains a statement of the case which they have published in India. And this is the first result of the collective punishment to which my hon. and gallant friend has objected—
  "The commanding officer of the 9th Lancers has brought to notice of Government the identity of one, if not both, of guilty men in the regiment now reasonably suspected, and in one of two instances is almost certain. But the case against them, which rest in the main upon admissions made by themselves to their comrades, but since repudiated, is insufficient to obtain judicial conviction."
  I dare say there will be some indignation, but that indignation will be in
  194
  the regiment and not outside, and will be directed, not against the Government of India, but against the men who have brought discredit and disrepute upon them. These are cases which, I am thankful to say, do not often occur; but when they do occur, certainly, so far as I am concerned, I shall exercise all my authority in supporting Lord Curzon and the military authorities in India in bringing the perpetrators to justice. I shall not hesitate to support collective punishment if there is reason to believe that a military unit has, through certain of its members, misconducted itself and committed outrages, and there is any attempt on the part of the remainder of the members of that unit to shield the delinquent. This question is a very big one, and I have no time to argue it fully. But if we have been more successful than any other European nation in establishing our authority amongst coloured races, what is the secret of our success? It is not merely that we assert our power as a governing race, but because, when we establish our authority, we associate with it perfect equality under the law and before the law between all races, both criminally and civilly. That is the foundation of our power; that is the source of our strength. Much as I value the reputation of a noble regiment such as the 9th Lancers, there is something that I value more, and that is the credit of the whole British Army and the reputation of the British Government; and I maintain that, in this case, the action taken by the Indian Government, although it may have reflected on the reputation of that regiment, has maintained the credit of the British Government and of the British Army.
  (4.10.)LORD ALWYNE COMPTON (): I shall detain the House but a few moments. After what the noble Lord has said, I think it is only right that we should not stand in a false position. The information which has reached me from the very beginning is from a relative of my own who is at present serving in a high rank in that regiment. There are one or two things which the noble Lord has said which I should like to answer. As far as collective punishment is concerned, I

  195
  am not one who is in favour of that punishment, but in this particular case it seems to me that it was not a question of collective punishment but a question as to whether there should have been any punishment whatever. The noble Lord at the commencement of his speech said that it was with great regret that he had to say what he has told the House. I may say that what he has told us has been common knowledge in India ever since the beginning of this case. The noble Lord has referred to a second case in which a punkah coolie has been killed. I think it is quite fair that the House the circumstances of the second case also. My hon. and gallant friend who commenced this discussion perhaps had his own reasons for not alluding to this second case, but it seems to me that it is necessary now to state the facts. In the second case the death of the coolie was, it is quitetrue, due to a kick by a soldier. When the punkah stopped, the soldier woke up, went outside the bungalow, found the coolie asleep, and kicked him. The native died, and the case was reported. The man was brought before the jury and tried for manslaughter, but he was acquitted. He was then tried for assault, and was again acquitted. Finally he was condemned for a technical assault, and the punishment he received was a fine of fifty rupees.
  There was a third case, which was also in the 9th Lancers, but in this instance there was no loss of life. A subaltern, who was quite a boy, while on duty with a detachment of his regiment saw a native ill-treating a pony. He quarrelled with the native, knocked him down, and broke his nose. The subaltern was brought before the magistrate and was fined fifty rupees. The noble Lord the Member for Woolwich has asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House the reasons which induced the Government of India to inflict this punishment on the 9th Lancers. I venture to suggest that those other cases might have had some effect upon the minds of the Government of India and the military authorities, but let me point this out to the House. I am one of those who have served in India for five years, and whilst I was there I never ceased to condemn in the most strenuous manner the ill-treatment of the natives. This ill-treatment was constantly taking place, and I had
  196
  often to speak about it, and in my regiment we often had to punish most severely any ill-treatment of natives which was detected. That is my position, but now let us see how it applies to this case. You have had three cases. One was the case in which a native died, and you were not able to trace the crime to anybody in the 9th Lancers. Two other cases were traced to this company, and what happened? I should have been inclined to suggest that in this case a more severe punishment than a fine of fifty rupees should have been inflicted where the two culprits were found out, if any impression was to be made upon the company. In one of these cases a man came forward and owned that he was the culprit. Therefore, in this case, where the culprit was actually found, a fine of fifty rupees only was imposed. Then there was the first case to deal with in which the culprit was not found. The Government of India said that the culprit must be found, and General Combe was sent down to hold a most searching investigation, and he absolutely failed to find any proof that it was one of the 9th Lancers that had committed the crime. It is perfectly true that this native, on his death-bed, said it was a horse soldier who committed the assault upon him, and therefore the outrage was attributed to the 9th Lancers. The noble Lord did not tell the House that the doctor who attended this native in the hospital, and who gave evidence at the inquiry, had himself stated that he did not attribute the death of this native to ill-treatment. That was before the inquiry was held, and the doctor there stated that in his opinion the death of this boy was not due to the ill-treatment he had received. It was shown that the boy had been suffering from other things, and at any rate it was agreed that his death was not due to this cause.
  There is one other charge made by the noble Lord, that the 9th Lancers did not proceed earlier to make the investigation which they ultimately did make. An investigation was held, and two captains and a subaltern held a court of inquiry. So far as I can gather it was held at once. The noble Lord says that they did not call any witnesses, but you cannot invent witnesses. What witnesses were there to call? This affair took place at night.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The second court of inquiry did call witnesses, therefore I assume that they might have been called before. They called the noncommissioned officers who were in the neighbourhood.
  LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: It may be right to say that the inquiry was stupidly conducted, but that is a very different thing from saying that the regiment conspired to conceal a criminal. The censure upon the regiment was that there had been concealment of the criminal. I have very little doubt that I am rightly interpreting the feelings of the 9th Lancers when I say that the charge that they are wilfully conspiring to concceal a criminal is what they resent very much. As to the punishment inflicted upon the whole regiment and stopping their leave, I am sure that the 9th Lancers consider that punishment as nothing compared to the stigma cast upon them of concealing a criminal in a case which is not proved against them, which the general officer tried to prove, and which the officers themselves tried to prove by offering a reward of 500 rupees in order to endeavour to ascertain the criminals. In spite of all this there was an absolute failure to find the perpetrators of this crime. I do not think the regiment deserves a stigma of that kind placed upon them of having concealed within their ranks a criminal, in a case in which they have done their utmost to find out the culprit. I think to have a stigma of that kind placed upon a gallant regiment, which has not only done good service in South Africa recently, but which during the whole time it has existed as a regiment has acquired a great reputation, is something which will be resented very bitterly, and for the whole regiment to be punished for a case of this kind certainly seems to anyone who has made himself acquainted with the facts a travesty of justice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not rise to say anything about the 9th Lancers, but I simply intervene in order to remind the House that when the Government gave an additional day for the Indian Budget, I think the House will remember that it was understood that part of that day should be devoted to the consideration of the second Order on the Paper. I certainly think we ought not to ignore
  198
  the claims of those who have a right to speak upon the subjects raised by the Indian Budget, but, as this was the understanding, I hope the House will now agree to close this debate and proceed with the Orders of the Day.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Sir John Rolleston)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10th November], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  *(4.20.) MR. CALDWELL (): This Bill deals, as its title sets forth, with the Osborne Estate, one of the private estates of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, which under her Will is vested in His Majesty the King for his life, with remainder to the Prince of Wales for his life, with remainder to his first and other sons, according to seniority, in tail general, with divers remainders over, and with an ultimate remainder to His Majesty the King, his heirs and assigns for ever.
  The Bill sets out that His Majesty has, with the concurrence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, signified His gracious pleasure that, on the occasion of his Coronation, the Osborne Estate should be handed over so as to become part of the public property of the Sovereign, and that provision should be made for the use of Osborne House and grounds as a memorial to Her late Majesty Queen Victoria in the manner set forth in the Bill. The Osborne Estate was the personal and private property of the late Queen, and was possessed and transmissible by her as fully and freely, and subject to the laws of England in all material respects as if it were the private property of any of Her Majesty's subjects. However laudable may be, and obviously are, the intentions of the King in varying the will of the late Queen, yet, according to the law of England, the variation is such as it is not within the title and power of His Majesty, even

  199
  with the concurrence of the Prince of Wales, to effect. According to the preamble of the Bill (which is all the information vouchsafed to this House), the King and the Prince of Wales are but tenants in succession for life; and by the laws of this country they have no more legal rights than is accorded to any of His Majesty's subjects who are similarly vested in property as tenants for life. The first tenant in tail is the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, who is a minor, and cannot of course give consent; and his consent is not alleged in the Bill. Parliament is, therefore, asked to supply the want of title, by giving statutory sanction to the transfer of Osborne Estate proposed in the Bill; upon the footing, as we all knew, that Acts of Parliament can cure all defects of title, and sanction anything, even to disinheritance. So far as the wishes of the King are concerned, I feel sure that it would be the desire of every Member of this House to comply with His Majesty's wishes, as far as they could conscientiously do so. But, in this particular case, there are other wishes and interests which this House is equally bound to consider before giving its sanction to this Bill. There are the patrimonial interests of the tenants of tail—the children of the Prince of Wales—which are affected by this Bill, one of the results of the passing of which will be to deprive the Prince of Wales's sons of an inheritance bequeathed to them in tail by their great-grandmother. Then, last, but not least, there are the wishes of the late Queen, as conveyed by her last Will and Testament, regarding the disposal of property which was her own to give and bequeath in whatever terms she pleased; and which, for reasons which were best known to herself, she in the most solemn manner, by her last Will and Testament, bequeathed to be enjoyed as the private estates of the Sovereign. On the Second Reading of this Bill I will not press further the claims of these children of the Prince of Wales. Their interests, if so desired, can be met in Committee by an Amendment limiting the operation of the Bill to the lifetime of His Majesty and the Prince of Wales. But, besides that, what Parliament may do today, Parliament may undo tomorrow; and if any of the tenants in tail who may become King be desirous of resuming Osborne as private estate, in terms of the late Queen's Will, he may,
  200
  if he so desires, approach the Parliament of the day and ask to be restored against an Act of Parliament to which he was not, and could not be, a consenting party. The main question this House—the last House of Commons elected during the life of her late Majesty—has to consider, is the effect of this Bill on Her Majesty's last wishes. From the terms of the Will itself, it is obvious that the late Queen availed herself of the utmost liberty given to her by law to tic up the estate, by giving two life interests in succession of persons living, and by beginning with the children of the Prince of Wales as the first tenants in tail. That was as far as, in the circumstances, her late Majesty could, under the laws of England, the up with certainty the Osborne estate.
  The Prince of Wales having children alive in her late Majesty's lifetime, no doubt she would picture in her own mind that one day one of these children might come to possess and enjoy Osborne estate as one of the private residences and estates of the Crown, in supplement of whatever Parliament might give to would continue to be a royal residence reign. Again, it was and is a matter of notoriety in this country, that it was the express wish of the late Queen's wishes, this House is somewhat at a disadvantage in far as regards Osborne estate. Notwithstanding the life-rents given to the King and the Prince of Wales, it was within the power of her late Majesty to appoint a Protector (not necessarily either of the life-renters), who, during the existence of the life-rent, might give or withhold his consent to any deed by the tenant in tail intended to bar the entail. Whether her late Majesty appointed a Protector, or relied solely on the guarding of the entail by the life-renters, this House is not informed.
  I protest against this withholding of information. So long as none of the heirs of the late Queen approach this House asking its intervention, this House has nothing to do with Her Majesty's Will. But when Parliament is asked to consent to the breaking of Her Majesty's Will, this House is entitled, before giving its consent, to the fullest information with regard to

  201
  that Will. But as showing the wishes of her late Majesty as regards the disposal of her private estates, even more striking than the mere terms of the deed itself is the great solicitude which Her Majesty took with regard to the state of the legislation on the subject of Crown private estates, which underwent considerable change during her reign, and all aimed at securing these estates as private property outside of the hereditary estate of the Crown. To go back for a moment to the legislation which preceded the Victorian age. A great authority, Mr. Allen, in his book on the royal prerogative, states that, 1000 years ago, the king of England, like other people, could own and dispose of land as private property. He could also—but only with the assent of his Council—make grants to private persons of the lands which belonged to the people. Gradually, however, this conception changed, and in the last stage the distinction between the private patrimony of the King and the public property of the State was at length obliterated. It became a maxim of English law that all estates possessed by the King—even in his private capacity—belonged to him in right of his Crown, and descended with it to his successor. By the adoption of this principle the king was restrained from making bequests of landed property by Will, but he still retained the power to give away the Crown lands in his lifetime. By an erroneous conception of his right to these lands he was allowed to dispose of them by Patent without the advice and consent of his Great Council. During this period, the Crown lands got dissipated, and led to very great abuses. This state of things was remedied by the Civil List Act of Queen Anne, whereby, in exchange for the Civil List, all private estates of Sovereigns were swept into, and became Crown lands. The Crown was prohibited from holding private property in land, and was also prevented from all alienations of Crown lands The provisions and restrictions of the Act of Anne were further applied by I George III., cap. 1, and 34 George III. cap. 75.
  It was not until 1800 that the series of Acts begin dealing with the true private estates of the Sovereign. They are enabling Acts, permitting the King to
  202
  escape from the disabilities of has common law and statutory provisions and enabling him to acquire, own and dispose of landed property in his own personal right. By 39 and 40 George III., cap. 88, passed in 1880—first and leading although not the last Statute—a distinction was introduced by Statute between the estates held by the Crown, as the Crown, and estates held by the Sovereign in his or her personal capacity. It was enacted that all estates which had been, or which might thereafter be, purchased by His Majesty, his heirs or successors out of any monies issued and applied for the use of the Privy Purse, or with any other monies not appropriated and enjoyed as the private patrimony of the Sovereign, free from the restrictions of the Act of Anne. There were further set free from the same restrictions estates which had come or might come to the Sovereign, his heirs or successors by gift of devise or by descent or otherwise from any of their ancestors or any other person not being kings and queens of this Realm. The reason for this last exemption obviously is that if gifts or succession from kings and queens were not exempted, then pretty well the whole of the Crown property might have fallen under of the Sovereign. The next Statute, 4 George IV., cap. 18, passed 1823, extended the private estates of the Sovereign, his heirs and successors, to lands whether freehold, copyhold or leasehold. held directly or through the intervention of trustees before accession to the throne, and which before such accession they might have legally granted, sold or delivered.
  We come now to the Statutes in the reign of Queen Victoria, which, taken in conjunction with the Will of the late Queen as regards Osborne Estate, show the great solicitude of Her Majesty that her private estates should be preserved with the Crown Lands, as is proposed by this Bill. The Statute 1 and 2 Vict., cap. 95, Section 4, passed in 1838, extended Section 7 of the Statute of Queen Anne to Ireland and Scotland and to all parts of the United Kingdom. As Her Majesty had valuable private estates in Scotland, and as doubts were raised as

  203
  to whether the Statute 1 and 2 Vict., cap. 95, so passed, had not extended the Statute of Queen Anne to the private estates of Her Majesty, the Crown Private Estates Act, 1862, was passed, as its title sets forth—
  "To remove doubts concerning, and to amend the law relating to, the private estates of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors."
  This Statute was evidently prepared with very great care, and it contains within itself a complete code of laws relating to the private estates of the Sovereign. In Section 1—the interpretation of terms—the private estates of Her Majesty are defined to mean—
  "All real or heritable property and estate of whatever tenure, whether in England, Ireland, or Scotland, or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, which had been or should thereafter be purchased or acquired by Her Majesty or her heirs and successors out of monies issued and applied for the use of the Privy Purse, or with any other monies not appropriated to any public service, and any lands of whatever tenure which had come, or might come, to her or them by gift, or devise or disposition of, or by descent, inheritance or succession or otherwise from any of her or their ancestors or any person not being king or queen of this realm, and any lands, of whatever tenure, whether in England, Ireland, or Scotland, or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions which did or shall belong to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, or held in trust for them, at the time of accession, and which before such accession they might have legally granted, sold, given,, disposed, or conveyed."
  These were practically the terms of the Act of George III. of 1800 as extended by 4 George IV., c. 18 and 1 and 2 Vict., cap. 95, but contained new words specially relating to Scotland—the words dispone and convey. Section 2 of the Act, 1862, goes on to say that none of the provisions and restrictions of the Act of Queen Anne or of 1 George III., cap. 1, or 34 George III., cap. 75, shall extend to the private estates of the Sovereign. By Section 3, leasehold estates (other than in Scotland) are to be vested in trustees. Section 4 deals with estates situate in Scotland. Section 5 deals with testamentary dispositions of the private estates of the Sovereign other than in Scotland, and so applies to the Osborne Estate. It enacts that the private estates of Her Majesty may be disposed of by Her Majesty in manner provided by the 4th Section of 39 and 40 Geo. III., cap. 88—that is the Act of 1800. Provided always that a Will
  204
  or other testamentary disposition by Her Majesty of and concerning such private estates shall not require publication. The Will is to be valid if signed by the testatrix, or by some other person in her presence and by her direction in the presence of two witnesses. Then follows a proviso that every such Will, whether made under the powers of the Act, 1800 or 1862, shall, as regards the property therein, be construed to speak and take effect as if it had been executed immediately before the death of the testatrix, unless a contrary intention shall appear by the Will. Section 7 to the Act, 1862, applies to Crown Private Estates the provisions of Section 5 of 39 and 40 Geo. III., cap. 88, which provides that if no disposition of such estates is made by the Sovereign, or if the disposition does not exhaust the whole estate then the same or the balance is to descend as if that Act had not been passed—the effect of which would be to carry it to the Crown property. As showing Her Majesty's solicitude regarding her private estates, and that they should be treated in all respects as the private estates of any of her subjects, Section 8 prescribes that the private estates of the Sovereign shall be subject to all such taxes, rates, duties, assessments and impositions, parliamentary and parochial, as the same would have been subject to if they had been the property of any subject of the realm; and all such rates and taxes shall, so long as such private estates shall be vested in Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, be ascertained, rated, assessed, or imposed thereon in the same manner and form in all respects as if the same estates were the absolute and beneficial estate of any of Her Majesty's subjects. By Section 9, payment is to be made out of the Privy Purse of Her Majesty [to save proceedings against the estate.]
  Although the Act of 1862 was framed with very great care and was an Act to remove doubts concerning the law relating to Crown private estates, yet so solicitous was Her late Majesty regarding her private estates, if left to one who might succeed her as King, that another Act was passed in 1873, 36 & 37 Vict., cap. 61—to explain and amend the Crown Private Estates Act, 1862, and to remove doubts as to whether any

  205
  such private estates left to one who may be or become King or Queen of this realm, will be, or, after accession, continue to be, held as private estates. It will have been observed that the previous Acts only allowed to be treated as private estates, gifts or descent where the donor or ancestor was not a King or Queen of this realm. Section 1 of the Act of 1873 enacts that all the provisions of the Act of 1862 concerning the private estates of Her Majesty shall apply to all gifts, devises, or dispositions made by Her Majesty, her heirs or successors to any person who may become King or Queen of this realm, unless in the instrument an intention shall be expressed that such estates shall not be or after the accession of any person entitled thereto to the Crown of this realm, continue to be, held as such private estate.
  Nothing could be more emphatic regarding Her Majesty's intention. But there is even more in this Act of 1873. It extends to the Crown private estates the provisions of Section 3 of 3rd and 4th William IV., cap. 106, passed in 1833, which provides that when any land has been devised by any testator to the heir or to the person who shall be heir of such testator, such heir shall be considered to have acquired the land as a devise and not by descent. Before the passing of the Act of 1833, if any person devised lands to his heir by Will, then, on the death of the testator, the heir took the lands as heir, and not as devisee. It is a well-known principle of construction of statutes that unless an Act of Parliament is made specially to apply to the Crown, the Crown is not affected by it. Hence, as the Act of 1833 did not specially apply to the inheritances of the Crown, they were excluded from its operation. The result was that estates left to the heir of the Crown by the Sovereign would be taken up not as devisee under the will but as heir to the Crown; and thus the lands would fall into the hereditary estate of the Crown, which the statute of Anne could not be alienated. Hence the necessity of Section 2 of the Act of 1873, which preserved the private character of any estate devised by the Queen to the heir of the throne.
  206
  It was, therefore, in order to prevent the very thing happening that this Bill proposes to do—namely, the falling of Crown private estates into the hereditary estate of the Crown—that the Acts of 1862 and 1873 were passed. Even this change was not allowed to be passed unchallenged. In the division on the Second Reading, 167 voted for the Bill, and 35 against it—the tellers against being Mr. George Anderson, one of the Members for Glasgow, and Mr. Bouverie, the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. The minority were opposed to giving any facilities for the acquisition of private property by the Sovereign, holding that it should all be merged in the Crown lands. The opinion of Sir George Lewis was quoted in the debate, who on 22nd May, 1857, said:—
  "It has been deemed a matter of policy in this country wholly to strip and denude the Sovereign of all hereditary property, and to render him during his life entirely dependent upon the bounty of Parliament."
  In the course of the Debate in 1873, Mr. Gladstone—who was then Prime Minister—incidentally referred to the case of the Osborne estates. He said:—
  "If Osborne were to fall into the mass of Crown Estates—[the effect of this Bill]—it would have to be taken under the charge of the Commissioner of Works—[what this Bill proposes to do]—and this House would be asked for a large sum of money for its maintenance as a Royal residence—[the purpose of this Bill]. It appeared to him that these outlying properties were of secondary importance, of no territorial importance whatever, and that it was for the interest of the public, considered in a pounds, shillings, and pence view of the question, that they should not become part of the Crown estates."
  Obviously, the whole of the debate would be followed by Her late Majesty with the greatest interest, and would increase her determination to preserve the private character of her estates, with the view of preventing their becoming part of the Crown lands.
  Now if we turn for a moment to the Bill itself we shall find that it is not intended to confer a gift, as it were, on the part of the King to the nation. I have already dealt with the King's title. It is important to observe what the Bill does. It transfers Osborne estate and vests it in His Majesty in right of the Crown, and henceforth it is to cease to be a private estate of the Sovereign. Then provision is made for keeping it up by placing it as a charge on the public

  207
  revenues of the country, and the Crown Lands Act is to apply. While this property is ostensibly handed over and becomes part of the Crown lands, it should be observed that under the pro-restriction. By sub-Section 4 of Section vision of the Bill it is handed over with a 1 it is proposed that the Osborne estate should become a memorial of Her late Majesty. The sub-Section provides—
  "As a memorial to Her late Majesty, the Commissioners of Works (a) Shall, during His Majesty's pleasure, preserve, so far as may be in its present condition, and keep open to the public, in such manner and on such terms as the Commissioners, with the approval of His Majesty, determine, such part of Osborne House as appears to have been in the personal occupation of Her late Majesty; and (b) shall devote the rest of Osborne House and the grounds under their management to be used for the benefit of officers of His Majesty's naval and military forces or their wives, widows or family. And the Commissioners of Works shall allow the said part of the estate coloured yellow (being Barton House and grounds) to be used as a residence for such persons as they may determine with the approval of His Majesty."
  This is not a gift to the nation. It is really a new trust not to be enjoyed by the nation as a whole, but by a section, "officers of His Majesty's naval and military forces, or their wives, widows, or family." The only thing the nation, as a whole, is to have is the privilege of paying the money for the up-keep of the estate and adapting Osborne House for the occupation by naval and military officers. I think that the matter will require to be very carefully considered in Committee. I take the position that we are dealing here with a property which, but for this Bill, the King and the Prince of Wales have not the power, according to the law of this country, to dispose of, in view of the Will of the late Queen. I think I have shown that Her Majesty was particularly solicitous that her private estates should not be merged in the Crown lands. I do not, of course, intend to move any Amendment now, but I have thought it right to bring this matter before the House. I think also, perhaps, I have given a complexion to the matter which even the King himself had not present to his mind. He probably thought when he was dealing with the estate that it was one over which he had full control. The matter can be dealt with in Committee. The
  208
  transfer of the estate as the King wishes may be made so far as his life extends, or it may be so far as the lives of the King and the Prince of Wales extend, but I think if Parliament does that it will do everything that is competent at present.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (): May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will tell the House what will be the financial aspects of the proposals in the Bill?
  *(4.58.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): I do not think any one can complain of the hon. Gentleman opposite for having drawn attention to the circumstances under which this Bill is proposed, and, if I may say so, I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the extraordinary power of research he has exhibited, and the lucid manner in which he has given to the House the result of his researches. But I think it will be unnecessary for me, and the hon. Gentleman will hardly expect me, to enter into all the various points he has raised, and the legal points he has so ably discussed, and to explore with him all the various statutes which have a bearing on the matter, and with regard to which we are not asking the House to come to a decision today. The hon. Gentleman did say something which I feel bound to remark upon for one moment. He rather accused the Government of concealing the contents of Her late Majesty's Will, and of withholding information which might perhaps have led the House to take House to take a different view of the Bill from that which it would otherwise have taken.
  *MR. CALDWELL: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I had no intention of accusing the Government of deliberately concealing anything.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am making no accusation against the hon. Gentleman. I only wanted to make it clear that, although we had not had it in our power to give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the will as he asked me to do on a recent occasion, yet the effect of Her late Majesty's Will is, of course, fully

  209
  described in the preamble of the Bill. We do not for a moment wish to deny that this Bill a variation of the wishes and Will of Her Majesty the late Queen. If it had not been so, it would not have been necessary for us to come to the House for some sections of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman does not deny that so far as the rights which the King, and the Prince of Wales had under Her late Majesty's Will are concerned, they were perfectly at liberty to place these rights at the disposal of Parliament, and, if I might be allowed to say so, I think the country at large will consider that, in doing this, the King and the Prince of Wales have made a munificent and generous gift to the nation. It is not only a gift of very great value at the present time, but a gift which will be, I venture to say, of much greater value in the future; for any one who has acquaintance with the extent and the nature of the land which has been conveyed to the nation will know that there are immense possibilities of development in the future, and that the gift of the King and the Prince of Wales is a most munificent one. With regard to the rights of the young Prince, there is no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman said is true; that he has rights under the Will which he is not in a position himself to dispose of. But, if this gift was to be made in a way in which it could be availed of by the country, it was necessary that all existing rights should be dealt with under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman himself has really given up any question of the rights of the young Prince by saying that these can dealt with in Committee. So far as the King and the Prince of Wales are concerned, in it will be recognised by the country that they are giving up to the country something of very great value. The hon. Gentleman has rather thrown some doubt on that by saying that this estate is not really to be for the enjoyment of the public, but for a select portion of the public. It is perfectly true that so far as the greater portion of Osborne House is concerned, the intentions of His Majesty are expressed in the fourth sub-Section of Clause, I, which reads as follows—
  "That the House will be preserved in its present condition, and kept open. and
  210
  used for the benefit of officers of His Majesty's Naval and Military forces, or their wives, widows, or families."
  Well, in order to carry out His Majesty's desires, and in the general interest of the public, and also in the interest of those who, as His Majesty's advisers think, should be specially favoured in this matter, a Committee has been appointed and is now sitting; and although they have not yet finally settled the exact form in which the intention of His Majesty is to be carried out, I hope that their Report will very soon be in my hands. The House will see, I think, from the composition of that Committee, that all composition of that Committee, that all interests are adequately represented upon it. Lord Esher and Sir Dighton Probyn may be taken to represent the official part of the Committee; Sir F. Treves and Sir Francis Laking will be, I think, accepted as representing the medical side of the case; Sir E. Ward, the permanent Secretary to the War Office, represents the Army, Captain Tyrwhitt represents the Navy, Sir E. Hamilton safeguards the Treasury, Sir Schomberg McDonnell represents the Office of Works, and Mr. Horner the Office of Woods. I think that that Committee will be accepted by the House as a representative Committee; and I am quite sure that any recommendations which they may make in regard to the mode in which the wishes of His Majesty are to be carried out will command the confidence of the House. I may say here that that portion of Osborne House in which her late Majesty died will not be open to the public at all, as it is the desire that that portion shall be kept, if I may say so, somewhat more sacred than the other parts of the house. But the grounds will be open to the general public.
  *MR. CALDWELL: That is not what the Bill says.
  *MR. RITCHIE: That is the understanding. The gardens, of course, will be only available to those who are living in the house—the officers of the Army and the Navy, their wives, widows, and families, who may ultimately find refuge there. As to the cost to the public, I may say that it has been estimated that the structural alterations will cost between £5,000 and £6,000, and the up-keep of the house, gardens, and

  211
  grounds, everything included, will come to between £3,000 and £5,000 a year, according to the manner in which the house is utilised. Then there are the stables. Any one who has had the privilege of seeing the estate of Osborne will know that these stables are an extremely fine range of buildings, and the House will be glad to know that they are to be utilised in a manner which I am sure will be satisfactory to the House and to the public at large. The First Lord of the Admiralty has under his consideration a proposal to station a training ship in Osborne Bay for the use of naval cadets, and the stable buildings will be fitted up as workshops, gymnasia, and drill rooms for the cadets on board this ship. The existing dormitories will be utilised for the naval attendants, who will be required to look after the premises. There is also to be a sanatorium for the use of the naval cadets I feel sure that the House will agree with me, that that is a very useful way in which to utilise the stables.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What about the cost of the naval arrangement?
  *MR. RITCHIE: They will be charged in the Navy Estimates. There is at present an amount, roughly speaking, of £1,000 coming in from rents on the estate, so that the yearly expenditure will be reduced by that amount.
  MR. CALDWELL: What will the rates be?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I do not know, but I imagine that they will be small. I have explained all the circumstances under which this Bill has been proposed, and I think that the proposals contained in the Bill are of a nature which will be acceptable to the public, and that the House and the country will consider that the King and the Prince of Wales, in making over to the public this most valuable estate, have acted in a most generous manner. I hope in these circumstances that there will be no dispute as to the Second Reading of the Bill, which will have to be referred to a Select Committee.
  *MR. GIBSON-BOWLES (Lynn Regis): A stranger instance of the
  212
  mutability of human affairs has never been presented than this—that within two years of the death of our revered Sovereign, a Minister should stand up and propose to the House, a variation of the wishes and Will of Her late Majesty. Those are his own very words. I think that if three years ago such a suggestion had been made, it would have been scouted, not only by Ministers, the House, and the people of Great Britain, but even by the entire world, as an impossibility. But I desire to ask some information as to the real effect of the changes that are proposed to be made. For instance, we are told that that portion of Osborne House which was in the personal occupation of Her late Majesty is to be kept sacred, and that the public are not to be admitted to it. Well, the phrase, "personal occupation of Her Majesty," has usually been applied to a whole palace, such as Windsor and Buckingham Palace, personally occupied by the Sovereign. What does it mean here? We have not been told what part of Osborne House is regarded as having been in the personal occupation of Her late Majesty. Are the State rooms, and all the rest of the house where the guests were lodged, to be closed to the public?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have stated that that portion of the House in which the late Queen died will not be open to the public at all. The State aparments, including the large Indian Durbar room, will be open to the public.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am much obliged for the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. The right hon. Gentleman has described the composition of the Committee which is to consider, so far as I understand, the manner in which the Osborne estate is to be disposed of in order to carry out the provisions of this Bill. That Committee contains officials, medical representatives, naval and military officers, representatives of the Treasury and of the Office of Works; but there is no suggestion, so far as I can see, to put upon it any single representative of the public. Surely the public have some right to be considered in this matter, when we are asked to put down £6,000 at once

  213
  for structural alterations, and to pay £5,000 a year for maintaining the estate. I should have thought that, on a Committee so large, two members, either of this House or in some other way representing the public, should have been added to the Committee.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Perhaps I ought to have stated that I propose that the Report of that Committee shall be laid before the House before the Bill leaves the House.
  *MR. YOXALL (): Before the Committee stage?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I hope that may be possible.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should have preferred that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee rather than to a picked Committee.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then there will be a Select Committee of the House on the Bill as well as this executive Committee?
  *MR. RITCHIE: "Executive Committee" is not the proper term to apply to the Committee I have named. It is a Committee which has been appointed with a view to advising as to the best manner in which the King's wishes can be carried out.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that this Committee will make its Report, and there end its functions?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It will not be a permanent Committee?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Certainly not.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am glad to have elicited that information, which is entirely satisfactory. There is one other point. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that there is to be a new cadet training ship anchored in Osborne Bay. If this is to be a new training ship for cadets, is it to be a "Britannia" in little?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am not in position to explain to the hon. Gentleman, or to the House, exactly what the ship will be, or what it is going to do. I have explained what is to be done with the stables, and in doing so I incidentally stated that it was proposed to station a cadet training ship in Osborne Bay.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It now appears that the Navy is to be put in the stables, and that, in order to justify that, a navel cadets' training-ship is to be put into Osborne Bay at a further expense in the Navy estimates. It is only recently that we have very much enlarged the grounds at Dartmouth and erected magnificent buildings for the naval cadets there. To set up a supplementary establishment at Osborne seems unwise. I believe that it will be extremely difficult to provide at Osborne, notwithstanding the stables, the accommodation which will be absolutely necessary for training cadets. I trust that when the Bill is before the Select Committee further information will be given. There is another point. I followed with great interest the somewhat long, but they excellent, speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, and I must say that the strongest part of that speech was that in which he complained that the rights of the young Prince were set aside. It is impossible to conceal the fact that this Bill deprives the young Prince of his patrimony. I always understood that this House, and especially the Party to which I belong, was very tender as to the rights of property; and that if there was greater jealousy to be observed in one case than another, it should be in the case of the rights of private property of the Sovereign. The right hon. Gentleman has not defended the deprivation of the rights of the young Prince. He only

  215
  says that it is necessary that these rights should be dealt with in order that this Bill should be passed. I do not think that that is a sufficient reason for depriving the young rince of his patrimony. I could have wished that some better or more complete justification had been made for it. We must all feel gratitude for the munificence of the King and the Prince of Wales, who have placed their interests at the disposal of the country, but I think the account which the right hon. Gentleman has given of the purposes to which the estate is to be put is incomplete. I can only hope that Osborne House will be preserved and looked upon with veneration as a great memorial of the great Queen whose Will it is now proposed to set aside.
  MR. YOXALL: There is no doubt that this is a magnificent gift which His Majesty has made to the country; and I cannot imagine that anyone would object to it, though there are one or two points of detail on which further information is desirable. I think, however, that before the House proceeds with the Bill, which will lay an annual charge on the nation for all time, we should have the Report of the Advisory Committee to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred. We ought to know on what terms the naval and military officers are to be admitted to Osborne House; how many of them there are to be; and what the age of admission and what the process of selection are to be; although, of course, such questions could not be raised in regard to Hampton Court, which is entirely at the disposal of His Majesty.
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (): This is an occasion on which we would not be inclined to make use of fulsome expressions about Royalty. I am of an age to be without ambition, but I deprecate the use of language of the kind with which my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn commenced his speech. Her late Majesty left to her
  216
  family this magnificent property, purchased out of her private means, and Her Majesty's immediate descendants have desired to turn that property to the use of the nation, and have bestowed it in the manner of which we have heard today. I think we should all wish that the property left to Her Majesty's descendants should be used by them according to their judgment. I do not wish to associate myself with any expression implying that His Majesty is doing otherwise than making a noble and beneficial use of the property settled upon him and his family by his revered mother.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, that all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—Mr. Hayes-Fisher.)
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty - seven minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.