HC Deb 10 December 1908 vol 198 cc907-25

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid) in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

* DR. RUTHERFORD (Middlesex, Brentford)

said that in moving the Amendment standing in his name he would be very brief, knowing how hon. Members were exhausted after the long sitting of the previous day. The Bill asked for a loan of £25,000,000, £20,000,000 of which were to be spent on railways and irrigation works and £5,000,000 for general purposes. His Amendment was to reduce the £20,000,000 for railways and irrigation to £10,000,000. His first reason was that when the late Government were in power in 1898, they only asked for £10,000,000, so that if they reduced the £25,000,000 asked for by this Government by £10,000,000, they would still have the power to raise £15,000,000. He understood that the Government had £1,500,000 from the old loan of 1898 in hand. His second reason was that if the Government were only allowed to raise £10,000,000 the Indian Government would have to come to this House to ask for more, and then the House of Commons would be able to review the expenditure of the previous loan. The House of Commons was supposed to be the Grand Inquest of the Empire, but they would not deserve that title unless they reviewed all expenditure in India until Indians were endowed with a Government of their own. His third reason for moving the Amendment was that they should, as far as possible, limit the amount of European money that was sent to India. After all, there were serious drawbacks to our raising money for India at the present moment. The Under-Secretary for India admitted the other night on the Second Reading of the Bill, that pressure had been put upon him, and that it was due to that pressure that the Bill had been brought forward chiefly in the railway interests. Those who agreed with him thought there was something more important than railways. The railways had been laid down quite to the satisfaction of the people of India, but irrigation had not been developed to the same extent. Now, irrigation was the economic salvation of India, and yet £176,000,000 had been spent on railways in that great dependency and only £29,500,000 on irrigation. "He trusted that the Government of India, in using their powers in spending this money in India, would consider that their first duty was to spend more on irrigation than on railways. It should be remembered that India was an agricultural country, and money spent on irrigation went to develop not only agriculture, but one of the greatest sources of revenue. We had had the experience of Egypt which we had converted from a wilderness into a garden, to a very large extent, chiefly through irrigation. Then there was the question of foreign investments in India, and there was a fear entertained that if large sums were so invested it would interfere with the natural political development of the country, and that the national movement would not have the same opportunity of getting a great reform as it otherwise might have. They knew something about the sinister influence of finance in the politics of this country, and they had all heard how Lord Rothschild, exercising his influence in another place, had destroyed an important measure. He wanted to ask the Under-Secretary a very serious question. It had reference to Sir Charles Elliott, who was lately Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, convening a meeting to oppose the reform measure that Lord Morley was going to introduce into India.

* THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,) Lanarkshire, Mid.

said the hon. Member's Amendment was to leave out "twenty" and insert "ten," and it was a question of whether £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 should be given. He was now raising a question outside the Amendment.

* DR. RUTHERFORD

said he was obliged by the ruling, but he feared that it was a very serious and grave matter. The House of Commons appeared to be the proper place to ventilate it, as it did after all bear on this expenditure. He would, however, defer to the Chairman, and leave it to the Under-Secretary to say what he could about the matter. He hoped the Committee would accept the reduction for the reasons he had given. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 15, to leave, out the word 'twenty,' and to insert the word 'ten.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."

* THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,) Perthshire, E.

said that the hon. Member moved the reduction of half the amount which they proposed to insert in the Bill in regard to railway construction. That would be a distinct step backward from the policy which had been pursued for a great many years past not only by this but by previous Governments. The last Railway Loan Bill was in 1905, and it proposed to give the Secretary of State power to expend £20,000,000, the same sum which was suggested here for railways and irrigation. The year 1905 was little more than three years ago, but they had spent all the money, and he thought anybody who had studied the question would recognise that the money had been well spent. He ventured to point out in the speech he made the other night that it was not due to any financial pressure that this demand was made, but to the strong desire of those interested in India that they should press forward steadily in the further development of railways and irrigation, but above all with railways. The greater part of this money which they asked for now, about three-fourths, would probably be used for improving railways already existing, and not for constructing new lines. He quite recognised the importance of the arguments used by his hon. friend, but he thought that was hardly the time to enlarge upon the subject he dealt with. He did not think it could be said that the supply of British capital for the development of her resources had been otherwise than on the whole beneficial to the people of India. There could be little doubt, moreover, that the extension of railways and irrigation had increased largely to the benefit of the population, and he did not care very much where the money came from so long as it was well spent as it had been in India. He thought it was important to know that a large amount of the money lent had been contributed by Indians. From the short investigation he had made he thought the position of rupee paper was satisfactory, and a good third of it was held not only in India but by Indians.

* SIR H. COTTON (Nottingham, E.)

said he wished that the right hon. Gentleman had deferred his reply until he had heard the few observations which he proposed to make. He wished for some explanations as to the financial position which had led to a proposal to raise these large loans. He found that among other sources from which money for railways might be derived was the profit from the coinage of rupees. There was a very large profit made from that source. It amounted at the present moment he believed, to about £14,000,000, and he thought that half this large profit was devoted to capital expenditure on railways. On that point he should like a little information, because it seemed to him that from this source alone sufficient money ought to be available for capital expenditure on railways. But he found, on the contrary, that during the last two years enormous sums had been raised by loans for this purpose. In the year 1906–7 the sum raised amounted to £5,000,000. Last year £10,500,000 were raised for capital expenditure on railways. £2,000,000 were raised in India and £8,500,000 had been raised in England. This was an enormous sum of money, and now they were informed that it was required, not for new construction, but for maintenance and repairs. But if so, why was the expenditure not met from revenue? No private company would venture on such a course as this. The Government had an immense stake in the railways of India, he believed the sum of money which had been raised amounted to £178,000,000. On this there was a profit of about £2,000,000 a year, but last year the sum was not quite so large. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have given some explanation why it was necessary to raise loans in this country. The finances of India were extremely complicated and difficult. He could remember a Finance Minister in India who used to say that he was the only person who under stood those finances. Perhaps the only person in this country who thoroughly understood the financial situation in India was the Financial Secretary to the India Office. Hardly a single Member in the House was familiar with the conditions which rendered these large loans necessary. If the loans were really required, why were they not raised in India? Why should they be raised in England? Lastly, there was the question of India Bills. He could not help being suspicious that the large loans which it was proposed to raise were really needed to finance the home charges of the India Office, and that they were not required for the purposes they were nominally supposed to be raised for. Everybody knew that the Government had had the greatest difficulty in providing the necessary money in England to meet the home charges. He, in company with many other people, held the suspicion that the loans now contemplated were really wanted to get over the difficulty in connection with India Bills. The large coinage in India and the manner in which the rupee had steadily decreased in value had as everyone was aware, added greatly to the difficulty in negotiating those Bills.

Amendment negatived.

* DR. RUTHEEFORD

proposed an Amendment to leave out the words "other than strategic." They had discussed that the other day, and he did not wish to keep the House long considering the matter. They had, however, very serious reasons for objecting to any of this money being spent on strategic railways. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how much money had already been spent on such strategic railways, what useful purpose those railways served, and had not some of those railways been instrumental in bringing about war? An important speech had been made by his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, who had said that these railways in a particular case had caused a war. They ought to have some answer to that indictment. It seemed impossible to believe that a Liberal Government would go on building such railways.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 16, at end, to insert the words 'other than strategic.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. BUCHANAN

said there were three strategic railways in the original programme. One was never begun, and a second was stopped as soon as it was begun, and, shortly after the present Secretary of State came into office, he issued instructions that the third—the Loi-Shilman Railway—should not go further than 300 miles from Lahore, that is, eight or nine miles beyond our administrative frontier and twenty-three miles from Peshawur. During the Mohmand troubles the railway was brought to a standstill altogether; but whether work had been resumed he was not in a position to say. Of course, there had been a certain amount of money spent upon it. He should not like to give a figure, but he thought it was something like £200,000 or £300,000.

Amendment negatived.

* DR. RUTHERFORD

said the next Amendment to which he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee was a very simple one. Its object was to secure a better prevision for third class passengers, both as to carriages and waiting-rooms. The carriages for third-class passengers were extremely unsatisfactory; they would be described in this country as something like horse boxes. They had realised in India, as they had long realised in this country, that they derived the best profit from the third-class passengers; and he hoped the Government would require them, in building new carriages, to provide proper and reasonabls accommodation for those passengers. There was an unfortunate distinction made in India as regarded railway waiting-room accommodation. In many cases waiting rooms for Europeans as distinct from Indians had been put up. He hoped they would get rid of that colour bar, and that first, second, and third-class waiting-rooms only would be provided. After all, India was India, and belonged to Indians and not to us; and we ought to legislate in the interests of Indians, and not of Europeans.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 19, after the word 'State,' to insert the words 'and in the better provision for third-class passengers, both as to carriages and waiting rooms.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

said that, if the hon. Members Amendment were carried, he would move an addition in the following words: "And the payment of a revised scale of wages to all grades of employees." He did not know whether the Under-Secretary could tell them whether there had been a recent revision of the scale of wages. He knew that twelve months ago there was very serious, and as appeared to him well-founded, discontent with the rate of wages paid. The wages were fixed three years ago, and meanwhile the cost of living had gone up very considerably while the rate of wages had remained standing. If something were done to improve the rate of wages, that act of justice would tend to secure better service from them in respect of passengers. He would be glad if the Under-Secretary could give them any information as to whether anything had been done or was contemplated.

* SIR H. COTTON

wished to know why the building of railway carriages and the raising of the wages of the employees, however satisfactory in themselves, should be debited to capital expenditure. Anyone with any knowledge of business must know that these were revenue charges, and ought not to be debited to capital and loans raised for the purpose. This Government prided itself on avoiding loans. They had had it from both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the policy of the Government to avoid loans and meet ordinary charges from revenue. He trusted the Under-Secretary would give him some explanation why these charges were debited to capital and not to revenue.

* MR. BUCHANAN

said the Amendment, from a railway point of view, was of importance. The authorities were fully alive to the need for these improvements. He had reports which had been made on the subject by the Railway Board in 1905 and 1907, calling attention to the deficiency of third class passenger accommodation, and urging the managers of the various lines to provide better accommodation. The attention of the railway authorities would be called to the fact that not so much had been done as might have been done, and that they should do their very utmost to improve it still further. A good deal of money would be spent in the improvement of rolling stock, both for goods and passengers. Of course they could not accept the Amendment because they considered the railway policy at present being pursued was in full sympathy with the Amendment, and that to ask for a good round sum of money was the best way of working out the object in view. As regarded the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr he could not give him the figures on that subject. He believed the working expenses had been steadily going up in recent years, and that there had been certain increases in wages amongst the railway men, but he could not give definite figures or facts.

Amendment negatived.

* DR. RUTHERFORD

said he proposed in addition to the purposes set out in the Bill, railways and irrigation, provision for elementary schools and sanitation, and the establishment of State agricultural banks. It was a big order to discuss that question that night, and he did not propose to do it, but after all they should be alive to the fact that the education question in India did require more thoughtful attention from the Committee and the House and the Government of India. The Universities were on a fairly satisfactory scale, and did magnificent work, and so did the secondary schools as far as they went, but unfortunately there was no satisfactory provision for primary schools. That was one of the saddest reflections upon the Government of India and he presumed upon that House. He trusted the Under-Secretary would accept the Amendment, and that the Government of India would provide British India with what the Governor of Baroda had provided for that State and gradually give free and compulsory education. The expenditure on education in France was 5s. 4d. per head of the population, in Germany 4s., Austria 2s. 4d., and India 1½., so they had much leeway to make up. Sanitation was really a very big question. The death-rate was very serious and very unsatisfactory. In 1881 it was 28 per 1,000, in 1896 it rose to 32½ per 1,000 and in 1905 to 36.1 per 1,000. The ravages of grave and serious disease largely accounted for that, but there were two or three ways in which it could be combated. The first was by improving the water supply, and the system of drainage, and the establishment of a satisfactory sanitary service. He would give two or three instances to show how necessary it was to have a sufficient sum to carry these matters out. In Barisal a water supply project which would cost £13,800 had been temporarily shelved for want of funds and it was hoped it would now be taken up. At Benares a sewage scheme had been completed at a cost of £86,000 and a further scheme had been sanctioned and would be carried out as funds became available. In Bombay they had this report— Progress in municipal sanitation in the Bombay Presidency hampered by the ravages of plague, which have embarrassed the financial position of most of the municipalities to a certain extent and many urgent schemes for water supply and drainage have had to be deferred. What was essential to satisfactory sanitation was money, and he hoped the Under-Secretary would accept these Amendments so that they might come before the Government of India which might spend a fair proportion of the money in the direction he had suggested. With regard to agricultural banks they all knew the magnificent service they had rendered to Egypt, and they would do the same if established in India.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 6, to insert the words '(5) in the provision of elementary schools in India; (6) in the sanitation in India; (7) in the establishment of State agricultural banks.'

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. BUCHANAN

said the Amendment was one which raised very important matters for general discussion, but hardly germane to this Bill. The Amendment could not, of course, be accepted. The clause asked for powers to borrow money for expenditure on railways and irrigation, and so far from too much being asked for those purposes he thought those who were most acquainted with the subject thought that they were perhaps hardly asking for enough. He did not think they could possibly add to the objects specified. They were, however, fully alive to the need of such provision. Last July he gave some figures to show that a rapidly increasing sum was being spent on elementary education. In regard to sanitation, they were spending large sums of money this year in making further progress in that direction. No one felt more than those responsible for the government of the country how urgently necessary it was to take greater precautions against epidemic and disease by means of sanitation, and they were strongly sympathetic towards the promoting of further sanitary legislation. At the same time, it was one of the most difficult and delicate subjects with which the Government had to deal.

Amendment negatived.

*MR. KEIR HARDIE moved to add a provision that the rates charged for water supplied by an irrigation scheme should not exceed such sum as would be represented by a sum equal to the amount necessary to repay in thirty years the capital employed in the undertaking, plus 5 per cent. thereon. The hon. Member explained that the object was to limit the amount to be charged for the supply of water under public irrigation schemes. Without enlarging on that subject, he wished to give one figure. As far as he could make out from the accounts, especially those published in the "Progress and Condition of India, 1906–7," the total capital invested in the irrigation works was just under £31,000,000, and the net income, after deducting all charges, and presumably inclusive of the sinking fund repayable on loans, was £2,500,000. That was the net profit, and it was burdensome upon the ryots who had to pay it. Owing to the system of local assessment, the higher the water rate the higher was the amount to be paid in local taxation. As illustrating what was happening in connection with these irrigation works, he quoted the statement that when the Punjaub Council Bill was being introduced on 21st October, 1906, a Government official said the State had spent on a particular canal £2,000,000, and in eighteen or nineteen years the capital outlay had been repaid and the profit earned in 1904–5 was 29½ per cent., and it was likely to be still higher in the future. It was this attempt still further to increase the 29½ per cent. of profit that led to the recent movement in the Punjaub which was called sedition. He submitted that it was most unfair to provide these public works as a means of raising revenue for the Government, and the object of his Amendment was that the amount of interest rate charged for the supply of water should not exceed what would provide for the working expenses and the sinking fund and a net profit of 5 per cent. on the capital invested.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 6, at the end, to add the words 'and the rates charged for water supplied by an irrigation scheme shall not exceed such sum as would be represented by a sum equal to the amount necessary to repay in thirty years the capital employed in the undertaking, plus 5 per cent. thereon.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)

* MR. BUCHANAN

said the hon. Member had raised a very important and difficult question upon which he did not feel he possessed the intimate knowledge which would enable him to reply in detail. The matter had been before the House on several occasions. The percentage on irrigation works varied enormously all over India. It varied in the Punjab from something like 5 per cent. to 27 per cent., and the average all over was somewhere between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. The matter was being very carefully watched by officers of the Government, and there was certainly no intention or desire on their part unduly to increase the rates. The areas of irrigation had been going up by leaps and bounds. The Government could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

* MR. MACKARNESS (Berkshire, Newbury)

wished to be allowed, at this stage, to raise points which he should have raised earlier had not his Amendment been ruled out of order.

* THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The more correct time would be at a later stage of the Bill.

* MR. MACKARNESS

said it was not they, but the Government who were responsible for the lateness of the hour. This clause was the main operative clause of the Bill, and really raised the principal issue and object of the Bill. It was highly improper that the clause should be pressed upon the House at midnight. The main object of the Bill was only explained on Monday night, and after one hour and three-quarters debate was closured. What did this clause propose to do? It proposed to authorise the Secretary of State to raise upon the credit of the people of India a sum of no less than £20,000,000 at any time he liked, and for purposes which were only vaguely specified in the clause. He certainly thought that before the House gave such a large authorisation as that it ought to be more fully informed as to the objects upon which this money was proposed to be spent, and the times when the loans were proposed to be raised. There was nothing in the clause to prevent the Secretary of State tomorrow raising the whole of the £20,000,000 specified in the clause, and there was nothing in the clause to show how much of that would be spent upon railways, and how much upon irrigation. It was true that they were told the other night by the Under-Secretary, whose statement he entirely accepted, that it was intended to spend the greater part of the sum upon railways. For his part he was prepared to say that the proportion was very unsatisfactory. It would be very much more satisfactory if they could have an undertaking that a much larger proportion should be spent on irrigation and much less on the railways. There was no provision in the Bill as to what railways the money was to be spent on, or as to whether it might not be spent on strategic railways, in regard to which great objection was taken by many people in India and in this country. In the short time in which they were allowed to discuss this Bill on Monday night there were serious objections raised to the spending of money under this clause in the same way that money had been spent on railways in the past, and to the very damaging speech which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Forest of Dean. On that point no answer had been given by the Under-Secretary of State for India. He hoped that before the clause was put they would have some answer in regard to the charges of futility which had been made against some of these railways, and as to the increasing burden of military expenditure which had recently been imposed on the people of India. They should have an undertaking that this money was not to be spent on the equipment or extension of railways of that useless kind. It had been suggested by the noble Lord opposite that this was a very urgent matter. He had heard from the Under-secretary of no suggestion of urgency. What his Amendment intended to propose was that no money should be sanctioned in the future on matters of that kind without their being informed how far the people of India would have any voice in the expenditure. He did not think it right or seemly that when they had promised to give a larger control over their own Government to the people of India and in the management of their own finances, the House of Commons should saddle them prospectively with loans to this very large amount. He was prepared to divide against the clause as a protest against the House of Commons being asked to authorise the raising of that large sum of money at that late period of the session, and at that late hour of the night. There was another point which had been touched upon in regard to which he thought the Under-Secretary for India should give them some answer. Very serious allegations had been made outside the House as to the purpose for which the money was to be raised. It was stated only that evening by a correspondent in a journal of high standing that a fictitious value was being given by the Government of India to the rupee when exchanged for gold, and that the Government was making these loans to recoup themselves with English gold for the condition of things which had been brought about. The question was actually asked by the writer he had referred to, "Why does not Mr. Buchanan tell us frankly that the proposed Gold Loan is to cover up the traces of this tampering with the Indian currency?" He did not suggest there could be any foundation to that charge, but when a thing was said so openly as that the House would agree that some answer was demanded. He trusted that the Under-Secretary would give an answer.

* SIR H. COTTON

said he would support his hon. friend in voting against this clause. He felt he was entitled to some reply from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to a speech which he had made regarding the financial conditions the clause contained. They had discussed salutation, they had discussed water rates, and they had discussed education but there had been practically no discussion on the financial provisions of the Bill. He had not been able to raise these matters in the Second Reading because he was closured as soon as he began to speak. But he certainly thought he was entitled to a reply from the Government when, in challenging the Bill as to the essence of the clause, he asked why were these loans raised in England at all. If the money was really required for the railways in India, why could not the loans be raised in India? Was it a fact or was it not a fact that the real principle underlying the Bill was to raise funds to enable the Indian Government to meet the home charges? He objected also to this large expenditure on works which he maintained ought to be defrayed from revenue rather then from capital.

* MR. BUCHANAN

said that he sympathised with the regrets at the delay in bringing out the measures of reform. The reason for delay, as hon. Members knew, was that they were very anxious in making changes in administration to have behind them the great mass of opinion both in India and Europe. The Government of India had to consult the Local Government and they elicited opinions from leading officials and non-officials, from associations British and Indian, from every kind of leading authority. All this took time. The Government of India then, on that information, formulated its views and sent them home for the consideration and decision of the Secretary of State. As regards the statement of the hon. Member for East Nottingham, he must be aware that a considerable sum, £2,000,000, in 1907–8 was borrowed in India for railways, but it would be manifestly impossible to raise all the capital necessary for railway purposes in India.

* SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said he only wanted one word on one point. He had understood his right hon. friend to reply in regard to the railways that there were only three involved, The third of these railways which had been mentioned was the Kabul River Gorge Railway, and the right hon. Gentleman had said that the military parties were continuing the survey of that for which assent had been previously given. That would be the assent of July, 1905, which was given by the late Government. The point which he desired to make was that in October of last year a survey was taken under fire and when he had asked a question in the House of Commons about this in February of this year, the Secretary of State replied that a civil railway engineer was deputed by the Government of India to examine the country beyond the 300 mile station, with a view to a prolongation of the line, should that project be sanctioned. It was that survey which was commenced in October of last year which caused the Mohmand War. [AN HON. MEMBER: No.] Someone said no, but three companies were sent out in connection with that survey carried on under fire. For what purpose was that survey carried on, and when and where was it sanctioned It was a railway which was sanctioned in connection with the Kitchener redistribution scheme. It was part of the project for the cantonment of Torsappa in connection with which 6,000 men were to be stationed 6,000 feet above the level of the sea in a hopeless spot where there was not a blade of grass for miles. That project was started, but was abandoned, there being no object for putting 6,000 men on the top of this mountain. That being so, what was the object of the railway? Why should it be continued beyond Mile 300? That extraordinary departure from what seemed to be settled policy had not been defended by his right hon. friend. When he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had pressed the point, the answer given by the Secretary of State was that no decision had been arrived at as to the prolongation of the line beyond Mile 300. The Mohmand country, he might point out, was one where there was no delimitation of frontier, and the survey was carried on in October, November, and the beginning of December last, under fire all the time. He believed it was the sole cause of the war.

SIR J. JARDINE (Roxburghshire)

said that even at that late hour of the night, and without any animus against the Government of India, which he knew too well for that, he would like to remark upon the speech just delivered by the Member for the Forest of Dean, and to point out that these strategic railways away on the frontier were in a different position from the other railways included in the clause. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Hear, hear.] It had long been known to those who had had to do with the administration of India that, as the country became civilised, the demand of the natives for more civil institutions increased, and there was a constant demand for money to be spent on the civil department. He thought the responsibility of that House was enormous in dealing with matters of that sort, and it would not be reduced unless and until and in proportion as the reforms that were promised gave more power of criticism to the natives themselves. As he had said, he knew the Government of India well, and he knew it too well to assume that what it did must be either always right or always wrong. In dealing with such matters he would like to point out there had been a strong difference of opinion about the propriety of such expenditure upon such enterprises as the strategic railways to which reference had been made. The question came much into notice at the time of the Afghan War, and he would like to quote the eminent authority of Lord Lawrence, who pointed out that there was a very

great difference between expending the money of the taxpayers of India, who were not represented as people were here by an elected House of Commons, on things inside India and schemes away in these wild parts. Lord Lawrence described the close connection between the weight of the taxation and the sentiment of loyalty or its opposite which was felt, and he said, after an almost unparallelled experience of Indian affairs, both in war-time and in peace, and in the great emergencies that our Empire had passed through, that money ought to be expended on things within our territories, on making roads (which would include railways) and on irrigation works, and should not be expended beyond the frontiers. If that railway had been given up by the Government of India in the military Department they ought to know why the survey had been recommended. His belief was that, while the people did not object to a good deal of taxation if there was expenditure on those things that were recognised as useful and in connection with which they could see the money expended in the country, there was a growing feeling of dislike to the enormous increase of the military expenditure, and especially when it took that particular form.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 445.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. Kincaid-Smith, Captain Seely, Colonel
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Shackleton, David James
Duckworth, Sir James Lehmann, R. C. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Essex, R. W. Levy, Sir Maurice Sloan, Thomas Henry
Everett, R. Lacey Lewis, John Herbert Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Ferens, T. R. Lyell, Charles Henry Strachey, Sir Edward
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Crae, Sir George Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Maddison, Frederick Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Gill, A. H. Markham, Arthur Basil Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. Toulmin, George
Harwood, George Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Waring, Walter
Hedges, A. Paget Pearce, Roberts (Staffs, Leek) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Henry, Charles S. Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh
Higham, John Sharp Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)
Hooper, A. G. Rainy, A. Rolland Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hunt, Rowland Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Illingworth, Percy H. Ridsdale, E. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Robinson, S.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Rogers, F. E. Newman Elibank.
NOES.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Seddon, J.
Crean, Eugene Macpherson, J. T. Summerbell, T.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Grady, J.
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Parker, James (Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Mackarness and Dr. Rutherford.
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mnt'n)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to read bea third time To-morrow.