Sitting of 9 August 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Destructive Insects * [281],
Second Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance [272]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Committee — Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance [204]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Atherton, &c.) (re-comm.) * [279]; Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment* [148].
Third Reading—Public Record Office* [182], and passed.
Withdrawn—Inclosure* [262]; Public Health (Ireland) (re-comm.) [275].

QUESTIONS.

  THE CENSUS, 1887.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Government, If they will timely bring under consideration the arrangements for taking the next Census, so as to correct defects and provide for omissions in the previous Census; and, if they will direct an inquiry or order a revision to be made of the heads under which information is to be recorded in the reports on the Census, with a view to establish uniformity in these reports from the several divisions of the kingdom, so as to avoid prolixity and provide more accurate information?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the Government were obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling their attention to the expediency of arrangements being made in the matter referred to in the Question, and it should be considered in the interval.

  INLAND REVENUE —DOG LICENCES (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGLASasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, with regard to the great increase of dogs, and the consequent worrying of sheep, disturbance, and other injury to farm stock in Scotland, he is prepared to recommend that quarterly notices of the number of dog licences issued by the officers of the Inland Revenue within their respective districts, and to whom granted, should be furnished to the chief constables of
  670
  counties and of burghs in Scotland, in order that the local authorities may have the information necessary to enable them to make out the Returns suggested by the Home Secretary, and otherwise assist in carrying out the Law; also, that all prosecutions for the evasion of the dog licence should be made through the police; and, whether he will consider the advisability of next year amending the statute 30 Victoria, cap. 5, by enacting, that the name and description of the dog for which a licence is taken out should be noted upon the licence, and that such licence should apply to the dog described, and to no other?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, with regard to the first three parts of the Question, we shall be quite prepared to issue the quarterly notices to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I believe it will be convenient to do so. With regard to the other two parts, I am at present in communication with the Home Secretary, and we will consider the subject between this and next Session.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—ALLEGED RUSSIAN ATROCITIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Ottoman Ambassador requested Lord Derby to order Mr. Baring to inquire into and report upon the truth of alleged Russian atrocities, as was done in the case of the alleged Turkish atrocities; and, if so, what answer Lord Derby gave to the Ambassador?
  MR. BOURKE: In reply to my noble Friend, Sir, I have to state that no such request has been made by the Ottoman Ambassador to Lord Derby as is mentioned in the Question.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—MOBILISATION OF AUSTRIAN TROOPS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked, If any negotiations have been carried on between England and Austria regarding the mobilisation of Austrian troops in case either Roumania or Servia should take any active part in the war, or in

  671
  case Russian troops should enter Servian territory; and, if so, whether the Despatches could be laid upon the Table?
  MR. BOURKE: No negotiations whatever, Sir, have been carried on with regard to the subject mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord.

ARMY — AUXILIARY FORCES — IRISH MILITIA REGIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is finally decided how far it will be necessary to convert the twelve Irish Rifle Regiments of Militia linked to Line Battalions into Red Regiments; and, as there is no Irish Regiment of Guards, whether he will consider the expediency of creating an Irish Rifle Brigade to which these twelve Rifle Regiments of Militia might be linked?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that although the subject had been under consideration there was no present intention of converting the Irish rifle regiments of Militia as referred to. With regard to the expediency of creating an Irish rifle brigade, he was afraid his finances were not in a condition to enable him to carry out such a scheme.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND) — POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can hold out any hope that he will be able to make the changes in the postal service between Longford and Lonesborough, recently prayed for in an influentially signed memorial from the county Longford?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: The memorial in question has been received very recently, and the inquiries necessary have not yet been completed. But I may tell the hon. Member that I can see my way to open a post-office in the village of Newton-Cashel.

POOR LAW—WEST BROMWICH UNION—CASE OF MR. DOWNS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Downs, late
  672
  medical officer of the Handsworth district of the West Bromwich Union, who, having filled his appointment creditably for forty years, has lately been compelled to retire through ill-health, but has been refused a retiring allowance by the Guardians, although he is in very straitened circumstances?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he had made inquiries into the case; but the Department had no actual knowledge that the gentleman in question had applied for a retiring allowance. If he had done so, and the Guardians had refused, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was afraid he had no power to interfere, but, from the information he had received, it was a very hard case.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—TRAWLING IN GALWAY BAY.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have made any reports on the subject of the experiments as to trawling in Galway Bay; and, if he will state to the House the number of vessels engaged in those experiments and lay upon the Table of the House the reports above alluded to and the reports of the officers engaged in those experiments?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he had received the reports of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries on the subject; but as they were of a detailed character and the subject was of limited interest, he did not think it worth while to lay them on the Table, but should be happy to show them to any hon. Member.

THE IRISH CHURCH COMMISSIONERS—VALUATION OF CHURCH LANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What organization in the way of staff the Irish Church Commissioners employ for the purpose of valuing the lands with which they have to deal; what professional or official qualifications were possessed by the valuator who acted for the Commissioners in the case of Spaight v. the Church Commissioners, lately tried at Kellalor Sessions; whether the Landed Estates Court does not avail itself of

  673
  the valuation office for valuation purposes; and, whether he is prepared to suggest to the Commissioners to pursue the same course in order to ensure uniformity of valuation?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The Irish Church Commissioners have, I believe, no regularly organized staff to value the lands with which they have to deal, but they engage experienced valuers in each case. In the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention, I am informed that the gentlemen employed had had great experience in many similar cases before. It is very possible that the Landed Estates Court avails itself of the Valuation List for valuation purposes, and I have no doubt that the Temporalities Commissioners also consider the same List in dealing with the price affixed to the lands to be sold. But the hon. Member is aware that in many cases the Valuation List does not represent the real value, and, therefore, it is impossible to sell without a valuation.

  EGYPT—THE KHEDIVE AND THE DAIRA BONDHOLDERS.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the signature of Mr. H. Calvert, Her Britannic Majesty's Vice Consul at Alexandria, attached to an agreement between the Khedive of Egypt and the representatives of the Daira Bondholders "for the legalisation of the signature of His Excellency Cherif Pacha, Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Egyptian Government," under date 14th July 1877, implies any official cognizance of and sanction to this transaction on the part of the British Government?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had not received a copy of the agreement which was alleged to have been made between the Khedive and the representatives of the Daira bondholders, and they therefore did not know whether Mr. Calvert had attached his signature to that document or not. If, however, Mr. Calvert had attached his signature to such a document, it was nothing further than an attestation, and implied no liability and no assent whatever on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

  RUSSIA—UNITED GREEK CHRISTIANS IN POLAND.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any information has been received since the presentation of the Consular Reports in April last respecting the forcible conversion to the Russian Church of the United Greek Christians in Poland, respecting the expulsion of their clergy with their families from their country; and, whether the Archbishop Felinski, of Warsaw, and other Roman Catholic prelates banished from their Sees, have yet been allowed to return to their dioceses?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that no Reports had been received by Her Majesty's Government since the presentation of the Report made by Colonel Mansfield, which had been laid before the House. The Government had no knowledge as to the latter part of the Question.
  MR. WHALLEYwished to know, If Her Majesty's Consuls had any right to inquire into the relations between the Emperor of Russia and his Roman Catholic subjects, and if so, what was the nature of that right? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. BOURKEreplied that Her Majesty's Consuls were bound to report upon all political subjects on which they thought it prudent to report in respect of the countries to which they were accredited.

THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—JEAN LUIE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Jean Luie, a witness in the Tichborne Trial, is now in this country; and, if so, in what prison; whether he intends to reply to letters addressed to him by Charles Dunsby, one of the Tichborne jurymen, as to a Memorial to Her Majesty; and, whether, in reference to a newly invented instrument called an identiscope, whereby scientific certainty is alleged to be secured as to the original of photographic portraits taken at different periods and brought to his notice, it is his intention to make any inquiry; and, if not, whether he will receive and consider the evidence of photographic experts in support of such proof of identity?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes, Sir, I believe Jean Luie is in this country— at least, I hope so. He is, or should be, in Portland. Prison. The last letter from Mr. Dunsby was written, I believe, on July 30, and answered on the 4th of August. I know nothing whatever about the identiscope. I believe this gentleman did allude to such an invention in one of his letters; but I know nothing about the merits of the instrument. In this case every paper which is sent in will receive the consideration which is due to it.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would make further inquiry as to the accuracy of the photograph?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had nothing before him which would induce him to make any further inquiries.

  POST OFFICE—APPOINTMENTS OF OFFICIALS.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the propriety of adopting some plan for the appointment of Post Office officials which would be free from all suspicion of political bias?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that the present system of appointing Post Office officials was one of long standing, and although from time to time suggestions of alterations, free from the suspicion referred to in the Question, had been made, they had not been found practicable or advisable. At the same time, he was far from saying that the present system was not capable of improvement and he was prepared during the Recess to give his consideration to the subject and to communicate with the Treasury thereupon.

  CATTLE PLAGUE AND IMPORTATION OF LIVE STOCK—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
  MR. DODSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt and give effect, during the Recess, to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Cattle Plague and Importation of Live Stock as far as their present powers enable them, or whether
  676
  they will abstain from acting upon that Report until the House shall have had the opportunity of seeing the evidence upon which it is based and of discussing the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I cannot make any pledge as to the exercise of our present powers during the Recess, because a fresh outbreak of the Cattle Plague might occur, and it might be necessary to take strong measures for the purpose of suppressing it. But, as at present advised, we consider that the measures we have adopted have been successful in checking and so far in stamping out the disease, and we have no present intention of making any alteration in regard to them. The Government will, however, carefully consider the recommendations of the Committee during the Recess.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY — RUMOURED PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If direct negotiations are now being carried on between the Czar and the Sultan without any participation by the rest of Europe; and, whether the British and Austrian Governments have protested against such a contingency, as a separate peace?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that the Government had no knowledge of any negotiations that were going on between the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan, and therefore they could not make any protest, nor did he know of any such protest on the part of the Austrian Government.

POOR LAW SYSTEM (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the statement is correct which appeared in the morning papers of Tuesday last that the Honourable W. le Poer Trench, Mr. Andrew Doyle, and Mr. Charles Sharman Crawford have been appointed Commissioners to inquire into the working of the Poor Law System in Ireland?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, it was true that those gentlemen had been appointed Commissioners, not, however, to inquire into the working of the Poor Law system in

  677
  Ireland, but to inquire into the special points mentioned by him in reply to a previous Question put by an hon. Friend.

THE "FAVOURED NATION CLAUSE." SPAIN—COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there be any Favoured Nation Clause in respect to tariffs in any of our Treaties with Spain? The right hon. Gentleman explained that the reason he repeated the Question was, that the Spanish Government had lately admitted goods from other foreign countries, including Germany, upon better terms than those upon which English goods were admitted. The Foreign Office had, he understood, made representations; but there was a great doubt in the minds of those who were acquainted with the matter in this country, as to whether there was any Favoured Nation Clause in our Treaties with Spain. He understood the Under Secretary on a former occasion to state his belief that there was such a clause; but he had promised to again look into the matter.
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in stating what he had said the other day in connection with the subject. He (Mr. Bourke) was quite correct in what he then stated. In our ancient Treaties with Spain there were very many clauses which contained the most Favoured Nation provisions. All those ancient Treaties were confirmed in the year 1814, when it was contended that all those Treaties, and especially those clauses, retained their full force. In 1845 a correspondence took place upon the subject between Lord Aberdeen and the Spanish Minister who was then in England, M. Sotomayer, and in that correspondence Lord Aberdeen modified to a great extent the scope of the clauses which were then in existence with regard to the most Favoured Nation Treaty. That correspondence was laid upon the Table of the House of Commons, and an important debate took place upon the subject, in the course of which there was a very memorable speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), who repre-
  678
  sented Lord Aberdeen's views on the matter. At that period Lord Aberdeen disputed that the most Favoured Nation clause in our ancient Treaties referred to property in commerce as well as to persons. The then Spanish Minister contended that it referred to both; but Lord Aberdeen maintained that it only referred to persons. A correspondence had quite lately taken place in which the subject had come up again, and it was still under discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government. Her Majesty's Government, as he stated the other day, instructed our Chargé d' affaires at Madrid to urge the Spanish Government to grant a most Favoured Nation Treaty to this country; but the reply had not yet been received.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to ask, Whether the Government, in addition to urging upon the Spanish Government the existence of a Favoured Nation Clause, were thus also taking steps to protect our manufacturers against these differential duties?
  MR. BOURKEsaid, the whole question was before the Chargé d' affaires at Madrid, and the only thing the Government could do was to instruct him to impress upon the Spanish Government the views of Her Majesty's Government, about which, of course, there could be no doubt, as their only object must be to obtain most Favoured Nation rights. About British commerce there was a doubt raised by Lord Aberdeen, which had been more or less in dispute ever since; but about British subjects there was no doubt.

  AFRICA—WEST COAST—OUTRAGES NEAR CONGO—QUESTIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give any information as to the drowning of thirty-two Africans by orders of the superintendent of a Dutch factory near Congo, as reported in the "Daily Telegraph," and especially whether a British subject was implicated in this murder? He might add that he had received from the best private source a confirmation of this dreadful story, and also, he ought to state, that the British subject was said to be an Englishman.
  MR. BOURKE: We have received a Report upon this subject, in which se-

  679
  veral persons are said to have lost their lives as stated; and that Report is now before the Law Officers. It is quite true that one individual who is said to be implicated in this matter is an Englishman.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I suppose it is under the consideration of the Government to take proper steps for the punishment of this man if there is reason to believe he is guilty?
  MR. BOURKE: Certainly, the reason it is before the Law Officers is that the man is said to be a British subject.

  EGYPT—SLAVE TRADE IN THE RED SEA.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSON (for Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Convention with the Khedive of Egypt for the suppression of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea had been signed; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House before the prorogation of Parliament?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that a telegram had been received from Mr. Vivian that a Convention had been signed with the Khedive of Egypt for the suppression of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea. He doubted, however, whether it could arrive in time to be laid upon the Table before the Prorogation of Parliament.

  ARMY—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT — PURCHASE CAPTAINS IN HOUSEHOLD BRIGADE.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN MILNE HOMEasked the Secretary of State for War, What modifications he has decided on introducing into the Army Retirement Scheme with regard to Purchase Captains in the Household Cavalry and Cavalry; and, if he will remove their disqualification from promotion after twenty-five years' service, as laid down in the proposed scheme, in order to insure them as far as possible the same chances of promotion as they had before 1871?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he hoped that the Warrant would be very shortly in the hands of the Army, so that officers might see the exact extent in which their interests were affected. His hon. and gallant Friend appeared to think that the 25 years would come
  680
  into operation at once. A term of three years would, however, elapse, making 28 years, so that the 25 years' rule would not come into operation until the year 1881.

LOCAL TAXATION (RETURNS) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. RYLANDS,
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did intend to proceed with the Bill, but he should omit the 5th clause, which formed no part of the original Bill, and which would be likely to give rise to considerable discussion.

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), who has given Notice of his intention upon the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill to
  "call attention to the state of affairs under which Parliament was about to be prorogued, with special reference to the Note addressed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Russian Ambassador on the 6th of May last."
  We all feel the natural interest which the House must take in the discussion of foreign affairs; but I wish to say on the part of the Government that it would be in their opinion disadvantageous to the public interests that there should be any general discussion of the subject at the present moment. I hope, therefore, that under these circumstances my hon. Friend will be good enough not to proceed with the discussion.
  MR. BENTINCK: Sir, in answer to the appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can only say that, looking at the present state of affairs, I have listened to that appeal with much regret. I can assure the House I did not put down the Notice which stands in my name on light grounds, and, moreover, I had the support of many hon. Gentlemen whose opinions I highly value. But looking to the fact that the Cabinet must be in possession of information that is not possessed by the House, and looking also to the fact that the Government must be held responsible for its conduct of the affairs of the country, I feel that after the appeal

  681
  which my right hon. Friend has just made to me, I should not be justified in persevering in the Motion which stands in my name. I beg, therefore, to announce that it is not my intention to proceed with it, and beg leave to withdraw it.
  MR. WHALLEYalso begged leave to express his regret that the subject was not to be brought forward. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House.
  MR. WHALLEY: I will put myself in Order by moving the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: A Question has been put and answered. If any hon. Member has any Question to ask, this is the proper time for putting Questions.
  MR. FAWCETT: I should like to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he has made an appeal to the hon. Member for West Norfolk not to raise a discussion on Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the rumour which has been widely circulated and has appeared in the public journals, that there is going to be a discussion on Foreign Affairs this evening in "another place; " because, if there is any truth in that rumour, it is obvious that if it is right to have a discussion in " another place " it cannot be inconvenient to discuss the matter here?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe I may say that an intimation was given of the intention of a noble Lord to raise this question in the other House, but that an appeal had been made to the noble Lord on the part of the Government very much in the same terms as those which I have addressed to my hon. Friend, and it is not I understand the intention of the noble Lord to proceed with the Motion, and so far as I am aware there will be no discussion upon the subject in the other House.
  MR. WHALLEY, amid cries of "Oh, oh!" said: Sir, I desire to put a question to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I think is justified by the appeal he has just made. [Cries of "Order!"] If necessary, I will put myself in Order by moving the Adjournment of the House. ["Oh, oh!"] It will be in the recollection of this House that on frequent occasions I have addressed Questions to the right hon. Gentleman
  682
  with reference to this Circular of Lord Derby's, and generally with reference to the conduct of the Government in connection with the war. The Emperor of Russia has been distinctly charged with various things, and there seems to be relations of hostility between Her Majesty's Government and the Emperor of Russia. The Question I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, whether there is any other Power except that of the Papacy that has directly or indirectly expressed concurrence with Her Majesty's Government in their sentiments, I may say, of personal hostility to the Emperor of Russia? [Loud cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The question which the hon. Member has now raised relates to a matter upon which he has twice put similar Questions in this House, and has received Answers. Upon a third occasion, when he desired to put a Question to the same effect, I ruled that the hon. Member was out of Order in so doing. He is now repeating his breach of Order by endeavouring to raise that question before the House.
  MR. WHALLEY: Then I will not put the Question; but I will, if I am permitted to do so, take this opportunity of making a statement with regard to this hostility—a kind of personal hostility—on the part of the Government towards the Emperor of Russia. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I am very unwilling but am compelled to exercise my duty as the guardian of the Rules and Orders of this House, by calling the hon. Member to Order a second time, and to pronounce him as having again disregarded the authority of the Chair.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Do I understand, Sir, that you pronounce the hon. Member as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I apprehend, Sir, that under the new Rule, that when a Member has been pronounced by you to be disregarding the authority of the Chair, it is necessary that the debate should be at once suspended, and that Motion should be made in the House that the Member be not heard during the remainder of the debate. The debate is now suspended, I presume, and in that case I beg to make that Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Whalley be not further heard."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, that Mr. Whalley be not now heard.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. WHALLEY: Mr. Speaker [Cries of " Order! "], I rise to make a personal explanation. ["Order! "]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.— [BILL 272.]
  (Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Attorney General)
  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th August], " That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. PARNELL, in moving that the Bill be read a second time upon that day three months, said, he remembered that the Bill affected many Acts which the Government had admitted required amendment, and that they applied it to Irish Acts when they dare not renew the same Acts in England. The practice of continuing expiring laws in this manner was both inconvenient and unconstitutional. He complained of the operation of various provisions in the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV., relating to manufactures, which, he contended, required considerable modification, inasmuch as the power given to a single magistrate and to chief constables was far too stringent, so far as regarded the treatment of operatives. The imposition of penalties on a workman taking the yarn to weave at his own home and not returning the cloth before 14 days was a matter which should not be the subject of exceptional legislation, but left to the operation of the ordinary law. The Act 3 & 4 Vict, was equally oppressive, and afforded little or no protection to workmen. He called attention to this sub-
  684
  ject, because it appeared to him that hon. Gentlemen had not shown a due sense of their responsibility in the matter, and because considerable dissatisfaction was felt with respect to it by the large class in the North of Ireland whose interests were affected by these antiquated enactments, with their unequal provisions, and he contended they ought not to be continued without mature consideration. "With reference to the Act 23 & 24 Vict., which dealt with the dwellings of the labouring classes in Ireland, he maintained that it was entirely inadequate for the purpose for which it was designed, and that the question of securing adequate accommodation for these classes was one which deserved the serious consideration of the Government. Another Act which it was sought to renew by the measure before the House was the Act 17 & 18 Vict., dealing with the question of corrupt practices at elections. The occasions when elections were appealed against in Ireland were few, but the Judges were very numerous, and did not always give the decisions which might have been expected from them. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to particular clauses of the Act when—
  MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to Order. The ordinary practice of the House on the proposal that a Bill should be read a second time was merely to discuss the principle of the measure, and in referring to the decisions of Judges and to particular clauses of certain existing Acts of Parliament the hon. Member for Meath was taking a course which was irregular.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he submitted to the ruling of the Chair, and would not have acted as he had done, had he not understood that, according to the Forms of the House, he would not be entitled in Committee to propose Amendments of those clauses in the Acts to which he objected.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would be quite open to the hon. Member to move in Committee that a certain Act specified in the Schedule should be excepted from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not so much object to the whole of the Acts which it was desired to renew as to certain clauses in them, which appeared to him to be either unnecessary, oppres-

  685
  sive, or unsuitable. That the Forms of the House should prevent hon. Members from having an opportunity of moving Amendments to such clauses was a strong illustration of the unconstitutionalism of the practice of bringing forward Bills for the purpose of continuing Acts of Parliament to which exception was in part taken. He would admit there were portions of these Acts which were highly beneficial, and through that he was placed in this dilemma—that, according to the ruling of the Chair, he was precluded from discussing clauses to which he objected, and he could only move the omission of the Acts from the continuing Bill. He would move the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he did not propose to go into the details upon which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had entered, and which did not appear to him to bear directly upon the immediate question before the House. The hon. Gentleman had stated that there were no important Acts included in the Schedule of this Bill, except Acts which related to Ireland; but it had been brought under the notice of the House, on a previous occasion, that two very important measures, which were applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom — those referring to Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices—were included in the Bill. He must, therefore, entirely demur to the assertion made by the hon. Gentleman. It had also been said that the Irish Acts which it was proposed to renew were all bad, or something to that effect; but it was not necessary to deal seriously with such a description of these statutes. A Continuance Bill was required for two kinds of legislation: for Acts of a tentative character, and for those passed only for a certain number of years. He quite admitted that there were Acts in the Schedule which he should wish, quite as much as the hon. Gentleman, to see removed from, it, and
  686
  converted into permanent Acts of Parliament. The Election Petitions Act and the Corrupt Practices Act had already been dealt with by the Attorney General, who hoped, next Session, to bring in a Bill on the subject. With regard to the County Cess (Ireland) Act, only a small portion of the law on this subject was continued by this Bill, and so long as the Grand. Jury system remained, that portion of it must be continued. Amongst the Acts to be continued was the statute which enabled loans to be made for the erection of dwellings for the labouring classes in Ireland. It had been complaind that the Act was inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that a considerable sum had been lent to proprietors in Ireland under its powers, that the expenditure of that money had undoubtedly been attended with good results, and that this was a privilege which neither English nor Scotch landowners had, at present, accorded to them. With respect to the Act of which the hon. Gentleman had spoken as affecting manufacturing interests in the North of Ireland, last Session he had prepared a Bill consolidating the law on that subject; but no sooner was it introduced than exception was taken to it by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), on the ground that a good deal of the law was obsolete; and he objected to simple consolidation without amendment. The Bill was withdrawn. Meetings of employers and employed afterwards were held, and resolutions were passed of a very contradictory character. At the commencement of this Session he had prepared a Bill, making permanent so much of the law as it appeared necessary to retain, and he should certainly have introduced it, but for the circumstances which had delayed the progress of Business, to which he need not further allude. He purposed, next Session, to renew this attempt again; and, if he were aided by the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan, he hoped it would be possible to bring in a Continuance Bill free, as regarded Ireland, from the principal objections that had been taken to this. He was desirous, so far as Ireland as well as England was concerned, that there should be nothing included in this Bill except what was absolutely necessary.
  MR. O'DONNELLcomplained that the fact of these measures being of a transitory character should be made a reason for not affording an opportunity for having them thoroughly discussed, as he thought that fact ought rather to operate in the opposite direction.
  MR. PARNELLintimated his readiness, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir William Dyke.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.

  INDIA — THE WESTERN FRONTIER POLICY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GRANT DUFF MR. GRANT DUFF rose to call attention to the apparent change of policy of the Government of India in the States to the West of the Indus; and to ask explanations from Her Majesty's Government with reference to the occupation of Quetta, the negotiations at Peshawur, and the proposed change of administration in the Frontier districts. He said that before the Session commenced there were rumours of a great increase of activity along the Western Frontier of India beyond the Indus, and on the second day of the Session he put a Question to the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton), and gathered from his reply that the troops sent into the Khelat territory were intended merely to serve as an escort to Major Sandeman, who had been commissioned to settle the disputes between the Khan and his Sirdars, and to arrange for the undisturbed passage of caravans through the Bolan Pass, that Major Sandeman remained at Khelat at the request of the Khan, and that his troops were likely to move about the country as occasion required. When he asked the Question, he feared that the troops were going to be stationed at Quetta, a point some 257 miles in advance of our existing Frontier, the occupation of which had repeatedly been
  688
  pressed by the active or "forward" school of Indian Frontier politicians, who, believing that Russia would one day make an attack upon India, desired to anticipate her in an attempt upon Herat, by advancing our military posts far beyond our present Frontier. The subject was again brought before the House by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Robertson), who, on the 15th of March, asked the Under Secretary of State for India—
  "If his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the ' Times' of the 5th March instant:— 'A Treaty has been concluded with Khelat whereby the British Government agrees to support the Khan against internal and foreign foes, and to pay an annual subsidy of £10,000, besides a further sum of £2,200 for the purpose of effecting such improvements in the country as the Government may approve. In return the Government will have the right to occupy the chief towns with troops, to construct railways and telegraphs, and to erect forts. The British Agent's head-quarters will be at Khelat, and an officer will also be stationed at Quetta;' and, if he will inform the House if such a Treaty has been concluded; and, if the Government approves of the policy indicated of thus occupying places in Beloochistan far beyond the British territory? "
  The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State replied, among other things, that the revision and adaptation of an old Treaty to existing circumstances did not in any way indicate, on the part of the Indian Government, any intention of pursuing in any sense an aggressive policy towards the countries beyond their borders. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had not asked whether the Government meant to pursue an aggressive policy, but whether they approved the policy of occupying places in Beloochistan, far beyond the British territory; and he (Mr. Grant Duff) supposed it to be a fair inference from that reply, that the Government then at least considered that the permanent occupation of a place at a very great distance from our Frontier did constitute a move of an aggressive character. If that was not a fair inference, then his noble Friend would lay himself open to the charge that he had given no reply whatever to the most material part of the Question of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. In the month of April, he (Mr. Grant Duff) again called attention to the subject, and asked whether certain Khelat Papers would be laid on the Table. The noble Lord replied, that

  689
  he would lay the Papers on the Table immediately; but as they were very voluminous, they would not be in the hands of hon. Members for a considerable time. Some months elapsed during which the rumours from India were not less disquieting than they had been before; but people were very much comforted by the pacific assurances of the noble Lord at the head of the India Office (the Marquess of Salisbury), and by the extremely pacific and consolatory language which the noble Lord used in a speech he made at the Merchant Taylors' banquet. He found some difficulty in reconciling Lord Salisbury's tone 'with the things which were going on under his auspices; but he waited till the Papers were issued, which was on Saturday, the 21st of July. He (Mr. Grant Duff) was extremely sorry to say that when he came to examine those Papers he found that the very worst fears which he and others had formed on the subject were confirmed. A despatch of the 23rd of March from the Government of India to the India Office contained statements of a very remarkable character, which appeared to him to be as nearly as possible a declaration of absolute disagreement with the policy enforced on the Frontier ever since the later days of Lord Lawrence, and he did not know how to reconcile its statements with the replies given earlier in the Session in that House, or with the tone of Lord Salisbury's statements elsewhere. These were the words of the Government of India in the despatch of March 23, Paragraph 17—
  "The present Viceroy, having had the advantage before leaving England of personal communication with your Lordship on the general subject of our Frontier relations, was strongly impressed by the importance of endeavouring to deal with them simultaneously, as indivisible parts of a single Imperial question, mainly dependent for its solution on the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is the ultimate guardian of the whole British Empire, rather than as isolated local matters. From this point of view, and bearing in mind the ambiguous and unsatisfactory character of our relations with Affghanistan, it had been his Excellency's intention to depute a confidential envoy to the Court of Cabul, viâ Candahar, and in and about which locality the Affghan population is most friendly to the Government."
  In Paragraph 25 of the despatch occurred the following:—
  "Moreover, we were also of opinion that the highest and most general interests of this Em-
  690
  pire (interests no longer local, but Imperial) rendered it necessary to place our relations with Khelat on a much firmer, more durable, and more intimate footing than before. "Whatever may have been the personal disinclination of this Government in times past to exercise active interference in Khanates beyond our border, it must now be acknowledged that, having regard to possible contingencies in Central Asia, to the profound and increasing interest with which they are already anticipated and discussed by the most warlike populations within as well as without our Frontier, and to the evidence that has reached us of foreign intrigue in Khelat itself (intrigue at present innocuous, but sure to become active in proportion to the anarchy or weakness of that State and its alienation from British influence), we can no longer avoid the conclusion that the relations between the British Government and this neighbouring Khanate must henceforth be regulated with a view to more important objects than the temporary prevention of plunder on the British border."
  Unless otherwise explained, he drew several conclusions from that despatch. The first conclusion which he thought might be drawn from it was, that the policy of active interference indicated was the result of a personal communication between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State (before the former left for India); that, as the Viceroy was subordinate to the Secretary of State, this policy of active interference was the policy of Lord Salisbury; and that, Lord Salisbury being a Member of the Cabinet, it was the policy of Her Majesty's present Advisers. The second inference he drew from the despatch, in spite of the disclaimer of the Government, was, this policy of active interference was that thoroughly approved by Her Majesty's Government—that they had departed from the old policy, and now went for a policy of active interference beyond our Frontiers very hard to distinguish from that aggressive policy. The third inference he drew from the same despatch was, that the Government had been led to that policy of active interference beyond our own Frontiers, on account of the fear of certain contingencies in Central Asia, and with a view to checkmate foreign, or, in other words, Russian, intrigue in Khelat. If so, that policy of active interference, pursued under the influence of the fear of possible contingencies in Central Asia, stimulated by uneasiness about the intrigues of Russia in Khelat, and emanating from the personal intervention of Lord Salisbury, he ventured to think was an unwise and dangerous policy. The more that all

  691
  questions of Frontier policy were treated in India as local questions, and the less they were treated as Imperial questions, the better it would be. The very worst way in which a Viceroy could employ his time was in thinking out the relations which the policy pursued by him along the Trans-Indus Frontier should bear to the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. His efforts should be directed to keep his Frontier disputes down to the dimensions of isolated local matters. He did not say that he ought not to be thoroughly well informed of everything that Russia was doing in any part of Central Asia. He ought to know it, and he ought to transmit it to the Government at home, as it, in turn, should transmit all such information to him. There was no better way for a Government to disconcert panic-mongers than to show that it knew everything they knew, and a good deal more; but, except for that purpose, the Viceroy should think as little about Russia and her doings as possible. That might not be the proper policy 20 years hence, or 10 years hence. Alors comme alors; those who succeeded us would best know what action to take; but what he maintained was, that a waiting policy was the wisest for this year 1877, and that any other was a most dangerous policy. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India might be able to state that Quetta was not to be occupied permanently, although how he was able to reconcile such a contention with the terms of the despatch of the 23rd of March, one was at a loss to understand. If there was any intention of permanently occupying Quetta, he (Mr. Grant Duff) must protest against that course in the strongest possible way. It was undesirable for several reasons. In the first place, it was a triumph given to the most aggressive school of Indian politicians. In the second place, it would be very expensive. In the third place, it would add seriously to the duties, already very considerable, of our not too large Army. In the fourth place, what would be the advantage of 1,000 men in Quetta? Why, none whatever; for in the case of troubles arising we should only lay ourselves open to insult. If the occupation was to be permanent, they would have to increase that Force; and might have to send re-inforcements across some of the very worst
  692
  country in the East at the season of the year least adapted to European constitutions, as it was not likely that our enemies would choose the most favourable time for us to raise a disturbance. In the fifth place, as implying virtual annexation, it could not be agreeable to Khelat. In the sixth place, it excited the jealousies of the Affghans, and would increase the difficulties we already experienced with Affghanistan; and, lastly, it exposed the Viceroy to have his hands forced by the extreme party who, the first time that Russia made any forward move in Central Asia in the direction of Merv, would assuredly clamour for advance to Kandahar, and ultimately to Herat, and we should not be allowed to stop at Quetta. They would urge the Government of India to go in for the whole Rawlinsonian policy, before which it faltered. Now, there were three things which he (Mr. Grant Duff) wished to ask the noble Lord in regard to this part of the subject—first, if the occupation of Quetta was or was not meant to be permanent; secondly, whether, if it was meant to be a permanent occupation, it had anything whatever to do with contingencies in Central Asia; and, thirdly, whether, if Quetta, was to be permanently occupied, it was to be so occupied for local reasons or for reasons of general Imperial policy. Unhappily, the occupation of Quetta was not the only thing which disquieted those who were in favour of playing a waiting game along the "Western Frontiers of India. All kinds of rumours reached them about the disposition of the Ameer of Affghanistan, and the state of mind into which he had been thrown by recent events. [The hon. Member then read a passage describing a recent scene at Cabul, and proceeded to say] — He hoped the noble Lord would explain how it was that the negotiations at Peshawur between the agents of the Ameer and the Representative of the Viceroy did not lead to some better state of things than this. During the greater part of Lord Lawrence's administration there had been war, and the Governor General had not interfered until the Affghans had very generally supported Shere Ali, when he did so too. The policy of "masterly inactivity" had been pursued by different Governors, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was committed to it. Why should

  693
  not that policy continue? When the Ameer of Afghanistan got out of temper and refused to take the gifts in arms and money that were sent him, why was he not left to get back into good temper as he pleased? Why had they not waited until he should have thought proper to send for them, letting him clearly understand that they wished to help him without making him a bulwark against anybody? Why had the negotiations at Peshawur been entered into at all? He was in an evil frame of mind towards this country, and they had a right to know what had taken place there. It was not fair and reasonable that they should separate without having some general idea of what had been done. The policy of trying to coax him to admit a British Resident into his territory, either at Herat or Cabul, was surely a very doubtful one. But it was said that the Russians had organized a regular system of agents at Cabul, who reported what went on there to the authorities at Tashkend. He thought it likely they had. It was in accordance with the petty kind of finesse which was so characteristic of their diplomacy. But why need we be disquieted about that? They all knew, from the necessities of the case, the Ruler of Affghanistan must fall in with our policy—if there came to be a struggle between us and the Russians at any future time. Why put it into his head that his proceedings were of such consequence that we insisted upon watching them by a highly-placed European agent? Lord Lawrence, Lord Mayo, and Lord Northbrook did all in the way of assisting him that he could reasonably expect. If he were left to the meagre diet of Russian flattery and promises for the future, he or his Successor would be the more ready to return to the more solid diet with which we supplied him for a time. The last matter about which he would like some explanation was the threatened change of administration on the Western Frontier of India. What was really intended; and why was a change about to be made? They were told that its Trans-Indus districts were to be taken from the Punjab, as well as the Hazara country—that its Trans-Indus districts, or nearly all of them were to be taken from Scinde, and that the whole was to be made into a new Chief Commissioner-ship. Further, they were told that
  694
  the object of all this was that the Viceroy might have Frontier affairs more constantly kept before him, and that, through a person in whom he had full confidence, and who would be inclined to look for Russian intrigue in Khelat and Cabul. It was very likely that intrigue did exist there, but what matter did it make? Cabul must, from the necessity of the case, side with this country; for the Affghans must be enemies of the first foreign army that entered their territory, whether Sclav or British. If that was not the object of the change, or if the scale of the change had been exaggerated, perhaps the Government would state what it was to be, and why it was to be made? The object was, he feared, what it was said to be— namely, to keep Frontier affairs to the front, whereas, in his judgment, they should be kept in the background. He knew the noble Lord would tell him of certain difficulties that had arisen between the officers on the Punjab Frontier and on the Scinde Frontier; but those were small matters, and did not need a revolution to put them right. Unless he was misinformed, the policy all hung together, and the watchword was, "Forward along the whole line" —forward in Beloochistan, forward amongst the wild tribes along the Frontier, forward in Affghanistan; and all this when Lord Salisbury had been imagined in some quarters to be a sort of genius of peace, who had been opposed by certain evil genii in the Cabinet. Very strange indeed was the light which the noble Lord's proceedings in Asia threw on the legend of the Conference. For it was clear that this Asiatic imbroglio at least was his personal policy. The 17th paragraph of the despatch of the Government of India completely proved it. It should have been pointed out to the new Viceroy that la haute politique had little place in India. Instead of that, the mischievous activity of the Indian Government arose from the orders given to Lord Lytton before he started for India. As far as he was personally concerned, he should have thought that if the Government was to pick out for the office of Viceroy an eminent man whose life had hitherto been devoted to diplomacy, the wise course would be to impress upon him the very small part that diplomacy played in Indian affairs when compared

  695
  with administration, and how, when there was a field for diplomacy, it was chiefly for that kind of quasi-diplomacy —nearly half administrative—which was applicable to English intercourse with Native States. The present Viceroy had abilities equal to anything. Perhaps no man of finer genius had ever occupied his august position. No one could deny that; but by the whole previous training of his life his mind had been led towards diplomacy and foreign politics, and it would have been wise not to stimulate that unfortunate taste, but to diminish it. Had Lord Salisbury, instead of encouraging him to waste much of his strength on these Frontier questions, encouraged him to bring his fresh intelligence to bear on internal matters, and on our relations with the Native States, great and excellent results might have been produced, for which they might look in vain, if his thoughts were wandering to the Oxus and the Jaxartes. But he hoped the noble Lord would tell them that some extraordinary mistake had been made; that Lord Lawrence and all the other great authorities on Indian affairs were disquieted in vain; that Quetta was not going to be permanently occupied; that there was no intention of pressing an Envoy on the Ameer, but that he was now to be left, as he ought to have been before the Peshawur Conference, to get into good humour in his own time and way. Lastly, with regard to the Frontier, an article in Blackwood's Magazine had been written by some person obviously inspired from Simla, who had pointed out that the present was a "detestable" Frontier; just as the French did, before their unfortunate attack on Germany in 1870. A wiser policy had been indicated by the noble Lord the Secretary of State at the Merchant Taylors', when he asked why should they follow and let their enemy choose his own ground, and not await him where they would have the advantage; and he said " that it behoved the English people to look at these matters with that steadiness and prudence which formed the best part of courage." Exactly so. That had been the policy of successive Governments; and he had expressed it by the Spanish proverb— —" Let him attack who wills; the strong man waits." Why then was it to be changed? Or was it to be changed?
  696
  What was really the policy of the Government? Were they going on with this policy of bringing the Frontier to the front; or would they keep up the policy of previous Governments— of Lords Lawrence, Mayo, and North-brook? In conclusion, he hoped that the noble Lord would be able to say that they were all under some glamour and that nothing material was to be changed. If he could, the sooner it was said the better, for the present, "facing-both-ways" policy was not, he thought, fair to the Viceroy, while he was very sure it was not fair to Parliament.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought it was important to consider the question which had been raised in this debate on the affairs of the State of Khelat, from a point of view which had reference to the future policy of England as far as Central Asia was concerned. It was, however, made evident that the consideration of that large policy was intended to be excluded from this discussion, because the volume of Papers presented to this House did not contain the slightest information of a political character relating to any other State than that of Khelat. Without these details it would not be just to the Government of India, and Secretary of State, to raise this wide and grave discussion. It must be remembered that the Bolan Pass had always been regarded as the best means of getting from India into Central Asia, and that Herat had always been considered the keystone of India. In order to secure access to the elevated plateau, which afforded the power of moving on Herat, it was necessary to dominate over the Northern or Western end of the Bolan; and Quetta, belonging to Khelat, which practically commanded the Northern end of the Pass, had therefore been occupied; and, besides, it should be remembered that Candahar must also be commanded. The possession of that fort and city would then lay open to us an excellent and easy line of communication to Herat, which could be reached in 21 marches; but as it was clear that our political relations with the Ameer of Affghanistan did not permit of our advance into his territory, we had limited our movement to Quetta, a dependency of the Khan of Khelat, who was bound to us by Treaties and obligations; but

  697
  whether these were sufficient to justify us in garrisoning a fort such as Quetta, in view to ulterior and greater measures of policy than those set forth in the Blue Book, remained to be proved. For that occupation a small and insufficient Force had been sent forward, and he also doubted much the policy of that advance. If it was to be part of the English policy to advance our position into Asia from India we ought to do so in strength, and not by means of a Force that would be of no value whatever should a critical time arise. The strength of the detachment recently moved to Quetta must be very weak, for, as the official documents showed, it consisted of only one mountain battery, one regiment of Native Infantry, and a squadron of Cavalry, all Native troops, and probably numbering under 850 men. That was a force which, neither in composition nor in numbers, ought to be left exposed in a foreign position, and as yet amidst an unfriendly nation. It would sully the name and fame of England throughout all Asia if any accident befel this weak military body. It was essential to be careful of the safety and honour of our troops, and England should not take a step in advance, without the certainty that, having once placed down our foot, we could maintain our hold. No doubt below the Pass we had an equally small force located, consisting of a mountain battery, a regiment of Cavalry, and a wing of Native Infantry. This was also composed of Native troops, fewer in number than the Quetta detachment. It was, however, unreasonable to expect that this small body could support the detachment in advance, by forcing the difficult and dangerous defiles in the Bolan Pass. It was fully admitted that this movement of troops beyond the Scinde frontier was intended as a defensive measure for our vast territories of India, against the threatening or aggressive policy which, everyone must admit, was either at present more or less in operation, or else liable to be enforced by a nation, whose avowals and threats left but little doubt of their intentions, if not at this time, yet at some future period. This kind of guarding against even a certain act of aggression was not that which, in his opinion, was most suitable. The most effective kind of defence which could be carried out, was by enforcing in India thoroughly good government. It
  698
  was only by attaching the people to our rule, and by keeping our basis of operations open for an advance, that we should be safe against aggressive acts or hostile intrigues. Lord Canning had repeatedly declared that he feared a financial embarrassment more than a war, and that he would prefer holding India with diminished military forces, than with strong forces, entailing additional taxes on the people of India. We were in greater danger from the present bad state of the finances in India than from any attempts of Russia, though he admitted that Russia was a dangerous Power. He had, however, never admitted the Russian danger to arise from physical force, but only to be dreaded when frightening us into extravagant expenditure. In that physical force view Russia was weak, and was in far greater danger from our military action in Turkestan than India was from a Russian Army. But Russian intrigues were, indeed, most dangerous if India was badly governed; and as this advance to Quetta was the result of hostile intrigues, it ought not to have been made. It was our interest and our best policy to keep open Central Asia to British trade, and thereby to counteract the monopolizing spirit of Russian traders; but that was only to be done by making the trade along our land frontiers and at Indian ports free. He did not approve of the policy of giving money, in the shape of a subsidy, to the Khan of Khelat, who was only one of several Chiefs. By giving money to him alone they would probably excite the jealousy and angry passions of the others. The hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff) was not correct in saying that we had shown a "masterly inactivity" as regarded our frontier policy. On the contrary, the official Papers showed that since 1854 we had never ceased to be in hot water with the Native Chiefs of Khelat. There was one alteration which should at once be made in regard to the trade of Khelat, and which could not fail to exercise a powerful and useful influence amongst the trading classes throughout Khelat, that was by declaring the trade between India and the sea coasts of that territory, known by the names of Makran and Sonmeeannee, entirely free. The present state of our relations with that country, and the occupation of a part of its territory by

  699
  British troops, virtually made this tract a dependency of India, and entitled thereby to all the advantages of free trade. All the Chiefs, even the Khan himself, were deeply interested in trade, and there was a large part of the population who were entirely devoted to commercial pursuits and not inclined in any way for war. And if we set the good example of removing all duties from the articles passing between the sea coasts of India and of Beloochistan, and bought up the duties levied in Beloochistan, also freed goods on the frontier passing by land to and from India, we should certainly influence all classes in our favour much more effectually than could be effected by bribing the Khan Chiefs. Such a result would be a more reliable force than weak bodies of British troops isolated within the territory of Khelat, and with which he could not agree.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, that he ventured to intervene between the House and the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India (Lord George Hamilton), as he wished to express the sentiments which he believed were entertained by independent Members on the Opposition side upon this great question of Hindostan. He fully endorsed and sympathized with much that had been so well said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), a Gentleman whose long and profound knowledge of India entitled his remarks to respect. It was by good government, by justice, and by conciliating the people of India that we could alone hope to retain dominion there; and if our power perished, it would be because we had not treated her people as we should. He was sorry to think that we did not fulfil our duty in that particular, and that we still continued to govern India on the same insolent principles on which we had long ruled Ireland, and with the same result—smothered disaffection and dissatisfaction with our government. This being so, it was our duty, if we did not improve our administration, at all events to take measures for our own protection and safety. We could not shut our eyes to the fact that Russia was advancing slowly but surely over Central Asia. She had but one object ever in view, and that was to destroy English supremacy and influence in Hindostan. The day could not be far off when the
  700
  great fight would come, which would require every man that we could bring into the field, when we should have to battle, as it were, for existence, with this ambitious Empire. He had listened, therefore, with astonishment to the speech of the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff). What admission had that hon. Gentleman made? Why, this—that Russia at the present moment was intriguing with the Ameer and with the Khan of Khelat. Intriguing for what purpose? To undermine British authority. And yet the hon. Gentleman had advised that we should remain quiet; that we should do nothing but rest upon our oars, while our most powerful and deadly enemy in Asia was plotting our destruction. Do not interfere in any way, said the hon. Gentleman, to circumvent this plotter. Was that common sense, or what was it? He (Dr. Kenealy) protested against Her Majesty's Ministers entertaining any such wild policy, and thought that they had exercised sound wisdom in the course which they had pursued. What did Russia mean? Conquest! Conquest of what? Of India. And what did that mean, but the ruin of England? Wherever Russia went—wherever she held sway—she followed but one course, and that was to annihilate our trade, to destroy our commerce, to prohibit our manufactures. And what did that mean to our operatives? Simply ruin. Her hope was, if she conquered Hindostan, to subdue China next; and if that were so, this nation would be excluded from the two mighty markets that she possessed. What, then, would become of our greatness? India gone, China subjugated, we lost the two greatest marts in the world, and how could our millions live? It had always been matter of astonishment to him that the Peace Party—the Manchester Party, who depended so much upon trade, could not see this. But it was clear that, with all their keenness, they never had been able to realize the true result even in idea. And yet it was a certain thing if our Indian Empire was wrested from us. In his opinion, we had all along been too calm, too quiet. The Peace Party cried out that this fear of Russia was all a bugbear. It was nothing of the sort, but a stern reality, which we should have to face some day with fire and sword, and every soldier.

  701
  Every man who had been to India, or who had given her any of his study, must know and feel this. And there was an instinctive sentiment in the hearts of all our countrymen in that Peninsula that our motto should be "Forward." He believed in instinct, and in this instinct. He thought that those who dwelt in India were far better judges than we of what was the wisest policy to pursue. They were on the spot—we were thousands upon thousands of miles away. He believed that these Russian intrigues foreboded terrible consequences. The hon. Gentleman had told us a good deal about the Ameer of Afghanistan. It appeared that he was in a state of disquiet and discontent because we had gone to Khelat. He did not care much for his discontent. He had no faith in this Ameer. He believed him to be no better than a Russian secret agent. He had chafed ever since an arbitration had been decided against him, in which Lord Northbrook had played some part. That reminded him that perhaps there never was a worse Governor General in India than Lord Northbrook, or one who had done more by misrule to alienate the Natives from us. He doubted whether he had not done as much as Clive or Hastings to disgust the people with our sway. Fortunate it was that he had been recalled, and had been replaced by the present Viceroy, who had been just to the Native population, and had secured their love and confidence. Well, it appeared that this Ameer was out of humour, and he had made a speech at Cabul. The hon. Gentleman had not told us on what authority he quoted that supposed speech.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The Mirror of India.
  DR. KENEALYsupposed that that Mirror did not always give a true reflection; and, probably the report of the speech was like reports of speeches in other papers. But, assuming it to be true, what did the hon. Gentleman tell us? Why, this—that we should abandon Khelat to reconcile us with the Ameer.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I did not say that.
  DR. KENEALY: I took it down at the time, and if the hon. Gentleman has forgotten it, I cannot help that.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: It was in the speech of the Ameer.
  DR. KENEALYunderstood the hon. Member to endorse all that the Ameer had said. He was glad to find that he was mistaken. Who was this Ameer? He did not come of a good stock. He was the son of old Dost Mohammed, whose proceedings some years ago this nation never could forget. He did not care, therefore, very much about him, though he regretted at the same time that Lord Northbrook, amid his other great errors, had by his conduct helped to turn the Ameer into a foe. This he knew from many Indians whom he was in the habit of meeting—that there was but one feeling throughout the length and breadth of Hindostan, and that one was against the late Governor General. The contrast which they drew between him and his Successor was painful to contemplate. The hon. Gentleman had intimated that the intrigues which were going on ought not be noticed, and had asked, what were they to us? They were a great deal to us, for Russian intrigues usually ended in war and blood. But the hon. Gentleman had neutralized the whole of his arguments on this matter, because he wound up by saying ''that whatever happened Cabul must side with us." If that were so, and Affghanistan opinion were in that direction, the Ameer would have to go with it, no matter how much he was annoyed. The hon. Gentleman had advanced another strange proposition—that Lord Lytton was a diplomatist, and therefore unfit to be Viceroy. And he lamented that in the interview which he had with Lord Salisbury before he left this country for Calcutta, the latter had "stimulated the Viceroy's unfortunate taste for diplomacy." Thus, the very quality which a Ruler should possess was accounted as his chief defect. How could this strange language be characterized? And how were Empires ruled and maintained but by wise diplomacy? He would not pursue the matter further, but hoped that Her. Majesty's Ministers would proceed in the way in which they were going, and would do all they could to check the march and the plans of Russia. He did not regard their proceedings in Khelat as a military menace of any kind. It was absurd to call it so. The small number of soldiers— under 1,000—that accompanied the Envoy could be viewed only as a guard of honour, and in that light the Khan

  703
  of Khelat regarded it. Nobody could say that it was an army of occupation. He hoped that, if it were necessary, the Government would go still farther, and advance even beyond Khelat, to stop intrigues and countercheck plotting. Let there be no hesitation; this country would support Ministers in their conduct. Our whole existence as a commercial Empire was threatened by Russia. He did not see why we should not struggle against her.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Grant Duff) who had opened the debate, in a speech characterized by his usual sobriety of thought and that sense of responsibility which his long connection with the India Office imparted, had asked the Government to give the House some explanation with regard to certain action which had been taken by the Indian Government upon the North-West Frontier of India. He had, however, made one omission which he (Lord George Hamilton) must supply. His hon. Friend spoke at some length upon the policy which had for some time past been in existence in India; but he did not tell the House what the result of that policy was. Now, before any censure could be attached to any Government for an apparent change in carrying out a particular policy, there were some things which we should have clearly in our minds. In the first place, we should consider whether the circumstances now were precisely the same as they were when that policy was initiated; we had next to consider whether the manner of carrying out that policy had been accompanied by a perfect success; and it depended on the reply to be given to those two questions whether the change that had taken place was fussy and foolish, or whether it was wise and statesmanlike. Among the difficult tasks which the Indian Government had to perform, none perhaps required more careful watching than the relations with the Frontier tribes on the North-West. We, a civilized Government, occupied a territory touching upon a series of almost inaccessible mountains, inhabited by large and semi-barbarous tribes. They from time immemorial had been accustomed to bloodshed and plundering. They had been accustomed to descend from their mountain fastnesses in order to prey upon agriculturists living in parts of our territory. When the Punjab
  704
  was annexed great attention was bestowed on the policy to be pursued towards these Frontier tribes. These tribes might be divided into two classes—one ruled over by the Ameer of Affghanistan, and the other by the Khan of Khelat. The controlling powers of these Rulers was to a very considerable extent nominal, and although we were bound to enter directly into negotiations with them, yet the Indian Government never held them directly responsible for the acts of people over whom they had only nominal control. Two principles were laid down by Lord Dalhousie—one was, abstention from unnecessary interference with the internal affairs of these tribes; the other was, cultivation by all means of friendly relations with them externally. That was the policy which had always been carried out by all subsequent Viceroys, and was shown in the various Treaties entered into with the Rulers of Khelat and Affghanistan. There was a considerable difference in the institutions, the nature, and character of these two countries, and our dealings with them varied. In Khelat we had an agent, and paid the Khan an annual sum. In Affghanistan we had in one way or another helped the Ameer by presents of arms and also by a subsidy, but we had no European officer residing in his territory. Now that was the manner in which the Indian Government had for more than 20 years past endeavoured to carry out their Frontier policy, and it was only fair to the Indian Government that he should describe what was the exact state of affairs when Lord Lytton arrived in India. He must protest against the language used by the ton. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) with reference to Lord Northbrook. Lord Northbrook had during his Vice-royalty, which doubtless passed over a somewhat quiet period, displayed an intimate knowledge of India, an aptitude for business, and a straightforward candour in all his dealings, both with Europeans and Natives, which had won for him the highest regard, and had, he believed, endeared him to the people of India. He was quite sure they all recognized the well-earned honour which Her Majesty had conferred upon him on his return from India, and he hoped his life would long be spared so that he could give in "another place" his advice arid assistance in the many complications of

  705
  Indian matters. What was the state of affairs when Lord Lytton went out? When Lord Lytton arrived in India we had broken off relations with Khelat; our agent had been withdrawn, and our subsidy had been withheld. Our merchants were unable to trade, for the great outlet from India to Central Asia was blocked. In Affghanistan our relations certainly had not improved in cordiality—for what reason it was unnecessary to say; but the Ameer of Affghanistan bad refused to receive the £100,000 which the Indian Government annually paid to him. Lord Lytton went out with a full knowledge of the importance of establishing friendly relations with these two neighbouring Sovereigns. He knew also that the question of Central Asian politics had passed from a local to an Imperial phase. He was also fully aware that, owing to the unsettled state of affairs in the East of Europe, there was considerable commotion all along our Border. Eight days before he arrived in India, however, Lord Northbrook was compelled to undertake a very important step. Our relations with Khelat had got into such a state towards the end of 1875 that Sir William Merewether wrote to Lord Northbrook that there were only three courses open to us—first, to break off all relations with Khelat, and allow the state of anarchy then existing to continue. But that was a course which, the Indian Government could not agree to, because constant feuds disturbed the tranquillity of our Border. The next course which Sir William suggested was that we should occupy Khelat and annex it. That was a course wholly contrary to our Indian policy, and which Lord Northbrook declined. The third course was that a responsible agent should be sent to mediate between the contending parties, the Khan and his Sirdars, and establish more amicable relations. Lord Northbrook wrote this despatch to the Khan of Khelat, which was so important that he would read it at length. It was dated Fort William, March. 20, 1876—
  "I have received your Highness's letter in which you communicate your wish to remain under the protection of the British Government, and your urgent desire to offer explanations in order to prevent a severance of the friendly relations which long existed between Khelat and the British Government. My friend! the British Government has always desired the maintenance
  706
  of friendly relations with the Khelat State, and I would remind your Highness that the suspension of these relations, which has unhappily continued for nearly three years past, is the result of your Highness's own conduct. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept your High-ness's communication as evidence of regret for the past and a desire for reconciliation. I have, accordingly, determined to authorize Colonel Munro, the officer now in charge of Khelat affairs, to depute Major Sandeman, an officer who possesses my full confidence, and with whom your Highness is already personally acquainted, for the purpose of conferring with your Highness upon the affairs of Khelat, and, if possible, effecting a settlement of all disputes. I take this step in the expectation that your Highness will not fail to co-operate sincerely and heartily with Major Sandeman in the adjustment of all existing differences, whether in respect to your relations with my Government or in respect to the chieftains and tribes of Beloochistan. By hearkening to Major Sandeman's counsels, and acting in conformity with his advice, your Highness will afford the best proof of the sincerity of your professions, and relieve me from the necessity of taking further measures to secure the tranquillity of the British Frontier and the protection of trade."
  It was absolutely necessary to speak thus plainly to the Khan. Major Sandeman accordingly mediated between the Sirdars and the Khan, tranquillity was established, and the Bolan Pass was opened to trade. That expedition was thus attended with success; and on a second mission, Major Sandeman succeeded in establishing tranquillity and commercial relations. Having thus succeeded in effecting the primary object of his mission Major Sandeman wrote to the Government of India expressing a hope that our intervention would be permanent, and requesting leave to interfere to a certain extent in the affairs of Khelat. The Viceroy, very judiciously, declined to sanction such interference. As Quetta, however, was the most convenient station for conducting further negotiations Major Sandeman had remained there. The escort of 986 men who had accompanied Major Sandeman, who were all Natives, were also sent to Quetta; but the mere fact that the Force was under 1,000 men—a Force with which it would be evidently impossible to take the field with any effect—of itself showed that they were not sent for aggressive purposes. He therefore hoped the House would dismiss from their minds the idea that either aggression or annexation was intended. Lord Lytton expressed his regret that Major Sandeman had been sent to Khelat before he arrived, as he

  707
  wished to have sent at the same time an Envoy to Cabul to explain the object of Major Sandeman's mission. If any suspicion had arisen in the Ameer's mind, it was most desirable that the earliest opportunity should be taken of removing this suspicion, and restoring the cordiality that Prince had previously shown. Lord Lytton was compelled to adopt a somewhat isolated action as regarded Affghanistan. His opinion was, that if any such difficult negotiation was to be undertaken between the Indian Government and the Cabul Durbad, the agent should be European, and Sir Lewis Pelly was accordingly selected for that duty. He met an Envoy from the Ameer, and spent some time in negotiation; but before those negotiations terminated the Envoy of the Ameer died, and in all the circumstances of the case the Governor General thought it would not be expedient to continue these negotiations. He hoped that the frank exchange of opinion which had undoubtedly passed between Sir Lewis Pelly and the Ameer's Envoy had removed previous misconception, and would lead to a restoration of those friendly terms which had formerly existed. With the opinion which his hon. Friend entertained of Lord Lytton, he could find no greater consolation than was furnished by his Lordship's declaration that he looked upon Frontier matters as part and parcel of the Foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government; and if his hon. Friend had complete confidence in the assurances of Lord Salisbury, what better guarantee could he have than Lord Lytton's statement that the action of the Indian Government would be in accordance with Lord Salisbury's assurances? It was of no use discussing questions affecting Central Asia as if they were purely Indian questions; if they had been, the long correspondence between the British and the Russian Governments upon Central Asian affairs would not have taken place, and the Teheran Mission would not have been transferred to the Foreign Office. These questions were of such an Imperial character that not long ago the control of them was transferred from the India Office to the Foreign Office. If questions arising West of Affghanistan were considered to be Imperial, surely the Viceroy was wise in placing those that arose East of Affghan-
  708
  istan in the same category. No language or axiom could afford a better guarantee that the Indian Government were not about to embark in a policy of aggression in Central Asia. It remained to him to explain the reasons for the proposed changes in the administration of the Frontier districts. When Scinde was conquered it was placed under the Government of Bombay, and when we annexed the Punjab, that was placed under the Supreme Government; and thus the Frontier was in the anomalous position of being half under one Government and half under another. Different systems of treating the Natives were necessary, and were attended with success; but they came to overlap each other, and at length trouble arose from the decisions of one set of British officers being played against those of another. Lord North-brook, therefore, joined Scinde to the Punjab, making a territory larger than the North-West Provinces; and, to lighten the onerous duties of the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, as well as to avoid the inconvenience of Frontier questions passing through the local Government to the Supreme Government, Lord Lytton proposed to take a slice off the Punjab and to place it under a Frontier Commissioner with two Sub-Commissioners directly subject to the central authority at Calcutta. There was much to be said for and against this scheme, which was under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council, and when he came to a decision upon it, the Papers should be issued; but it would be premature to present them without his deliberate opinion. If there was an appearance of departure from our past policy, there was no departure from the principles underlying that policy, but only a change in the method of carrying them out. There were divergent opinions as to the best means of establishing settled relations with the tribes of the North-West Frontier, and it was difficult to reconcile them; but in dealing with these Frontier troubles the Government had only one object in view. India had now been for many years an integral part of Her Majesty's dominions. He was not one of those who believed that India was likely to be invaded, at all events for some years to come. Any Power which undertook the invasion of India would be undertaking a somewhat hopeless enterprize. At the

  709
  same time, as the Frontier was inhabited by turbulent tribes, who if their relations were unsatisfactory with us and were stirred up by foreign intrigue might occasion us a great deal of anxiety. It was, then, the primary duty of every one at the India Office, without departing from the sound principles laid down by his Predecessors, and while not unnecessarily interfering with those tribes, to lose no time in establishing these cordial relations with them, as would make India not only an integral, but also an invulnerable part of the British Empire.
  MR. WHALLEYexpressed his approval of the speech of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India, but said the question was one which involved Imperial interests extending far beyond India. He (Mr. Whalley) had been called to Order in the earlier part of the Sitting, and he did not know whether that had been done because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had some misgiving as to what he was about to say. He declared now that the only possible explanation of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the Eastern Question was, that we were now being made the advocate and the sword of the Papacy against the Czar as the head of the Greek Church. We did not merely drift, but were dragged into the Crimean War by the same infernal influence, against the intentions and the sober judgment of those who were at that time responsible for our actions. With reference to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy), could anything be more improper, could anything be more unbecoming, could anything be more dangerous at the present moment, than to drag in the character of Russia, to allege that she had been intriguing, and to say that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to oppose her? He did not wish to intrude unnecessarily upon the attention of the House; but he must express his conviction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a great responsibility upon himself in preventing a discussion of that memorable despatch of Lord Derby's, dated 6th May, in which his Lordship had stated, in all but so many words, that the Emperor of Russia was a deliberate falsifier. That was the question which the hon.
  710
  Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had desired to raise; and he (Mr. Whalley) protested against the right hon. Gentleman opposite having deprived the House of an opportunity of debating a proceeding which had done about as much as language could effect to embitter the relations between this country and Russia. What he might term forcible feebleness had never been better exemplified than in the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to certain Questions which he (Mr. Whalley) had sought to address to him on this subject. The first time he interrogated him the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was—"I cannot answer;" the second time the reply again was—"I cannot answer; "and the third time, when he was threatening to express his opinions, he was called to Order for a slip in logic for which he was not responsible, and the Leader of the House, without affording him (Mr. Whalley) an opportunity of giving an explanation, as he had a right to do under the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's own Resolution, had moved that he be suspended from debate—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must call the hon. Member to Order. The question as to the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not now before the House. The only question before the House was the second reading of the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had always thought that in these matters considerable latitude was allowed. He had been endeavouring to compare the extraordinary strictness and exactitude of view manifested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the conduct of the Business in that House, with the conduct of the Government which he represented in sanctioning the despatch of Lord Derby of 6th May, in which the Emperor of Russia was charged with having receded from his plighted word —in which, in our vernacular, the Czar was called something like a liar. [Cries of "Order!"] That was the sort of language which had been used towards the Emperor, and it was in such circumstances that they were now asked, without pronouncing any opinion upon that despatch, to leave the conduct of relations between this country and Russia in the hands of Her Majesty's

  711
  Government during the Recess. He confessed that that fact excited in his mind an anxiety as to the result which was nothing short of painful. He objected to the course which had been followed in the matter, and he was prepared to make any efforts, at any sacrifice, to bring the subject fully and fairly before the country.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that although he had hitherto been unable to catch the Speaker's eye, the subjects raised were those to which he had paid so much attention that he thought it was not right that the discussion should close without his submitting some observations on the question. The statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India was a very satisfactory statement, of which he had not much to complain, except for the few words at the close, and for certain statements of facts to which he was obliged to take exception. The noble Lord had told them that when Lord Lytton was appointed Viceroy, in consequence of events which were at that time happening in Eastern Europe, our Indian Frontiers were in a state of considerable commotion. He (Sir George Campbell) could not find anything in the Blue Books to that effect, and he could not understand how such should be the case. On the contrary, he thought the Blue Books showed that whatever disturbances and difficulties had existed they were purely local, and had their origin in local reasons. There was another matter to which the noble Lord drew attention—the statement in the letter of the Viceroy of the 23rd March as to there being "foreign intrigue" with reference to Khelat. He (Sir George Campbell) could see no evidence in the Blue Book of anything of the kind, and he did not suppose that any such evidence existed. If the noble Lord intended to justify the present action of the Government of India on those grounds, he thought his case was a poor one. The Governor General of Russian Turkestan was a somewhat active and fussy man—General Kauffman—who had separated himself from the control of St. Petersburg; but we had the authority of Mr. Schuyler, who had told them that the course pursued by this gentleman was perfectly regular and above-board so far as we were concerned. Therefore, so long as this charge
  712
  of foreign intrigue rested merely upon vague rumours, we must refuse to believe them altogether. The noble Lord had said that the Government had not adopted an aggressive policy in India. He quite believed with the noble Lord that nothing like aggression or annexation was intended; but the fact remained that our military Frontier had been pushed forward considerably—to the extent of 200 to 250 miles. He regretted to hear that an Envoy had been despatched to Cabul, more especially because the Ameer of Cabul had refused to receive him, and had stated that he would not be responsible for his personal safety. Such a determination on the part of the Government, in his opinion, marked the inauguration of a policy of activity instead of one of inactivity. The noble Lord had not told them what was the result of this meeting between the Ameer of Cabul and our special Envoy; and inasmuch as our present relations with Cabul were anything but satisfactory, he presumed that nothing good had resulted from the mission. The fact was, we were still labouring under the difficulties which commenced with the war between 1838 and 1842. The Affghans still remembered that campaign, and as they were a people who were most suspicious as to any interference, he believed that despatching the Envoy would retard rather than hasten a settlement of our differences. It was supposed also in India that the re-arrangement to which the noble Lord had referred was due to the desire of the Viceroy to bring the Frontier under his own more immediate control by the appointment of a subordinate who would be in direct communication with himself. We were bound, no doubt, to look to the security of our Frontier; but beyond that object, at present, at least, we ought not to go. With regard to the Affghans, they were still extremely jealous of us, and our best policy was not to seek to interfere in their affairs, but to wait till they asked favours of us. If we held aloof, he had no doubt the time would come when they would make advances to us. As far as he was concerned, he thought the policy which we ought to pursue in India was one of "masterly inactivity," which they had hitherto followed, and he feared that the action of the Viceroy showed a policy of activity on the Frontiers would soon be

  713
  substituted for it. He was sorry that the letter of the 23rd March had ever been written, and he was afraid that by printing it in the Blue Book the Government intended rather to express an opinion in its favour. He trusted, however, that such was not the fact. He was glad that the debate had taken place, as it would enable the whole subject to be thrashed out before the end of the Session, and he hoped some explanation would be given with reference to the points he had raised. There was no doubt that a considerable change of policy had taken place between the Viceroyalty of Lord Northbrook and Lord Lytton, and that the Viceroy wished or intended to go far beyond the "John Jacob" policy, and he (Sir George Campbell) did not think it was a change for the better. He had stated last year, when the Bill constituting the Queen Empress of India was under discussion, that he regarded it as a sign that for the future we were about to pursue a policy of activity. He was assured at the time it was not so; in fact, he was pooh-poohed and laughed at, but circumstances since then had proved that he was right. He thought it was most prudent for us not to enter into a course of interference in the case of Central India, but the Blue Book showed that the present Viceroy was of a different opinion. He hoped to hear that the Government would not encourage him in thus pushing forward. He would next refer to the State Envoy sent from the Sultan of Turkey to the Ameer of Affghanistan, who, according to a telegram received that day, had arrived at Bombay, and who to reach his destination would have to pass through our territory. He looked upon a step of that kind as a mistake. In his opinion, we ought not to meddle ourselves with these people; while, at the same time, we ought to see that nobody else meddled with them, and he trusted they would be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government were not encouraging any diplomatic interference between the Sultan of Turkey and the Ameer of Affghanistan, as such a policy would be a dangerous one. To try and rule the Mohamedans of India by means of the Sultan would be like endeavouring to govern Ireland with the assistance of the Pope. He was sure that such a system could not answer.
  714
  He therefore trusted nothing would be done beyond letting the Envoy pass through our territory, without any notice, just as any one else might be allowed to pass through. He, at one time, supposed that the noble Lord at the head of the India Office was afraid of the Russian advance; but he had hoped that after he had been brought into intimate contact with Representatives of Russia at Constantinople all fear on this head would have vanished. He (Sir George Campbell) did not believe with the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) that we should at one time or another necessarily have a great war with Russia. Russia, in his opinion, was not an aggressive Power, and had not succeeded in advancing very far from her own frontiers. He thought there was no probability of a rapid advance of Russia in India. They were more likely to try and take away our trade in China; and before the great war to which the hon. Member for Stoke had alluded took place, he believed it not unlikely that Russia, as a Power, would have fallen to pieces. He ventured to express the hope that in the interest of the world and in the interest of humanity, the Government would maintain a good understanding with Russia, and he hoped the result of the events now going on in Europe would be that we should return to our friendly understanding and concert with that country. He did not believe one word of the atrocities which were manufactured by Pashas for English readers; but he felt that in a war like this, there must be great loss of life and frightful suffering amongst the population, and he hoped that directly the Government could see their way to assist in putting a stop to the war they would do so; and that when a settlement took place it would take the form of providing for a different form of government for the Christian subjects of the Porte.
  MR. ONSLOWconsidered the last speaker had gone considerably beyond the mark in his observations. The simple question they had to consider was, what was to be done with the Frontier tribes? In his opinion, that was a matter which was not only a serious, but a dangerous one—one too important to be left in the hands of a Lieutenant Governor, however able, and that it should be dealt with by the Viceroy himself. He could not conceive how

  715
  the mere sending of an Embassy to Beloochistan could be interpreted as a step towards the annexation of that province. This country could have no desire to enlarge her territory; but still he thought the policy of non-annexation had been carried too far. If we were to annex any more territory, we should first be sure of the ground on which we proceeded, and of the likelihood of our maintaining a friendly feeling with the people whose territory we annexed, and all that the Governor General wished to express by the despatch of the 23rd of March was, that the preservation of the interests of the Natives living within our own borders should be the first consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and he (Mr. Onslow) thought that, in the long run, that policy would have a good effect, as it would confirm the Natives on each side of the Frontier that we were determined to hold India against every other Power in the world; and it was, too, a policy of which he trusted the House would now approve. The time had come, he thought, when matters of Frontier policy should be taken out of the hands of Lieutenant Governors and placed in those of the Viceroy, as the central authority. Whatever the policy might be, he would prefer to see a policy of activity to that of "masterly inactivity."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish, Sir, to address a few observations to the House on a subject which appears to me to be of extreme importance, and as to which I think it would be desirable that Her Majesty's Government should add somewhat to the assurances as to their policy which have been given to us by the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton). I listened with, on the whole, general, if not entire, satisfaction to the statement made by the noble Lord, who stated that if there were any change in our Indian Frontier policy, it was on account of changed circumstances, and not on account of any change in the intentions or objects of the Government; and I understood the noble Lord's meaning to be that the circumstances to which he referred were local Frontier matters, and that, they did not refer to those larger questions to which my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Grant Duff) alluded. Another part of the statement and argument of the noble Lord, however, appeared to me
  716
  to be less re-assuring and satisfactory. It was not necessary for the noble Lord to enter into any defence of the interference which had occurred in Khelat. As the noble Lord pointed out, that interference commenced during the administration of Lord Northbrook, who entirely shared the opinions of the most pacific Administrators of India on this Frontier question. What my hon. Friend asked was, whether the occupation of Quetta was to be permanent, and, if so, on what ground, local or general, that occupation was to be maintained? From the statement of the noble Lord, I gather that the occupation is to be permanent; at all events, that the Government have no intention of withdrawing at present. But I understood the noble Lord to say that the occupying Force was so small that it could not excite apprehension of aggression in any mind. But, as has been pointed out, the very smallness of the Force may prove to be a source of danger. The smallness of the Force situated in a position of considerable danger almost invites aggression, and further steps might very conceivably become necessary to defend it. The noble Lord also defended the despatch of Lord Lytton on the subject of our Frontier policy. My hon. Friend called attention to the terms of the despatch, in which Lord Lytton says that he—
  "feels strongly impressed with the importance of endeavouring to deal with these questions simultaneously as indivisible facts of a single Imperial question depending for its solution on the foreign policy of the Government.
  The noble Lord, I admit, gave some very plausible reasons why our Indian Frontier policy, as well as all other matters of foreign policy, should be under the control, not of less responsible Governors, but of the Viceroy or Secretary of State. But I cannot help remembering that that has not been the opinion held by the most competent and most pacific, and some of the most able of our Indian Administrators. Most of these have been of opinion that these matters are best dealt with locally, and not as matters of Imperial policy. I confess I do not pretend to be an authority upon this subject; but what I conceive to be the difference between the two policies is this—there is no question as to a policy of non-interference. The character of the tribes bordering on the Frontier is such that it is absolutely ne-

  717
  cessary we should, from time to time, take part in their affairs to preserve tranquillity on our Frontier. But there are two different policies which are advocated on this question. As I understand it, the one policy would interfere as little as possible; and when it does interfere, it would do so solely with reference to local objects; it would terminate its interference as early as possible, and do nothing except what was necessary for the end in view. That is the policy which, up to the present time, has been adopted by the most able of our Indian Administrators. The other policy, instead of interfering as little as possible, would interfere—I will not say as much as possible—but on many and various occasions, not with the idea of dealing with the local and immediate questions which had arisen, but with the general idea of extending and increasing our dominion among the Frontier tribes, and with the ultimate object of establishing that influence which would counteract that advancing influence of Russia of which we have heard in Central Asia. That is the policy which my hon. Friend apprehended lay under the expressions quoted by him from Lord Lytton's despatch. That is the policy which he wished the Government to disown, which I understood, upon the whole, the noble Lord has disowned, and which, I think, it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would still more distinctly and emphatically disown. I am not qualified to speak with any authority on Indian questions; but, from the little I know respecting them, I should like to hear from Her Majesty's Government that there is no fundamental change in the principle which hitherto has governed our Indian policy; that that policy is directed to the maintenance of peace and tranquillity within our own borders, and, as far as possible, in the immediate vicinity of our borders, and that we are not about to adopt a new policy for the purpose of meeting the—I will not say imaginary —but, at all events, the distant danger which is apprehended from the advance of Russia in Central Asia. I can add very little to the knowledge of the House on this subject; but if I can obtain an expression of his opinion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall not consider that I have addressed the House in vain.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I feel undoubtedly bound to respond to the appeal which the noble Lord has made to me; and I do so both because it is my duty to speak if I am challenged on behalf of the Government, and also because this is a question in which I have in former times taken a good deal of interest. And although I must frankly own that I am not so familiar with all the details and all the arrangements of the subject as to be able to speak upon every point upon which it may occur to hon. Members to put questions, yet I can speak with confidence on the general lines of policy which I have always considered ought to be followed, and which I believe the Government are fully determined to follow, in the matter of our Indian policy. My hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff), speaking with that knowledge and clearness which he always shows in treating these subjects, spoke of two schools which may be recognized in regard to the question of our frontier policy in India. He spoke of the school which advocates what may be called a forward policy, and of the opposite school, which is rather for keeping back, and not committing us to advancing beyond our frontiers. I have myself, as my hon. Friend has reminded us, always leant to the policy of the second of those schools. I have always demurred to the idea which has been put forward by some, that the best way to meet danger is to advance beyond our frontier, and have always held that the true lines we ought to lay down for ourselves are these —to strengthen ourselves within our frontiers, and to do so by a combination of measures, moral and material. I believe myself that the first and most important of all the measures we can take for the defence of India is to improve in every possible way the government of that country—to improve the condition of the people, and to conciliate as much as possible, and to gain the affections and confidence of those whom we rule. And, secondly, I think it is most important that we should in every possible way endeavour to husband the wealth and resources of India; and that it is of great importance to do all we can to complete—I am now speaking in a certain sense of a military question, as to which I am no authority—to complete our internal lines of communication, so

  719
  hat we should be able to proceed rapidly to any point where we might be threatened, rather than that we should expend our force by distance, and weaken ourselves by an unwise advance. In all these views—which are the views I have always been led to hold as the best mode of protecting India from direct attack— I believe there is no change whatever in the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But when I say that, I must also remind the House of other views which I have held in former times, which I hold now, and which I think we should do wrong to leave out of sight. Though not in the least afraid of the material effects of any attack upon our Indian possessions by any military Power, if we are sufficiently careful to husband our resources and strengthen our position in the way I have described—yet we have to guard against moral effects which may be produced within our dominions by proceedings outside our borders, if these proceedings are of a character calculated to shake the confidence of any of Her Majesty's subjects. In this discussion I have heard something said about foreign intrigues, and about the necessity for taking steps to counteract the effect of these intrigues. Then hon. Gentlemen get up and ask—"What do you mean by foreign intrigues? Do you mean the intrigues of Russia? If so, what evidence have you of the existence of these intrigues?" What I say with regard to this is—not that intrigues are actually going on, but that the rumours and suspicions that are raised that something is going on here or there— that the influence of some great Power is advancing, and that the influence of England is waning—that, in fact, our time is drawing near and that a change is at hand—all these rumours have a very dangerous, and might have a very disastrous, effect on our position in India; and therefore it is necessary to have a policy beyond our frontiers in order that we may take note of what is going on there, and if possible prevent any mischiefs that may be contemplated. The circumstances of India at the time when I was more intimately acquainted with it were so different from the present state of things that a different mode of treatment has been necessary and desirable—I refer particularly to what has been called the occupation of Quetta and Khelat, and the advisability of taking
  720
  precautionary steps to guard ourselves against attack from that side. As to the occupation of Quetta, if we are to regard that advance from a military point of view—a step in the nature of taking up a certain position to defend ourselves against an apprehended attack—then I should maintain the opinion that it would be a false move; but if our relations with the Government of Khelat are of such a character as to demand that we should take certain steps to improve and regulate those relations—if it is thought right and desirable that we should send an Envoy there, and that the Envoy should be accompanied by a sufficient escort to secure him an honourable reception, I do not see that such a course can be open to objection, or can be liable to the construction that in taking such a step, Her Majesty's Government are doing anything that is inconsistent with the policy that has hitherto been pursued—the policy originated by Lord North brook, approved by my noble Friend Lord Salisbury, and continued by the present Viceroy Lord Lytton. I gather from the language of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) and the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) that they are not dissatisfied with the explanation of my noble Friend if they could only feel sure that there was not something behind. They refer to some expressions used by my noble Friend, Lord Lytton, in which he speaks of the desirability of considering our frontier policy as a whole, and treating it from an Imperial point of view, and they seem to assume that that policy is going to change its character, and pass from a policy of inactivity into one of activity. I do not admit that that is a fair construction of the language of my noble Friend's despatch. It does not follow because we lay down the doctrine of a frontier policy, that we determine what that particular policy should be. It is obvious that you may find your policy of inactivity thwarted in many cases by the absence of a true frontier policy. If you leave matters to be regulated entirely by the Lieutenant Governors of the different Provinces along the frontier, and not by the Government of India, under the direct supervision of the Imperial Government, you run a great risk of some step being taken by a local Governor here and there, on his own autho-

  721
  rity, without the directions of the superior Government, which may commit the superior Government to a course of proceedings which would not be safe. The true idea of a frontier policy is one which will leave in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor of Provinces a certain amount of power, but will leave them under the control of the Viceroy and of the Imperial Government; for it is only by such control that satisfactory relations with our neighbours beyond the frontiers can be maintained; and the more difficult they become the more desirable it is that the policy to be adopted should be in the hands of the Supreme Government. That is, I apprehend, the reason why the Government desire to make changes in the administrative conditions and regulations of our frontier Provinces. There seem to be good reason for making a change in that respect. It is most inconvenient that one portion of the frontier should be under the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab and another under the Commissioner of Scinde; and it is a double inconvenience when a special officer is appointed to look after frontier arrangements—you have a division of authority which is likely to lead to complications and difficulties, which is very desirable to avoid. Upon that point my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) has explained that a Correspondence is going on. The matter is of so much importance that the Secretary of State naturally consults his Colleagues upon it—but whatever is done will be done for the reasons and upon the grounds I have stated—in order to prevent the dangers to which I have adverted, and with a view to strengthen our position. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not run away with the idea that there is any great revolutionary change of Indian policy in our minds; nothing could be more unfortunate than that that should be. We have two dangers to guard against. We have, on the one hand, to guard against exciting the people of India into believing that there is some great policy of aggression in contemplation; and, on the other hand, against the idea that we are cowed and inactive through fear of some great foe that is coming upon us. Neither of these views is true. The policy of England in India is—as it ought to be—a firm and courageous policy, because a temperate policy. The lines of it are to
  722
  strengthen our position in that country, to do everything we can to improve the condition of the people; not to provoke attack, and yet to be ready. It is necessary to have regard to our relations with the bordering Tribes—and I do not deny that it becomes all the more necessary, when events take place in Central Asia, or elsewhere, which cause agitation and excitement among those tribes. The main lines of our policy are unchanged, and I believe the country will be satisfied with, and will wish them to continue.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEexpressed his gratification at the line which had been taken up both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India, but he regretted that nothing had been said on the military side. The despatches which had just been laid before the House were of the deepest importance, and it was to be regretted that they had been delivered so late as to prevent more hon. Members from reading them. He found from those Papers that by Article 4 of the Treaty recently executed with the Khan of Khelat, arrangements were to be made for the permanent residence there of two British Residents with a suitable escort. In conformity with this, arrangements had been made as to the military escort. Telegraph lines had been ordered, and other important works at Quetta. The land had been surveyed for a military railway, and permanent barracks were to be erected. That was a very different state of things from that shadowed forth by the speeches of either the Prime Minister last year, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion. The Papers certainly did not bear out the view that nothing had been done which was inconsistent with friendliness towards Russia. He contended that it was not true that Central Asia was under the Foreign Office. It was well known that if a question affecting Kashgar, for instance, was asked in the House, the answer would be given by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India, and not by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He could but think that the suggestion of Lord Northbrook for the establishment of Commissioners for the Frontier districts would work disadvantageously, and be a step entirely in the wrong direction.

MERCANTILE MARINE — MERCHANT SHIPPING AND SEAMEN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GORSTsaid, before the Appropriation Bill was passed, he wished to draw the attention of the Government to a pledge which they gave last Session, but which still remained unredeemed—that they would deal with the state of the law by which merchant seamen were liable to be imprisoned for a breach of contract. He could not, of course, attempt to discuss that question now; and he had no doubt that if it were discussed, they would find considerable difference of opinion as to the extent to which these laws required amendment. The Government, however, last year had emphatically promised to deal with the question this Session, a pledge which they had neglected to fulfil. His object, however, in rising was to urge upon the Government the necessity of dealing with this question in the ensuing Session. Merchant seamen were not a class who had much social or electoral influence, and on that account their wants and grievances were apt to be somewhat overlooked.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had remarked very properly on the omission of the Government to deal with the subject this year. The Act of 1875 had given further powers to the Board of Trade to stop unseaworthy ships, but the duration of that measure was limited to October, 1876. The provisions of that Act were included in the Act of 1876, which extended their operation, not only to British, but also to foreign ships, thus giving the Board of Trade a remarkable jurisdiction over foreign seamen and ships, the latter being liable to be detained if overloaded or improperly loaded, and power being given to inflict penalties in certain cases. At the time that measure was passed, apprehensions were entertained that we might possibly be exceeding our proper jurisdiction in extending its provisions to foreign seamen and ships. He believed that considerable correspondence had passed between the Government and foreign countries on this subject, and he was anxious to ascertain what was the nature of that correspondence—whether it had
  724
  reached a satisfactory stage—whether Canada and foreign countries were, on the whole, satisfied to be subjected, as we attempted to subject them, to the Act of 1876. If there were any Papers which his right hon. Friend could lay immediately upon the Table of the House, he thought he might say they would be exceedingly useful to the House, both as a comment upon what had passed, and as a guide for any further legislation which they might attempt with regard to our own or foreign seamen.
  MR. BURTagreed with the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Gorst), that the Government had shown themselves indifferent as to the interests of our seamen, who were a very numerous and important portion of the population, and who occupied a most anomalous position. He hoped an assurance would be given that the Government would introduce a Bill early next Session to place British seamen in the same position as all other classes of working men.
  MR. HOPWOODjoined with the hon. Members who had spoken in pressing on the Government the necessity of complying with the just demands of our seamen. At present, they were placed between the alternative of imprisonment for breach of contract, or of what appeared to them almost certain death by going to sea in unseaworthy vessels. It seemed to him a monstrous exhibition of tyranny to continue such a law on the Statute Book in its present terms. He hoped the Home Secretary would redeem his promise, and deal with the subject next Session. He thought if his hon. Friend (Mr. Burt) introduced next Session his own Bill on the question, it would strengthen the hands of the Government in dealing with it.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) complained with some bitterness of the conduct of the Government. He said they had not fulfilled the pledges they gave on the subject he brought before the House. He (Sir Charles Adderley) maintained, on the contrary, they had fulfilled those pledges to the utmost of their power, and he might appeal with confidence to the House on that matter. The pledges they gave were that they would deal as

  725
  soon as they possibly could with the general subject of the discipline of seamen in the Merchant Service and with the introduction, as far as possible, of seamen into the provisions of the Employers and Workmen Act. A Bill was drafted and prepared, and it was now in the office; but he appealed to the House whether there had been any opportunities during the Session of introducing the Bill with any chance of its receiving that amount of explanation, discussion, and prospect of progress without which so important a subject ought not to be introduced? On that point, he took distinct issue with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. The hon. and learned Member apparently thought the Government ought to have thrown the Bill on the Table, without any possibility of discussing it, or the slightest prospect of carrying it into law. Had they done so, the Bill would be discussed during the whole Recess in the country, and misapprehensions and misconceptions would arise respecting it, by which the question would be prejudiced when it came under the consideration of the House. No class of Her Majesty's subjects had occupied the attention of the Legislature so largely during the last two years as the seamen. With regard to the subject itself, he had hoped that in private conversation the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had been convinced of the utter impracticability of his own views upon it. With regard to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), he could only say that he extremely regretted that it had shared the fate of his own Bill, and had not been discussed as its merits richly deserved. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had brought in a Bill dealing partially and vaguely with the subject, and in a manner which the House could not entertain. With regard to the intentions of the Government, all he could say was that he hoped the larger intervals for practical Business which he trusted would be secured next Session, in the absence of that dreary waste of words which had been inflicted this Session upon them to the detriment of the best interests of the country, would give him a fair opportunity of dealing adequately with the delicate and important question of the discipline of merchant seamen. As to the question of the hon. Member for War-
  726
  wick (Mr. Peel), whether foreign countries had experienced dissatisfaction with those sections of the Merchant Shipping Act which, referred to them, he had to inform the House that there had been remonstrances from the United States, Germany, and Norway. Those remonstrances were in very general terms. A theoretical objection was taken to an interference with their subjects which had never really taken place, and which the answer sent by the Foreign Office had satisfied them never could take place. As the correspondence had terminated, he did not think it would be wise to lay it on the Table. He trusted the Act would work satisfactorily; but if any difficulty should arise, he should be happy to lay any correspondence before the House which might be necessary for its information.
  MR. DODSONsaid, if the Government concurred in the view of the right hon. Gentleman that this subject was one of the greatest delicacy and importance, why was not the Bill introduced at an early period of the Session, when it might have been fully considered, without haste or levity? It would seem that he had not been able to impress its importance on the Cabinet, or the Bill would not have been brought forward at so late a period, and left to take its chance in the scramble at the close of the Session. He trusted the Bill would be introduced early next Session, so that they might have an opportunity of discussing it fully. As the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the appeal that had been made by his hon. Friend with regard to the objections taken by foreign Governments to the Merchant Shipping Act, he trusted some one of the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues would give further information on the subject.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (Mr. Salt, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  [BILL 204.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  DR. CAMERON, in moving that the House should upon that day three

  727
  months resolve itself into the said Committee, said, that he found recorded in a Return which had been laid before the House that the entire number of turnpike trusts in Scotland affected by the Bill was 160 or 161, as against between 70 or 80 in England, showing how much more the Bill concerned Scotland than England. Of these, upwards of 100 Acts had expired, and were continued annually by the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill. Now, there was an essential difference between the mode of treatment of the Scotch and the English expired Acts. In the case of England, each Act was referred to a Committee up-stairs, evidence was heard regarding it, and the Committee reported what was to be done with the Act. In accordance with the decision arrived at by the Committee, some of these Acts were continued in their original form, others were amended, and others again were allowed to expire; but in the case of the Scotch expired Turnpike Acts nothing of the kind took place. There was no inquiry whatever into them, and they were renewed as a matter of course. They were asked in this Bill to renew for two years upwards of 100 expired Turnpike Acts in Scotland, without there having been laid before the House, or before a Committee, a single reason why any one of them should be renewed. That was a state of things almost unprecedented in their experience of legislation. In consequence of these Acts being continued as a matter of course, and without any trouble whatever, all the persons who were interested in maintaining them had opposed every measure that had been brought forward in the interest of road reform. He believed that the majority of Scotch Members were in favour of the abolition of tolls, and that if the matter was referred to a Select Committee it would unanimously recommend their abolition. If the Government would consent to renew these Acts for only another year, instead of two, he should be willing to withdraw his opposition to the passing of the Bill. He thought that would be a fair compromise, and there would then be an opportunity next Session of dealing with these Acts in any way that might be thought desirable. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. M'LARENseconded the Amendment, considering it most unjust that
  728
  the Turnpike Acts should be continued year after year without any attempt being made to settle the matter in a satisfactory way.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words '' this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Dr. Cameron,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the Amendment was far too wide, because it would not only affect Scotch trusts, but also a great number of English trusts, which if it were carried would expire, and the maintenance of the roads would be thrown upon the ratepayers. The better way to raise the question would be by a distinct Amendment relating to Scotland. Nothing, however, could be more unsatisfactory than the existing state of highways in England, and he hoped the Government would pledge themselves to introduce a Bill next Session to abolish the existing anomalies with respect to them.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he agreed to a great extent with the views put forward in opposition to the measure; but he did not see how they could deal with Scotch Turnpike Acts in the same manner as they dealt with the Turnpike Acts of England, for this reason, that when an English Turnpike Act expired, the roads were at once thrown upon the parish, and the parish was bound to keep them up. Such was not the case in Scotland. If the Committee were to deal with the Scotch turnpike roads, the effect would be that no person would be bound to keep up the Scotch turnpikes, and the result would be far more inconvenient than had been described. He warmly eulogized the efforts of the Home Secretary to pass a general Bill for Scotland, and attributed its withdrawal to the obstruction with which the measure had been met on the part of the mine owners. He trusted that next year the right hon. Gentleman would be able to pass such a measure as was required.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he earnestly desired that his hon. Friend

  729
  (Dr. Cameron) would never have another opportunity of making such a Motion as he had made that night, because he trusted that in the course of next Session, before such an opportunity could possibly occur, they would have passed a Roads and Bridges Bill for Scotland He was happy to say that when the Amendments to the Bill were critically examined, the fact was revealed that they only affected four counties in which the interests of the burghs and the counties had not been practically adjusted. He trusted that the Government would put the Bill in such a position as to ensure its becoming law before the end of next Session, seeing that they were now in a better position to legislate on the subject than they had ever hitherto been. The effect of rejecting the measure before the House would be to take away the means by which the roads were kept in repair, and thus ultimately to inflict a heavy burden upon the ratepayers when a general measure was passed transferring the roads to them.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, it had only been through untoward circumstances, which could not have been foreseen, that the Roads and Bridges Bill had not been passed this year, and he promised the Government, in the event of their introducing a general measure next Session, a hearty support from that side of the House. As they were a Government pledged especially to domestic, as opposed to sensational measures, he strongly urged them to deal with the highway question as one essentially of the former character, and recommended the county Members, the great majority of whom were supporters of the Government, to press them for legislation upon this subject. He especially urged that an English Highways Bill should be introduced at an early period of the Session, and after the discussion which had taken place, he recommended the hon. Member for Glasgow to withdraw his Amendment, which, without removing the Scotch grievance, would be very inconvenient as regarded the English Turnpike Acts, for which provision was made in the Bill.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the question of legislation for the highways and turnpikes of England had long been under the consideration of the Government, and it was certainly expedient,
  730
  with a view to a settlement of the question that the County Members should be agreed upon that which was proposed to be done. The measure which he had brought forward afforded an opportunity of dealing with the subject in a comprehensive way and upon a satisfactory basis; but, unfortunately, it had had to be withdrawn in consequence of other matters more interesting to Parliament having cropped up.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he objected very strongly to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) raising bugbears which had nothing whatever to do with the question before the House. He complained that the present Bill had no Schedule of their Scotch roads, as of the English, merely a general clause which provided, in a sweeping manner, the continuance of all expiring turnpike Acts within Great Britain. The Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill, brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth), and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) the Secretary of the Board, failed to state the Acts and roads of Scotland which were to be temporarily maintained, with turnpikes; but the Bill stated, in seven Schedules, every road and every expiring turnpike Act of England to be kept up. That was to be accounted for by the fact of the Local Government Board having no duties to perform relating to Scotland, and thus, under cover of a purely English Bill, the roads of Scotland were kept up as turnpikes under a general clause; and he told the Government that they were not acting fairly towards Scotland. But it was not only so far as the Roads and Bridges Bill was concerned that the Scotch Representatives had been badly treated, and he told the Home Secretary that Scotch Business had been shamefully neglected. ["Oh, oh!"] He spoke his mind on the subject—he was in the habit of doing so, and he would not say behind the Home Secretary's back what he would not say to his face. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear, hear!] Much as he regretted the course taken by the Irish Members, which he considered improper and wrong, the Scotch Members had even more reason for complaint. He repeated, that the Scotch

  731
  Members had infinitely more reason for complaint, because they had by their attendance in the House, and by their moderation and good sense, aided the House of Commons to transact the business for which they were elected. He deplored the course some of the Irish Members had adopted, and he could not vote with them, because he would never be a party to anything like factious conduct; but, at the same time, he appealed to English Members to say whether Scotch Members had been properly treated? As far as he was concerned, he would not give up a single mile of the 22,000 miles of roads of all descriptions within the landward parts of all Scotland. These cost, by the former Returns of the Commission on Roads, about £250,000 per annum, and with economy and improved management, which could easily be introduced when turnpikes were abolished, all the roads could be kept up at a much lower rate, but the present complication and costly division of roads into statute and turnpike communications must cease to exist. All he desired to see was an equitable arrangement arrived at between the tenants, the owners, the towns, and the holders of mortgage bonds, and he could not help saying to the Home Secretary—"You have not done what you ought to have done." To his right hon. Friend in front of him (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), who had offered his assistance, he would say that he hoped he would try and prevent the Scotch trusts going before an English Committee. There was only one Scotch Member on the Committee this year, and it was unreasonable to expect that hon. Gentlemen chosen by English constituencies could act impartially and efficiently in respect to the continuance of all expired Acts of turnpike roads. Let them be referred to a Committee of Scotch Members, and then the purely Scotch questions might be satisfactorily dealt with. He appealed to the English Members to vote for the Motion now before the House.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he had simply stated the difference between the law of Scotland and England, and had pointed out, that whereas in England, if the trusts expired, the parish had to keep up the roads, in Scotland, if they expired, there was no one responsible for their maintenance.
  MR. WHALLETcomplained of the course pursued by the Government in endeavouring to pass that Continuance Act, which, so far at any rate as England was concerned; was a gross fraud upon the public, and he therefore hoped that the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) would be accepted. He found fault with the speech of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, who had an authoritative, a categoric, and an oppressive way of addressing the House, but who had given no reason why the Motion of the hon. Member should not be carried. [Cries of "Order!"] No doubt Mr. Speaker would call him to Order when he was wrong. He had been present at the death of 2,000 or 3,000 miles of road, and he had never heard a single complaint from a landowner on the subject.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: The opposition to this Bill has arisen out of a feeling for Scotch Business; but I think it would have been better if it had taken place in Committee, as the Motion, if passed now, would have the effect, not only of stopping the Scotch, but also the English measure. What is wanted is, an assurance that early next Session a Bill will be brought in and passed through the House dealing with the case of Scotland by a Roads and Bridges Bill. I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) will withdraw his Motion, and raise his opposition with regard to Scotland upon the question as to whether the Bill shall extend to Great Britain, or to England only. If he does that I will support him.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLcomplained that the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had not been noticed by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. There was no assurance on the part of the Government that promises and hopes would be fulfilled next Session, and some friendly coercion of this kind was necessary to influence the Government.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it would be presumption to say the Government would not only introduce a Bill but pass a Bill, and he was bound to say the number of Amendments—400 —placed on the Paper by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the Roads and Bridges Bill made it improbable

  733
  that the Bill could be passed. But, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate had said, the opposition practically arose from four counties in Scotland, and it was to meet these obstacles that he had the other day proposed a special inquiry by persons nominated during the Recess to meet these special difficulties, and he understood that hon. Members specially interested received the proposal with favour, and there was no doubt this inquiry would smooth the way for the passing of the Act next year.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he did not wish to divide the House on a false issue, and, accepting the recommendations which had been made, he would withdraw his objection to going into Committee; but from what he had learned of the feelings of Scotch Members, he could assure the Government that if a Roads and Bridges Bill were not passed next year, there would be as much difficulty in passing this Continuance Bill next year as there would have been in proceeding with the Roads and Bridges Bill that Session.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Continuance of all the Turnpike Acts).
  DR. CAMERON DR. CAMERON moved an Amendment, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "Great Britain," and insert "England." This would not have the effect of throwing the existing machinery in Scotland out of gear; because, as had been already explained, the existing Acts would continue in force until the end of next Session, and ample time would thus be afforded to discuss a Bill introduced early next Session.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, to leave out the words "Great Britain," and insert the word "England."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexpressed his surprise, and thought it was under-
  734
  stood the opposition was withdrawn. [Dr. CAMERON: Only so far as going into Committee.] Well, it seemed the Amendment was the same thing over again. He must oppose it on the ground that tolls were let for the year, and that the effect of this change would be to abolish tolls in the middle of the year for which they were let.
  MR. DODSONthought it was quite other than the same thing, and if the Scotch Members were prepared to undertake the responsibility of this he should support them.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the feeling in Scotland was that it was necessary to obtain a distinct pledge from the Government in regard to roads and bridges, and the most certain pledge would be that the operation of the Continuance Act should not extend to Scotland.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERpointed out the difficulty there was in the fact that tolls were let from spring to spring.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought there was reason to complain of the way in which Scotch Business had been treated, but it was no use crying over spilt milk, and what they now desired was a guarantee for better treatment next Session. That guarantee was found in the Amendment on the Paper to restrict the operation of the Act to November, 1878, and he hoped that the present Motion would be withdrawn in favour of that standing in the name of. the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren).
  MR. M'LARENtook the same view, but
  DR. CAMERONthought it right to insist on the protest by dividing the House.
  Question put, "That the words 'Great Britain' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 42: Majority 26.—(Div. List, No. 312.)
  MR. M'LARENthen moved an Amendment to restrict the operation of the Act to November 1st, 1878.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 27, at end, to add the words "Provided, That, in the case of Acts applicable to Scotland only, they shall be continued only till the first day of November one thousand

  735
  eight hundred and seventy-eight." —(Mr. M'Laren.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed astonishment that the Government should resist this Amendment, and give no reason for doing so. It surely was one that must commend itself to the House.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the result of the Amendment being accepted had been already pointed out, and there was not the slightest disrespect towards Scotch Members in not repeating these arguments.
  MR. LEITHsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) had intimated that there would not be the least difficulty in letting tolls for half a year. If there was a bonâ fide intention on the part of the Government to bring in a Roads and Bridges Bill next Session, he did not see the least difficulty in the way of their accepting this Amendment. If the Government brought in a Bill, surely with a majority of 60 in the House, that would be equivalent to passing the Bill.
  DR. CAMERONdeclared his intention to support the Amendment.
  COLONEL ALEXANDER, said, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leith) had misrepresented him; he had stated that there would be extreme difficulty in letting the tolls from spring until November.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that it might not be possible to bring in a Bill. He should vote against the Amendment.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that if the Government insisted on defeating the Amendment, he could only say that if ever there was a case in which a Government carried their point by the bayonet it was the present.
  DR. KENEALYsupported the Amendment. He believed this was a species of attempts by a majority to silence the voice of Scotch Gentlemen, for whom he had the deepest respect, on a question in which he took the deepest interest. When he found that the hon. Members for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) and Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) were supporting the Amendment of a particular clause, he must say they had not re-
  736
  ceived the consideration to which they were entitled. Though he was not in favour of obstruction, he must say he would support the Scotch Members in that course. He maintained that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate for Scotland could have no difficulty in passing a Roads and Bridges Bill for Scotland before the letting of the tolls next spring.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, a large number of Scotch Members desired that the Bill should not be extended to Scotland. He would therefore urge the Government to accept the Amendment in deference to their wishes.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 68: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 313.)
  Schedules.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked why the various Acts relating to the Scotch Turnpike Road Trusts ,of Scotland were not detailed in Schedules in the same manner as for the English Trusts?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that nothing that had happened would prevent the Government doing that which was stated in the beginning of the evening.
  MR. LEITHstated that the reason why he sought a guarantee for the promise of the Government was, that three years ago the then right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, in the presence of the Home Secretary, promised that the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill should be passed, and it was not passed until this year.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURexpressed great indignation at the course pursued by the Government, in their neglectful treatment of Scotch business, and remarked that he saw the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) laughing. ["Oh, oh!"] But there was no justification for mirth, except as to including in a Bill—prepared by himself and the Secretary of the Local Government Board—relating to England a general clause which kept in force the turnpike expiring laws of Scotland, with which the right hon. Gentleman's Department had no right to interfere with, as his functions were restricted solely to England and Wales.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that these remarks were rather remote from the subject at issue.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmade an appeal to Scotch Members with reference to the Roads and Bridges Bill. As he had before stated, upwards of 400 Amendments had been prepared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and many of them raised points of considerable importance, some of which he had himself mentioned in conversation with hon. Gentlemen. He now appealed to them that they would, during the Recess, have those questions discussed in the several counties concerned, and thus assist the Government in making the Bill acceptable to the House next year.
  Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  INCLOSURE BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 262.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  COMMITTEE. ORDER DISCHARGED.
  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved that the Order for going into Committee upon the Bill be read and discharged, and the Bill withdrawn, intimating at the same time that the Government would endeavour to deal with the subject early next Session.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the intentions of the Home Secretary and the Act passed by that right hon. Gentleman last Session would never have a fair chance by promoting the regulation of commons, unless the Inclosure Commissioners conducted their inquiries on different principles from those upon which they conducted the inquiry on which the Bill before the House was founded.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [BILLS 116–275.]
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th August.]
  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. BIGGAR, in moving that Progress be reported, said, he did not do so out of objection to the Bill, but simply because the period of the Session precluded the discussion so necessary in an Act of this importance. The Bill was a Consolidation Act, so there would be no inconvenience in a postponement for another Session.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. MELDONhoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not persevere in his opposition to the Bill. The consolidation of the Acts applying to England had been effected in England in 1874, and the necessity for a like measure for Ireland had been continually felt. This Bill was introduced last Session, and again this Session it was by the unanimous concurrence of Irish Members referred to a Select Committee, and he believed no Irish Member had pointed out a flaw in the Bill to justify a further delay. There was no point of principle raised, and the single Amendment by himself upon the Paper was one that was accepted by the Chief Secretary. The Bill was urgently wanted in Ireland, and the hon. Member had taken a great responsibility on himself in moving to report Progress. Nothing but the isolated action of the hon. Member had hitherto prevented the passing of the Bill. It had received a full discussion in a Committee composed, with the exception of the Chief Secretary, of Irish Members.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYhoped the Bill would not be proceeded with. It was all very well to say it was a Consolidation Bill; but it only professed to consolidate existing Acts without effecting reforms, so these reforms would have to be proceeded with by piecemeal legislation.
  MR. PAENELLjoined in the appeal that the Bill should not be proceeded with that Session. He agreed that some interests might suffer from a postponement of the Bill; but it was better that some interests should suffer for a short space of time than that wider interests should suffer indefinitely. A Select Committee was not sufficient for the discussion of a Bill of the kind, and it was necessary to have the more varied opinion of the Committee of the Whole House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was anxious to pass the Bill, and it was with deep regret he found he could not do so. The account of the Bill given by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare was accurate. It had been before the House for 18 months, and after the inquiry of the Select Committee, he had been sanguine of its becoming law. But from what he had heard both inside and outside the House, he found there was sufficient opposition to make it impossible to carry through a Bill of 300 clauses on the 10th of August. He, therefore, did not propose to proceed with the Bill that Session; but he must express a hope that what had been done would not be lost, but that the Bill might be allowed next year to proceed without discussion to the same point as that at which it had now arrived.
  Question put, and agreed to; Committee report Progress.
  House resumed.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Third Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod [No. 191].
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading — Fraudulent Debtors (192); Fisheries (Dynamite) (193).
Second Reading—County Officers and Courts (Ireland) * (177); Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) * (180); Police (Expenses) Act Continuance* (167); Colonial Stock* (189).
Second Reading — Committee negatived—Sheriff Courts (Scotland)* (179); East India Loan* (166); Prisons (Scotland) * (184).
Second Reading — Committee negatived — Third Reading—Winter Assizes* (190), and passed.
Committee — Report — Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (183); Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2) * (185).
Report—Canal Boats* (176).
Third Reading—Prisons (Ireland) * (178); Destructive Insects* (188), and passed.

FRAUDULENT DEBTORS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to present a Bill for the punishment of Fraudulent Debtors, and to which he asked their Lordships to give a first reading. The Bill was intended to be a supple-
  642
  mentary measure to the Bankruptcy Bill which had gone down from their Lordships' House, but which, in consequence of the pressure of other Business, had been stopped in its progress through the House of Commons. Of course, he had no idea that any progress beyond the first reading in their Lordships' House could be made this Session with the Bill which he was now about to lay on the Table, but he wished to lay it on the Table in order that it might be considered by the country during the Recess.
  Bill for the punishment of Fraudulent Debtors, and for other purposes, presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read la. (No. 192.)

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).

  PETITIONS.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHpresented a large number of Petitions from Bodies and places in Scotland on the subject of the Scotch Education Act. The noble Duke said, that these Petitions were all very similar in tone, and their general prayer was that a permanent Board of Education might be established in Scotland in connection with the Board of Education in London. The Petitioners urged their prayer more especially on the ground that the standard of education in Scotland, in their opinion, had been lowered, instead of raised by the present Code. They did not deny that some special subjects, such as elementary instruction in Botany or other particular branches of science had been introduced; but they did not consider that the higher branches of education had met with that encouragement that they ought to have met with. Scotch gentlemen and farmers complained very bitterly that the present education in parochial schools did not include the higher branches, such as Latin and mathematics. As their Lordships were aware, it was the habit of boys in Scotland to go to the Universities at a much earlier age than in England, and formerly they were enabled to acquire in the parochial schools all the instruction in Latin and mathematics which they required. They attributed the change, to a considerable extent, to the fact that it was more profitable to the schoolmaster to return a great number of children in the lower branch of purely

  643
  elementary education, than to devote their time and attention to the higher subjects of classics and mathematics. This was not the feeling of a few, or of a Party on one side or the other, but it was almost universal in Scotland, and instead of becoming lessened, gathered strength daily. Indeed, it must be a pretty strong indication of their feeling upon the standard of education when they found among the Petitions sent to their Lordships so many Petitions from schoolmasters in Scotland, who themselves considered that it had been unnecessarily and unwisely lowered. He hoped his noble Friend the Lord President would take the matter into consideration. The Government seemed to forget that in England elementary education had not been furnished to the people till recently; but in Scotland the case was quite different, because there an excellent system of education had been furnished for upwards of 200 years in parochial schools. It might be said that the children could go to secondary schools; but in Scotland few of them existed, except in large towns; and the children of parents who resided in the pastoral and agricultural districts required good instruction quite as much as the children who lived in cities or large towns. There were many places where the inhabitants complained most bitterly of the loss they had sustained by not being able to obtain for their children that superior instruction in the parochial schools which they had afforded for the last 250 years, and they prayed their Lordships' serious attention to the subject. This was, indeed, no light matter, and he himself saw the necessity of remedying the evil, and he sincerely hoped that by the few words he had said he would have drawn his noble Friend's attention to it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that as his noble Friend had so pointedly alluded to him, and asked his attention to the Petitions he had presented, he should be wanting in that respect he felt for him if he did not rise and acknowledge the appeal that he had made. At the same time, while admitting, as he did, the immense importance of the subject to which his noble Friend had alluded, he could not altogether agree with the conclusions at which he had arrived. He knew the question had excited considerable discussion and controversy in Scotland; but
  644
  he believed that, on the whole, the education given in the parochial schools of Scotland was not inferior to that afforded in former years. If he had been aware that the subject was going to be brought forward, and that his noble Friend was about to enter into details, he should have been prepared to give him a more complete answer to his appeal than he could do at the present time. He thought that if his noble Friend would read the Report which had been issued by the Scotch Commission of Council on Education, he would see in it figures and information which would induce him to modify some of the statements he had made. He would remind the noble Duke that the general subject of education, not alone in Scotland, but also in England and Ireland, was of such magnitude and importance that it never could be absent from the minds of any Government; and Her Majesty's present Government had shown their desire to deal with the question by the Acts they had passed or were still considering. He would assure the noble Duke that the subject of education in Scotland would receive the highest consideration at their hands.
  Petitions ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)
  (NO. 179.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it affected the constitution of the Sheriff Courts of Scotland. The Bill consisted of two parts—the first of which was applicable to the appointment and tenure of office of the Sheriff Substitute, and the second regarded the extension of the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts. With regard to the first part, the Sheriffs Substitute were at present appointed by the Sheriff, by whom they were also removable; but the persons appointed must be certified by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk as competent for the duties of the office. It was proposed that in future the appointment of the Sheriffs Substitute should be transferred to the Secretary of State, and that he should also be em-

  645
  powered to remove them; but that they should only be appointed on the condition that a report should be made by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk of their fitness. As to the Procurators Fiscal, at present they were appointed and dismissed at the pleasure of the Sheriff. It was proposed that the Sheriff should retain the appointment, but subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and that they might be removed in the same way as the Sheriffs Substitute was now removed. "With regard to the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court, at present the Sheriff Courts in Scotland had only jurisdiction as to movable, and not with respect to heritable, property. Originally it was intended by this Bill to give them jurisdiction over heritable property to the annual value of £20; but, while the Bill was passing through the other House, that jurisdiction was extended to £50 or £100 of capital value; but this being a large extension of the jurisdiction, it was coupled with the right on the part of the defender of removing the cause to the Court of Session. Guarded in that way, he thought their Lordships would be of opinion that the measure was one of which they could approve.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

SOUTH AFRICA BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for Consideration of Commons Amendments, read.
  Commons' Amendments considered.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in moving that the Commons' Amendments in this Bill be considered, said he thought it was desirable he should make a few observations on the long Paper of Amendments which had come up with this Bill from the Commons; though, at the same time, he did not intend to ask their Lordships to disagree with any of them. The Amendments seemed to resolve themselves into several classes. There were omissions from the Bill as it left their Lordships' House. Those omissions were for the most part matters of detail. Then there were additions of certain financial clauses which it had not been thought right
  646
  to insert in their Lordships' House. Again, there were additions which might be described as comparatively unimportant additions of detail; and, lastly, there were some four or five Amendments of considerable importance. To the latter class only he need address himself. The first clause to which he would call attention was Clause 10. It provided for what was called the constitution of the Privy Council. In South Africa the Privy Council meant what it meant in other British Colonies—not a body constituted as was the Privy Council in this country, but rather an Executive Council, or Cabinet of the day. He could not help thinking that there must have been some misapprehension with respect to the Amendments made in that clause. Under the clause as it originally stood, it was provided that the persons who were to be Members of the Privy Council should be from time to time summoned and chosen by the Governor General from among the Members of the Union Parliament—that direction indicating clearly, as he should have thought, that the Members were to be taken from the Parliament and from the majority, and consequently persons who had the confidence of that body. The words "from among the Members of the Union Parliament" had been struck out in the other House. He regretted the omission—not that he thought that it affected the substance of the Bill in the slightest degree; but he would point out that the Members of the South African Cabinet would be chosen just as the Members of the Canadian Cabinet were chosen—from among those Members of the Parliament who had the confidence of that Parliament; so that the clause as altered did not indicate any departure from the principle of self-government as understood by Her Majesty's Government, but would be strictly in accordance with those principles. The second point to which he desired to call attention was a very important one in itself. Clause 25 dealt with the constitution of the House of Assembly. To that clause had been added this Proviso—
  "Provided always that in the apportionment of members, and in the determination of the qualifications of electors and members, provision shall be made for the due representation of of the Natives in the Union Parliament and in the Provincial Councils in such a manner as

  647
  shall be deemed by Her Majesty to be without danger to the stability of the Government."
  He thought that in the Bill as it originally stood the Native question, as it was called, had been sufficiently provided for; but though, no doubt, the subject was one of great difficulty and delicacy, he himself entertained no apprehension with respect to it; and, as the Amendment only gave expression to views which he had long held, at the same time that it indicated the greatest confidence in Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Office, he should be the last person to make any objection to the addition of such a Proviso as this. He thought it most desirable on every ground that, if practicable, the Natives should find some representation in one or both the branches of the Legislature. There had been among them a singular growth of wealth and a singular growth of intelligence; but as between different parts of the country that progress had been very unequal, so that among the Natives there was to be found the greatest barbarism and a high standard of intelligence. Therefore, the question how far you could give effect to the principle of introducing a Native element into the Colonial Legislature would be in this, as in the other Colonies, a question of great difficulty. The precedents were few, and he could not say that they indicated so complete a success as might be desired. The only case which he could call to mind of the latter character was that of New Zealand, where four Members were returned by the whole of the Maories to serve in in Parliament. That had succeeded fairly; but he doubted if the success was more than fair. Then there was the case of Fiji; but there the Natives, instead of forming part of the Legislature had been made, in the persons of their Chiefs, magistrates to administer justice amongst various tribes, and so far as it had gone that experiment had been attended with success. At the Cape the Natives enjoyed the franchise equally with the Colonists; and he said now, as he had said before, that the policy pursued at the Cape was a wise, humane, and liberal policy, and had produced the fruits it deserved. In Natal, where the Government laboured under exceptional difficulties, the White population being immensely out-numbered by the Natives, there was no
  648
  representation of the Natives, except by means of an arrangement come to between the Colonial Government and the Chiefs of tribes. He saw no reason why the Cape should make any alteration in its present system; and, as regarded Natal, he hoped the Natives would be gradually raised in the capacity of exercising the franchise as time went on. He believed, however, that in respect of the Cape, or the Transvaal, or Natal there could not be a rigid rule; the rule must be elastic, so as to be adapted to the different circumstances of the various Colonies at various eras. There must be a gradual exercise of the franchise by the Natives as the Colony itself increased in wealth and intelligence. He, for one, therefore heartily accepted the addition to the clause, inasmuch as it embodied very much his own views and was, moreover, an improvement to the measure. The 45th clause referred to the Provincial Councils. As the Bill stood, it provided that they should consist of one Chamber. The Colonial Office thought that was the wisest course. At the same time the Cape, as was well known, had two Chambers, and he saw no objection, providing the requisite materials could be obtained, why the South Africa Colonies should not have two Chambers in the Provincial Councils. In Clause 61, it was provided that the Queen, by Order in Council, might authorize the Governor of the Cape or of Natal to annex to either of those Colonies the outlying districts. The words "or of Natal" had been struck out of the clause. He had no objection to raise to that Amendment; but he wished to point out that the provision in the clause tad been introduced with reference to Griqualand and the Transvaal. As to the former, the question did not arise, because a Bill had already passed through the Cape Legislature for the annexation of Griqualand; but as to the Transvaal, there would be a possibility, if the clause passed as it was, of the' annexation of that territory to Natal. Where no representative institutions had been given, he apprehended that the power rested with the Crown of annexing, if it thought it desirable that annexation should take place. He was far from saying that it was desirable to annex the Transvaal to Natal—there were primâ facie reasons for which it

  649
  would seem desirable. Geographically, they were connected with each other; their dangers were the same, for the Zulu kingdom overshadowed both; and, lastly, the population of both were of the same race. In addition to those reasons there would be political advantages in the annexation, both parties consenting; and, provided that consent were signified before representative institutions were given to the Transvaal, then he held that it would be within the power of the Crown to annex it to Natal. He did not, however, wish to be understood as expressing an opinion that in all the circumstances such an annexation would be desirable, and he had no objection to the adoption of the Amendment made by the Commons. The other House had added to the Bill, after Clause 61, a Proviso that the powers conferred on the Crown with reference to the first establishment of the Union, should not be exercised after the 1st of August, 1852—which Proviso limited the operation of the Bill to five years. The Bill itself was a permissive Bill. Very great powers, he acknowledged, were given to the Crown under the Bill; and when the proposal was made to him by a right hon. Gentleman that at the end of five years Parliament should have an opportunity of re-considering the whole question, he frankly confessed his concurrence in the proposal. Then in the Commons, Clause 4 of the Bill had been omitted. It provided that in the event of the admission into the Union of the Orange Free State or the South African Republic, all persons at the time resident and enjoying the rights of citizenship within the State and Republic respectively, and not being already British subjects, should be declared naturalized subjects of the Queen. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had consented to the omission of that clause, because as all those resident within the Province would become ipso facto British subjects; it was thought that serious objections might be raised by foreigners against compulsory naturalization. Compulsory naturalization might place foreigners—Germans and others—in a difficulty. Again, hitherto in our Colonies naturalization was confined to the Colony itself, and such a clause would confer a superior kind of naturalization to that given by a Colony. He thought, therefore, there was good reason for
  650
  omitting the clause. So much for the Commons' Amendments to the Bill. Now, a word as to the Transvaal. Up to the date of their latest advices, the state of things was gradually settling down. The rebellious Chief Secocoeni had submitted; the Zulu King had retired; the Queen's authority was now received with hearty enthusiasm in an unbroken line from one end of the territory to the other; and Sir Theophilus Shepstone was welcomed in every part of the country without one dissentient voice. It was only a short time since the annexation had been effected; but so far as one could judge by the events which had occurred since then, the measure appeared to be justified by results. There were in this country at this time two delegates who had come here to lay before the Government the case of the defunct Republic; and though he did not exactly know the sources of their authority, he had thought it right to listen to whatever arguments they could put forward. He told them frankly, on the part of the Government, that so far as any reversal of policy it was idle to speak about that; but in respect of all questions of detail bearing on the happiness and prosperity of the Transvaal, he would be glad to hear them and give weight to anything they might say. And he was bound to say that they had hitherto received what he had stated in the most reasonable spirit, and he had great hopes that satisfactory relations might arise in consequence of those communications. But he wished further to say that he had not received a single Memorial or Petition from any part of the Transvaal objecting to the annexation, or praying for a reversal of that policy. One Petition of that kind had come to the Colonial Office, but it was from a Dutch population who lived in the Cape Colony and at a distance of 1,000 miles from the Transvaal. He thought it was rather hard that a population living at such a distance from the Transvaal, and enjoying the advantages of being under the rule of the British Government, should grudge that advantage to the people of the Transvaal. It was under those circumstances the Bill again came before their Lordships. If he did not think all the Commons' Amendments absolutely necessary, they did not in the slightest degree interfere with the principle or the substance of

  651
  the measure. He believed himself that the Bill when passed would go out to the Cape with greater weight than had been attached to any former measure relating to the Colonies. The history of this Bill was a memorable one. The Bill would live in the Parliamentary history of England as much as in the history of the Colony. It had been stated that this measure in its passage through its various stages in the House of Commons had received little or no discussion. Speaking from what had appeared in the ordinary sources of information, he ventured to say that never was any assertion less well founded. He had observed with satisfaction that a right hon. Gentleman, than whom there was no one more competent to speak, from his own knowledge and his own Ministerial experience, had expressed his belief that the Bill had been debated in the House of Commons with a fulness not known in the case of any other colonial measure. He would now express his gratitude to the Opposition in that and the other House of Parliament for the frank and hearty support they had given to the Bill. There had been great difficulties in the way of the Bill, and that support was as valued as it had been valuable. The principle of the Bill had been affirmed by enormous majorities, and the Bill went out with the imprimatur not only of Her Majesty's Government and of the Leaders on both sides, but of the maturely-expressed opinion of the House of Commons. He begged to move that the Commons' Amendments be considered and agreed to.
  Motion agreed, to.
  Amendments considered, and agreed to, accordingly.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL.
  Commons reason for disagreeing to one of the amendments made by the Lords considered (according to order): Lords amendment to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on.

  EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.—(No. 166.)
  (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the
  652
  second time, said, the purpose of the measure was to enable the Indian Government to raise £5,000,000 by way of loan. It was rendered necessary principally to meet the expenditure occasioned by the Famine; but it did not differ in form from ordinary Bills of the same kind, except that in it power was taken by the Government of India to follow the precedent recently initiated by the Imperial Government, to raise part of the loan by the issue of India Exchequer Bonds redeemable from time to time. Language of a desparing character was used sometimes with regard to the finances of India; and therefore he would like to say a few words in order to indicate to their Lordships that the Government of India in raising this loan was not committing an act of great financial imprudence, as had been said, and that there was no reason to entertain any apprehensions in respect of the financial course that Government had of late years pursued. The doubts that had been expressed on that subject appeared to rise principally from the fact that the expenditure of the Indian Government on works expected to be reproductive and its ordinary expenditure were mixed up together. Of course, it was necessary to take both into consideration when you asked what were the prospects of the Indian Government; but they ought to be taken separately, if the precise position of the Indian Government was to be accurately ascertained. Now, if they separated the expense on works expected to be reproductive from the ordinary expense, it would be found that the course pursued by that Government, since the great expenditure of the Indian Mutiny was surmounted, had not only not been a wasteful one, but taking the whole 15 years into consideration a fair surplus had been maintained. Taking the accounts of the 15 years from 1861–2 to 1875–6 inclusive, including expenditure on Famine, but excluding that on Public Works Extraordinary from 1867, the aggregate surpluses of the years in surplus amounted to £13,151,411, and the aggregate of deficits in deficit years to £10,209,191, making the balance of surplus £2,942,220. He thought that was sufficient to show that apart from Public Works there had been nothing wasteful or imprudent in the management of the finances of India, and that there was no

  653
  cause for gloomy apprehensions respecting that management in future. Then, if the Budget in respect of reproductive works also were examined, it would be found that things were not unfavourable. The total capital expenditure on irrigation works and on State and guaranteed railways had been £115,800,000, while in 1875–6 the net revenue from railways and irrigation works was £4,727,219, giving a net return on the capital expenditure on those undertakings of little more than 4 per cent. It was to be remembered, moreover, that in those works were included not only those which were opened and were yielding revenue, but those, like the Burmah and Indus Valley Railways, and the Soane Canal, which were still under construction, and yielding no revenue whatever. He thought, therefore, that the financial management of the Indian Government had been frugal and prudent. He need hardly tell their Lordships that the prospect was improving, for the new works were beginning to yield some revenue, while the old works were yielding more. Before he sat down he desired to say a word with respect to the Famine which was the main cause of this loan. The prospects in the Famine districts, as their Lordships might have gathered from the telegrams in the newspapers, were not quite so gloomy as they were about a fortnight ago. A considerable quantity of rain had fallen, and a certain portion of the crops had been saved; but nevertheless it was to be feared that a considerable and aggravated amount of distress must continue for several months from this time. He was anxious to take this opportunity of removing an impression which had got abroad, and for which he was certain there was no foundation whatever. There was an impression that the Government of India were less eager and less liberal than on former occasions in relieving this terrible distress. There was no ground for that belief. From the very first his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Carnarvon), who was occupying the India Office while he (Lord Salisbury) was away, warned the Indian Government that the utmost care must be taken and no expense must be spared to preserve human life, and the Indian Government cordially accepted the duty. He believed the false impression to which he had alluded had arisen from a controversy which had gone on with respect
  654
  to the proper amount to be given to the labourer, or to what was known as "the Temple wage." Sir Richard Temple maintained that a pound of rice was sufficient to enable the labourers to work, and he was very justly of opinion that it was not right to give them more than was absolutely necessary to keep them in health. In that view he was supported by the medical authorities in Calcutta and opposed by the medical authorities in Madras; and a somewhat embittered controversy, turning mainly upon the number of grains of nitrogen and carbon necessary to enable an Indian labourer to work, continued for some time. But it must not be supposed from this controversy that any restriction was laid on the Madras Government as to the amount of relief. The reports, however, were so persistent, that they at the India Office, though they knew that no new restriction had been imposed, were yet inclined to think that some representation had been made on the subject by the Supreme Government; and accordingly he sent this telegram to the Viceroy—
  "Accounts reach me from many quarters expressing serious fear that insufficiency of relief food on famine works, especially in Madras, is producing diseases of exhaustion, and will end in great mortality. Matter requires extreme vigilance, and if there is any real cause for apprehension it will be better not to place too much restriction on Local Government. Our medical authorities are alarmed by accounts, official and other."
  The reply received was as follows:—
  "We have placed no restriction on Local Government in this matter. If the Government of Madras were satisfied that the present rate was unduly low, they would doubtless raise it. We have asked Bombay to consider expediency of giving Sunday wage, which is allowed in Madras, but not in Bombay."
  Accordingly, within ten days or a fortnight the Madras Government did raise the rate. Therefore there was no ground for thinking that the Government of India prevented the Madras Government from following its humane instincts. It was said that there had been a very great amount of mortality—he had seen a telegram which put it at as high a figure as 500,000. He inquired of the Madras Government as to the accuracy and certainty of that statement, and he received a reply indicating that the estimates of the mortality as yet rested upon somewhat conjectural grounds, but that whatever the mortality was it had arisen,

  655
  not from starvation, but from epidemic disease—the two diseases of cholera and small-pox. Everyone knew that the famine had stimulated both diseases. The want of rain had lowered all the wells and diminished the quantity and purity of the water, and, as everyone knew, there was nothing which determined the virulence and spread of cholera so much as a tainted supply of water. In the same way with regard to smallpox. It was a disease which could be dealt with so long as the people could be isolated; but it was impossible to isolate them when they had to be relieved in vast multitudes. The number relieved amounted now to 2,300,000, and it was impossible to isolate them when collected on relief works and in relief camps. It necessarily followed, therefore, that small-pox had its terrible opportunity. He did not dispute that suffering had occurred in many cases where relief came to people whose strength had been reduced by want—it was not, however, because relief had been denied; the difficulty was to get people to ask for it— the officers had to hunt the starving people and infirm men and women and children, and induce them to come and ask for the relief which was ready to be given to them. In a vast Presidency such as Madras, with a population in the famine districts numbering 16,000,000, and a territory, taking Mysore with Madras, extending over 100,000 square miles—not far from twice the area of England and Wales—the agency of relief must be conducted to an enormous degree by Native means. The 150 covenanted Civil servants could do very little themselves—they could only superintend the vast machinery of Natives. The Government had been obliged to employ the Native village headmen to hunt out these poor people; but, unfortunately, as Sir Richard Temple had lamented again and again, they were hardly equal to their opportunities and duties. Those headmen were appointed in Madras upon the hereditary principle, but it had not answered well. They were perfectly capable of doing their ordinary duties with efficiency and success, but they had not acted up to the expectations formed of them in the early period of the famine. They had hardly appreciated the responsibility, the weight and the necessity of the duties cast upon them; and the fact must be
  656
  admitted that in the early part of the year many persons were not relieved until their physical strength was considerably depressed, and cholera and small-pox found them an easy prey. In the Presidency of Madras there was a comparatively inactive population. The difference between them and the population of Northern India was seen in the enormous amount of gratuitous relief given in the famine-stricken districts of Madras, for which no work was required. It was twice as much as that which it had been found necessary to give in Behar. In Behar the maximum number relieved was 2,100,000, against 2,300,000 in Madras, yet in Behar the proportion of gratuitous relief had been kept at a comparatively low point, which had not been possible in Madras. He would not be doing his duty or acting in accordance with his own feelings if he did not say how deeply we were indebted to the untiring and unsparing exertions of the officers employed, in relieving the famine. The Viceroy, Sir Philip Wodehouse, the Duke of Buckingham, and Sir Richard Temple had all devoted themselves unsparingly to the duty, and in spite of the ravages of disease they had done so in the main with signal and merited success. He wished to add that the Viceroy had wisely determined to go himself to the distressed districts, and no doubt his presence there would animate the officers and render it more easy to work the administrative machinery for the relief of the famine. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKwished to express his deep sympathy with the population suffering, by no fault of their own, from this great calamity. It had fallen on a people loyal, industrious, and patient, charitable to their relations, obedient to the law, grateful to the officers who had to deal with them, and entertaining an affection for the Government which came forward to assist them in time of distress. With regard to the nature of the famine, he would remark that the information presented to the House was not recent, for it extended only to last January; but it was apparent from the Papers themselves, and

  657
  from the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State, that the calamity was most serious, especially because this was the second year in which there had been a failure of the customary rain. In the month of January last the number of persons receiving relief in Madras and Bombay exceeded 1,500,000; 1,250,000 in Madras, and more than 300,000 in Bombay. It was then expected that when the annual rain fell in April the distress would be alleviated, and that it would nearly cease in July; but so far from that being the case, the number of persons now being relieved was stated by the Secretary of State to exceed 2,000,000. That fact, he feared, showed that the famine was not likely to be soon at an end, and that grave difficulties would exist in meeting it for at least some months more. It was remarkable that in times of drought there often happened a second failure of rain, which greatly intensified the danger. Thus in 1874, the rain necessary to secure the rice crop in Bengal, which should have fallen in August, did not come till September, and a repetition of the scarcity of the previous year was imminent. Remembering the very great responsibilities of a Ruler at that time, he felt that the most generous support should be given to all the Indian authorities, and he knew from personal experience their energy, their ability, and their devotion. He was sure that the Viceroy had rightly determined to visit the distressed districts. He had been associated in India with the Duke of Buckingham, upon whom the most serious responsibility had fallen, and no man could be more zealous in the performance of his duties. He thought that the Government of India had done wisely in sending Sir Richard Temple to the spot, for his previous experience in Bengal must have enabled him to offer valuable advice and assistance, and in accepting that duty Sir Richard Temple had given another instance of his high public spirit. He rejoiced that in Bombay the greatest stress of famine was over; the measures taken to meet the distress there appeared to have been successful, and reflected great credit upon Sir Philip Wodehouse and the officers of the Bombay Government. So far as he was informed regarding the proceedings of the Government of India, he had but little to offer in the way of
  658
  criticism or suggestion. The one object was to prevent loss of life, taking care, at the same time, to interfere with trade as little as possible. He did not, however, observe that the plan of making advances of money or food to the cultivators which was found very successful in Bengal had been adopted. He had talked in 1873 with a Mahomedan nobleman in Calcutta, and on asking him him what measures he would take in the event of a famine in the State of which he was Prime Minister, had been told that the best plan would be to advance money to the cultivators, who would return it in good years. Those who had to deal with an Indian famine were brought into contact with an enormous number of small cultivators, especially in Madras, where in one district there were 50,000 occupiers of less than 5 acres, and in another 80,000 holding less than 10. The State stood in the place of a landlord to these men, and it was very important to help them as much as possible. He would also suggest that the Secretary of State and the Government here might assist the Indian Government in providing officers to deal with the distress. In 1873, great difficulty was caused by the want of proper supervision. On the occurrence of such a calamity the first thing which ought to be done was to strengthen the administrative Staff to the greatest possible extent, and he could not but think that if the Government required such assistance many officers of the Army in this country who had been in India and possessed some knowledge of the language would volunteer for the service: most valuable work was done by officers for the Army in Bengal during the distress of 1873. He was satisfied from his own experience under somewhat similar circumstances, that the noble Marquess fully appreciated the gravity of the situation, and would, to the best of his ability, assist the Government of India, and he merely threw out these suggestions for what they were worth. As the Government of India would have a grave calamity to contend with, he would suggest that it would be wise to postpone, at all events, for the present, certain administrative changes that were contemplated in the Punjab. He would not discuss their merits now, but only observe that so far as he knew they were disapproved by all those men

  659
  who had long experience of that part of India, and that at least some further consideration might well be bestowed upon the proposals. The Secretary of State had not taken advantage, as had occasionally been done before, of the present opportunity to make a statement of the events of the past year in India; and, therefore, he (Lord Northbrook) would abstain from making any such general observations. He would only express his sorrow at the loss which the British Government had sustained by the recent death of three eminent men. Sir Jung Bahadur, the de facto ruler of Nepal, a loyal ally of the Queen who rendered essential services during the Mutiny; Maharaja Romanath Tajore, the highly respected leader of Hindoo society in Calcutta, who was always ready to give his valuable advice and assistance to the Government; and Sir Jametsetjee Jeejeebhoy, who filled a somewhat similar position in Bombay. Both these Native gentlemen he (Lord Northbrook) was proud to reckon among his personal friends. Turning to the Bill before the House, and to the state of the finances of India, he had been much interested by the able financial statements which had been made public by Sir John Strachey, the financial Member of Council, which left nothing to be desired in the way of information which could be supplied by the Government of India. The Estimates of the current year, 1877–8, showed that, including the cost of famine relief, there would be a deficit of £621,000. The cost of famine relief was expected to amount to £2,150,000, so that the apparent surplus, if there had been no Famine, was £1,528,000; but Sir John Strachey had correctly pointed out that the effect of Bills like the present one, by which money was raised in England for the service of India, was to diminish the remittances from India to England, and so to bring about a considerable saving in the cost of making those remittances. Making due allowance for this saving, Sir John Strachey calculated that the real surplus this year, if there had been no Famine, would have been £928,000, of which £500,000 was to accrue from new taxes to be imposed, and from the Provincial Governments undertaking certain charges for a less sum than had hitherto been defrayed on that account by the Go-
  660
  vernment of India. Comparing the financial condition of India in the last two years with the three preceding years the results were that the surplus, excluding Famine charges, of the three years 1873, 1874, and 1875 amounted to £6,791,499, or at the rate of about £2,250,000 a-year. The cost of Famine relief in Bengal was £6,698,312, which was met out of the surplus of those three years. In 1876 the surplus fell to £624,800, and in 1877, without the new taxes and the arrangements with the Provincial Governments, it was estimated at only £428,000. This unsatisfactory condition of things was mainly occasioned by the increased cost of the remittances from India to England which were required to pay the interest on Debt incurred in England, and other Home Charges. The price of silver, as against gold, had very greatly fallen in the last three years. Consequently the loss by exchange had increased from £500,000 in 1874 to £1,000,000 in 1875, and to £1,500,000 in 1876. He wished to express his entire concurrence with the conclusion at which the Government of India and Her Majesty's Government had arrived, not to change the standard of value in India from silver to gold, or to adopt certain other proposals which had been urged upon them. If there were no question as to the rate of exchange it would, he thought be right to borrow money, wherever it could be raised on the easiest terms; but the operation of exchange with respect to receipts in silver in India and payments in gold in England made it advisable, and it had been rightly determined by the Secretary of State, that the loans required by the Government of India should be raised as much as possible in India in silver, and that no more than was absolutely necessary should be raised in England in gold. He wished to ask from the noble Marquess an explanation of a transaction which took place last year which appeared to him to be inconsistent with this principle. The Government of India reckoned that for the service of 1876 it was necessary to raise £2,640,000 in England; but it appeared from Sir John Strachey's statements that £4,600,000 had been borrowed in England, or £1,960,000 more than was required. This excess was partly balanced by the purchase by the

  661
  Government of India of rupee paper in India to the amount of £1,250,000; but more debt was incurred by about £750,000 than was required, and, moreover, £1,250,000 of Debt, the interest on which was payable in India in silver, had been exchanged for a similar amount on which the interest would have to be paid in England in gold. There was certainly a saving in the loss by exchange for the year, because the remittances from India were decreased by this transaction, but the ultimate result seemed to be disadvantageous to the finances of India. Famines had occurred so frequently in India during late years, that the Government were in his opinion right in endeavouring to raise some additional means to provide for their cost, and he was entirely satisfied with one step which had been taken—the giving more powers to local Governments, at the same time providing some relief to the finances of the central Government. Whether the manner in which it was proposed that additional taxation should be raised was the most desirable to adopt he would not say, and he felt the difficulty of throwing upon the local Governments the task of providing by taxation for the cost of public works, for instance, of irrigation, in the construction of which the people presumed to be benefited had no concern. He was glad to find that no proposal for the re-imposition of the Income Tax was made, as it had caused great discontent, and he might observe in passing that it was not the intention of Lord Mayo to re-impose it when it expired in 1872. There was one part of Sir John Strachey's Financial Statement on which he could not look without some degree of apprehension—he alluded to the recent increase in the military expenditure. The gross military expenditure, he found, which had averaged about £15,500,000 for the four years ending with 1874, had since risen to £16,250,000, an increase of nearly £800,000, which brought the military expenditure nearly back to what it was in 1869. That increase, he was aware, was in some measure due to the increase of pay of the British and Native troops, which he believed to be necessary and right, but there were other items, especially in connection with the Home Charges, of which no
  662
  sufficient explanation had been given. The "Home Charges of Her Majesty's Regiments serving in India" had increased from £500,000 in 1874 to £660,000 in 1876, and Sir John Strachey could only say that this was "the result of much negotiation with the War Office at home, and does not seem susceptible of definite explanation in India." Their Lordships might remember that in 1872 the Duke of Argyll protested strongly against the amount of these charges upon Indian revenues. There had subsequently been a Parliamentary inquiry, in the course of which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) gave evidence to the effect that it required constant vigilance to prevent other Departments in the State encroaching upon the rights of the Indian Exchequer. Sir John Strachey appeared to be greatly impressed with the tendency of these charges to increase, for he used the following remarkable words:—
  "That the Indian revenues are liable to have great charges thrown upon them without the Government of India being consulted, and almost without any power of remonstrance, is a fact the gravity of which can hardly be exaggerated."
  He (Lord Northbrook) commended this subject to the particular attention of the Secretary of State. He wished also to ask for some explanation of the incidence of the cost of the recent operations in the Straits Settlements upon the British and Indian revenues respectively. A year or two ago Indian Forces were employed at Perak, and he believed that all the ordinary expenses of the troops so engaged were borne by the Government of India. In the 55th section of the Government of India Act there was the following important statutory provision with regard to such charges:—
  "Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden or urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operations carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues."
  The Straits Settlements were formerly part of British India, but by the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 115, they were separated from it, and in the words of the enactment, ceased to be part of India "for the

  663
  purpose and within the meaning" of the Government of India Act. It seemed, therefore, that the consent of their Lordships' House and of the other House of Parliament was necessary before the revenues of India could lawfully be used to defray the cost of the operations at Perak. In the case of the Abyssinian War, an Address to the Crown was moved in order to comply with the requirements of the law under similar circumstances, but no such Address had been moved to meet the case of these operations. True, the charge in question was not very large, but the principle involved was one of the greatest importance. With respect to the future prospects of Indian finance, he believed that the figures given by Sir John Strachey, and the expectations founded upon them, were sound. There was much greater elasticity than had been supposed to exist in the main sources of Indian revenue, and he trusted that under a steady and economical administration of the finances, if only the customary rainfall took place in its season, we should see in a few years the satisfactory condition of the finances of India restored. It was with much satisfaction that he had heard of the prosperous financial condition of the Indian railways. This was a very hopeful sign. Another very satisfactory fact was the increase in the exports and the imports. Since the year 1874 the exports had increased at the rate of £2,000,000 sterling a-year, and the imports had increased by £ 1,000,000. The measures taken of late years by the Government of India to remove the export duties on certain commodities had had a very remarkable effect. In the case of wheat and seeds, the result was particularly striking. In 1872, before the export duty on wheat was removed, the export consisted of 320,000 cwts. of the value of £135,200. The duty was taken off in 1873, and the export gradually increased until in 1876 it reached 4,839,000 cwts. of the value of £1,673,400. The value of the seeds exported in 1874 was £2,451,900. The export duty was taken off in 1875, and the value of the exports in 1876 had increased to £4,688,600. These figures were interesting as showing the importance of removing the export duty on products in which there was a competition with other countries. With regard to taxation in India, it was clearly im-
  664
  possible at the present moment to reduce it. Indeed, in consequence of the cost of the famine in the South of India, and the fall in the price of silver, the finances of India must for some time be in a critical condition. It was obvious, therefore, that the condition of the finances did not justify any expectations being held out that the import duty of 5 per cent on cotton goods could be given up, and he regretted that the subject had been mooted by Sir John Strachey in his speech on the Budget in Calcutta, although it was afterwards explained that he had only expressed his individual opinions, and not those of the Government of India. No one could wish more than he (Lord Northbrook) did to see freedom of commerce extended, but he would be sorry to see the stability of the revenues of India imperilled, or fresh taxation imposed upon the people of India, in order to remove the grievance—no very real grievance after all— of the English manufacturers to which he was referring. In concluding, the noble Lord observed, with reference to the famine which was now hanging over the people of Southern India, that this was an occasion when economy of expenditure was not the paramount consideration. In famine, as in war, when the safety or honour of the country was concerned, the great object to aim at was success, and not economy. If nations did not grudge the employment of all the means in their power for the carrying on of war, they ought with infinitely greater reason to tax their energies and all the resources of the State to the utmost for the preservation of the lives of the people.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in reply, reminded the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) only tried the experiment of making a general statement of the financial position of India on two occasions, and that on the second the noble Duke and himself were left alone in the House. He quite agreed with his noble Friend that a supply of officers in the Presidency of Madras was much needed. The Government had laid hands on every officer they could, but it was impossible to get a sufficient number of officers of the Indian Army speaking the language of the famine districts. Every officer on furlough in

  665
  this country had been laid hold of and sent to India to assist the Government in relieving the distress. It was perfectly true, as the noble Earl further pointed out, that in the Spring of 1876 the Indian Government borrowed a sum of money considerably in excess of what they had stated would be required. They were perfectly sensible of the inconvenience of the operation, but they were driven to it by the pressure of the silver famine which then prevailed. The same circumstances, however, were never likely to recur, and he did not anticipate that the particular inconvenience alluded to would ever again arise. With regard to the question of military expenditure, he could not help admiring the—what should he say?—the courage of his noble Friend. Before being Viceroy his noble Friend was connected with the War Office in this country, and it was precisely to the noble Lord's (Lord Cardwell's) administration that the increase in the military expenditure which his noble Friend now so justly deplored was due. The Indian Government had been in a perpetual state of feud with the War Department ever since the noble Lord (Lord Cardwell) was in Office; but he hoped some satisfactory means of adjusting their differences would soon be adopted.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  COLONIAL STOCK BILL—(No. 189.)
  (The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to enable such Colonies as pleased to turn the bonds and debentures which they issued into registered stock. The Bill was considered at great length last year; it was brought almost to its final stage in the House of Commons, and had only failed on account of the lateness of the Session and of some negotiations that were going on. This Bill contemplated two forms of stock—one payable to bearer, and the other to the person named; and it provided that where it was desired the two forms should be made convertible. An
  666
  undertaking was given that no Imperial guarantee, direct or indirect, should attach to this stock. Many of the clauses of the Bill had been taken from the National Debt Act of 1870, and a great deal of the Bill, which would be extremely valuable both to the Colonies and to England, was due to the ability of that distinguished colonist who was Prime Minister of New Zealand for a long time, and was now Agent General for New Zealand in this country—Sir Julius Vogel. He did not say that the idea was his, but he it was that put it into the legislative shape in which the Bill now appeared before their Lordships.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 184.)
  (The Lord President.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that an Act had been passed for dealing with the prisons of England, a Bill was passing through the House dealing with the prisons in Ireland, and it was thought advisable that a Bill of a similar character should be passed for Scotland. As the reasons for dealing with this matter had been fully discussed when the Bill for England was under consideration, he should not attempt to go at any length into the subject. The objects aimed at in the three Bills were the same —namely, greater economy and more uniformity in the management of prisons and the punishment of prisoners than had hitherto been obtained. The Government would have been glad if it had been possible to introduce the Bill earlier in the Session; but, no doubt, their Lordships were aware of the proceedings which had occurred in the other House of Parliament; and it seemed to him that, instead of being open to complaint for not having introduced measures earlier, it was matter for surprise that Her Majesty's Government were able to offer to their Lordships so many useful measures dealing with so many different subjects. The Bill now before

  667
  the House was drawn upon the lines of the English Bill, regard being had, of course, to the peculiar circumstances of Scotland.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  Then, PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM, who had placed on the Paper the following Notice:—
  "To call the attention of the House to the Eastern Question, and to the despatch addressed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Count Schouvaloff of the 6th of May last relative to the defence of English Interests in connection with the present War,"
  said: My Lords, it is my duty to inform your Lordships that it is not my intention to introduce the discussion on the Eastern affairs, of which I have given Notice. Some apology is due to your Lordships, for having at this late period of the Session proposed to raise a debate on a subject of such vital importance to this country; but, my Lords, it did appear to me and to other Members of your Lordships' House, that it would be well that Parliament should not be prorogued without an opportunity being afforded to this House for some expression of opinion on that momentous question. My Lords, it remains for me to say that, having received an intimation from my noble Friend at the head of Her Majesty's Government that a discussion in Parliament on the Eastern Question at this time might seriously embarrass public affairs, I have not hesitated to decline to proceed with the discussion.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, it would be only common courtesy on my part to express my sense of the forbearance of my noble Friend in meeting the suggestion I have made to him. Certainly it is the opinion of the Government that at this moment a discussion on the state of affairs in the East would not be advantageous to the public service, and might, indeed, have an injurious tendency. My Lords, I know very well that the view taken of
  668
  our policy by my noble Friend would have been impartial and animated by a desire to do justice to Her Majesty's Government, and I can assure him that we appreciate his motives in the course he has pursued. With regard to our policy, I will only say that having been clearly expressed it has been consistently maintained. Without entering into an unnecessary discussion, I may remind your Lordships that when this cruel and destructive war began Her Majesty's Government announced that they would adopt a policy of strict, but conditional, neutrality. The condition was that the interests of the country should not be imperilled. Your Lordships well know from the Papers that have been laid upon the Table that subsequently to that declaration a communication was made to the Russian Government which more precisely defined what in our opinion "British interests" were held to consist of; and that to this communication Her Majesty's Government received a rep]y which I think I am authorized in describing as conciliatory and friendly. The Government have no reason to doubt that Russia will in an honourable manner observe the conditions which were the subject of that correspondence; but however that may be, in any case the maintenance of those conditions is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNquite agreed that, after the appeal made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, his noble Friend could not persevere in calling attention to the subject. He regretted, however, that an opportunity should have been lost of re-asserting those principles of sound policy which had protected for nearly 200 years our rights in the East which were now endangered. It only remained for him to say, with profound deference, that the responsibility for the neglect of this opportunity must rest with the Government.

  WINTER ASSIZES BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; then Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Four o'clock.