§ MR. C. J. O'DONNELL (Newington, Walworth)I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether the net profit from Government irrigation works in the Punjab last year was roundly £1,000,000, or 13 per cent. on the capital invested; whether it was as high as 25 per cent. on the Chenab Canal system, which includes the Sikh Colonies; and whether, seeing that excessive irrigation rates have been judicially declared to be the chief cause of unrest amongst the Sikh population, he will say what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
§ MR. BUCHANANThe figures given in the Question are approximately correct. There is no evidence, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, that the rates on the Chenab Canal are excessive, or that they are the cause of unrest. Proposals for raising existing rates on the Bari Doab Canal occasioned some discontent, but the new rates were not put in force, and the lieutenant-governor undertook to re-examine them. The Chenab rates, judging from the competition for land and its selling price, leave large profits to the cultivator.
§ MR. C. J. O'DONNELLWas it not mentioned and accepted by the judicial authorities that the riots were due to the excessive taxation of land?
§ MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)Was not the judicial opinion that the ii crease of the rate induced the riots, and not that the rate itself was excessive?
§ MR. BUCHANANI do not think there was any specific allegation that the irrigation rates on the Chenab Canal were excessive and were the cause of any unrest or trouble in the locality.
§ *MR. SMEATONWas not the capital for the construction of this canal obtained by loan and do not the Sikh peasants, as taxpayers, contribute their share of the interest due on the money borrowed; and is it reasonable that these peasants should at the same time be charged these excessive rates? Is it fair?
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. That is an argumentative Question.