§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ * THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,) Perthshire, E., in moving the Second Reading, said there was no need of a long speech to commend this Bill to the favourable consideration of the House. There was no intention, he need hardly say, to borrow £25,000,000 right away. What the Bill did was to give power to borrow in this country from time to time such sums as might be necessary for railway and irrigation works and for general purposes. The total sum which would be raised under the first head was £20,000,000, and under the second £5,000,000. As the House was aware, Parliamentary sanction was needed to enable the Secretary of State for India to borrow money in this country; and it was the practice every few years for Bills of this sort to be passed. The limitation of the power of the Indian Government to borrow in this country was inherited from the old East India Company. The last general Loan Act was in 1898, and the last Railway Loans Act was in 1905. The Memorandum attached to the Bill showed hon. Members how the money borrowed under this last statute had been spent, and he did not think he need dwell upon that. The loans available under that Act for railway purposes had been raised and spent, and money was wanted now and more money for similar purposes, and the Memorandum indicated the object for which the money was needed, and the principle upon which it would be expended in future. He would like to point out to those interested in railway development that the Bill marked an advance upon railway policy as compared with that of the last Railway Loans Act of 1905. There, had been complaints from time to time that there had been insufficient capital expenditure upon railways in India. When the present Secretary of State came into office a, very important deputation waited upon him and pressed this matter upon his consideration, and in consequence of their representations a Committee was appointed by Lord Morley and presided over by Sir J. Mackay. The interesting Report of that Committee, 172 which was printed and circulated about six months ago, recommended very strongly a much more energetic railway programme, the reorganisation of the Railway Board in India, and more liberal expenditure of capital on railways. The recommendations, so far as concerned the Railway Board in India, had already been carried out with the approval of most of those interested in railway matters both in India and at home, and by the passing of the present Bill it was the intention of the Government to carry out, as far as may be, the financial recommendations of that Report as well. He would ask hon. Members to look at the first part of the Memorandum and they would see the two specific requirements for which ready money was wanted in the ensuing year, although the sums that would possibly be required under this head were smaller than under the Act of 1905. In all probability they should only have to find money for the discharge of about 1,000,000 Debenture Bonds maturing, mainly of the Madras Railway Company, for the time that this Bill would last. Secondly, it was possible there might be repayment of capital by the Secretary of State to the India Midland, and South Indian railways on the termination of their contracts at the end of 1910. He said possible expenditure of that money, because the Secretary of State in Council had not been able to arrive at any conclusion as to whether he should exercise his right or not. It could not be exercised before the end of 1910, and there was plenty of time for the Council to come to a decision. In any event, whether they had to exercise the power or not they should have a much larger balance over for general railway capital expenditure than was available under the 1905 Act for construction, extension and equipment. The question immediately arose, had new construction and extension or the better equipment of existing lines the first claim? At the end of 1907 there were in all India upwards of 30,000 miles of railway open, a great achievement, and in the course of the present year, down to 31st October, 384 miles had been added to the total. Of course, much more remained to be done. There were many districts—vast districts—in India, which still had no railway communication with the rest 173 of India, and with the centres of population, and of commerce, and there were many branch lines to be constructed along the great routes. There was before them, in fact, in the future, an almost unlimited extension of railways to meet the needs of the vast population. There was, however, a general consensus of opinion amongst those most capable of judging, and this was supported by the recommendation of the Committee to which he had referred, that the most clamant need of the moment to which capital ought to be applied was the better equipment of existing lines, rather than the building of new lines. It was no good having railways if they were not properly equipped for the traffic they had to carry. In recent years there had been great commercial prosperity, as shown in the increased earnings of the railways, and although there had been a falling off in railway receipts in the last few months owing to the famine and internal causes, in all probability this was only a temporary set-back, and it was their duty to provide for the return of more prosperous times. Of the bulk, therefore, of the capital expenditure of the immediate future, it was proposed that three-fourths or four-fifths should be devoted to the better equipment of existing lines, such as providing heavier tracks, stronger girders for bridges, doubling of lines near the large centres of population, extension of station yards, and, above all, the increase of rolling stock. The latter had been found insufficient to cope with the vast increase of traffic that had come upon the Indian railways in recent years. Hon. Members were not to imagine that they had not been alive to that need in past years. So far as the resources of the Secretary of State had gone, they had been moving in that direction for several years past. So far as these resources went, he had figures of the capital expenditure of the last three years, and it amounted to nearly £30,000,000. Of that 29 per cent. had been spent upon the construction of new lines, and 71 per cent. on the average upon equipment and new rolling stock. That was in three years, but he would point out that last year the percentage for equipment and rolling stock was 76 per cent. They looked forward 174 to going on in that direction and devoting to that purpose even a larger amount than at the present moment. He would refer hon. Members to a very interesting table at the beginning of the Indian Railway Administration Report of last year. They would observe that the curves of gross earnings and capital expenditure went on steadily increasing almost pari passu from 1853 to 1903. On and after 1903 the capital outlay had not been able to keep pace with its friend and rival gross earnings. They wanted the capital expenditure on Indian railways to keep pace again with the growth of their gross earnings. He would have been tempted, had time permitted, to dwell upon other aspects of the subject, and to note some of the political and social effects of railways in India, and to speculate as to the future; to touch, too, on the profitable nature of the railways as commercial undertakings, and the surplus they had rendered to the Government in past years. He might, however, say a few words on a subject of great interest in dealing with this matter, viz., the condition of the debt in India. We had reason to be proud of the example which India set us in regard to her small unproductive debt, and of the creditable way in which she always paid her way. The total debt of India on 31st March last amounted to £246,000,000. Of that, £176,600,000 was railway debt; £29,500,000 was irrigation debt; and only £40,000,000 was non-productive debt corresponding to the National Debt of this country. That non-productive debt only absorbed about 3 per cent. of their net revenue, whereas the unproductive debt of the United Kingdom absorbed 15 or 16 per cent. That was a very creditable result for India. The expenditure upon railways yielded profit to the State and a good percentage on the investments, and the expenditure on irrigation likewise yielded a very satisfactory return.
§ MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire)was understood to inquire by how much did the proceeds of railways and canals exceed the amount payable for debts.
§ * MR. BUCHANANsaid that they got from railways in recent years a net revenue of about £2,000,000 per annum and from 175 irrigation they got a revenue of about £1,000,000 per annum. He should like to say a word about the expenditure upon irrigation. There were those who perhaps thought that they did not spend enough on irrigation works. So far as this Bill was concerned, the capital expenditure on major irrigation works out of loan money that they contemplated was about £1,000,000 per annum. The net revenue from major works last year was no less than £1,250,000. It was £200,000 less than the previous year, but larger than the average of the last half-dozen years, which would be about £950,000. The area irrigated had steadily increased, and the sum of £1,000,000 which he had mentioned was by no means all that they spent. The Budget Estimate of this year was half as much again for minor and protective works, or £1,490,000, and there was also as the House was aware an expenditure from provincial revenues for the same purpose. The great authority on this matter was Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieff, and he issued a Report on this matter in 1903. They were proceeding on the lines of Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieffs Report. As hon. Members who were acquainted with that Report would know, in forecasting the future, he contemplated the expenditure of £29,500,000 to extend over twenty years for these major works, or about £1,500,000 per annum. He put a caution, however, in his Report, which showed that he appreciated that they might be a considerable time before they could work up to that figure, because the plans and surveys of the great works he proposed to construct would need a great deal of time to draw up, and to obtain the labour for constructing them. They, however, were steadily pursuing the lines of his policy. The accounts they got were most satisfactory of the work that had been done. They were going along as continuously as they could on that policy, and attacking in detail one after another the more important works that he recommended. He came to the general purposes part of the Bill, for which they asked leave to borrow up to the sum of £5,000,000. That was included in Clause 4. The last Act under which they had general powers was the Act of 1898. Until 1905, East India Loan Bills were of two kinds. 176 They were either Bills to borrow specific sums of money for specific railway works, or they were loan Bills for the service of the Government of India, which they here described as "General Purposes." In 1905 such pressure was being put on the Secretary of State for larger capital expenditure on railways that he wisely brought forward a separate Bill for general capital expenditure on railways and irrigation only. They had at the present time available general borrowing powers under the Act of 1898, but they were less than they appeared in the Memorandum. In the last paragraph of the Memorandum they were put at £3,800,000, but they were obliged to issue new bills in the month of November to the extent of £2,500,000 under this Act, so that the balance of borrowing powers they had now was £1,300,000. That was an illustration of the purposes to which in the main borrowing powers under the 1898 Act had been applied, and to which in the main the £5,000,000 which was asked for in this Bill would also be applied. The power that they enjoyed under the 1898 Act was a power enjoyed by this country and by every other self-governing community. In the course of the year when the balances were not very large they might have charges come upon them which they had to meet, and they had to borrow money for that purpose. As everyone knew, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was frequently obliged to go into the market and issue Treasury Bills, and in the same way, the Indian Government was frequently obliged to go into the market in order to issue India Bills, and in the month of November they had to issue £2,500,000 worth and in June £2,000,000 worth of India Bills. It might be asked why they wanted this power. It was to meet emergencies which any Government might have to meet. Some of those emergencies were great, some small. The only great emergency that he was aware of that had had to be met out of borrowed money since the 1898 Act was in consequence of the famines of 1898 and 1900. They were very severe famines, and the Secretary of State was obliged to borrow over here about six millions of money. He quite properly treated that as a temporary loan and was able in a comparatively 177 short time to repay more than half of it, but £2,800,000 of that money still remained as an addition to permanent debt. The only other sum within recent years which they could treat as a permanent addition to debt was an amount of £1,400,000 for railways, and they were entitled to do that, because when this Act was passed the general capital expenditure necessary for railways was included in the powers given by it.
§ MR. SMEATONWhat became of the famine insurance fund of £1,500,000 reserved to that particular purpose.
§ * MR. BUCHANANThat was absorbed at the time. His hon. friend asked for a complete account of all the transactions under the Act of 1898. It was impossible, to give that, but the general results could be summed up. He had given the only two specific transactions which had added permanently to the debt.
* SIR CHARLES W. DILKEForest of Dean) (Gloucestershire,said £2,000,000 had been borrowed since this Bill was laid before the House. They wanted to know what that was for.
§ * MR. BUCHANANsaid that was an issue of India Bills under the Act of 1898.
§ * SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid the words were "general" and "other" purposes, and the earlier words were "irrigation and railway" purposes. £2,000 000 had been recently borrowed under the Act of 1898, and they wanted to know what that was for, otherwise they could not understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ * MR. BUCHANANregretted that his explanation was not clear. They had made two issues of India Bills this year for £2,000,000 and for £2,500,000. Both issues were under the 1898 Act, though the latter was made after this Bill was printed.
§ * SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWhat for?
§ * MR. BUCHANANTo meet charges over here.
§ SIR F. BANBURYWhat charges?
§ * MR. BUCHANANHome charges which are constantly paid over here on behalf of the Government of India.
§ SIR F. BANBURYWhy are those charges not met out of revenue? They ought to be met out of revenue, and now I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he has met them out of capital, and that he has borrowed £2,000,000 in order to meet them.
§ * MR. BUCHANANsaid they were only being met out of borrowed money temporarily. It was the constant and necessary practice of every Government. The general result of all the transactions under the 1898 Act was that at the present moment they had only £1,300,000 available margin of borrowing power to go upon, and they asked for £5,000,000 more, but they certainly expected to repay very shortly not only the £2,500,000 recently borrowed but also the £2,000,000 which he had previously mentioned. The powers which the Indian Government were here asking for under Clause 4 were only the ordinary powers which every Government must have. He did not think anyone could say that the powers which they had had in the past had in any way been abused. The whole sum of the matter was that under Clause 3 they were asking for power to borrow another £20,000,000 for the purposes of the 1905 Act, and under Clause 4 another £5,000,000 for the purposes of the 1898 Act. The powers under these Acts had been carefully exercised, and he believed the additional money they now asked for would also be carefully used. He begged to move.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
* DR. RUTHERFORD (Middlesex, Brentford)said that, in moving that the Bill should be read that day three months, he was following a good precedent. When the 1898 Bill was introduced by the late Government, an Amendment was moved by Sir William Wedderburn to the effect that the House declined to 179 sanction a sterling loan of £10,000,000 until a Select Committee, on an examination of the East India accounts, should have reported that such loan was in the interest of the Indian taxpayer and would not unduly increase the burden he now sustained. That Amendment was rejected, but in the minority there voted the present President of the Local Government Board, the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1898 Lord George Hamilton, who was Secretary of State for India, used a substantial argument by saying that a considerable portion of the money was to pay off loans at high rates of interest and in that way reduce the interest on the debt and the indebtedness of the Indian taxpayer. He did not understand the Under-Secretary to make that point, which, after all, was a very solid and important argument. Who had been asking for this great extension of railways towards which the chief portion of the money was to go? The Under-Secretary seemed co suggest that pressure had been brought to bear upon the Secretary of State by financiers, traders, and chambers of commerce. Had any representations been made by representative Indian public bodies asking for this large expenditure for the extension and improvement of railways? So far as he could make out, the present railway system was excellent and adequate and there were far more pressing needs for money. The Under-Secretary had told them that £1,000,000 a year would be set aside out of the loan for irrigation. All Indians felt that irrigation was one of the great sources of salvation of the country. It was perhaps the best preventive measure against famine, and it would be infinitely better and wiser for the Secretary of State for India to recommend the Government to spend much larger sums on irrigation than upon railway extension. He would not dwell upon education, but they realised that in four out of five villages there was no school, and they knew that less than £2,000,000 a year was spent on education whilst £20,000,000 was spent on the Army. Surely it would be wiser if some portion of the money was dedicated to education 180 rather than to railways. He might say the same with regard to irrigation. They wanted to prevent plague, malaria, cholera, and other great and devouring diseases, and money was essential to carrying out great sanitary schemes. They, therefore, asked the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to use their influence with the Indian Government to apply the money to more wise and beneficent causes than were suggested in the Bill. They were standing on historic ground when they moved the rejection of the Bill and said that the supplies of money should not be granted until great grievances were redressed, and that there should be no taxation without representation. He would not dwell at length on that second great principle, because they all understood that the Secretary of State in another place was going to make a declaration of the Government's policy with regard to the great scheme which would incorporate reforms for giving the people of India a larger share in the government of their own country; but would it not be better to postpone the present Bill till those reforms were carried through and the Indians had an opportunity of expressing their opinions, sentiments, and wishes in regard to it? He was sure that would be in the interests of the good government of India, and would have a very beneficent influence upon public opinion there. The first grievance to which he wished to draw attention was the grievance of the House in relation to the Government of India. They were, so far as he could make out, treated in a very contemptuous fashion; they were either ignored or muzzled, and in many ways they had not the opportunity of expressing an unbiassed opinion upon great events in India. He would take the Partition of Bengal as an instance. They were told that the assent of the House of Commons was not required to that Act, although no Act was ever carried through more damaging to British prestige and British authority. It was a humiliating position for the House of Commons to occupy, and they protested and rebelled against it. They came there as Liberals, as Democrats, and as Labour representatives, and they said it was an intolerable form of Government, and that until India 181 had representative government they must have a deciding voice in reference to the great questions of Indian Government. The reform proposals, for instance, were to be introduced in the other House, and they were to be debarred from debating them altogether this year, although they all knew how important it was they should express their opinions upon what was happening in India to-day, and that the House would render magnificent service if it took part in the debate on the reforms which were to be placed before the House of Lords. They had not come there to be dummies. They had come there to represent the people of the country, who would never be satisfied if the House of Commons was muzzled and not allowed a fair opportunity of debating important questions in reference to the Empire. Two years ago, the Secretary of State declined to put his salary on the Estimates. He thought that was a fatal error. The salary of every other Secretary of State was on the Estimates. He knew that Lord Morley used the argument—an extremely feeble one—that India should not be a party question. Whenever anything excellent was done for India, it was done through the medium of a party. The reform scheme which Lord Morley was going to produce next week would be the result of a Liberal Government as opposed to the reactionary methods carried out by the late Tory Government. It was only in accord with Liberal and constitutional principles that the Secretary of State's salary should be put on the Estimates. The next grievance to which he wished to draw attention was in reference to the Indian taxpayer and the British taxpayer as well, so far as Indian expenditure was concerned. In 1870 the expenditure on the Indian army was £12,000,000; in 1880, £17,000,000; in 1890, £15,000,000; in 1900, £15,000,000; and in 1906, £20,000,000. If India was perfectly safe ten years ago with an expenditure of £15,000,000, surely £20,000,000 was an exorbitant and extravagant sum now that there was room for reduction. The Liberal policy was not only peace and reform, but also retrenchment; and there was a great opportunity for retrenchment. His complaint against the present Government was that they had adopted the 182 Tory policy of previous years with fatal consequences both in India and this country so far as social reforms were concerned. The risks of the invasion of India were less than ever. The nightmare of a Russian attack had been removed, and they were not likely to have invasion by any other Power. The Anglo-Japanese alliance gave us a great opportunity for reduction in military expenditure, because, if the Indian Empire were attacked, Japan would render us service. There was, however, one objection raised, and with some people it seemed to have weight. They said there was a danger of mutiny. He did not think they understood the situation. The national movement was almost entirely constitutional, and the vast majority of these politicians desired attachment to England, and only asked for Home Rule in some form or other. Here was a grand opportunity for the Government to reduce military expenditure. He hoped they would be equal to the occasion and would bring down the cost of the Army very considerably in India. He would have liked to have made a special appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because on the linked-battalion system any reduction in the number of the Indian Army permitted a corresponding reduction in the Home Army. He knew he wanted large sums of money next year for old-age pensions and other purposes, and here was a means of getting from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 a year. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be on the track of his right hon. friend Lord Morley and see that the Liberal Party were not disappointed in this source of saving. It was a great sorrow and disappointment to Liberals to find £300,000 additional cost of the Indian Army through the acceptance of Lord Romer's Commission's Report. Lord Morley should have stood out against that, and have rejected it at all costs and hazards. They must remember that the Welby Commission recommended that the British Government should undertake more responsibility in the upkeep of the Army in India, and, after all, the Indian Army was used for great Imperial purposes in Somaliland, in China, and other parts of the world On 15th October the Under-Secretary 183 said he believed the Government of India had assented to the increase. But on 3rd December he understood that a despatch was received from the Government of India strongly protesting. They were there as the Liberal Party to support that protest, and they trusted the Government would favourably reconsider that decision, and that they would no longer hear of this extra charge being thrown on the Indian taxpayers. Another question he wished to ask was how much of the expenditure was for railway extension for strategic purposes. He did not know that this was the time to dwell upon these railways, but there was a very sad and a bad side to them. If they penetrated other people's territory with strategic railways or otherwise they must create bad blood and frequently lead to war, and he thought some of the recent wars on the North-West frontier must have arisen partly out of these unfortunate extensions of strategic railways. He trusted no money would be spent in that direction. One further point as far as Indian policy was concerned. The Government of this country was extremely strong and determined as to loans. They had been denounced by the late Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister in the very strongest terms. Practically it was a Tory method of managing finance, rotten to the core. They did not like to see it established in England, and they questioned whether it was wise to continue a policy of loans for India, especially for non-productive purposes. He opposed the Bill on the ground that it was against the highest interests of Great Britain and India, was in defiance of the best traditions of Liberal finance, and in violation of the principle that representation should accompany taxation.
* SIR CHARLES W. DILKEForest of Dean) (Gloucestershire,said it was no ordinary sense of responsibility that surrounded a debate at that moment upon Indian affairs. He was one of those who had taken no part in Indian debates in the present Parliament, although keenly sensitive of our duty towards the people. It was felt by those especially who by generations of connection with that 184 country had more or less been brought up among the people of India, and he felt it impossible not to speak when that was being done which had lately been done in connection with Indian finance and which, dangerous and unjust at any moment, was specially unjust and dangerous at the present moment. Some of his friends had cheered statements of which on mature consideration he was sure they would not approve. It might be questioned whether it was wise that Indian affairs should be discussed now, but his hon. friend behind him must know that the statement which he so highly disapproved, that there should be some annual occasion upon the Votes when the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion, not on Indian finance only, but upon all Indian affairs, freely, in the usual way applicable to other parts of the Empire—to the Colonies themselves—with the unanimous recommendation—
§ * SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid that when it was just now suggested that there should be a Vote on the Estimates for India, and stated that that had been absolutely refused by the Government, his hon. friend cheered and agreed in the refusal. He must know that that was a matter in which he had the whole weight of Indian opinion and home statesmen against him, for it was the one point on which the Commission, which differed on every other point, was unanimous. The Commission was specially appointed on that very question. He heard his hon. friend next but one to him cheer just now. He appeared to dissent from the opinion that there could be any reduction in Indian expenditure. The Japanese Alliance had removed no danger, because there was none of external invasion, and he agreed that the Japanese Alliance could not have been utilised for that purpose if there had been. Why was the Indian Army kept up on an extravagant scale as compared with that which we could afford here in this richer part of the world, and altogether out of proportion to that which we dared to ask the Crown Colonies to contribute? 185 Why should there be a two to one different scale between Ceylon and India? There were dozens of military demands which had been made in this country and rejected year by year upon the ground of cost. But in India there was no opportunity of debating, there was no Parliament and there was no popular representation; he did not advocate it, he was not an Indian Parliamentarian; but the fact of the non-existence of representation forced upon the House the responsibility for stating what they thought to be the truth, and putting it before the House for discussion. He was not an economist. He had never professed to be one. He was not pledged to retrenchment even in this country. But they had a higher responsibility in regard to India than they had to their own constituents who could turn them out if they differed. That fact compelled them to see that India was not taxed for military expenditure on a scale which they would not adopt for themselves, and which they could not enforce upon the Crown Colony by the side of India. On this occasion the whole policy of India was open to them. There had never been any subject connected with the policy of India ruled out of order on a Bill similar to this. On two occasions there had been attempts to do so, but they had failed. Mr. Gladstone had discussed on a Bill like this the whole frontier expeditions of the Indian Government, and every general question had been discussed upon them. His own feeling was that it was so easy to do harm and so difficult to be sure that one was doing good that he did not intend to discuss Indian policy or to anticipate the discussion on Indian reform which would be taken on another Bill; but as regarded finance, he thought it was their bounden duty to put before the House considerations which this Bill forced upon them, especially those affecting strategic railways and military finance. He was quite sure the India Office could not approve of recent railway extensions on the extreme frontiers. He was certain that neither the Secretary of State nor the Under-Secretary, nor the permanent officials at home, could approve that course of action if it was not forced upon them from India. The prevailing opinion 186 among the highest officials was against most recent extension of these strategic railways. He did not hesitate to say that it, like the re-distribution scheme which involved India in so much expenditure on new barracks, and which would have been larger still if it had not been stopped in some most foolish points, was entirely due to Lord Kitchener, new to India and much more rash when he first got there than he was now. There had been absolute secrecy maintained in India and here with regard to these newest railways and in regard to these new stations involved in the redistribution scheme. It had been impossible to extract any information from the Government in regard to it, and it was difficult to dissociate in one's mind that which one knew confidentially, very often from foreign sources, from that which one knew from any source which was open to the public here. Officially one knew nothing, but Questions had been asked, and the Answers had shown that a policy had been pursued, which had been generally condemned by experienced opinion in India, and which was, at all events, inappropriate to present conditions, of placing a very large proportion of the Army in most unpopular stations, hated by white troops and natives alike, on the extreme frontier in places like the new cantonment proposed in Beluchistan, south-west of Quetta. These worst cases had been given up, but even in regard to them they had never been able to produce a positive pledge from the Government that these foolish schemes would not be set on foot again. The railways which had been parrly made were connected with them and had no meaning except in connection with them, and they had been built, of course, out of the general railway system of India and were not separated from the ordinary commercial railways which they were developing by that Bill. They were purely strategic and were only for use in some impossible circumstances. As to the railway along the Kabul River gorge, he ventured to prophesy to the authorities concerned when the first Khyber War took place that the second would follow, and it did follow in two months time. It was caused entirely by a military survey in force of a district in which we could have 187 no military interest in making a railway at all. The railway led nowhere, because the Torsappa cantonment was now given up. This was the only opportunity he knew of on which these matters could be considered by the House, and in India they could not be considered at all. They were bound to take this opportunity or it would never be taken by anyone—it was nobody's business—and these matters passed without the slightest protest. The Under-Secretary was a member of the Indian Expenditure Commission and his action in that House had been dignified and consistent, and the defence he had offered of the Bill was perfectly applicable to the larger portion of it, but it covered parts of which he did not speak, and which were open to charges which he understood as well as any of them. It was the general expenditure part of which he spoke, because the strategic railways were only a small portion. In his speech the Under-Secretary mentioned the financial difficulty caused by famine, and his hon. friend the Member for the Montgomery Boroughs said there had been no famine in India and never was. That was rather straining at the gnat. This was given as the ground for the failure of Indian finance partly, but more especially of provincial finance. His hon. friend had pointed I out in supplementary Questions by the dozen that plague—he did not mean the plague of supplementary Questions—in India was unimportant as compared with other diseases. There had been a most unfortunate increase of plague, but on the top of that the death rate had been increasing so fast that without plague the state of things was terrible.
§ MR. REESsaid that what he objected to was the assertion, or the implication, that the plague was invented by the British Government.
§ * SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied that it appeared to him to be a great pity that an hon. Member of the House, on the rare occasions when India occupied its mind—and who, to some extent, shared along with himself the good things which came from India—should not feel a special responsibility in regard to facts which were beyond dispute. Under those circumstances it was their 188 duty to strain a point in favour of the people of India. But the hon. Member went beyond the Government of India, for they admitted that plague and famine were the most frightful calamities and were at the bottom of all the troubles they had had. The question of military expenditure and Indian finance was specially before them that day, and they had to consider the effect of Lord Kitchener's redistribution scheme. The military expenditure of India was being kept up on a scale, admirable in a military sense, but impossible in Europe, and unnecessary in a country where a foreign attack could not speedily be made. Surely they were erring on the side of extravagant expenditure, and this was a subject demanding their immediate attention. Although there had been at least one unnecessary frontier war provoked, they were having a continuance of strategic railways on the extreme frontier in which no one but Lord Kitchener could say he profoundly believed, and this policy was being pushed forward by Lord Kitchener's will alone against the opinion of all sane men connected with the Government of India. They had on the top of all this the Report of the Romer Commission, which some people were simple enough to believe at one time was appointed for the purpose of alleviating the charge on the people of India. Let the House remember the history of this military charge. As his hon. friend had already said it was entirely without precedent, and there was nothing like it in any other country in the world. They did not make anything like that charge, or anything approaching it, in any Crown Colony. India, had to pay every farthing of her military expenditure, and although her contribution towards the Fleet seemed small, nevertheless, it was on a far larger scale than that which was paid by any Colony. India's home military expenditure was on a scale unequalled in the world, and she had to pay every farthing of it herself. She had to pay the cost or the soldiers from the moment they set foot upon her transports to the moment they returned; and not content with that, India had been charged in addition a lump sum of £750,000 a year for the recruiting and training of the men in this country before 189 they were sent out. That was the system which had been forced upon the Government of India. That system had been protested against in the Report of every Commission and Committee which had considered the subject, and all perfectly impartial persons, including Conservative and Unionist writers in the Press, had joined with the Indian Government in condemning this military charge, and there was a general feeling that it ought to be got rid of. Against the wish of the Government of India the Commission to which he had referred had charged India £300,000 a year more in addition to the previous military charge. This was entirely without precedent, and it was a burden which the Government dared not inflict upon any other part of the Empire. He confessed that it did seem to him to be a most stupendous act of folly to add to a charge which already stood so universally condemned. They were raising under this Bill £1,000,000 for irrigation and about £9,000,000 in all for general purposes. They had been told that Indian military expenditure was to be diminished. They were told so before the Resolution was passed by the House, which was allowed to pass without debate. He had endeavoured as briefly as possible to lay his case before the House, and he had purposely avoided the discussion of Indian policy as a whole, because of the deep sense which he had that such a discussion at the present moment was likely to do harm and was unlikely to do good. The military expenditure of India had reached a scale which even he, who was considered an extravagant person in military matters, could not defend, and hon. Members must stand stupified at the possibility of having to defend such an enormous military charge. There had been a certain amount of juggling with figures. When a few members of the Viceroy's Council had been bold enough—not to raise the question of these strategic railways or the frontier war, which, in his opinion, that 190 policy had caused; not to raise the question of the cantonments, except by a question which produced the information that one of the places chosen was entirely without a drop of water—but when they raised the vague and general question of the amount of increase of the Indian charge caused by Lord Kitchener's policy during the last five years, they had been told that there was an increase, but it was not so great as it was supposed. What ground was there for that increase? What ground could possibly be alleged in the House for continuing that increase by building barracks on the extreme frontier when there was no immediate danger? [Cries of "Yes."] There was no danger of foreign invasion. That idea had been ridiculed even by the Leader of the Opposition. If there was a danger at present it was that of civil sedition in India, but that was a reason against the policy which was being pursued, and it was no reason for placing the best part of the army in unpopular stations on the extreme frontier. That fact was admitted by all who knew the military state of India. There was really nothing more to say upon the administrative point. It was alleged that the permanent charge on India which Lord Kitchener's policy had involved was not so large as some had said. It was difficult to get the exact figure, but undoubtedly there had been a considerable increase in the charge. In replies on the cost of the British Army India was clean forgotten; left out of account. Of course, it could not be, because there was no line to be drawn between the British Army at home and the British Army out there. The cost of the Indian Army, enormous as it was, greatly and permanently increased as it had been in the last five years, did not show all. For transport in India we relied very largely upon the camel and other transport which was provided by the Imperial Service Troops of the Native States, and they, 191 like the military police and the strategic railways, were not charged in the account. He was one of those who shrank from the responsibility of speaking at this moment of Indian policy, but they could not ignore the fact that we were unable, in certain portions of the Empire, to give the full protection of the British power to our Indian native subjects. But, if we could not remedy that grievance, and it was an undoubted grievance pressing at this moment upon the whole Indian people, above all we should avoid the imposition of a new grievance upon them. And he confessed that the decision of the Romer Commission, in the teeth of all the evidence that had previously been produced, against the protests of the Government of India, to increase a charge already indefensible, a charge which we dare not put upon any other portion of the Empire, appeared to be the deliberate creation, behind the back of Parliament, and without the knowledge of the people of India until it was done, of a new and fresh grievance which might easily have been avoided. Every member of the Commission on which his right hon. friend the Under-Secretary for India sat proposed financial relief upon this military point, and the principles upon which they proposed this relief were applicable to the situation now. He was quite sure, whatever his right hon. friend might have to say, that he could not really have changed the opinion, which all the Commission in greater or less degree entertained, that this charge—to use the Under-Secretary's words—had no parallel and would never be made if we were starting now de novo. It was not done against any other portion of the Empire. They had so deep a responsibility for the affairs of India at the present time that even those of them who shrank from the full force of that responsibility in discussing these affairs as a whole, fearing they might unwittingly do harm, felt forced to 192 enter a protest against treatment which might create a grievance additional to any which had existed up to the present time.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)expressed the hope that the House would not refuse to give a Second Reading to the Bill, which was admittedly one of urgency and might, he thought, have been pressed forward earlier in the session. The right hon. Baronet had discussed many important questions deserving careful consideration, questions which could hardly be discussed profitably without some warning that they were to be raised. It must be obvious that they could hardly be discussed properly in the hour and three quarters available in that debate. When the right hon. Baronet reminded them that they had not had the advantage of his participation in the debates on Indian affairs, he could not quite understand why he had selected that occasion for a disquisition on all those subjects which, although excessively interesting, had in some cases a very remote bearing on the subject matter of the present Bill. The Secretary of State was not asking for powers of a new kind, and if he were to make any criticism of the Bill it would be that he thought the demands somewhat erred on the side of moderation. He could not help thinking that the money to be used for railways would prove inadequate in view of the recommendations for new construction and the fact that a certain amount was to be set apart for irrigation. He hoped it was an indication that the Government of India looked forward to being able to raise a larger proportion of these loans from India in future—thus 193 depriving the agitation of a familiar and absurd subject of misrepresentation and giving the great mass of the Indian people a more direct stake in the stability of their institutions. The only practical result of refusing a Second Reading would be to deprive the Indian people of the means they needed to develop the material resources of their country.
§ * MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)said that this was a Bill to enable the Government of India to borrow £25,000,000. That money was to be raised for two specific purposes and one not specified. The two specific purposes were railways and irrigation. It was not his intention at that hour of the evening to go into the general argument as to the condition of India. As to Army expenditure in India, India had to pay not only the whole military cost of her own defence, but also for wars carried on beyond the frontiers of India, wars in which the Indian people had no concern, but in which Indian troops were employed. As illustrations of that statement he would mention the wars in China and in South Africa. He believed that £20,000,000 had been spent on wars beyond the Indian frontier in which Indian soldiers had been engaged, and for which the people of India had to pay. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Viewed from the standpoint of the Indian peasant, the modern railway was a very doubtful blessing. It enabled the grain which was grown in plentiful seasons to be carried off, so that in the seasons of scarcity there were no reserves to fall back upon as in the pre-railway days. The railways and the commerce following in the wake of them, had increased the cost of living; and also had increased the revenue derivable from the land. Every improvement, indeed, in the Indian railway system tended to increase the amount of revenue which the peasants were called upon to pay. Therefore the existence of a huge railway system in India was not an unmixed 194 blessing to the natives. There was one aspect in connection with the working of the railways in India to which he desired to direct the attention of the House. He meant the treatment meted out on the railways to native gentlemen as compared with Europeans. On all the principal railways there were carriages especially set apart for European travellers; and at all the big railway stations there were special waiting-rooms and other accommodation and conveniences also for them. Anyone, no matter how poor or illiterate he might be, who happened to be a European, if travelling on the railway was entitled to the use of the special carriages, the special waiting-rooms, and other facilities at the stations. Whereas, the greatest Indian noble when travelling had to be content with the accommodation provided for the natives. A very striking case which was well known in India, and which ought to be better known in this country, illustrated the method in which the educated Indian was treated when travelling on his own railways. An Indian gentleman, who received a title at the hands of Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria, who was a convert to Christianity, and was well known for his activity in mission work, whose sons were educated in England, one of them marrying an English lady, went to meet one of his sons returning from his college career in England. In the same compartment with him were two British officers. At a junction the son was entering the compartment where his father was seated, and the two British officers, although the compartment was not reserved for Europeans, objected to what they called "another black dog" coming into the same compartment with them. That was no isolated case. It was a matter of almost daily occurrence. There was a good deal of discontent in India in regard to various matters, but there were few points on which the educated native felt more keenly than this attempt to 195 treat him as a "nigger," as he was frequently called in his own country by those who ruled over him. Passing to the irrigation works, these were mainly regarded as revenue raising methods. The works were a credit to all connected with them, engineers and officials alike. Eighteen months ago there was alleged to be a seditious movement rampant in the North-West of India, but the real explanation was that a Bill had been passed adding 50 per cent. to the water rate charged under an irrigation scheme. The ryots refused to pay the rate and agitated against it, until in the end the Bill had to be withdrawn. When it was remembered that the net revenue from irrigation, as explained by the Under-Secretary for India, varied between £750,000 and £1,250,000 a year, it would be seen that the charges must in themselves have been excessive. From in formation supplied to him he believed it was the case in the North and North-West of India that the interest on the capital sum of these irrigation works ran from 25 to 30 per cent., and therefore the benefit which natives would otherwise derive from irrigation was absorbed to maintain the increasing military expenditure of the country. One other point in regard to irrigation. The complaint, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of it, was frequent and general, that, whilst enormous sums of money were spent in what he would call major irrigation works, the smaller works, of which there were tens of thousands scattered all over India, were allowed to fall into a state of neglect for lack of means to keep them in proper repair. He suggested that instead of spending these large sums on large schemes, and starving the small village works, money should be supplied to keep the latter in order; because it was upon them that the peasants depended for water to keep their crops growing. If this Bill got a second reading he should put down Amendments 196 to endeavour to secure that both the railways and irrigation works should not be used as a means, in the case of railways of insulting the people of India riding on their own railways in their own country, and in the case of irrigation works, of extorting further revenue from an already poor and overtaxed people. He hoped that the result of the debate would be that even now the reforms which were to be laid before another place by the Secretary of State for India would first be submitted to this House, if only in the form of Parliamentary Papers. It was surely an innovation that great Parliamentary reforms with regard to India were to be submitted to and discussed in another Chamber, while this House was refused an opportunity of considering them this session. After all was said and done, the House of Commons was the guardian not only of the financial interests of this country, but of those of India. The fact that the people of India had no effective say, or rather absolutely no say whatever, on the expenditure of the revenue drawn from them made it still more incumbent that this House, before further powers were granted for raising money, should have guarantees that the money to be raised would be used for the benefit of the people of India. The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Forest of Dean, as one who took a great part in connection with Indian affairs in this House. The hon. Member was one of the men who should have a kindly feeling towards the land to which he owed so much. It was not merely his past career; but at this moment the hon. Member was drawing revenue from the people of India, and the service he rendered in return was to malign and misrepresent them on every opportunity which the forms of the House afforded. He trusted that this debate would have the effect of imposing upon the Government a sense of the fact that whatever might have been the 197 case in the past, the situation in India was growing so serious that this House of Commons could not afford to let any of these questions pass without discussion, or to allow Indian finance to remain without control. He believed the Indian people to be a loyal people; he knew them to be intensely devoted both to this country and to the Throne, but the treatment meted out to them in the past had begun to strain their loyalty. It was because he desired to see India remain loyal to the British connection and the legitimate grievances of the Indian people redressed in this House that he hoped the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would receive such large support as would indicate to that people that the day of apathy and indifference on the part of this House was passed.
§ * MR. REEScommented on the fact that the hon. Member having dwelt on his delinquencies, had not given him much time in which to reply. It was, he said, an amazing piece of effrontery for the hon. Member for Merthyr to get up and talk to him about loyalty and the feelings of the Indian people when the hon. Member himself was so much responsible for encouraging the disloyal element in India and spreading abroad—
§ SIR H. COTTON (Nottingham, E.)I protest against that remark.
§ * MR. REESsaid he coupled the hon. Member for Nottingham with the hon. Member for Merthyr in his denunciation; he saw no distinction in the effects of their propaganda, none whatever. The hon. Member had quoted as an authority of a statement to the effect that the officials of India admitted that the people were too poor to benefit by any reform, a certain Sir S. Lawrence. His ignorance of the name was not due to his ignorance of Indian affairs, as he had never heard of a gentleman of that name concerned in them.
§ * MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he mentioned a Mr. Thornton, Financial Commissioner.
§ * MR. REESsaid the hon. Member mentioned a Sir S. Lawrence, and his acquaintance with Indian affairs did not allow him to substitute the word Thorburn for the word Lawrence. It had been said that India was made to pay for the use of the British troops when employed outside India. He believed that matter had been adjusted, and the cost in such cases was not now charged to the Indian revenues. The hon. Member talked like a Rip Van Winkle of the railways increasing the prices, but he did not seem to know that railways equalised prices, and that if one district had a good crop, by means of them it was enabled to supply parts of the country where the crops had failed. When an hon. Gentleman got up and talked in such an antediluvian spirit it dumfoundered him, and he found it difficult to argue with him. He was glad indeed the hon. Member had nothing to do with the administration of the affairs of India. The hon. Member said that railways increased the cost of living, and that land beside the railways did not range higher in price. The fact was that the owners of land near the railways got very high rents, over and above living on the produce. He did not know where the hon. Member had lived; it certainly was not in India, and the proposition was so ignorant that it was absolute folly to discuss it. The hon. Member had not that substratum of knowledge of his subject upon which he could possibly build any kind of superstructure of intelligent appreciation or criticism. Then about the treatment of the Indians. During the course of a longish career in India he had repeatedly stood up for them in cases in which they had been wronged, and punished British officers who had ill-treated them. But let them be just to the British officer. There might be young men who behaved foolishly and wrongly, but what folly it was for hon. 199 Members to talk about the "exclusiveness" of the British officer in India in keeping a native out of his carriage, when they all knew that the British officer did not go home and wash his hands and thank God he was not as other men were, which was what the native of any caste did when he happened to touch an Englishman. Before hon. Members of the House of Commons talked about Indian affairs they might take the trouble to learn the beggarly A B C of their subject. Any weight that the Motion had was due to the fact that the right hon. Baronet seconded it. The right hon. Baronet dwelt upon the responsibility which rested upon them when they dealt with Indian subjects, and he felt that responsibility as keenly as anyone, and such was his feeling that he deeply regretted that any of these questions were raised utterly unnecessarily upon this Bill. He did not believe that the people of India would be better off if the Government of India were deprived of money for the purpose of providing for their interests. The hon. Member for Brentford had repeatedly said "We," but for whom did he speak? Not for the people of India, and Heaven for[...]id that he should speak for the Liberal Party. There was a little knot of Members who had been very much in evidence that night, but whose influence was in no sense proportionate to their loquacity. The right hon. Baronet spoke almost contemptuously of Lord Kitchener, and he supposed his root and branch condemnation of him would apply to Lord Roberts as well. For himself, he thought that soldiers did know something of their subject, and when we sent one out to India he thought it would be wise to allow that there was something in his recommendations, and in his authority. The right hon. Baronet talked about the question of irrigation versus railways, and as to that he might point out that irrigation which was so often suggested there as a panacea for all Indian ills was by no means a panacea, 200 because he did not think anybody would dispute the obvious fact that as fast as they increased the irrigation and grew more corn, so much faster did the population grow to eat that corn, and they were not going by that means to get out of the difficulty caused by the population being more numerous than could be supplied by the corn which they could grow. They had this subject up again and again under the late Viceroy, about whom he wished to speak in this House as one who had done great service to the State. A careful inquiry was made, and hon. Members must take it that the Viceroy's advisers were capable men, and after the most careful survey of India the conclusion was come to that the area which could be irrigated at a cost such as could be borne by a responsible Government was exceedingly small. It was not fair for hon. Members to talk as if the State had the streams of Pactolus or the mines of Monte Christo at their back; they must do these works out of the pockets of the taxpayers and in their interest. The Government was bound not to undertake foolish schemes and to carry out only such as a wise administrator would adopt. He felt he should be best serving the cause of India by not delaying the passage of this Bill, and he appealed to hon. Members who had had their say and had made speeches which would go out to India and do infinite mischief, to make what reparation they could by not forcing the House to a division, which would have the worst possible effect in India.
§ SIR H. COTTONsaid he wished to enter his emphatic protest against the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs. He could not say that the hon. Member did not represent to a very large extent the official opinion of India, for he thought he did, but he deeply regretted that he should rise in this House and insult his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil.
§ * MR. REES, on a point of order, said that the hon. Member himself took no exception to his words, and inquired whether it was competent for another hon. Member to do so.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid there was no ground for his interference.
§ SIR H. COTTONsaid he did not object to anything the hon. Member might say about him. He had very often been the subject of impertinent criticisms on the part of the hon. Member, but when he denounced his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil as the cause of the unrest in India—
§ SIR H. COTTONsaid he considered that it was a gross insult and entirely unjustifiable. If time allowed him he would proceed to record his reasons why he should be prompted to give his vote in favour of the Amendment which was before the House.
§ Mr. BUCHANANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 434.)
203| AYES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Glendinning, R. G. | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Armitage, R. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Nicholls, George |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Barnard, E. B. | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Beale, W. P. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hart-Davies, T. | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central |
| Brigg, John | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Radford, G. H. |
| Brooks, Stopford | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hedges, A. Paget | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Higham, John Sharp | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Holt, Richard Durning | Rowlands, J. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hooper, A. G. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Clough, William | Idris, T. H. W. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Illingworth, Percy H. | Seely, Colonel |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jardine, Sir J. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Cox, Harold | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Crosfield, A. H. | ||
| Crossley, William J. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Dsvies, Timothy (Fulham) | Kekewich, Sir George | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Keswick, William | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Kilbride, Denis | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Essex, R. W. | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lamont, Norman | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lehmann, R. C. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Toulmin, George |
| Ferens, T. R. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Verney, F. W. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lewis, John Herbert | Walton, Joseph |
| Findlay, Alexander | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Maclean, Donald | Watt, Henry A. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | M'Callum, John M. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Crae, Sir George | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Marnham, F. J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) | |
| Wiles, Thomas | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Reddy, M. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N) | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Brace, William | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hills, J. W. | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Cave, George | Hodge, John | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hudson, Walter | Seddon, J. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jenkins, J. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Jowett, F. W. | Summerbell, T. |
| Crean, Eugene | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Delany, William | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Duffy, William J. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Dr. Rutherford and Mr. Mackarness. |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Nannetti, Joseph P. | |
| Fell, Arthur | Nolan, Joseph |
Bill read a second time.
§ Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. Buchanan.)