Sitting of 28 April 1876

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND ARMY PURCHASE COMMISSION (VOTES ON ACCOUNT).
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders, Briton Ferry, &c. (No. 4)* [134]; Local Government Provisional Order, Skelmersdale (No. 5)*[135]; Admiralty Jurisdiction (Ireland)*[121]; Intoxicating Liquors (Licensing Law Amendment) (No. 2) [116], debate adjourned.
Committee—Merchant Shipping [49]—r.p.
Committee—Report—Industrial and Provident Societies*[68–139].
Considered as amended—Publicans Certificates (Scotland)* [115].

NAVY—NAVAL OFFICERS HOLDING CIVIL APPOINTMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he has any and what objections to produce the Returns authorizing payment of retired pay to Naval Officers holding Civil Appointments, as stated in the Notice Paper of April 6th?
MR. HUNT,in reply, said, the Returns alluded to were the same, he believed, which the hon. Member proposed to move for that evening. He (Mr. Hunt) did not intend to produce those Returns for two reasons—first, because they asked for instructions from the Ad-
1830
miralty to a Departmental officer which it was not usual to produce; and secondly, it was an indirect way of obtaining the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which could not be communicated.

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—VETERINARY SURGEONS.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is now prepared to state what steps have been taken with reference to an assimilation in the future of the offices of the Chief of the Army Medical Department and Permanent Veterinary Surgeon, with the view of putting an end to the stagnation of promotion in Her Majesty's Veterinary Surgeon Service?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, Mr. Wilkinson has been 50 years in the Service, and Principal Veterinary Surgeon since 1854. His retirement is in progress, and application is on the point of being made to the Treasury for his pension. A letter has been received from him asking for a special pension on account of his long service. In the future a different tenure of Principal Veterinary Surgeon will be established.

POLICE (IRELAND)—EXTRA FORCE IN MAYO.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following Resolution, adopted by the Magistrates of Mayo:—
"That, in view of the peaceful condition of the County Mayo, as shown by the calendars at assizes and quarter sessions, and by the opinion of the chairman and magistrates, we call on the Government to reduce the police force of the County to the ordinary peace establishment;"
and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to comply with the wishes of the magistrates expressed in the Resolution?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, that a Resolution had been received from the Grand Jury of County Mayo on the subject of the police force of that county, but its terms were not the same as those which had been read by the hon. Member; however, inquiry was now being made with regard to it, in order that the Government might decide how far it was

1831
possible for them to comply with the wish expressed in it.

EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875—EXPLOSION OF DYNAMITE IN SOUTH WALES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the account of an explosion of dynamite which took place in a tunnel near Maesteg, near South Wales, on Friday the 21st current, by which thirteen people lost their lives; whether he has seen it stated that there was 150 lbs of dynamite in the tunnel when the explosive substance was ignited; and whether the storing of so much dynamite in such a place was not contrary to Law; and, if he will cause, or has instructed on the part of the Government, that an inquiry be made into the whole circumstances connected with the event?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the very unfortunate accident referred to; but he had no information on the subject beyond what had appeared in the public papers, therefore he would rather not give an answer as to the legality of storing such quantities of dynamite until he had ascertained the actual facts. The moment he knew that an explosion had occurred he gave instructions that an Inspector of Explosives should attend the inquest, and, if necessary, make a most searching inquiry into the facts of the case.
  MR. MACDONALDgave Notice that, after the coroner's inquest had been held, he would ask, If, considering the very extensive use of dynamite, the right hon. Gentleman would not take into consideration the propriety of bringing in a Bill for the purpose of preventing the storing of dynamite in such quantities?

  ALIENS' ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1873— GIBRALTAR.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the Letter of the Right Reverend J. B. Scandella, V.A., dated Gibraltar the 31st day of January 1876, having reference to the immorality arising from the operation of the "Aliens' Order in Council, 1873," in that dependency, and
  1832
  addressed to the Earl of Carnarvon, has been received at the Colonial Office; and, if the statements contained in the Letter are borne out by facts; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government proposes to take steps to amend or repeal the Aliens' Order in Council referred to?
  MR. J. LOWTHER,in reply, said, that such a letter had been received by Lord Carnarvon from the right rev. J. B. Scandella, and had been referred by his Lordship to the new Governor of Gibraltar, Lord Napier of Magdala, for special consideration, together with the whole question of the treatment of the alien population of Gibraltar. He might state that Her Majesty's Government did not admit that the operation of the Orders in Council necessarily produced the results alleged by Dr. Scandella.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERgave Notice that he would renew the Question on a future day.

  POST OFFICE—THE GLASGOW POST OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Postmaster General, If he can explain why the works for the new Post Office at Glasgow have been stopped; and whether it be not the fact that the city authorities have given formal notice to the Postmaster of the dangerous condition in which part of the old building has been left?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Advices, Sir, with reference to a new Post Office at Glasgow, are now being received by the Offices of Works. The condition of the existing building has received our constant attention, and a further Report has been sent to the First Commissioner of Works by the Surveyor in Scotland, in which I understand that measures are recommended with the view of securing more complete safety.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— TEACHERS' SALARIES.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he intends this Session to bring in a Bill to permit in non-contributory Unions in Ireland voluntary aid to primary education being reckoned in the same manner that rates are reckoned in contributory Unions

  1833
  (under the Act 38 and 39 Vic. c. 96), towards an increase of the teachers' salaries; if he will in such a Bill reckon as voluntary aid the annual value of school buildings, school furniture, and assistance in school teaching, when afforded by unsalaried persons; and, if he will state what is the present sum per head of the population contributed by the State towards education in Ireland in non-contributory Unions, and what is the sum per head in Scotland?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH:Sir, I do not anticipate that I shall introduce a Bill this Session of the kind sketched out in the first and second paragraph of the hon. and gallant Member's Question. I also fear that I cannot supply him with the information which he asks for in the third paragraph precisely in the form which he desires, because it would be very difficult to separate the cost of administration and inspection in non-contributing Unions in Ireland from the expenditure for the same purposes in contributing Unions. But I may inform him that it appears, from the Estimates of the present year, that it is proposed that the State should contribute 2s. 7¼d. per head of the population towards public elementary education in Scotland and 2s. 4½d. per head in Ireland. It is fair to add, however, that much of the Scotch Vote is due to building grants, and must, therefore, be of an exceptional character; and that judging from the amount received by way of local contributions in Scotland during the year ending the 30th of September, 1875, and from the last Report of the Commissioners of Irish Education, it would seem probable that five times as much will be received in Scotland during the present year by way of local contributions as can be expected in Ireland.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHS IN SMALL TOWNS.—QUESTION.
  MR. DAVID JENKINSasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is willing to extend the hours for the transmission and receipt of telegrams until ten p.m. the earliest, in towns with a population exceeding five thousand inhabitants, inasmuch as great inconvenience is experienced by the public in consequence of the closing of Postal Telegraph Offices in our smaller towns at an early hour of the evening?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, except in large towns the number of messages sent out and received after 5 p.m. was not sufficient to pay for the cost of keeping the offices open until the present hour, which was almost universally 8 o'clock; and, therefore, to keep the smaller offices open until 10 o'clock would necessitate a waste of money, without any corresponding advantage to the public.

  THE BARBADOES RIOTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. THORNHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has any further news to communicate to the House respecting the state of affairs in Barbadoes?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I will first read, with the permission of the House, a telegram received from the War Office from the officer commanding the troops at Barbadoes. It is a telegram from Colonel Sargent, commanding the troops at Barbadoes, to the Secretary of State for War, and was received on the 26th of April—
  "The Governor has shown me telegrams from and to Lord Carnarvon. I agree with him that the Black troops coming in the 'Argus' will be sufficient to relieve those requiring rest. The detachment from Demerara will only be detained here for a short time. I am happy to say I have had no necessity for calling on any of the troops to fire to the present time."
  This telegram, it will be observed, is of even date with that alluded to in the House yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. The next telegram is from Lord Carnarvon to the Governor of Barbadoes, which was despatched yesterday in consequence of the receipt of the private telegram I have just referred to. It is a telegram from Lord Carnarvon to Governor Hennessy, dated April 27—
  "Private telegram reports 500 prisoners taken and 40 persons killed and wounded. Telegraph exact number of prisoners and of killed and wounded separately, and since what day disturbances have ceased; also whether you have any apprehension of renewed outbreaks. Answer immediately."
  I will now read Governor Hennessy's reply, which only reached the Colonial Office within the last half-hour, as I was on my way down to the House. It is a telegram from Governor Hennessy to Lord Carnarvon, dated April 28—

  1835
  "Disturbances ceased since Saturday. Number of prisoners taken actually plundering, 90; afterwards, on suspicion of rioting and having received stolen goods, 320; killed, 1; died of wounds, 2;wounded, 16. Police fired twice. No sugar works injured. I have no apprehension of renewed outbreaks. My only anxiety is from gentlemen threatening extreme measures."
  I will only add that, on a full consideration of all the various telegrams, official and private, Her Majesty's Government see no cause for anxiety respecting the maintenance of order from the present time.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—BURGLARIES AT SEA.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the Correspondence which passed last year between the Premier of the Colony of New Zealand, the Right honourable the President of the Board of Trade, and the Colonial Office, on the subject of burglaries committed on board emigrant and passenger ships by seamen during the continuance of the voyage?
  Mr. J. LOWTHER,in reply, said, there was no objection.

ARMY-FORAGE ALLOWANCE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the recent change in the regulations affecting the issue of forage allowance, whereby a mounted officer is compelled to be the bonâ fide owner of the horse for which forage is drawn, it is intended to afford mounted officers some assistance in meeting this new obligation, the present rate of forage allowance not being sufficient to provide food alone, without reference to the cost of the horse, saddlery, shoeing, wages and clothing of groom, and other incidental expenses?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The recent Order, Sir, has no connection with the question of the insufficiency of the forage allowance. It has always been the practice of the Service for officers to provide their own equipment and keep it efficient, and the horses of mounted officers have always been regarded as part of their equipment. The recent Order merely re-establishes what prior
  1836
  to 1869 has always been the rule—that officers should actually keep, instead of jobbing their horses, and imposes no new obligation on them. Government provides forage for such horses, or gives the officer an allowance for that purpose, and the question of the sufficiency of that allowance is under consideration.

  ARMY—LIEUTENANT COLONELS OF DEPOT BATTALIONS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain to the House the reasons why the Lieutenant Colonels of Depôt Battalions who, previous to the abolition of purchase in the Army, paid in good faith, as was then customary, over-regulation sums of money in order to obtain promotion and employment in the Service, and who, at the time of doing so, were guaranteed by Government regulations the same rights and privileges in regard to position as the Lieutenant Colonels of Line Battalions, are to be now considered as ineligible to receive the same consideration and compensation in respect of repayment of their over-regulation money as is granted to the Lieutenant Colonels of Line Battalions; and, should no powers now exist to remove this inequality, whether he will take the necessary steps to introduce a measure which would place the Depôt Battalion Lieutenant Colonels so situated on the same footing in regard to receiving compensation as Lieutenant Colonels of the Line?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, these questions are entirely in the hands of the Army Purchase Commission, and, as I understand, there is only evidence before them of one Lieutenant Colonelcy of a Depôt Battalion purchased by a payment in excess of regulation, and they do not think that a single transaction can constitute a custom which would warrant them in awarding over-regulation in respect of these positions generally. They further consider that, as in 1866, these appointments were made tenable for five years only, it is not probable that the officers succeeding to them would make a payment on the footing of over-regulation which they could not realize at the end of their tenure. The Commissioners are of opinion that whatever may have been the pecuniary loss to these officers by reason of their compulsory reduction

  1837
  prior to 1871, their position was not appreciably made worse by the abolition of Purchase, inasmuch as their chance of gratuitous restoration to full-pay had Purchase continued would have been exceedingly small. Under the circumstances, I do not contemplate any legislation on the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked the Prime Minister, Whether, in reference to the present stage of the Session and the Business of the House, he would have any objection to commence the business at a quarter-past four instead of half-past four as at present?
  MR. DISRAELI,in reply, said, that the question whether the period of the Session had arrived when Public Business might begin at a quarter past 4 o'clock instead of half-past was one to be decided by the House itself. His only object was to consult the wishes and convenience of hon. Members, and as far as the Government was concerned, there was no objection to commencing at the earlier time; but he did not wish any one to be taken by surprise by the adoption of a new arrangement, and therefore he would take an opportunity of mentioning the matter on Monday, and in the meantime hon. Members would be able to consider it.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—DECISION AT THAMES POLICE COURT.—QUESTION.
  MR. BATESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the decision of the magistrate of the Thames Police Court on Thursday in the case of the master of the ship "Locksley Hall," when the master was sentenced to twenty-one days' imprisonment for putting a seaman in irons for mutiny, the captain having asked him repeatedly to do his duty, and he having persistently refused to do so; and, also the decision in the cross action against the seaman for refusing to work, when the magistrate convicted the seaman of the offences charged against him, and sentenced him to one day's imprisonment?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had not had his attention called to this matter, until he received the pri-
  1838
  vate Notice of it from his hon. Friend. Of course, after that Notice, he would make inquiry.

SUPPLY. COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

INDIA—THE BENGAL FAMINE.—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
MR. T. E. SMITH,in rising to call attention to the Correspondence on the Bengal Famine, and to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the late famine in India, and into the various systems of relief adopted,"
said, it was his full intention to have brought forward the question last Session. It might be thought by some that the question had now passed out of men's minds and had become a matter of history in which nothing practical could be done, and that it should have been discussed earlier if it were to be discussed at all; but an earlier discussion had been rendered difficult by delay in the delivery of the Papers, coupled with the pre-occupation of the time of the House; and, considering the interest which the country had shown in Indian subjects, he did not think it would be creditable to the House, nor just to that great Empire which was not represented in that House, if another Session were allowed to pass without attention being called to the enormous expenditure incurred in connection with the Famine. Having read a great deal in connection with the subject, he had observed that those whose duty it was to bring the matter under consideration had not done so. He had no idea of making a personal attack on any one, nor of showing that any one was to be blamed; but he thought the extraordinary divergences of opinion about the Famine, as to whether it had really existed at all, and the extraordinary systems of relief adopted rendered the subject one which deserved inquiry and which the House could not afford to pass over without any consideration at all. He could quote any number of statements of divergent views by men of high position, but he did not think it necessary to do so, as he was

1839
only asking for inquiry, and did not wish to commit himself to any conclusion or theory. The first question which arose was whether there was a famine at all in Bengal in the years 1873–4, and with regard to that, he would only refer to a few letters with the simple object of showing what were the opinions of persons in high official positions as to the prospective and actual measures required to meet the Famine in Bengal in 1873–4. They all remembered, no doubt, the interest which was taken, and the discussions which took place in this country, with respect to the anticipated Famine. It was agreed that, in face of so great a calamity, the laws of political economy, and the ordinary regulations adopted in similar cases, could not be held applicable in this particular instance. He would not say that there was a panic, but there was, he thought, an exaggerated idea prevalent as to its nature and extent. The correspondence led him to the conclusion that throughout a considerable portion of the country a famine existed. It was, however, not so extensive as was generally imagined. Having been in India in 1874 and having travelled over a considerable portion of the country in question, he had met a number of persons, including among them some persons who had access to the best information, who took a different view, and who argued that there never had been anything but what might be called a considerable scarcity in Bengal and the North-Western Provinces, and that anything like extravagant preparations for a famine were totally uncalled-for. Owing to the fact that the rain fell during the year 1873 at inconvenient and undesirable times, there was a deficiency of grain at a time when more was wanted, that deficiency not being peculiar to Bengal, but prevailing throughout the North-Western Provinces in an equal if not a greater degree. There was a very common idea among many people in this country that rice formed almost the sole food of the people of India, and that when a failure of the rice crop occurred the whole of their food supply was cut off. That, however, was not the case; and, in fact, it was a total mistake, for any one acquainted with the people of India must know that they used a great deal of pulses and grain of various kinds as food. These grain crops were grown subse-
1840
quently to the rice crop, and they largely supplemented the staple food of the people. Sufficient importance was not attached to these grain crops, and in the Patna division, at least, roots and vegetables were also an important resource in times of scarcity. It seemed to be established, then, that the population of the affected districts were not entirely dependent upon rice for their support. They had next to consider whether there was not usually grown in the distressed districts more rice than was required for those districts, and whether in fact the exports from those places were not considerable. On this point he found from the official Papers, that the distress occurred in those parts of the country where the inhabitants were in the habit in ordinary years of producing a very considerable surplus of rice for export. The people were therefore in a better position to bear the pressure of a time of failure than were the inhabitants of countries who only grew sufficient rice for their own consumption. It was a singular fact, too, that, in spite of the failure of crop which caused so much suffering and distress, the export of rice from Bengal only fell 90,000 tons, as compared with ordinary years, while at the same time the imports of grain amounted to 450,000 tons. The existence of a class of men who entered into grain speculations should not escape notice, for the Lieutenant Governor, Sir George Campbell, was very much impressed by the fact that certain traders in one of the affected districts were carrying on an extraordinarily profitable business in carrying out contracts for the Government for the carriage of grain to Calcutta, to be thence sent down to the country; and again it was found that grain was being sent to Nepaul, to be there sold at low prices or given away, while at the same time rice was being received from Nepaul, so that a double system of export and import was carried on at the same time. It was clear that although there was a deficiency in the main article of food, other articles of food were to be had in abundance, and they might, he thought, justly conclude that there was not that great necessity for interfering with the ordinary course of trade as had been supposed. It might, however, be said that this was a special calamity, and that there was a precedent on which to proceed. One great diffi-

1841
culty which existed in dealing with Indian affairs generally arose from the absence of statistics; but in this case the result justified the extraordinary accuracy of the calculation which had been made by Dr. Hunter, that about 660,000 persons would have to be fed by the Government, and that the cost for six months would be something like £400,000. Looking now at all the circumstances, from the experience that had been gained, he did not doubt that an expenditure of about £2,000,000 would have met the exigencies of the occasion as effectually as did the system which had been adopted. It was a remarkable fact that the valuable information afforded by the district officers who were scattered over all parts of India was systematically ignored; a course of proceeding especially to be deplored. The impending Famine, as was to be expected, caused great excitement in this country—an excitement which he had heard had been stimulated by the machinery used in the getting up of Joint Stock Companies—that object being to send up prices in order that speculation might be successful, and the excitement was kept up by alarmist articles appearing in the newspapers. There had been laid before the House copies of numerous telegrams that passed between the India Office in London and the Viceroy of India in reference to the question. The Viceroy, who, from his position and the fact that he was on the spot, might be supposed to have had the whole matter in hand, and know more of the circumstances of the impending Famine than could be known at home, proposed the adoption of a moderate course, but it was urged upon him by the India Office to spend more money in the purchase of grain, and to take stronger measures than he really thought necessary, in order to meet the difficulty that was coming upon a part of the Empire which had been committed to his charge. The Secretary of State, it seemed, was entertaining a proposition for purchasing 950,000 tons of rice; whilst, in the end, the whole quantity bought by the Indian Government was 450,000 tons, and of this there turned out after to be a surplus of 100,000 tons. Such transactions as these would of course seriously raise the price of rice. The Secretary of State also wanted to purchase Indian corn to be sent to Calcutta. These things showed the extra-
1842
ordinary state of panic which existed at the India Office; and it continued after the change of Government. So matters proceeded until it became necessary in the face of actual danger to take prompt steps, and then, for what reason he had never been able to ascertain, the Viceroy departed from the course he had up to that time maintained to be the wisest. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who had been Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, would probably be able to give the House some information as to the state of things that existed in Bengal and the North-West Provinces at the time to which he was referring. Up to January, 1874, the state of things in the North-West Provinces and in Bengal had been very similar; but rain came, and was a considerable benefit to the country at large. When February came there was a complete change, because the rains had been more beneficial than was expected; yet the Government, notwithstanding, settled a very considerable system of relief in that country. No one could read the Papers without seeing that Lord Northbrook and Sir George Campbell were resisting the enormous estimates which were being thrust upon them by the Government, and were doing all in their power to keep them down. There were documents which showed that Sir Richard Temple, having been deputed to go down to Behar to investigate the matter, arrived at a conclusion, at the end of 24 hours, which threw over all the previous calculations as to the number of persons who would require relief, and the amount of grain that would be necessary for their nourishment during the continuance of the Famine. Sir Richard Temple's estimate was that 4,000,000 maunds of rice of 80 lbs. would be required; but that estimate was cut down by Sir George Campbell to about 1,500,000 maunds, showing that he was not affected by the panic, and that he tried to do the best he could in the way of economy. What the Lieutenant Governor got for this interference was a letter from the deputy Secretary to the Government of India, which expressed disappointment that the local officers had so long neglected the wants of the country, and which supported Sir Richard Temple in recommending that there should be 4,000,000 maunds of grain. Consequently, Sir

1843
Richard Temple was able to carry out his system. It might have been a wise system or not, but it was a fit question for investigation as to whether the money had been rightly or wrongly expended. With regard to the steps which were taken in the North-West Provinces, the authorities there showed themselves alive to the importance of dealing with the subject, and laid down rules for relief with respect to the employment of labour, and gratuitous relief to persons incapable of labour. The principle was, that every person who could work should be obliged to work, and that those who professed to be unable to work should be placed in a position where they could not take advantage of the Government aid unless it was absolutely necessary, every care being taken that the expenses should be kept down. What, however, were the steps which were taken when the Bengal Famine was advancing to full swing? The first step which the Government took, as he had said, was to purchase grain to the extent of 450,000 tons. Of that quantity 100,000 were left, and it was impossible to say what was done with the 350,000 tons. Dr. Hunter calculated that 660,000 people would require to be fed by the Government per week on an average for six months; what was the number of people who were fed by the Government? In March the average number per week was 23,000; in June, 404,000; in August, for one week, or perhaps one day only, 750,000; and then the numbers declined steadily until in October there were only 100,000 persons who were being fed by the Government. So that Dr. Hunter's estimate was considerably above rather than below the mark; but even if 660,000 had been required to be fed for six months, their rations would only have amounted to £396,000, whilst the Government had expended £4,400,000 in the purchase of grain. Not only was food given to those who required it in the distressed districts, but people were attracted from other parts, so that they might live at the Government expense during the rainy season. Surely these facts afforded some grounds for investigation into this matter. And if the expenditure in the purchase of grain was not satisfactory, still less was the Government transport efficient. Sir Richard Temple did not appear to have formed a due estimate of
1844
the various means and facilities for transport which were at his disposal in the new circumstances with which he had to deal. One of the greatest mistakes was, that he absolutely insisted on getting all the grain on the spot before the commencement of the rains; whereas a great saving might have been effected if the grain had been kept back until Nature provided facilities for transport. Then there was the unaccountable reduction of railway fares by one half, whereby more was taken out of the pockets of the railway companies in the first place, and then out of the pockets of the Government to recoup the railway companies the guaranteed interest. He now came to perhaps the most important part of this subject—namely, the relief works. It was almost impossible to deal temperately with the relief works, the expense of which they would never know, or be able to form an estimate of the amount of gross extravagance that was practised whilst they were in operation. In Bengal the object was to get the people on the relief works, and officers who endeavoured to apply tests to the applicants got snubbed for their pains. He should have thought the course of a prudent Government would have been the opposite of that. People in parts of the country where Famine did not exist emigrated to the Famine district to be put on the relief works, because they were attracted by the rations and the high wages given there. At one time the local labourers employed on the relief works were only a tenth of those employed on them. People came in crowds to the relief works, under the idea that money was to be given away by the Government, whether the people worked or not. Little or no work was done at the relief works, people putting in an appearance simply to secure their wages. The real description of these relief works was to be found in the history of the relief works for the North-West Provinces, and Sir John Stracey found the rate of wages so high there that the works became excessively popular, and the people looked on the whole concern as a gigantic picnic. In order to get rid of the difficulty the rate of wages was reduced, upon which a considerable reduction of people attending them took place, the number of 127,000 men employed upon them in the first instance being reduced to 39,000. A

1845
very disgraceful waste of public money also took place in the advances in grain and money. The grain was distributed with a lavish hand. Anyone who wanted it was able to obtain it; at a very early period of the Famine 187,000 maunds were given away, without any certainty as to its application. The dealers abandoned the grain trade, because they were enabled to make a better thing of it by obtaining grain from the Government and selling it to the people. Seed was also distributed on loan to the ryots for seed purposes, which, according to Sir Richard Temple, would have to be repaid in 1875 and 1876 at 100 per cent increase of cost over the prices of 1874. It seemed extraordinary that the Government should have made advances of grain at such an extraordinary rate, but he doubted if the Government would receive a penny of it back. Advances of money were made in a very lavish manner. Every one who represented that he wanted money to carry out some local improvement got it, and £500,000 had been so expended without any guarantee of its being so expended. In fact, Sir Richard Temple had admitted that he could not say whether the money was expended for that purpose or not. [Lord George Hamilton: Will the hon. Member give me the reference for that?] The hon. Member, pointing out the page in the Blue Book from which he was quoting, said, that Sir Richard Temple there admitted that it was impossible to say how many persons derived assistance from the advances in question. Then, again, the expedition of Sir Richard Temple into Behar was an extraordinary proceeding, and according to his account the mules were only able to carry sufficient grain for their own consumption in going there and back, and he proceeded to say that the influx of so many men and animals into the Famine district was obviously bad policy, for they must have consumed more food than they were able to take into the country. However, they made the expedition, consumed the grain, and returned. The same extravagance was kept up after the Famine had passed away, both in the supply of grain and the employment of the people on the public works; and it was most strongly felt by men of experience that the expenditure incurred at the worst period of the Famine was not so much open to criticism as that which
1846
was continued for a considerable time after the pressure was said to have ceased, and caused a greater amount of surplus supplies to remain at the end of the Famine than was at all necessary or desirable. As by the Rules of the House he had not the right of reply, he could only try to surmise the answer which the noble Lord would give. He should, no doubt, be told that the matter would be investigated in India, that being the proper place for it to be done; but having been in India a few months after the Famine had passed over, he did not believe that a sufficiently important number of persons could be found to conduct the inquiry, because the people from the highest to the lowest were divided into "Faminists" and "anti-Faminists," and were as distinctly and clearly known as Whig and Tory in this country. Another reason for not relegating the inquiry to India was that of late years English interest in that country had greatly increased, a warm sympathy had been felt here in connection with this matter, and Englishmen had subscribed largely for the relief of the suffering. On behalf of the people both of India and England then, it was only just and sufficient that such an independent tribunal as the House of Commons should investigate this very serious expenditure. It might be said that such a course would not be respectful to the Government of India, and that it would involve a certain amount of censure on it. But such considerations as that did not prevent us from inquiring into the conduct of affairs in the Crimea and into the expenditure incurred in the Abyssinian War. Our Indian fellow-subjects were not represented in this House, and as long as the Government of India was conducted, necessarily perhaps, in the high-handed way in which it was, the people of that country had a right to require, when there was reason to suppose that their resources had been injudiciously and lavishly expended, that we should show the same zeal in inquiring into the subject as if we ourselves were immediately concerned. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord the Under Secretary for India would give an assurance that the subject should be thoroughly investigated by a Committee of that House; and, in doing so, he would confer not only a benefit on India for the future, but give great satisfaction

1847
to the people of India at the present time. Famines in India were not exceptional, every few years they recurred, and it was not to be supposed that every 10 or 15 years Indian finances would stand an expenditure of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. The next time there was a Famine in India there might be too great a zeal for economy and the people might die. He wished to avoid the two extremes, and from such an inquiry as he proposed we might obtain information which might be found most useful in such an emergency. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Motion of which he had given Notice.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) that an inquiry into the matter was desirable, and he was so much concerned in it that he trusted the House would bear with him in the statement he desired to make. He was prepared to second the Motion that a Committee of this House should be entrusted with the investigation, although he arrived at his conclusions from a different course of reasoning than that pursued by the hon. Gentleman. He thought an inquiry of some kind was necessary in order to set at rest the doubts which existed, which had taken an extreme form in India, and were very much shared in this country, and also to arrive at some conclusion for our guidance in future cases, so as to avoid the extremes of over-provision or neglect. If an illustration of the desirability of relieving the public mind on the subject was necessary, it would be found in the speech of his hon. Friend who, having taken a great interest in the matter and having acquired a great deal of information, had indulged in a great many fallacies which it was desirable by some inquiry to remove. For himself he could say that, so far from preferring to make a one-sided statement in that House, his desire was to be, as it were, turned inside out by a competent Committee, and he believed that from that and other evidence attainable the truth might be reached and the doubts which now existed set at rest. From what he could learn, however, he was afraid the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) was not likely to grant this Committee, and he must make the best statement he could. In making his statement he would
1848
very much prefer to confine himself to public matters, and to leave matters of a personal nature altogether out of the narrative. But he feared that was impossible. The principal facts in relation to this matter were patent to anybody who would inquire into them with a calm and equal mind. During the Famine he received great public sympathy, which was very grateful to him; but since then the public view had taken an opposite turn. Many things had been said which required an answer from him, and it had even been suggested that there never was any serious Famine at all. If that was a correct view, then he (Sir George Campbell) had been guilty of great exaggeration, and must do what he could to clear himself, he having been in the beginning very much responsible for the views put forth as to the Famine in Bengal. His experience in India with regard to Famines convinced him that grave mistakes had been committed—on the one hand, in failing to appreciate the approach of Famine, in neglecting the warnings of local officers, and trusting too much to rigid rules of political economy; and on the other, in exaggerating the extent of Famine. An illustration of the former mistake was furnished by the Orissa Famine. Yet when the mistake was found out the other extreme was gone to; after that Famine was over, enormous supplies of grain were sent in when not wanted, and great quantities of it rotted, or it was sold off at a small price. During his administration in Bengal he had occasion rather to repress than encourage appeals to the Government for aid. He had found that by a kind of re-action there was a disposition to exaggerate the symptoms of scarcity, and that money was obtained to carry on public works on the plea that Famine was approaching, whereas those Famines never came. In 1873, when the approach of Famine appeared to him to be really probable, he did not rush into the belief that a great Famine was approaching, but appreciated the necessity of careful inquiry so as to avoid alarmist measures on the one hand and neglect on the other. Besides, he was one of those who did not take a very sanguine view of the finances of India, believing that economy in their administration was highly necessary.
It was in that spirit and with these

1849
views that he approached the probability of scarcity in 1873. He endeavoured to obtain the best possible information from the moment when the failure of the rains occurred; and in order to effect that purpose every officer in Bengal was at once set to work to furnish it. This was attended with considerable difficulty, because there were not the same means of procuring statistical information as existed in other parts of the country; and no doubt in regard to the existence of stocks of grain and other matters the information obtained was necessarily somewhat deficient. But with regard to the amount of the failure of the crop at the end of 1873, the information was in the end as complete for practical purposes as it possibly could be. Indeed, the Reports on the subject filled dozens of volumes. Coming next to the facts of the failure, he could not help observing that the hon. Member for Tynemouth appeared to think the North Western Provinces were to be taken as a standard in regard to Bengal. It was absurd, however, to say that because there was not a Famine in one country therefore there was not in the other. It would be as reasonable to say that because there was no Famine in Wales there could be none in Ireland. As the hon. Member had correctly stated, the people of different parts of India lived on different kinds of grain, and the true explanation of the Famine in Bengal which occurred in 1873–4 was this—that it was solely and distinctly a rice Famine. In the districts where the people were in the habit of subsisting on rice there was a Famine, and in the districts where they more used other grain there was not a Famine but only a certain degree of scarcity. The wet districts suffered more than the dry districts, where different kinds of crops were grown. The dry crops came to maturity. The circumstances in the two cases were totally different. In describing the nature of the failure of the crops in Bengal he would first remark that the rains were not only short, but that they failed almost entirely at the latter part of the season, when the rice crops depend entirely on seasonable rains. The failure of rain in September and October, 1873, was greater than any on record. The position in October and November was as follows:—A failure of rain had occurred to such an extent that in many
1850
parts of the country the rice crops were absolutely dead and gone. It was evident, therefore, that there must be a considerable Famine; but beyond that, they could not ascertain the probable results in those parts of the country where the crops were yet doubtful. There was, however, the gravest reason to apprehend that the Famine might have much wider limits than were at that time certain, and there was also the further fear that the winter crops could not be sown with any probability of germinating, in consequence of the dryness of the ground. He knew, however, from experience the necessity for discounting alarm, and he did so. He decided to wait and see how far the Famine would go. He exercised the greatest caution, and the event proved that he exercised it rightly, for, by the blessing of Providence, things turned out more favourably than might have been expected. What saved them to a very great extent was that the cold weather crops did germinate, and came to maturity in a way that nobody had expected. Although there was at the commencement some uncertainty as to what the extent of the Famine would be, still as the season progressed they ascertained the facts, so far as the crops were concerned, with almost absolute correctness, and he believed the statistics on that head furnished by Sir Richard Temple, although the hon. Member for Tynemouth had doubted them, were as correct as anything of the kind possibly could be. He showed that a failure of the crops to the extent of seven-eighths, five-sixths, and three-fourths occurred in an area affecting 12,000,000 of people, and that it was impossible their lives could be saved without the aid of the Government. That there was an extensive failure would be made clear, he felt satisfied, if the proposed Committee were granted, and a few gentlemen were examined before it.
The failure, then, being an undoubted fact, what was the action of the Government in dealing with it? A great deal had been said with regard to the differences of opinion on the subject between the Viceroy and himself, but those differences, he could assure the House, had been greatly exaggerated. It was true there was some difference of opinion between them on economic questions, but those differences were

1851
such as must always occur, and both the Viceroy and himself might take credit for having devoted themselves honestly to the necessities of the case, and permitted no differences of the kind he had mentioned to prevent them from working together for the common good. No doubt the Viceroy interfered more in the matter than was usually the case. Generally the carrying out of the necessary measures was left to the local Governor, but in this case, as soon as Lord Northbrook became aware of the extreme urgency of the matter, he took a large personal control over it, which was creditable to him. Still, if he was to have the credit of what was successful in the management of the matter, it was only fair he should also take his due share of any blame which might attach to any failures which might have occurred in dealing with the Famine. He might add that there was an important difference between the Viceroy and himself in regard to the export question. He (Sir George Campbell) proposed that the export of grain should be prohibited; but the Viceroy at once negatived that proposition on the ground that it was contrary to the laws of political economy and free trade. There was no argument permitted on the subject, and it involved considerations into which it was impossible to enter on the present occasion. He could only say that he entirely adhered to the opinion which he had expressed as to the prohibitions being reasonable under the circumstances. As a matter of fact the principle of free trade was not carried out to its fullest extent, for the Government took upon itself functions which the laws of political economy would not cast upon it, and, those laws having been so far violated, the only question was what form of violation was best to be done to save the lives of the people. He, for one, looked upon it as quite an unnatural proceeding that large fleets of ships carrying large quantities of grain out of the river Hooghly should be crossed by other ships bringing in large quantities of grain purchased on behalf of the Government. During the Famine some 220,000 tons of grain were exported from the Hooghly, an amount which would alone, he believed, have sufficed to keep the starving people of the starving Provinces, with-
1852
out any importation on the part of the Government. He maintained that the advantages of the prohibition of the export of corn would have been direct and immediate, and that by that means an enormous expenditure, as well as great derangement of trade, would have been prevented. Besides, all classes in India were agreed that exportation should be prohibited, and he was entirely unable to see that any practical evils would have resulted from that course.
He now came to the measures which had been actually taken in dealing with the Famine, and he would observe at the outset that he did not think he could be fairly accused of having exaggerated the evil in its early stages. In order to show that his statements were not extreme or unduly alarming, he would ask hon. Members to refer to the messages he sent home, and which were published in the Blue Books, from the earliest blush of the impending Famine, and from which it might be seen that he took a moderate view of the matter from the outset. What happened was this—that in the early part of the Famine he took a somewhat graver view of the danger than was taken by the Government of India; but later on the Government of India took a graver view of it than he did. They thought a greater expenditure necessary, and they were much more liberal than he considered the circumstances demanded. His original demand of credit to the amount of £500,000 was refused—the Government considering that there was at that time no clear necessity for that sum, though at the same time allowing him a wide licence. Looking to the subsequent expenditure he thought his original demand was not an excessive sum. As regarded food he asked first for 70,000 tons, and that was supplied. He asked later on for 75,000 more, and ultimately it was recommended that 200,000 tons in all should be sent to the Famine districts. That was a good deal less than half what the Government of India thought proper to send, and therefore his demands were not exorbitant. He obtained all the information he could; but in the meantime public opinion in this country was becoming excited about India, and that feeling, no doubt, influenced the Government above all things to secure the safety of the people. The orders of the Govern-

1853
ment consequently were entirely on the side of excessive liberality. In his opinion, the failure to prohibit the exportation of grain had very much to do with the excessive expenditure and provision that were gone into, as the Government felt very much the responsibility thrown on them by that refusal. Sir Richard Temple, who succeeded him as Governor of Bengal, made estimates much higher than had been made before, but considering the orders he had from the Government at home, this could hardly be matter of surprise. At the same time, he considered that he (Sir George Campbell) had better means of information than any Secretary of State could have sending orders from a distance, and that if the matter had been left to him on his responsibility, he would have managed with a much smaller supply than the Home Government thought necessary. The Government of India acted on the orders they received from home, and both the Viceroy and Sir Richard Temple did their duty in a manner which entitled them to the thanks of the country. It was true that some European gentlemen engaged in the carriage of supplies to the Famine districts made large fortunes, but that circumstance was perhaps inevitable from the excessive provision of grain which the Indian Government thought it necessary to make. By the ordinary means of transport 200,000 tons of grain, which he himself judged sufficient to meet the case, might have been distributed; but he was quite willing to admit that, if it was well to take such measures of precaution as the Government of India had done, it was necessary to provide extraordinary means of carriage. After all, there were great interests at stake, and although the expenditure might seem extravagant, yet if they were to compare famine with war, and to consider the saving of life as important as destroying it, they would find there was not so much extravagance in the management of the Bengal Famine as in the Abyssinian War, and the cost of the former was less than that of the latter. Before leaving the country in March, 1874, he made a tour through the worst of the districts, and actually saw for himself that a Famine was existing which, but for the steps taken by Government, must have resulted in acute suffering, and great loss of life. Happily that calamity had been averted, and,
1854
looking at all the circumstances of the case, it was a little hard that people should now turn round and say there was never any danger of a Famine at all.
MR. T. E. SMITHremarked that he simply expressed a belief that the danger of Famine was confined to certain districts. He did not deny that a Famine existed.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, his observation applied to assertions made by other people, but his hon. Friend had certainly attempted to convey the impression that the danger was less serious than was generally supposed, and in fact his argument went a long way towards attenuating and minimising it. Whatever the judgment of the House and the country might now be, he must again say that he was sure, the policy apart, the energy and devotion which the Viceroy, Sir Richard Temple, and the executive officers brought to bear on their task would be universally acknowledged. A very large proportion of the officers employed were competition civilians, and no class of men could have shown greater vigour and zeal in the public service. For the excessive expenditure which had been incurred, public opinion was, perhaps, after all, most to blame. After he had left, the Government sent 458,000 tons of food—more than double what he had thought necessary. 334,000 tons were expended in various ways, and 120,000 tons remained as a surplus not needed. The facts as they now appeared seemed to justify the general concurrence of opinion that his (Sir George Campbell's) own estimates would have been sufficient to meet the Famine, and save the lives of the people. He might, perhaps, be allowed in self-justification to say that if he had been allowed to have his own way there would have been a saving of 50 per cent in the expenditure, the question of prohibiting exports apart, and if he had been allowed to prohibit the export of grain, very much more of the expense incurred would have been saved. He did not blame those who took another view of the matter; but he thought the House should be careful how they allowed public opinion in this country to run into excesses with the money of India. He had no doubt that if the disbursements on account of the Indian Famine had had to be paid by this country the

1855
Government would not have had the smallest hesitation in granting a Committee of Inquiry. However generous they in this country might be in any matter for which they had to bear the cost, it was generally found when the bill came in that they were of a more frugal mind, and bestowed on the expenditure an amount of discussion and of criticism which might lead to greater prudence in the future. But there was no House of Commons in India, and no means of thus overhauling the accounts, and therefore he was inclined to support the present Motion for an inquiry by a Committee. It was to be remarked that the correspondence on that subject had ended without the enunciation of any general principles by the Secretary of State for their guidance in future cases. He thought they should restrain their generosity by providing only for those calamities and contingencies which were probable. If they were to provide not merely for probable but for possible contingencies, doubtless the provision which had been made in that instance was not too much. If another failure had occurred in Bengal—and certainly that was possible—they would have required all the provision which had been made. But it was not probable that there would be a second failure, and some general principle should be laid down by a central authority for their future guidance as to whether they should provide for a merely possible and extreme necessity, or only for probable contingencies. A great responsibility was thrown upon the local officials; and he felt that while they should be left free to act according to circumstances, and with a full sense of their responsibility, they should feel that so long as they did their duty they would be supported both by the Home Government and the Government of India. They should avoid going to either extreme in such cases, and he thought the Orissa Famine must be held on the one hand as an example of the evils of making no provision, and the Bengal Famine, on the other hand, as to some degree a warning against making an excessive provision.
As to the executive officers, who had undergone great privations in conducting in the hot season the campaign against famine, they had been somewhat hardly used, and their services had not been sufficiently recognized. The Government
1856
had been influenced in some degree by the feeling that the provision for the Famine had been somewhat overdone; but those executive officers, in carrying out the policy of the Government, had done their duty most nobly; and it was only right and fitting that their labours should be thoroughly appreciated and acknowledged. In India there was a feeling that this had not been done. Among a large class of officers in Bengal there existed an impression that they had been hardly dealt with for not foreseeing the approach of the Orissa Famine, and that was the origin to a great extent of what was called the Anti-Famine School referred to by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. For himself, if an inquiry should now be instituted before a Committee, he, as having had a large concern in that matter, would willingly submit himself to the fullest cross-examination, and afford every information in his power. That, he thought, would be far better than an imperfect statement made to the House by an hon. Member who, like himself, was comparatively new to public discussion, and who could not in the form of a speech put the subject before the House in so clear a light as he desired.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the late famine in India, and into the various systems of relief adopted,"—(Mr. Eustace Smithy,)
—instead thereof.
MR. ONSLOWsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) had done good service by bringing that question forward, because it would convince the people of India that the House of Commons recognized the services of those who had been acting in the manner described by the last speaker, while it would also show that the House took a great interest in all that affected the welfare of the population of that great dependency. At the same time, he could not support the Motion for a Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the Bengal Famine and the various systems of relief which had been adopted. It was quite out of the question that a Committee of that House, sitting thousands of miles from the scene

1857
of action, could either give any practical advice to future Viceroys, or lay down any general principle on which famines should be managed in future years. Those famines must be dealt with by the Viceroy and the officers on the spot, according to the special circumstances under which they arose, and a Famine in Orissa, for example, would be wholly different from one in the Punjab. He thought they should leave the Viceroy as much as possible to manage India; at least every Secretary of State should recognize the propriety of ruling that great country as little as possible by telegram. With reference to the extraordinary expenditure incurred for the Famine, he must say, from the telegrams received in this country at the time and the remarks made upon them, great alarm was felt both here and in India, and the Viceroy was urged to do everything that could be done to save the lives of our Indian fellow-subjects. When any great calamity occurred in India the Natives were apathetic, and the Government alone could do any practical good. That was one of our greatest difficulties in India. We had felt it in the case of the Orissa Famine, and it was a difficulty which, if not increasing, was, at any rate, not diminishing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy seemed to think that the local Government should, on the occurrence of such a calamity, be left to manage affairs itself. He (Mr. Onslow), on the other hand, thought it mattered little who was Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or the Punjab; the Viceroy should be responsible for everything that occurred, for it was to him that Parliament and the country looked. Therefore, it was imperative that the Viceroy should go into the details of every case and see that his orders were carried out. During the whole time he had been in India the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy had done very great service, and the Viceroy could not have found a better man to succeed him than Sir Richard Temple. The latter gentleman was a most energetic administrator, and though, perhaps, his estimates might have been a little coloured, yet it was far better he should have erred on that side, than that the Viceroy should have stinted the supply to the famine-stricken districts. We must always more or less expect the recurrence of such calamities in India.
1858
There was a great scarcity every three or four years, and a famine every six or seven years. We had gained experience by these calamities. It must be left to the officers on the spot to inform the Viceroy exactly how matters stood. We could not rely upon the Natives; we must rely only on ourselves. With respect to this particular Famine, it was easy to judge after the event. The officers connected with the famine-stricken districts gave for the time-being the best advice they could. They reported that there was a famine—there might be a very serious famine, and it was incumbent on the House and the Secretary of State for India to urge on the Viceroy the necessity of saving every life he could. For this these millions were spent, and thus Lord Northbrook had gained a great success. He could only hope, should another famine occur in that country, we might have such another Viceroy as Lord Northbrook on the spot, and two such Lieutenants as Sir George Campbell and Sir Richard Temple.
DR. WARDsaid, he differed from the opinion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Onslow), and thought that, having regard to the very great expenditure in this case, it was essential that a Committee should be appointed, and it would be strange indeed if it were refused, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy himself, who acknowledged his responsibility in the matter, had seconded the Motion. He admitted that the Viceroy should be master; but in this case the Viceroy was not master. He was urged against his own judgment by telegrams from day to day, bearing the character of haughtiness and dictation, from the Secretary of State. It was clear the expenditure in India had been trebled because there was alarm in Downing Street, for the estimate made by Sir Richard Temple was three times as great as that made by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and provided for nine months, instead of only for three, without looking, as the Lieutenant Governor had done, to the prospect of the growing crops in Behar. He believed that a great deal of money had been wasted in useless expenditure, and they had the authority of Sir Richard Temple himself that £500,000 had been expended for which there was no voucher whatever. Surely

1859
here in itself was a sufficient reason for inquiry. He believed that it had been in the case of the Indian, as it had been in the case of the Irish Famine, that a considerable portion of the money intended for the relief of the people never reached them, but had in its passage been intercepted by other people. The principal allegations calling for inquiry were four—namely, that there had been excessive expenditure in the face of the best knowledge; that men were extravagantly employed on relief works; that there had been reckless advances and no returns; and that in the matter of transport, European speculators had enriched themselves at the expense of the Government, which in some cases, it was stated, had to pay twelve times as much as if there had been no panic. He believed that from the first there had been an ample supply of food for the people, but the result of the panic in Downing Street was that the price of food went up so high that, taking into account the price of transport, it cost them from £10 to £12 a-ton, and that, or the surplus of it, they had afterwards to sell at £2 15 s. per ton. Again, when they employed the people, they gave four times the ordinary rate of wages, and the result was, that in order to gain by it, the inhabitants of districts in which there was no scarcity whatever, crowded into those where it was supposed to be, for the sake of getting the higher wages. In the same way the native carriers were induced to raise the price of transport. The strongest reason, however, for inquiry was, that India was a country of recurring famines, and it would be prudent to settle the principles on which they should be dealt with in future. It was necessary for a Committee of the House of Commons to do it, because India was divided into two parties, the Famine party and the anti-Famine party, and their partizanship rendered it difficult for them to concur in any common plan of action. For these reasons, he supported the inquiry that was asked for.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was in favour of the inquiry asked for by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), not for the purpose of bringing to light the faults and mistakes which might have been committed by men who were surrounded with difficulties at a most critical
1860
period, but with a view to the devising of means to prevent the future recurrence of famine. The amount, too, expended to meet the emergency, although it certainly was not so much as the amount stated by the hon. Member, and probably no more than £6,778,000, the sum put down in the Indian Budget, was nevertheless so great as to justify the proposal of a Committee of Inquiry, in order that it might be ascertained how far the expenditure was justified by the occasion, and whether it had been applied in the right direction and in the proper way kept under control. The great object of the inquiry, however, would be to search out, from the records, the information as to the various famines which had in the past destroyed so many millions of people in India, with a view to devise measures for the prevention of famine in the future, as far as that most desirable end could be accomplished. He had himself seen what famine was in the Madras Presidency 40 years ago, and he knew that, owing to the course which had since been adopted in the Madras Presidency, he was proud to say that the famines which occurred about every five years formerly were now almost unknown there. This was entirely traceable to the great improvement and extension of irrigration works, mainly through the efforts of that Indian benefactor, Arthur Cotton. No doubt, in Madras, scarcity was sometimes experienced, but not famine. There was a great difference between a famine and a scarcity. In both cases distress undoubtedly was caused; but a famine fell upon a whole tract of country, in a manner of which no one could have any idea who had not had practical experience. He therefore hoped that the inquiry would be granted in order that they might be enabled to determine the best mode in which they should act when the visitation came. Inquiry was required, also, for this reason—that there was great diversity of opinion among officials in India on the subject of the treatment of the Bengal Famine, and the disputes and differences which prevailed in India would be set at rest, he believed, by the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons. An important head of inquiry would be the nature of the works to be undertaken for the opening up of Bengal, in order that the mistakes, which had been formerly committed by confiding

1861
this vast and productive area to a body of zemindars, but little, if at all, interested in the development of its resources or in the well-being of the people, might be ascertained so as to enable the evils the refrom to be thereafter avoided. Another point well worthy of consideration was with respect to the powers conferred on officers in India. There could be no doubt that a conflict of authority between the Viceroy and Lieutenant Governor of Bengal had arisen, and it was very desirable to have some investigation as to the respective duties and responsibilities of these high officers. There was also another subject which well deserved attention, and that was the attempt to feed multitudes of starving men, women, and children, by giving them work in fixed localities. In his opinion it was much better that they should keep the people together in their several villages, ready to be engaged on the home works when the time came for cultivating their fields. No commissariat in the world could suffice to feed such enormous multitudes of people as any extensive famine would throw on their hands under the system recently followed of collecting large masses of people on public works. In the Bengal Famine he thought the Government had acted on the whole with great prudence and judgment; though he must say a month was wasted by the Indian Government after the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had called attention to the marked failure in the rains, and to the famine that was threatening. The truth was that the Government of India were not fully alive to the gravity of the situation. The present occasion appeared suitable to invite attention to the great crisis which at present existed in Indian administration, and to urge the fullest investigation into every branch of the vast affairs of that country. No one who looked at the effect of the very serious losses by the depreciated exchange in silver, and on the present most unsatisfactory relations between Indian income and expenditure, could fail to be apprehensive for the future of that country, and for that reason, and for the various other reasons already stated, he asked the noble Lord opposite to assent to the appointment of a Committee, which, if properly constituted, could not fail to elicit useful information, and by their Report produce good results.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, all the hon. Gentlemen who had hitherto addressed the House had spoken in favour of the appointment of a Committee, but it appeared to him that they had answered one another. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), who introduced the Motion, very frankly stated why he did so. The hon. Gentleman had travelled in India, and had come in contact with a good many people who were somewhat sceptical as to the existence of the Famine in 1874. But although the hon. Gentleman did not quite share that belief, yet he adduced arguments to show that the preparations made by the Government of India to meet the emergency were on an unnecessarily large scale, and that we might have been content in Bengal with similar preparations to those which were made in the North-Western Provinces. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who followed, utterly demolished the greater part of the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. Speaking with an authority and experience to which he (Lord George Hamilton) could not pretend, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy showed, beyond the possibility of contradiction, that there was a terrible calamity overhanging Bengal, and that if the Government had not exerted themselves there would have been a tremendous loss of life. The hon. Gentleman said there had not been a famine of similar dimensions for 100 years; in fact, since that of 1770. The hon. Gentleman stated his opinion, however, that the appointment of a Committee would be advantageous, inasmuch as it might arrive at general conclusions which might hereafter be useful. He would deal with that matter by-and-by; but, at present, he only wished to point out, as he had remarked before, that the general arguments and reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Tynemouth were entirely demolished by the hon. Gentleman who seconded his Motion. Let hon. Members remember what was the prevalent feeling at the General Election of 1874 as regarded the impending Bengal Famine. On no other question which was brought before the constituencies was there such unanimity of feeling, not only among the constituencies themselves, but also amongst the candidates.

1863
There was a general feeling of nervous apprehension that the Indian Government would not be able to contend with the approaching Famine, arising from the recollection of the recent calamity in Orissa, which had been dealt with on Malthusian principles. On that occasion nearly 1,400,000 of our fellow-subjects died of starvation. That naturally caused a revulsion of feeling which expressed itself the louder because the pending Famine was approaching the most populous part of our Indian Empire—a part which, with the exception of Barbadoes, was perhaps the most densely-populated country in the world. A similar calamity had overtaken Bengal in 1770, on which occasion it was difficult to estimate the loss of life; but there could be little doubt that it might be fairly estimated at tens of millions. Well, it was the unanimous opinion of the constituencies in 1874 that it would be a lasting shame and disgrace if such a calamity should again occur. Shortly after the General Election there was a change of Government, and his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) being appointed Secretary of State for India at once set to work to read the mass of official documents relating to the Indian Famine. In a few days his noble Friend was able to express his approval of the course which had been adopted by Lord Northbrook, from whom he differed on only one point. His noble Friend thought the surplus amount of food was not sufficient, and accordingly he directed the Indian Government to largely increase it. The estimate of the number of people to be relieved had largely increased in the previous few months and no corresponding increase in the quantity of food had been made. His noble Friend gave the instructions, because he thought there was a likelihood of the Famine lasting more than one year, and he therefore thought it advisable to increase the supply of food, deeming it better to incur some risk in expenditure of money than loss of life. With that single exception the present Secretary of State gave his support to measures which had been adopted by the previous Government. A Correspondence was carried on between his noble Friend and the Indian Government who, on the 24th of April, expressed their sincere acknowledgments of the approval, which his noble Friend had conveyed to them,
1864
of the policy that had been pursued. They concluded by stating that, though they had not considered it necessary to altogether comply with the request made by the India Office, yet they had increased the quantity of grain in order to meet the contingency contemplated by his noble Friend. When he heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tynemouth attacking the Secretaries of State for telegraphing from the India Office and insinuating that the Duke of Argyll had negotiated for the purchase of 950,000 tons of rice, it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman's commercial knowledge had for the moment left him. The only object of that telegram was to convey to the Indian Government a statement which had been made to him to the effect that that quantity of rice could be procured. There was obviously a vast difference between making a statement and giving an order. He would remind the House that when Parliament met, in 1874, the subject of the Bengal Famine was referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and the Address, in reply, stated that—
"We humbly assure your Majesty that we join in your Majesty's regret that the drought of last summer has produced scarcity amounting to actual famine in some parts of your Majesty's Indian Empire, and that we learn with satisfaction that your Majesty has directed the Governor General of India to spare no cost in striving to mitigate this terrible calamity."
This language, however, was not strong enough to meet the wishes of some hon. Members, and an Amendment was moved with respect to that passage. On the same night, he (Lord George Hamilton) introduced a Bill for a loan of £10,000,000 to be raised on account of the Famine, and he would state one fact which proved what was the state of feeling then existing in the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) said that the Government ought to borrow, not £10,000,000, but £15,000,000, and that indicated what was the opinion of the House and the country. What were the facts? The Indian Government for four months previously had been investigating the subject, in order to ascertain as accurately as possible the dimensions of the impending calamity. They found that the area of the territory which had been threatened by famine amounted to 88,000

1865
square miles, containing a population of 42,000,000. He was, however, himself soon able to inform the House that after those estimates were received, more reliable data were obtained by the Indian Government, and no serious apprehensions were entertained as to any of the districts south of the Ganges. Scarcity was, no doubt, certain to prevail there and in the North-Western Provinces; but the Famine, it was found, would be exclusively confined to the districts in Bengal, north of the Ganges, between that river and Nepaul. He stated, however, as a reason, why they should take active steps, that the population of the threatened district was the most dense in the world, not excepting Belgium; and yet in Bengal, with a population of 66,000,000, there were only two towns—Calcutta and Patna—with a population exceeding 100,000 souls, the mass of these village communities depending for their livelihood on agriculture alone. The greatest difficulty lay in the inaccessibility of this district, which was accessible only from the south, and it contained very few Government officials to cope with the impending famine. The statements made by the Secretary for India in the other House in some measure re-assured public opinion, but very great anxiety was still manifested, and for the next two months a perfect torrent of questions was showered upon him (Lord George Hamilton) with the view to see if he could give any further information as to the intentions of the Indian Government. The Government were pressed to increase their exertions and enlarge their expenditure, and that expenditure was incurred quite as much with the sanction and at the request of the House as the Government. Now what was the policy of Lord Northbrook? He saw that the Famine threatened to attain dimensions which the Indian Government unaided could not hope successfully to meet, and it was accordingly desirable not to deter private traders from assisting the Government. Lord Northbrook was of opinion that if at the commencement of the Famine he had stopped the export of rice, such a measure would, to a certain extent, have paralyzed private trade, and if this had been done it would have been very difficult to rely on private traders for assistance. One of the tests, and the greatest, of the soundness of Lord North-
1866
brook's policy was, that he obtained a great deal more assistance from private traders than had been anticipated, and for that reason alone the preparations of the Indian Government were, as it ultimately proved, in excess of the requirements of the case. The result of the operations of Lord Northbrook was that the Indian Government obtained one of the most complete successes on record. So complete, indeed, was its success that a certain number of persons now doubted whether there was any Famine at all. Now what were the financial results of the Famine? Shortly after the Government received the Budget for 1874–5 the estimate of the Indian Famine expenditure was £6,500,000. During the past year the final accounts, which had been received within the last few days, showed that the actual expenditure had been £6,588,000, showing an excess of £88,000 over the original estimate. This calculation took no credit for the value of the Famine relief works, in which an enormous number of persons were employed, and some of which were of considerable value; but it would not be pretended, so far as the financial result was concerned, that the expenditure of £88,000 was very seriously in excess of the large outlay sanctioned by the House. A famine affected the revenue in two ways, for while the income fell off, through so large an amount of it being derived from the land revenue, the expenditure increased. Spread over three years, it appeared that there was in 1873–4 a deficit of £1,800,000; in 1874–5, a surplus of £319,000; in 1875–6, a surplus of £1,247,000; and the net result was, that on the three three years there was only a deficit of £141,000. The public works extraordinary, of course, were left out of the calculation. If the system of public works were sound, it would go on without the Famine. As the most complete success had attended the policy the House had sanctioned, he would briefly advert to the reasons which might be urged on behalf of the expenditure in Bengal contrasted with that in the North-Western Provinces. As he stated last year, no comparison could be drawn between the two cases. There never was a famine in the North-Western Provinces, but only a scarcity, while there was a very serious famine in Bengal. The success of Lord North-

1867
brook's policy was soon demonstrated, the largest harvest known for many years was gathered in the Punjab, and nearly the whole of this surplus grain was sent down to the districts suffering from scarcity. On the other hand, Lord Northbrook sent up vast quantities of food from Calcutta, and thus there were two continuous streams of supply poured into the famine-stricken districts; one from the North-West, the result of private enterprize, another from the South-East, being the food purchased from Burmah and elsewhere by the Government. That the preparations of the Indian Government were somewhat in excess of the necessity was frankly admitted by them. The amount of grain which had been purchased was 470,000 tons; but 260,000 tons of this were stored in three districts alone, and of this 182,000 tons were consumed in September alone. The only reason why the Government efforts had been in excess of the requirements was that private trade had so much expanded itself. It should be recollected that in making preparations to deal with the Famine it was absolutely essential that the grain should be stored in certain places, and during that period of the year when transportation could go on. The measures that had been taken had not only prevented the extent of mortality which must otherwise have occurred, but the general productive power of the country had not been allowed to deteriorate, and there was no reason to believe that any demoralization had resulted from the relief that had been administered. It was necessary that the Indian Government should run a certain amount of risk in anticipating the requirements of the Famine. If they had not taken the course which they did, they would have exposed themselves to the danger of not being able to supplement the probable deficiencies of private trade. Preparations were made in excess of the Famine, but that excess was owing to circumstances which no one could have forseen. The hon. Member for Tynemouth had stated that nobody knew what became of the grain; but a book which was published in 1874 gave full and elaborate information on that subject. It stated exactly the quantity of the grain and the mode in which it was distributed. The hon. Member further said that only a very limited number of
1868
persons were in receipt of relief from the Government. Half a million, he (Lord George Hamilton) thought, was the number mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Well, he (Lord George Hamilton) had Sir Richard Temple's Report in his hand, and he found that the number of persons who were in receipt of relief on the 15th of August was upwards of 4,000,000. Then the House had been told that the arrangements as to transport were so defective that certain persons made large fortunes out of contracts with the Government. Well, of course, they made money. Did any one suppose that any war broke out without a certain number of unscrupulous persons making profit out of the Government, and why should we expect that in a case of famine such persons would not avail themselves of the opportunity of making profit out of the Government? The hon. Gentleman also said that £500,000 had been advanced without voucher. What Sir Richard Temple said about the advance was, that he did not know how many persons derived subsistence from it, which was a very different thing from saying the money had been advanced without voucher. An hon. Gentleman said the wages paid by the Government in the Famine district were ten times higher than the wages in neighbouring parts. Ten times higher! Well, that he (Lord George Hamilton) confessed was new information to him. He had read very carefully, and more than once, all the documents relating to the Famine, and that certainly never in any way attracted his attention. The hon. Gentleman who made the Motion stated that there was a great difference of opinion on the subject of the Famine among officials, so much so, that they were divided into parties known as the Faminists and Anti-Faminists. That there was a Famine had been proved to-night beyond the possibility of contradiction by the late Lieutenant Governor of Bengal (Sir George Campbell), and until it could be proved that there had been a conspiracy between the Government of India and the Government of Bengal, and the special correspondents who were sent out as the representatives of different English newspapers, to pretend that there was a Famine, he should believe that there was a Famine, and that the Indian Government were entitled to credit for the measures they adopted with

1869
reference to it. All the data as to the failure of the crops was supplied by the district officers, and there could be no doubt as to their accuracy. He must again say, he was perfectly prepared to admit, and so would every one who had studied the question, that the preparations which were made by the Indian Government were more than sufficient; but was it possible under the circumstances to make any other preparations than those which were made? Less money might have been expended, but that was no reason why the Government should shirk their responsibility and the House appoint a Select Committee. But, in truth, what would a Committee do? The first question would be the number of witnesses to be examined, and Bengal would be left almost without any government. And when the witnesses were obtained, what would be done? It would be quite impossible to enter into all the circumstances connected with the Famine. It had been said that the inquiry might lead to the laying down of some general principle which might be useful hereafter. The Continent of India was nearly equal to the Continent of Europe, with the exception of Russia, and there was not much difference between the population of the two areas. Suppose a famine occurred in Belgium or France, could any one suppose that it would be of the slightest use to appoint a Committee in Washington to inquire into that famine, and to lay down general principles which might probably hereafter apply to inhabitants of the North of Scotland? It must be remembered that this was not an ordinary scarcity. It was a Famine such as had not occurred for 100 years, and it might fairly be expected not to recur for that period. No doubt there would be droughts in different parts of India, but year by year the country was being guarded against these visitations by the extension of railways and other means of communication, as well as by the construction of works of irrigation. This Famine caught the country in a somewhat transition state, for the population of India, being no longer liable to be carried off by intestine war or by periodical famine to the same extent as in old times, had greatly increased, and thus famines were more difficult to deal with than in old times. It was true that the productive power of India had increased. The great
1870
difficulty, however, was transport. The means of transport were now becoming more complete every year, and it would be possible to deal far more cheaply and effectually with future than with past famines. Under such circumstances, what could be more unwise than to take this Famine for your model and draw from it elaborate conclusions which, probably, every local Government would feel bound to apply to every petty scarcity which might occur for a 100 years to come? The result of such a course would be rather to increase than diminish expenditure. Two precedents had been cited for inquiry, the appointment of Select Committees on the Abyssinian Expedition and the Expedition to the Crimea. But the Crimean Committee was appointed, because our Commissariat had disgracefully failed; while here, the complaint was that the Commissariat had been too good. In the other instance, inquiry was made because, while the Abyssinian Expedition was a complete success, the Estimates were largely exceeded. Here the success was as complete, while there was no such excess of Estimates; and there was, therefore, no analogy between those cases and the present. He contended, then, that no practical good could come from the appointment of a Select Committee, because no proper evidence could be obtained; and if evidence could be obtained, the Committee could come to no practical conclusion. Moreover, the appointment of such a Committee would be understood out-of-doors as implying censure upon the Indian Government for too successfully carrying out the policy forced upon them by the House of Commons; and Lord Northbrook, on returning home, would be rewarded by being called as a witness in order to impugn a work for the success of which he had been expressly thanked in the Queen's Speech. Lord Northbrook, so far from showing scepticism as to the reality of the Famine, stopped at Calcutta through the hot season of 1874 in order to deal with it, and visited the districts in which it was likely to occur. Having done so, he said that, without the slightest doubt, an immense mortality would have resulted but for the efforts of the Bengal Government. There was no doubt that the Famine expanded and contracted very suddenly in many places, and also that great discrepancies existed in the state-

1871
ments which he had seen and read upon the subject. A mass of Papers had been sent to him (Lord George Hamilton), including some of the private diaries of the civil officers employed in the Famine districts; and while it was clear that certain officers south of the Ganges, in the West, and elsewhere were somewhat sceptical, all the officers stationed in the Famine districts indicated by the Indian Government declared the reality of the Famine, and said that a mass of the people must have died but for the relief given to them. He would, however, only refer to the statement of one of them—that of an officer who was stationed in the Famine district. In the particular district in which that officer was situated there was a population of 90,000, and he wrote that the popular belief was that but for Government aid two-thirds of that number would have perished. He could not himself suppose from his own actual experience that less than from 15,000 to 20,000 would have died from absolute starvation had it not been for the measures which were adopted by the Government. It seemed to him (Lord George Hamilton), therefore, that no case had been made out for such an exceptional proceeding as that of appointing a Select Committee, which, when appointed, would be useless. Much had been said about the constant interference exercised by the India Office on the Indian Government; but it had always struck him as somewhat anomalous that hon. Members should rise in that House and make violent speeches about India, and at the same time object to the Secretary of State telegraphing to the Viceroy. Great and powerful as the Indian Government was, it had no power of its own, for all that it exercised was derived from English Acts of Parliament and from the English Government, who were responsible to Parliament for the exercise of its power. It must always be the wish and desire of the Secretary of State to increase and maintain the authority and prestige of the Viceroy of India, and he denied that there had been any tendency in the past few years to unduly use the telegraph in forcing on the Indian Government. What had been sent out had been suggestions, and except the one telegram which had been referred to, none were sent but replies to messages which had come home. He admitted that the improper
1872
use of the telegram was a mistake; and if there was but one wire between here and India, he believed that the present Secretary of State would be the first to cut it. It was necessary, however, to use the wires, because others used them; and the Department had to use them sometimes in order to obtain information with which to answer Questions put by independent Members. In conclusion, he would say it was the House of Commons who urged the Indian Government to spend money in relieving the Famine, and having successfully carried out that desire, it was now proposed to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, which was nothing less than a Motion of Censure. ["No, no!"] He maintained it would be a Motion of Censure, and no other construction could be put upon it. ["No, no!"] The argument by which the Resolution was supported was that the Famine was on a limited scale and that unnecessary expenditure was incurred; and if that was not censure he did not know what could be. He must, however, again remind the House that it was a most inopportune moment to inquire into the conduct of an ex-Governor of our most important dependency. If, in 1874, Lord Northbrook had engaged in a great war, if his preparations for that war had been as successful as they had been for the Famine, would he have been found fault with at the close of the war if his reserves had been left practically untouched? Yet the complaint against him was that his preparations were wasted, and that he was so successful in dealing with the enemy against whom he had to contend, the Famine, that he was not compelled to draw upon his reserves. It would be an evil day when, in drawing a distinction between the two kinds of campaign, we drew it in favour of that which had for it object the destruction of human life, as against that which had for its object the preservation of life. He regretted that pamphlets and documents had been widely disseminated throughout India, reiterating in coarse and vulgar terms some of the statements that had been made in debate; and he could not think the House would select that occasion to enforce the appointment of a Select Committee, which, in his judgment, would be nothing less than an inopportune and impolitic mode of censuring a Govern-

1873
ment for having too successfully carried out a policy of which the House had not only approved, but forced upon them.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India had totally misapprehended, misinterpreted, and misunderstood the motives and intentions of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), and the objects he sought to obtain. Nothing was further from his intention than to censure either the Home Government or a distinguished nobleman like Lord Northbrook, who had rendered great service at personal sacrifice. If he thought the Motion could be twisted into a censure of Lord Northbrook, he would give it strong opposition, for considering all the circumstances, he (Mr. Fawcett) was surprised Lord Northbrook did not spend more money, and great credit was due to his Lordship that the extravagance, great as it was, was not still greater. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State supplied the strongest possible argument in favour of the appointment of a Committee; for, while saying Lord Northbrook was not to blame, he admitted a certain amount of waste and extravagance, for which he said the House of Commons and English public opinion were responsible. If that House were responsible for forcing upon the Indian Government an expenditure which was unnecessary, was it not bound as a simple duty which it owed to the Indian people to obtain all the information that was possible in order to prevent its committing a similar mistake in future? As to the difficulty of obtaining information, if the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord had told them, in a fortnight could look through Papers and obtain information which enabled him to form such a judgment as to send out to an able and distinguished statesman, who had been working for months at the problem, on the spot a peremptory order, might not a Select Committee, with the labour of a few weeks, and with those Papers before it, and a power to call for evidence which the Secretary of State did not possess, also obtain some knowledge about this subject? As he had said, the noble Lord himself supplied the most complete argument of the opportuneness of this Motion. Lord Northbrook would be back in about four weeks; and if for no other reason, it would be worth while
1874
to have this Committee appointed, so that it might call that distinguished statesman and ask him what was the exact extent and the exact manner in which his judgment was overruled by the Secretary of State after he had been in office for a single fortnight. An answer to that question would alone justify the appointment of the Committee, and would throw a light upon the subject which would be of incalculable service to the people of India. The Secretary of Sate also might be asked to state, in order to prevent the recurrence of another such error, in what way the House of Commons had interfered with his discretion, or had forced upon him an expenditure which otherwise he would never have sanctioned. The only argument he had heard against the appointment of the Committee was that advanced by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). The hon. Member said that these famines could only be managed by one like the Viceroy, who was upon the spot—he did not know whether it might not be out of order to call him "Viceroy"—but one who until that evening would be a Viceroy. He so far agreed with the hon. Member for Guildford; he thought the Viceroy should not be interfered with; but interference with the Viceroy had never been carried to such an extent as by the present Secretary of State. He also thought that unless we were very careful in dealing with the Government of India the position of Viceroy would be reduced to such an extent that the distinguished men who had held that office hitherto would not hold it in future; for he could not understand how a Governor General would submit to such language as that which of late had been addressed to the Viceroy of India. He would, however, say no more about it now, for they would have another opportunity of considering the point. No one could doubt that a tendency existed at present towards the Secretary of State assuming a more direct control over the Government of India. If that were so, and that the Secretaries of State were in future to govern India more directly, the House of Commons would be bound to take a greater interest in Indian affairs; for if it did not do so, the result would be that India would suffer from all the disadvantages of Party Government, and would not have one advantage in return.

1875
Under all the circumstances, he thought a case for such a Committee had been made out by his hon. Friend, and he (Mr. Fawcett) submitted that the issue should not be led astray by a false trail. For his part, he should support with his vote the Motion of his hon. Friend for the appointment of a Select Committee.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he was extremely glad to hear the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) so explicitly declare that, in supporting the Motion for a Committee, he had no idea of expressing an opinion that either the Home Government or the Government of India deserved censure. But if the speech of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) did not mean censure, he could not see what it meant at all. Was his hon. Friend not conveying a censure on the late Secretary of State when he intimated that he had gone into the rice market to negotiate for 950,000 tons? The hon. Member, with his great business experience, ought to have seen at a glance that the object of the Secretary of State in sending to the Viceroy the telegram on which he had commented was as different as possible from that which he had supposed. The spirit of the telegram was this—"Do not be uneasy about your rice supplies. I can send you any amount of rice—much more rice than you can possibly want." Then again, was his hon. Friend conveying no censure on the present Lieutenant Governor of Bengal when he told the House that that distinguished officer was not acquainted with the great net-work of water communication in the province which he ruled? He would be, indeed, a bold man who would assert that there was any Indian subject of importance with which Sir Richard Temple was not acquainted, for the range of his knowledge and interest was quite exceptional. But the hon. Member had made a peculiarly unfortunate selection, for he (Mr. Grant Duff) knew that the water communication of Bengal was a subject on which the mind of Sir Richard Temple dwelt a great deal, and to which he was accustomed to direct the very special attention of persons studying that part of India. Further, was the hon. Member not expressing censure on the present Lieutenant Governor of Bengal when he pointed out the great extravagance involved in the relief works? All relief
1876
works must be attended with a certain amount of extravagance. In the nature of things it must be so. But no one could read the Report of Sir Richard Temple without seeing that the most minute precautions had been taken to prevent extravagance and abuse in the relief works. But passing from particulars to the general character of the discussion, he (Mr. Grant Duff) thought that it would do good—not immediate good, but good in time to come. When the next Indian Famine arose—and he agreed with the noble Lord the Under Secretary that they might fairly expect many years to pass before they had such another Famine—he did hope that the persons in authority in connection with India would be more trusted when they attempted to re-assure people than they were last time. This discussion would be preserved in Hansard, and would be something to point to in the middle of the next red-hot fit of philanthropy. It would enable the persons who had to deal with the next Famine to say—The hot fit is on now, but in about two years' time we shall have the cold fit. He only wished there had been some people in January, 1874, to take the line which the hon. Member for Tynemouth had taken to-night. It fell to his (Mr. Grant Duff's) lot at that time to have to make a speech in which, being then at the India Office, and having, of course, all the facts of the case before him, he ventured to say that the authorities in India and at home had taken every conceivable precaution. But what happened? Why, for doing this, he was treated in many quarters as a person possessed by such a crazy optimism that he was hardly fit for any place out of Bedlam. But if the discussion would do good, it would be otherwise with the Committee. If the Committee were granted, he believed it would be likely to do unmitigated harm. He was glad the noble Lord had dealt firmly with the proposal. If the Committee were appointed, it could only examine the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy, Lord Northbrook, and a few others, whose opinions were already well known. That would leave matters where they were. The only effectual further step they could take would be to bring home a ship-load of the people engaged in the work of Bengal; but if they did that, Bengal being under-officered, they would throw the ordinary

1877
duties entirely out of gear, and great calamities would be the result. He could not see any sort of advantage which would spring from the proposal before the House, and he should vote against it.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 46: Majority 103.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND ARMY PURCHASE COMMISSION (VOTES ON ACCOUNT).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,370,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Revenue Departments to the 31st day of March 1877, viz.:

£

Customs

170,000

Inland Revenue

300,000

Post Office

550,000

Post Office Packet Service

150,000

Post Office Telegraphs

200,000

£1,370,000."

CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair, in order to enable the House to go into the Irish business, which stood upon the Paper for that evening. He had to complain that several Irish Bills had, night after night, been put down in such a position that they could not be taken until an hour too late to allow of their being properly discussed, and he would express a hope that the Government would give some pledge that Irish Business would not be placed upon the Paper, unless there was a prospect of its being brought on at a reasonable time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Captain Nolan.)
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he had more than once attempted to proceed with the Cattle Disease (Ire-
1878
land) Bill in Committee, but he had been met by opposition to which he did not care to apply an epithet on that occasion. That opposition had come from one or two of the Irish Members—certainly not from anything like a majority of them. It was true the Bill was down for that evening, and that it would be impossible to bring it on; but he had to remind the hon. and gallant Member that it had, the last time it appeared on the Paper, been postponed at his own request. They would postpone the Cattle Disease Bill to that day week, and he hoped to make an arrangement by which it could be brought on then. As for the Clerk of the Peace and of the Crown (Ireland) Bill, and the Admiralty Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill, which were also down for that evening, he had only to say that they were brought in shortly before the Recess, and that Notice of Opposition to them was given even before they were printed. However, the Government would do their best to give an opportunity for the discussion of both those measures. For his own part, he had invariably consulted, and would continue to consult, the convenience of Irish Members on both sides of the House so far as lay in his power.
DR. WARDsaid, the reason why opposition was offered to proceeding with the Cattle Disease (Ireland) Bill and other Bills was because they were always taken at an early hour in the morning when many Irish Members were absent, and when there was just a sufficient number of hon. Members on the Government benches to form a majority. That practice was at the root of a great deal of the dissatisfaction which was felt with regard to the conduct of the Public Business by Irish Members.
MR. BUTTurged that, as far as possible, Bills should be put down for an evening when there was some probability of their coming on, and expressed his willingness to give whatever assistance he could with that object to the right hon. Baronet, whose courtesy to the Irish Members he gladly acknowledged.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)promised to do what he could to have Irish Bills brought on at a convenient time.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £100,000, on account, for the Army Purchase Commission.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had to complain of the obscure and very unsatisfactory manner in which the Estimate for that part of the public expenditure needed for the purchase of Army officers' commissions was presented to the House. The information afforded was of the most meagre character, and the audited accounts of the actual outlay were even more unsatisfactory. The House of Commons had a fair right to complain that the Estimates, and above all the audited Expenditure, failed to give information as to the number of officers of the several grades, and of the different branches of the Service, whose commissions had been bought up. If it were not for the thoroughly reliable characters of the distinguished officers on the Army Purchase Commission, the greatest abuses might be perpetrated, under the cover of the obscure and unsatisfactory manner in which the Estimates were made out, and especially in the vague way the accounts were rendered. Besides, the House had a right to expect that the fullest details should be given as to the result of their great measure to spend many millions in buying back the Army from the officers.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that the Estimate was presented in the form which had been in use for some time, and according to the arrangement made when the Purchase system was abolished; but he should be glad if any improvement could be effected in its form, and he would consider with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in order to see whether that could be done.
Vote agreed, to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.— [Bill 49.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Edward Stanhope.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.— [Bill 49.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 27th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 18 (Marking of load-line).
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, with reference to an Amendment standing on
  1880
  the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), that the Bill was not generally expected to be proceeded with that evening, and he was quite sure the absence of the hon. Member was purely unintentional. As, however, there were other points to be considered on the Report, the question in which the hon. Member was interested might be discussed then.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Penalty for offences in relation to marks on ships).
  MR. GRIEVE MR. GRIEVE moved, as an Amendment, in page 11, line 6, after "ship," to insert "wilfully."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, believing it to be necessary that there should be some penalty attached to neglect, even though it might not be deliberate and wilful.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. E. JENKINS (for Mr. PLIMSOLL)MR. E. JENKINS (for Mr. PLIMSOLL) moved, as an Amendment, in page 11, line 8, after "marked," to insert "or who allows the ship to be so loaded as to submerge the centre of the disc."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment. He was inclined at first to treat the submerging of the disc as a criminal proceeding; but he thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood. The clause was of the nature of a contract by which the shipowner, who himself fixed the disc, undertook that his maximum loading should not exceed its centre, and, if it did, he would be liable to a civil action, or a prosecution for misdemeanour, besides vitiating his insurance.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked if a ship's crew were drowned, in consequence of that breach of contract, who was to bring the action? If not drowned but wrecked, they would have to remain on shore, and lose time and money in prosecuting their claims, so that even if they succeeded they would but gain a loss. The Amendment was absolutely necessary to give effect to what the Government declared to be their one object, and they would neither act honestly nor fairly if they did not accept it. The fact was, that the right hon. Gentleman did not know his own mind upon the question of load line, and hence all these difficulties in dealing with the question.
  MR. MAC IVERsupported the Amendment. It was not possible, except in the calmest water, to tell within several inches how a vessel was actually laden.
  MR. SAMUDAopposed it. The clause was much more stringent and severe than Clause 18, and imposed a penalty of £100 for breach of contract. The Board of Trade would have no difficulty in enforcing that penalty.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREdid not see any necessity for the introduction of the words. At the same time, he did not understand how an action could be brought for breach of contract, because in Clause 18 there was no absolute contract between the shipowner and the seamen.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYpointed out this section in Clause 18—"The master of the ship shall also enter a copy of this statement in the agreement with his crew." That, he suspected, would make it part of the contract. Criminal proceedings could also be taken for sending a ship to sea in a dangerous state, and the owner stated that the mark showed the maximum point to which the ship would be laden; therefore, if the mark was submerged, the ship would be acknowledged over-loaded.
  SIR HENRY JAMESobserved, that it was impossible to obtain damages for anticipated danger. A load line was asked for to prevent a ship being sunk too deeply in the water; but he contended that if a penalty were not inflicted for putting the load line under water there would be very little use in having a load line at all, and that the shipowner would escape punishment unless the ship were lost. If the Amendment were not accepted it would be better to expunge the clause altogether.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought the hon. and learned Member for Taunton did not quite appreciate the force of the clause as it stood without a penalty. He (the Attorney General) maintained that even without a penalty the clause would be effective. Under the 18th clause the shipowner was required to put a load line on his ship at the maximum point to which he intended to load his ship. If he loaded the ship beyond that point he would break the contract into which he had entered with the sailors. If no damage thereby ensued to a seaman he could not recover more than nominal damages, but he would
  1882
  have a perfect right to refuse to proceed to sea, and the owner would be unable to compel him. Even if the vessel went to sea, and an accident occurred in consequence of her being overloaded, the mere fact of the load line having been submerged would be most cogent evidence of negligence on the part of the owner. There would be one great advantage which they would have, and which it was intended they should have. If a seaman was drowned his family might sue the owner for compensation for loss of his life, and if the submerging of the load line made the ship unseaworthy, the owner would further expose himself to a charge of manslaughter.
  MR. RATHBONEapprehended that the shipowners would not in the least object to the insertion of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Attorney General had well pointed out the consequences to the owner of submerging his load line; and besides that, in the event of loss, he (Mr. Rathbone) wondered what sort of a chance he would stand of recovering his insurance from the underwriters.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that if hon. Members generally in the shipping interest were in favour of the Amendment, he would not further contend against it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought there was every reason for the Amendment. If the Government wanted the load line to be respected at all it would be necessary to inflict some definite punishment upon any man who submerged his ship below his own voluntary load line, whether it was attended with any loss of life or not.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS,as a lawyer, objected to the Amendment as it would render it impossible for the Judges to interpret the Act. It was quite a mistake to suppose that if an owner loaded his ship to a deeper line than he had marked on his ship he either vitiated his assurance or violated any contract, or committed a misdemeanour. The 18th clause defined what were to be the offences under the Act, and this clause defined the penalties with which they were to be visited. A change of intention was not an offence under the 18th, and therefore it did not come within the scope of the 19th clause, which merely dealt with penalties.
  MR. T. E. SMITHadmired the legal subtleties of the hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs; but thought the Committee should be guided not so much by law as by common sense. They had, after much debating, come to the point that a load line should be marked on the side by the shipowner, and it would be the height of absurdity not to inflict a penalty if that load line were submerged. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that a sailor on going on board, if he saw the load line submerged, could refuse to sail; but gentlemen connected with shipping knew that generally when sailors went aboard they were incapable of knowing whether the ship was overloaded or not—to use a nautical phrase they could not see a hole in a grate. If they wanted to protect the seaman, there must be a penalty for submerging the load line, otherwise the load line was altogether a delusion.
  MR. W. S. STANHOPEconsidered that under the Amendment a shipowner would be liable to a penalty if the load-line were submerged in fresh water.
  MR. GOURLEYconsidered a shipowner would have a perfect right to overload in fresh water, inasmuch as when the vessel got into salt water she would rise three or four inches, which would be so much an addition to the freeboard.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, that the discussion was, in his opinion, a waste of time. The Government had accepted the Amendment, and they had, in his opinion, acted rightly in so doing. It would be an absurdity to establish a load line if it were not made a line for ensuring safety.
  Amendment amended by inserting after the word "submerge," the words "in sea water," and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Investigations into Shipping Casualties.
  Clause 20 (Appointment, duties, and powers of wreck commissioners for investigating shipping casualties), amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Assessors and rules of procedure on formal investigations into shipping casualties).
  MR. RATHBONE MR. RATHBONE moved, as an Amendment, the insertion of the words—
  1884
  "Where an investigation may involve the cancellation or suspension of the certificate of the master or mate, one of the assessors shall, if practicable, be a person having experience in the merchant service."
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  MR. WILSON MR. WILSON moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 16, at end, add—
  "And in the absence of any such charge no master or officer shall be required to give up his certificate."
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "and in the absence of any such charge no master or officer shall be required to give up his certificate."—(Mr. Wilson.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought the Amendment very undesirable, as a master or officer might have shown himself thoroughly incompetent, and yet he would be able, under the Amendment, to take his services elsewhere.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that no master or officer was required at present to give up his certificate in the absence of such a charge against him.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 147: Majority 81.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Power for wreck commissioner to institute examination with respect to ships in distress under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. s. 448), agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Power to hold inquiries or formal investigations as to stranded and missing ships).
  MR. MURPHY MR. MURPHY moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 25, to leave out "stranded or," and insert "materially."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobjected to the Amendment of the inquiry being to ascertain how the master ran the ship aground, and not whether she was "materially" damaged or not. It was equally important to ascertain how a ship was mismanaged and stranded, whether she was lucky enough to get afloat again, only slightly injured not.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GRIEVEproposed as an Amendment, in page 12, line 25, to insert the word "seriously" after "stranded or."
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Training Ships.
  Clause 24 (Contribution from Mercantile Marine Fund to training ships).
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he would move that the Chairman should report Progress. They had now made considerable progress, and it was almost half-past 12 o'clock.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Watkin Williams.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYappealed to the hon. and learned Member not to press his Motion.
  MR. T. E. SMITHwas of opinion that the Chairman ought to report Progress. The Bill was a most important one, and the clause now proposed required serious consideration, and there were many hon. Members who were desirous to express their opinions upon it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.— [Bill 121.]
(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.— [Bill 121.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET),in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it had for its object the extension in certain respects of the jurisdiction conferred on the Recorders of Belfast, Limerick, and Cork, in Admiralty cases by the Admiralty Act of 1867. He hoped the House would consent to the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  DR. WARDsaid, he had not the slightest objection to the Bill, but he hoped the Government would confer the same powers on Galway as it had conferred upon Cork and Belfast, by vesting the Recorder with similar powers to those which had been conferred on the Recorders of the towns he had named.
  MR. MURPHYexpressed himself satisfied with the main principles of the Bill, and thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General for Ireland) for its introduction, particularly on behalf of the City of Cork, which he (Mr. Murphy) represented, and for thus carrying out to the fullest extent the promise he had made to him. There were some important matters of detail, however, which he (Mr. Murphy) reserved to himself the right of dealing with in Committee, and which he would embody in Amendments to be then brought up.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENSING LAW AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
(Sir Harcourt Johnstone, Mr. Birley, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Pease.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENSING LAW AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL 116.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to restrict, and in a certain degree prohibit, the granting of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises. The provisions of the measure were simple. In the first place, he proposed to confine the operation of the Bill to England, and it did not in any manner apply to or affect premises licensed by a justice authorizing the sale of intoxicating liquors where the licence was in force at the time of the passing of the Act, and kept in force continuously by renewal with or without transfer. The 2nd clause contemplated an amendment of the 8th section of 32 & 33 Vict. by placing the refusal of licences authorizing the retail sale of beer, cider, or wine, not to be consumed on the premises, at the discretion of the licensing magistrates, and repealed so much of the section as limited that discretion. It further amended by repeal

  1887
  the major portion of the 68th section of the Licensing Act of 1872 so as to prevent the grant of further spirit licences to grocers and other persons of that description. The important Return which, through the kindness of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, he had been able to obtain, showing as it did the opinion of the magistrates of quarter sessions and of chief constables in many of the principal districts of the country on the wide-spreading evils arising out of the sale of spirits under grocers' licences, more especially in Cheshire, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, demonstrated the necessity for adopting the course recommended by the Bill he then submitted for the approval of the House. He was sorry time would not allow him to place the figures before hon. Members, but hoped on a future occasion he might be more fortunately situated in that respect. Those magistrates and officials were unanimous that, as far as possible, the sale of spirits in those shops should be discontinued, and that was the very best testimony that could be adduced in favour of his proposal. It might be urged that the class of places to which the Bill made special reference afforded opportunities for obtaining spirits that were of convenience to the public; but if there were advantages of that nature, they were outweighed by the disadvantages. There could be no doubt that drunkenness was very much on the increase—a fact that was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech when he alluded to the augmentation of the Revenue derived from the sale of spirits. If the Bill were a dangerous Bill, interfering with vested interests, he should have hesitated to propose it; but it did not apply to premises licensed at the present moment. It merely placed a certain limit on the discretion of magistrates. He had not ventured to initiate legislation deterring magistrates from granting facilities for the sale of beer and wine. Had he done so, he might have been met with the opposition of that powerful, wealthy class, the brewers; but he did not hold that the sale of beer and wine was by any means so detrimental as the unlimited sale of spirits. It was not, in many parts of the country, the grocers alone who obtained those licences, but frequently butchers, shoemakers, and other descriptions of shop-
  1888
  keepers were accustomed to apply for and did obtain them. It could not be contended that no practical control on their part should not exist with regard to licences of this description. It was the universal opinion of the clergy that it would be far wiser to diminish the facilities for the sale of drink than to give an opportunity for their increase. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not offer any opposition to the second reading of a Bill which was calculated to promote the cause of law and order by preventing the multiplication of facilities that brought about such disastrous results, and he earnestly appealed to hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House to assist him in carrying the measure. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Harcourt Johnstone.)
  MR. D. ONSLOW,in moving the adjournment of the debate, said, he objected to the second reading at that late hour. The hon. Gentleman said that he had many figures to produce in support of his proposal, and, holding them in his hand, he expressed a hope that at some future time he might be able to bring them before the House. But he (Mr. Onslow) thought they had had quite enough, at all events for the present, of this liquor legislation, and he set his face against it. He hoped the House would agree with him, and support his proposal that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Onslow.)
  MR. W. S. STANHOPEsaid, that perhaps it might be as well to adjourn the debate, but he could fully confirm the hon. Baronet's satement respecting the evils which resulted from the facilities afforded by grocers' licences, and he wished to draw attention to the fact that the magistrates of the West Riding of Yorkshire at their quarter sessions had unanimously adopted a resolution on the subject and forwarded it to the Home Secretary. He did not know that they had sufficient information as to the power of the magistrates to prevent abuses arising by the granting of

  1889
  these licences, and it was very desirable that some measure should be taken by the Government on the subject. There had been very little legislation on this part of the subject during the present Parliament; and before they added to the number of shops opened for the sale of intoxicating liquors, they ought to have better information as to what was likely to be the effect of opening a number of small shops for the purpose, over which the magistrates and the police could not possibly exercise any effectual control.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not assent to anything that would add to the present monopoly in the sale of intoxicating liquors without further inquiry. They had not any reliable information on the subject; they all knew that there was a class of tradesmen who had a very large interest in the maintenance of that monopoly. But there were certain facts to which it was desirable to call attention. In the borough of Liverpool, some years ago, the system of what was called free trade was introduced, or, in other words, open shops for the sale of drink. That system lasted for three years, and there was a general belief that the increase of public-houses had led to a great increase of drunkenness, and curiously enough the large body of magistrates in the borough were not alive to the fact that there was no such increase. Inquiries had, however, been made two years later, the result of which was to show that the amount of drunkenness had actually been less in proportion to population than previous to the adoption of the open licensing system. That showed that there was no relation between the amount of drunkenness and the number of open houses for the sale of drink. The county magistrates in the neighbouring district of Prescot and Much Woolton, who were not so subject to be influenced by the popular opinion of the day, maintained their ground, and until this day the open system was carried on in that district to the entire satisfaction of the magistrates and police. At the same time he admitted that, though his own opinion was very decided upon the point, he thought the House was not in possession of sufficiently reliable information to warrant further legislation at present, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a Select Com-
  1890
  mittee should be appointed to collect and carefully sift the evidence before they proceeded to legislate further. He was most anxious that they should not increase the existing monopoly, which was already too strong.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) that they were not in possession of sufficient information on the subject to warrant further legislation; but certainly the statement that in proportion to the increase of public-houses drinking had decreased, would require confirmation before it could be believed. He (Mr. Dalrymple) was interested in the present Bill as it contained provisions similar to one which had been introduced in reference to Scotland. When a Bill of moderate character was brought forward it might fairly be asked that it should receive the attention of the House, and it ought to be observed that the present proposal avoided the objectionable characteristics of the Permissive Bill, which was directed against even a moderate use of intoxicating liquors.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the last Act had been in operation but a very short time. It had not been proved that for its purposes it had failed. With respect to the present Bill, it would be recollected that great objections had been made to the grocers' licences, and it was alleged that great evils had arisen from their existence. The Bill would, if agreed to, increase that evil. He could see no reason why the settlement come to two years ago should be disturbed, and he thought that, of all persons, the licensed victuallers had the least reason to complain of it. On the whole, it had worked well, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would discourage the attempt to re-open it thus early.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the question raised by the Bill was a large one, but the immediate question before them was, whether they could entertain the subject at that late hour of the morning, and he was strongly of opinion that they could not. He gathered that from the speeches made on the Bill on the other side of the House. First, the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said he had information to give to the House on the subject, if the House was inclined to listen to him; but he

  1891
  himself admitted that the hour was too late. Then the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) said he had facts and figures to lay before them. He had shown them to him (Mr. Cross) and had also given him the reasons that had induced him to come to the conclusions he had. He (Mr. Cross) could answer for it that there was a great deal in them, and that those facts and figures ought to be laid before the House; yet when the hon. Member proposed to do so, he was stopped by the voice of the House. A considerable part of the Bill was in the measure of his hon. Colleague who sat near him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson); and it would have passed into law had it not been for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. The Bill was a short and attractive one; but he ventured to say that after it had passed its second reading, it would come on the Paper with Amendments as thickly as the Merchant Shipping Bill had done, and no point would be left untouched that was gone into two years ago. He was bound to say, however, that many addresses on the subject had been forwarded to him at the Home Office that were well worthy of consideration; but if the Bill was gone on with, it should be at an hour when there would be ample time for discussing its merits.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was, of all Members of that House, the one best able to give information on the subject. He was, or ought to be, in a position to afford the House the information which it needed, and he was rather surprised at his pleading insufficiency of information. Memorials had come in to him from all parts of England, and these were the very bases of the case he had to submit to the House. He could not put it on any stronger grounds than that of the remonstrances which had emanated from the justices of the districts chiefly affected by the present state of the law; and if there were any desire to check that traffic, he could not conceive why it should not be the wish of the House that the Bill should be read a second time. He hoped that if the Bill were not dealt with now, a further day would be given for its consideration, for he was sure the House would very much regret, at the end of the Session, that some measure had not been passed to restrict it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was afraid he could not give any assurance to the hon. Gentleman that the Government would give him a day for the purpose; but he could promise that when it did come forward, he should be willing to give the House such information as he possessed, and to discuss the memorials he had received if time admitted of going fully into the subject.
  Question put. The House divided: Ayes 73; Noes 40: Majority 33.
  Debate adjourned till Friday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Chapelen-le-Frith, &c.)* (59); Tramways Orders Confirmation (Bristol, &c.)*(60); Tramways Order Confirmation (Wantage)* (61); Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 2 and 3)*(62–63).
ISLAND OF BARBADOES—REPORTED DISTURBANCES.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BLACHFORDrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can lay before the House information respecting the disturbances reported to be taking place in the Island of Barbadoes? The noble Lord said, their Lordships must have read both the alarming and the composing accounts which had appeared respecting the state of Barbadoes. As those accounts were so conflicting, he thought their Lordships would think him justified in asking the Government for such information as they could convey to the House with reference to the riots said to have occurred. About a week ago a telegram in these terms appeared in The Times—
  "Riots throughout the island. Plantation houses sacked; animals destroyed. Enormous destruction of property. Over 40 rioters shot. Troops actively employed. City threatened. Business suspended. Families seeking shipping. Rioters repeat they have Governor's sanction. Hennessy's immediate recall requisite to save Colony."
  No doubt the language of that telegram had a sensational appearance, but it came from a very respectable body, the West India Committee; and it was followed by another telegram received by the Colonial Bank, in which it was stated, that in the riots some 40 persons were killed and wounded, and 500 made prisoners. These, however, were in striking contrast with telegrams received concurrently by the Government, of which the first was addressed by Governor Hennessy to the Secretary for the Colonies on the 22nd instant—
  "In consequence," he said, "of a robbery in a provision ground the police fired on the mob, and one man is said to be shot. Similar events have occurred in August last and in previous years,"
  1818
  Governor Hennessy went on to say—
  "In consequence of the planters' panic I have telegraphed for more troops from Jamaica, Demerara, and Trinidad."
  And in a telegram of the 23rd he spoke of plunderers having been captured by the police, and stated that a proclamation had been issued announcing a Special Commission for the speedy trial of the offenders. Now, there was nothing in those telegrams from Mr. Hennessy which would have justified the statements received from the West Indian planters; but he could scarcely imagine that the Governor would have telegraphed to three other settlements for detachments of troops merely because of their panic. But, in fact, as the telegrams from the planters cooled down, those from the Governor became more alarming, and it was difficult to know what was really the case. He collected from the newspapers that the instructions given to the Governor by the Home Government were that confederation was only to be brought about by the spontaneous action of the Legislature. If that were so the Governor ought not to have taken any public steps in the matter, and still less ought he to have subjected the Legislature to any external influence. If the Governor had acted as was alleged by the West Indian planters he had taken very imprudent steps to carry out the proposed scheme of a confederation; but this it would be unfair to assume until his defence was heard through the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies. It would be unwise to make any lengthened remarks upon the present uncertain data at the command of the public. He could not, however, help expressing a doubt whether the policy of Government in desiring to include Barbadoes in the Confederation of the Windward Islands was a sound and wise one. On the map, Barbadoes appeared merely as one of the cluster of the Windward and the Leeward Islands. But measured by population and exports, it belonged, in truth, with Jamaica, Trinidad, and British Guiana to the larger class of West Indian Colonies, entitled by its importance to an independent Government, and capable in point of revenue of supporting one. Moreover, under the existing form of government, which he (Lord Blachford) was by no means prepared to defend in the abstract, it was so far well managed as not to require at

  1819
  present the same reconstitution which mismanagement had shown to be indispensable in other colonies. But this was not the question with which they had to deal at the present moment; and therefore, without going further into it, he would ask his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to give their Lordships what information he could with respect to the existing state of things in the Island of Barbadoes.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, my noble Friend (Lord Blachford) has asked a Question which in the present state of Barbadoes it is only natural he should have asked, and which I rejoice to have an opportunity of answering in my place. My Lords, I was not aware that my noble Friend intended to enter into the question of confederation. I have no objection to discussing it, and there are one or two remarks which I will now make on it; but I rather suggest that any particular opinion on this question of confederation as a matter of policy should be suspended till I have had an opportunity of laying before the House the Papers on the subject. Those Papers will show that the idea that very great advantages would result to Barbadoes and the other Windward Islands from a system of confederation was not only mine, but the idea of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) who preceded me in the Colonial Office; and that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who preceded him was also impressed with the difficulties which are experienced under the present system, and with the advantages which a confederation would offer: and, if my memory do not fail me, I think the germ of a confederation of the Leeward Islands will be found in a despatch of Lord Cardwell. I should be sorry to be considered as holding out that confederation is a panacea for all colonial grievances. It has its advantages; but in different colonies it represents a different policy, and may be attended with different results. In Canada it was adopted for one reason, and was followed by one result; in South Africa it would be adopted for another reason, and probably be followed by another result; and in the West India Islands it would be adopted for still a different reason and no doubt be followed by a different result. But I would like to remark that the scheme of confederation
  1820
  to which the Government would give their sanction in the case of those Islands is one expressly limited in its character, and which would involve no increase of financial burdens on the Barbadoes treasury and no change in that constitution to which the people of Barbadoes attach so much importance. My noble Friend must also be aware that, in giving to Governor Hennessy my sanction to introduce the matter at all, I stated in the most distinct terms that confederation must arise from the spontaneous action of the Islands themselves, and that the Government would be no party to forcing it on a reluctant Legislature or a reluctant colony. Whether confederation is objected to by the colonies is a different question from that now under consideration; but I may mention that I received a numerous deputation from an influential body, the West India Committee, which stated that, so far as the principle of confederation in the abstract, they were willing to discuss it—though I admit they had considerable objection to it. We ought to remember also that the proposal of confederation was not made by Governor Hennessy, but by Sir John Seely, who had been Attorney General, and who was much respected and had great influence in Barbadoes. That gentleman proposed that a Committee of representatives should be appointed by the various Islands to consider the question of confederation. When my noble Friend asks what is the object of a confederation with reference to Barbadoes, I may say this much without desiring to enter into the question—that, looking at the different public institutions of Barbadoes, I should be sorry to say that many of them are not susceptible of great improvement and amendment. I trust much to the enlightenment of the Legislature and the public feeling of the colony; but to say that the gaols, hospitals, lunatic asylums, and other public institutions, are not susceptible of considerable improvement would be to ignore a succession of weighty despatches from different successive Governors. Passing from confederation, I admit that the important consideration at this moment is the restoration and the maintenance of public order. To that question the attention of Parliament must necessarily be directed, and with respect to it the Government will be expected to satisfy

  1821
  Parliament that they are using all due diligence. I am bound to say that we ought to make the fullest possible allowance for persons placed in the position of the Barbadoes colonists. They are outnumbered by a large population of another race, who are of a very excitable character; and in the West Indies there are many recollections, historical and otherwise, which are calculated to produce great alarm when unusual excitement is displayed by that population. I think that to deny that there has been lately a panic in Barbadoes would be to deny facts. That panic has been attended with results which might naturally have been expected to follow. At the same time, I have no doubt in my own mind that there has been a great deal of exaggeration in reports which have been transmitted to this country; and I think I cannot take a better mode of putting your Lordships in possession of the circumstances of the case and making you acquainted with the spirit in which Governor Hennessy has acted than by reading to the House a number of the telegrams which have passed between myself and him during the last three weeks. Those which I shall read by no means represent the amount of telegrams that have passed, but they are all those material to the points on which your Lordships should be informed. On the 29th of March I telegraphed—
  "Representations coming from many quarters as to the great and alarming excitement arising from confederation, such as burning of canes, &c., make me anxious. Telegraph whether there is any truth in the reports. You must clearly understand that no scheme can be forced on the Colony, and you must exercise the greatest caution to prevent political agitation among the native population."
  On the following day, in consequence of other communications made to me, I telegraphed—
  "Fresh statements made to me to-day of very serious riot at Prospect Plantation. Death of one man, wounding of others; apprehension of dangerous disturbances through alleged Government agitation. I have permitted and can sanction no such agitation, and I trust statement is wholly unfounded. Telegraph immediately true facts of case and what steps taken."
  On the 31st of March Governor Hennessy telegraphed—
  "The Inspector General of Police reports to me officially that the agitation is caused entirely by
  1822
  the resident planters and the attorneys of absentees trying to rouse the native population against the Government. Public meetings are held, at which they attend armed with pistols. On last Tuesday they held two such meetings at St. Peter's, where they told the people to shout, 'God damn the Governor and Confederation,' and on the people replying, 'We are for the Queen, and Governor,' four planters presented pistols at them. A disturbance ensuing, Edward Paris, a son of a former member of Assembly, shot a Negro. The police magistrate issued his warrant for arrest of Paris, who absconded. Warrants were also issued for the arrest of three others, who came armed and fired on the people. This prompt action on the part of the magistrate, and reward offered for the arrest of Paris, have calmed all the dangerous excitement. From the first I have prevented agitation or meetings in favour of Confederation. I only allow meetings against it, not wishing to coerce the free action of those opposed."
  On the same day I received another telegram from him, which stated—
  "Paris has been apprehended. The wounded Negro is alive, and no deaths have occurred. There is no foundation for alleged agitation on the part of the Government."
  An interval occurred after that; and under date the 22nd of April there appeared in the papers the alarming telegram to the West India Committee to which my noble Friend has called attention. On the same day I telegraphed to Governor Hennessy—
  "I have received your two telegrams respecting disturbances. The West India Committee have also given me a telegram describing affairs as being most serious, and asking for military aid to put down the disturbances. This, however, you have rightly anticipated. I greatly regret the necessity for the military, but the preservation of order is the first object. I need hardly remind you to combine firmness with temperate action. But urge earnestly on all parties to keep from political agitation, for which there is no justification after my despatches, and which must be put down firmly as being very dangerous. Keep me fully informed by telegraph."
  On the same day I received a telegram from Governor Hennessy in which he described a second riot—
  "In consequence of a robbery in a provision ground the police fired on the mob, and one man is said to be shot. Similar events have occurred in August last and in previous years. I am going at once to the scene of the disturbance. Have ordered the troops to the country stations to replace the police on duty."
  Under the same date he sent another telegram to this effect—
  "I have visited the several scenes of the disturbances; the planters are much alarmed, but the sugar works go on as usual. The police

  1823
  have taken 30 prisoners; the military have been posted in three parishes, but there has been no occasion for them. In consequence of the planters' panic I have telegraphed for more troops from Jamaica, Demerara, and Trinidad."
  On the 23rd of April I received this telegram from the Governor—
  "April 23.—Walked all through town last night, everything quiet. As tranquillity appears restored, I have, after consultation with officer in command, countermanded reinforcement from the other islands. More plunderers captured by police. Troops patrolled in rural districts, but had no necessity to act. Proclamation issued announcing Special Commission for speedy trial of offenders."
  On the 24th this alarming telegram, dated Barbadoes, from Mr. Leacock, a large landed proprietor, was addressed to Messrs. Daniel—
  "Whole island open rebellion. Insurgents sacking estates. Incendiarism rife; rioters insist doing Governor's will; City threatened. Country imminent danger. Crave your moral aid."
  Other telegrams to the same effect, though not in such strong language, were brought under my notice, and I thought it my duty on the 25th to again communicate with Mr. Hennessy, which I did in these terms—
  "Private telegrams brought here last night report continued and most serious disturbances. As that is inconsistent with your later telegrams received, telegraph immediately actual condition of affairs, and whether you are satisfied that reinforcements are unnecessary."
  On the same date he sent this reply—
  "Continued tranquillity, no shot fired by troops, and no white person injured by negroes. Military officers inform me that there is much exaggeration."
  And on the 26th he sent this conclusion—
  "No truth in the private telegrams. The Island has been quiet since Saturday. Some black troops from Jamaica, that left before my countermanding telegram, will arrive on Friday. Detachments also en route from Demerara, but will not be detained.
  Subsequently to that there is only one other telegram to which I shall have to call attention. The Colonial Bank had telegraphed to their agents in Barbadoes for information, and the answer they received was this—
  "Five hundred prisoners, 40 killed and wounded. Rioting suspended; position threatened (? threatening); confidence Governor entirely gone."
  1824
  I may say as to that telegram that I understand it refers to the occurrence of the previous week, and not to any fresh violence; but even so it was serious enough, and I applied to Mr. Hennessy in a telegram of the 27th. I said—
  "Private telegram reports 500 prisoners taken and 40 persons killed and wounded. Telegraph exact number of prisoners and of killed and wounded, separately, and since what day disturbances have ceased; also whether you have any apprehension of renewed outbreaks."
  Within the last few hours I have received through the Secretary of State for War this telegram—
  "From Colonel Sargent, Commanding Troops, Barbadoes, to the Secretary of State for War.
  "The Governor has shown me telegrams from and to Lord Carnarvon. I agree with him that the black troops coming in Argus will be sufficient to relieve those requiring rest. The detachment from Demerara will only be detained here for a short time. I am happy to say I have had no necessity for calling on any of the troops to fire to present time."
  And within the last half hour I have received this telegram from Governor Hennessy—
  "April 28.—Disturbances ceased since Saturday; number of prisoners taken actually plundering 90; afterwards, on suspicion of rioting and having received stolen goods, 320. Killed, 1; died of wounds, 2; wounded, 16. Police fired twice. No sugar works injured. I have no apprehension of renewed outbreaks; my only anxiety is from gentlemen threatening extreme measures."
  Well, my Lords, I think your Lordships will regard the telegram from Colonel Sargent, coming as it does from an independent source, as certainly re-assuring. Your Lordships will also perceive that Governor Hennessy denies that there has been any agitation on the part of the local Government, and you will further see that, according to those official telegrams, there has been a vigorous suppression of the riots, but accompanied, I should hope and believe, by very little bloodshed, and no unnecessary violence. Since that time there have been no further riots. I should be sorry to under-rate any real danger that might arise. Among the West Indian population there is often a great amount of agitation—particularly at this time of the year, and any excitement in the West Indies is a matter which should always be watched with close attention by the local Government, and which calls at the hands of the Home Government for the

  1825
  greatest amount of precaution. I am not aware that any greater precaution could have been taken in the present case. In Barbadoes there are 600 troops and a battery of artillery, and of these 600 troops only 100 are men of the 2nd West Regiment—the remainder are White troops. Then, besides the detachments of which mention is made in the telegrams, there are 700 or 800 men and a battery of artillery in Jamaica. Furthermore, I have requested the Admiralty to strengthen the naval force of the colony in order to render additional moral force, or material force in case of emergency. There is one other point on which I wish to say a few words. Allusion has been made to some charges that have been alleged against Governor Hennessy, in this country and in the colony. The charge against the Governor is that for some reason of his own, and by some secret agency and underground methods, and in despite of instructions received from the Home Government, he has appealed to the passions of the Native population in order to put a violent and indefensible pressure on the propertied class. While my noble Friend (Lord Blachford) did not go so far as that, I think he implied that, in his opinion, Governor Hennessy had proceeded to undue lengths in the promotion of the scheme of confederation. Now, on the one hand, while a Colonial Governor, and especially a Colonial Governor in the West Indies, who exceeds the instructions given him by the Secretary of State assumes a great responsibility and commits a grand error in substituting his own unwarranted authority for the instructions of the Home Government; on the other hand, the more serious such a line of proceeding is, the greater the necessity for suspending our judgment. We ought all to remember that a Governor placed in the position of Governor of a West India Island rests on the support and confidence of the Home Government. If that support and that confidence were withdrawn, the Governor himself should be withdrawn, because he can no longer do any good service, being placed in a position which makes it absolutely impossible for him to discharge his duty. In this instance I have felt it my duty to give Governor Hennessy every opportunity for explanation, in the belief that his explanation will be satisfactory. I have asked him for an ex-
  1826
  planation; but I think from his telegrams he will have anticipated my instructions on that head, and that, consequently, his defence will shortly be in our hands. Within the last few days I have been inundated with a storm of applications demanding the recall of Governor Hennessy. These applications have been made in spoken words, in written communications, in telegrams, anonymously, and by persons giving their names—there has been literally no end of them; and I am sorry to say that from persons who from positions which they themselves have held ought to know the difficulties of a Colonial Governor in Mr. Hennessy's place, suggestions have been made to me in the strongest language for his instant recall. In the present state of my information, I should consider myself unworthy of the place I fill if I should encourage the belief that I may advise the Crown to recall Mr. Hennessy under the circumstances as they exist. For this there are two reasons. First, it is not the fashion in this country to judge anybody till a proper hearing is given him and he has had an opportunity of defending himself. My duty clearly is, to wait until I have received the explanation of the Governor and until the Papers shall have been laid before Parliament. Next, I put it to your Lordships whether in the interest of the colony itself, assuming that disturbances do exist there, and that they are as serious as they are represented to be, it would be wise to make a change in the chief Executive Officer. The late President Lincoln wisely remarked that there is nothing more foolish than to "swop horses" when you are crossing a stream. My noble Friend (Lord Blachford) alluded to certain expressions used by Mr. Hennessy in his Message to the Assembly. Now, words which would be perfectly harmless sometimes may be dangerous when spoken under particular circumstances or to particular persons. I will not say whether those expressions of Governor Hennessy's to which objection has been taken were altogether judicious—I am inclined to think that, at all events, they need explanation, and that the truth of the case requires it. I think I may say that without doing Governor Hennessy any injustice. On the other hand, I must remark that the opponents of Mr. Hennessy have not

  1827
  shown good taste or good judgment. A Defence Association formed on the Island has been resisting the measures of the Government, and I doubt very much whether it was judicious in that Defence Association to call together large meetings of the negroes, and to make speeches to them that might produce serious results. I think it would have been far wiser and more judicious to appeal to the Home Government, which was certain to listen to them. Instead of that, they appealed to a class of persons who are very excitable. The consequence has been that wherever these meetings have been held there disturbances have ensued. When they ask us to put out the fire on one side of the haystack, they ought not to play with lucifer matches on the other. Mr. Hennessy, on the other hand, in all his official acts has shown much moderation. He has appointed as President of the Legislative Council one of the eminent opponents of the Confederation, and as Solicitor General a gentleman who voted against it. Further, he has allowed officials in the service of the Crown to come over as delegates to this country to make representations against him. He has been exposed to repeated threats of assassination, so that he has shown moderation and coolness at the same time that he manifested vigour in suppressing the disturbances. On all these grounds the duty of the Home Government was to know no party, but to stand in an impartial position between the opposing parties; to bring about as soon and as effectively as possible the restoration of peace; and while with determination repressing the disturbances, to do this under no influences of panic, as panic in such a case must lead to occurrences which hereafter we should all lament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not on this occasion going into the policy of confederation, but in justice to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he must say that it was he (the Earl of Kimberley) who dictated the despatch which his noble Friend had directed to be laid before the Legislature of Barbadoes. His noble Friend wrote a despatch, in which he said he agreed with him; but he thought that his noble Friend's despatch was even more cautious than his own, and guarded the Home Government against
  1828
  being supposed to wish to force confederation on the Local Legislature. He thought the matter was one which might be very quietly debated by that Legislature, and when he read of the commotion to which it had given rise, he thought there must be something behind the question itself to account for that excitement. At the same time, he concurred with his noble Friend that it was necessary to be extremely cautious in the matter. He was not prepared to join in any censure on the Governor in the present state of our information. He agreed with his noble Friend that nothing could be more unfair than to condemn the Governor, who had had considerable experience in the colonies, on the unsupported telegrams and verbal statements of persons who appeared to be considerably excited. Mr. Hennessy was placed in great difficulty, and it was but fair to await explanations. He had no reason to doubt that the explanation would be satisfactory, and he sincerely trusted it would be; but on the conduct of Mr. Hennessy he desired to express no opinion at present. Although the accounts might have been exaggerated, it was now certain from the despatch read by his noble Friend that considerable disturbances had occurred, in which three persons had lost their lives and 16 had been wounded, besides many prisoners taken. This being so, he agreed with his noble Friend that the present duty of the Government and of the Governor was to restore order in the Island, and not to move in any new policy until the passions of the people were thoroughly calmed, and such policy could be discussed without putting the peace of the Island in danger. Meanwhile, he would repeat that upon the question of general policy he entirely concurred with his noble Friend, and agreed also that it would be most unjust to form a judgment upon the conduct of Governor Hennessy before hearing his defence.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH, &c.) BILL [H.L.](no. 59.)
  A Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the "Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870,"relating to Chapel-en-le-Frith Gas, Cromer Gas, Hythe and Sandgate Gas, Poole Gas, Neath Water, Newbury Water, Wantage Water, Connah's Quay Gas and Water, and Flint Gas and Water: Also,
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL, &C.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 60.)
  A Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the "Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Bristol Tramways, Corsham Tramways, Landport, Southsea, and Portsea Tramways, Shepherd's Bush and Priory Road, Acton, Tramway, and Southport Tramways: And also,

  TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION (WANTAGE) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 61.)
  A Bill for confirming a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the "Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Wantage Tramways:
  Were presented by The Lord President; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.