Sitting of 22 May 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 19] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Costs Taxation (House of Commons) [190].
Committee—Report—Local Government (Poor Law) Provisional Orders * [155]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Axminster Union, &c.) * [154]; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Buckingham, &c.) * [161].
Considered as amended—Summary Jurisdiction [169].
Third Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Bothwell) * [152]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Waterford, &c.) * [133], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—"KAIN v. FARMER,"—QUESTION.
  MR. MACIVERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Out of what funds the Department will provide the £1,600 damages required to be paid to Mr.
  1004
  Kain, owner of the barque "Dora," under a recent decision of the Court of Common Pleas, and confirmed on Appeal; what is the amount of legal expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in the matter, and which they will have to pay in addition to the damages and Mr. Kain's costs; and, whether the experience of working the Survey Clauses of the Act of 1876 has not been such as to show that they require amendment?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Provision is annually made for law charges in the Board of Trade Vote, and out of this Vote the damages in the case of "Kain v. Farmer" will, I believe, be paid. The costs have not yet been made out, so I cannot give the information desired on this point. As to the third part of the Question, I would remind my hon. Friend that the case of the Dora, about which the trial was held, arose under the Act of 1873, and not under that of 1876, under which the Board of Trade at present takes its proceedings. I cannot say that my experience of the Board of Trade, which, of course, has not been a long one, has at all made me feel that the Survey Clauses of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, which were adopted by Parliament after long and full consideration, ought at present to be altered.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—THE DUNGARVAN MAGISTRATES.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it had come to his notice that, on the 3rd instant, before the Dungarvan magistrates, a poor woman, who had never before been accused of any crime (and with a destitute family, the youngest being an infant in arms), was sentenced to three months imprisonment, with hard labour, for the theft of a small quantity of milk of the estimated value of two pence; whether, on the same date, and before the same magistrates, another prisoner, convicted of the theft of some articles of clothing of the estimated value of one pound, was sentenced to only seven days' imprisonment; and, whether, if the facts be so, he will take steps to procure the remission of her punishment?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I have been able to ascertain

    1005
    the circumstances of the two cases alluded to, I am disposed to think that the magistrates were right in the course they adopted. The case first referred to was that of a woman named Mary Heffernan, who was employed in a situation of trust, having charge of a dairy, of which the keys were placed in her possession. It was proved by witnesses that she had been seen on more than one occasion making away with the property of her employer; and I consider that the Bench was fully justified in taking these circumstances into consideration in apportioning the sentence. With respect to the second case, which was that of a woman named Catherine Maloney, she pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing articles of clothing valued at 7s. 6d.; but urged as an excuse that there were arrears of wages due to her at the time amounting to £2 16 s., and that she had pawned the stolen goods as a payment on account. The fact of the wages being due was admitted; and although, of course, it could afford no justification for the robbery, the magistrates were, I think, justified in taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, as well as the mere question of the pecuniary value of the stolen articles, which, in the majority of instances, forms only a limited portion of the matters to be considered in apportioning sentences.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if it is true that this was the first offence with which this woman was charged; and, being only a very small offence, whether the punishment was not excessive?
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he understood it was the first time she had been charged; although it was proved at the same hearing that she had been seen on more than one occasion committing the act referred to.

  CONGRESS OF BERLIN—THE GREEK FRONTIER.—QUESTION.
  MR. LAINGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the influence of the British Government is being exerted to procure the acceptance by Turkey of the line of frontier for Greece recommended by the Congress of Berlin, or, on the contrary, in supporting Turkey in offering a less favourable line; and, specially, whether Her Majesty's Go-
  1006
  vernment are supporting or opposing a line which would include the City of Janina in the Kingdom of Greece?
  THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Her Majesty's Government do not think it would be convenient, at the present time, to enter into details with regard to these proceedings; but I may say that the influence of the Government has been, and is being, exerted in order to procure the acceptance by Turkey of the recommendations of the Congress of Berlin, which were of a general character. Papers are being prepared on the subject, and will be laid on the Table.

  PATENTS—THE PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked Mr. Attorney General, When he will lay upon the Table the promised statement showing the number of Patents prolonged by the Privy Council in each year since 1870? He also desired to ask what were the intentions of the Government with reference to the Patents for Inventions Bill?
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): I have obtained the statement referred to; and I will take steps to lay it on the Table of the House to-morrow. I hope to be able to pass the Patents for Inventions Bill this Session; and if the House would only allow the measure to be read a second time, I think I could agree to every Amendment which has been proposed.

  ARMY—BALANCES OF DECEASED SOLDIERS.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is possible to devise a more effectual method of publication than the present one, in order to make known to the relatives of deceased soldiers the balances they are entitled to receive?
  COLONEL STANLEY: The list of unclaimed balances belonging to deceased soldiers was formerly advertised in The London Gazette, The Standard, The Irish Times, and other papers; but in consequence of the expense involved—£93 odd—in one publication, it was decided to publish a list in The London Gazette only. I am not certain, at the present moment, what better mode can be adopted for making known to the relatives of

  1007
  deceased soldiers the balances they are entitled to; but I am inclined to think that if the brigade depôts were made more generally the centres of information respecting men, some advantage might be secured.

  ARMY—VETERINARY WARRANT OF MAY 1, 1878—QUESTION.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any and what steps have been taken with a view to the amendment of the Veterinary Warrant of 1st of May 1878, in consequence of representations which have been made relative to the same; and, whether any decision has been arrived at?
  COLONEL STANLEY: No, Sir; no decision has yet been arrived at.

  POST OFFICE—THE CHINA MAILS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been specially called to the inconvenience and loss caused to persons engaged in the China trade by an arrangement contained in the new Postal Contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, by which a stoppage on the homeward voyage of forty-eight hours at Hong Kong has been assented to, when no mail necessity can be pleaded in justification (as twenty-four hours are sufficient on the outward voyage), in order that the steamer carrying the mails may load homeward cargo?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, the duration of the stoppage at Hong Kong of the homeward packet from Shanghai, under the new Contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, was the same as at present—namely, 48 hours, and it was understood that this interval was of advantage to the China merchants, most of whom had branch houses or agencies at Hong Kong. This stay of 48 hours at Hong Kong was a stipulation of the Peninsular and Oriental Company in their tender, and formed part of it.

  CONSPIRACY AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY ACT, 1875—"BESETTING."

    QUESTION.
    MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his
    1008
    attention has been called to a case tried before the stipendiary magistrates a few days ago at Birkenhead, when Thomas Critchley and William Suxden were fined one shilling each and £5 12 s. costs between them, or in default to go to gaol for seven days, for "besetting the approaches to Messrs. Brassey's Engine Works, with a view to compelling two of the workmen to leave their employment;" whether, as the defendants were admitted by the magistrates to have used "no threats or violence" their conviction can be justified; and, whether, in this case, due regard has been had to the definition of "besetting," as given in the latter part of the seventh section of "The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875?"
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: This, Sir, is an important point; and the parties have very properly appealed. That being so, and as the matter is awaiting the decision of a Court of Law, it would be manifestly improper on my part to express any opinion on the subject.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE FORCES IN ZULULAND—QUESTIONS.
  MR. WADDYasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the total number of British and Colonial Forces, naval and military, and of all arms now in Zululand; and, what troops, if any, are on their way thither or are under orders to depart?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, the total number, according to the last Return of the British Forces, was 16,959, in addition to 1,064 men on the passage out and 1,615 under orders to embark. The Colonial troops were, so far as he had been able to ascertain, something like 4,453 of all arms. He had no Returns of the Naval Force. The troops under orders to embark were, for the most part, drafts.
  MR. WADDYsaid, that perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty could inform the House what was the amount of the Naval Force?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The number of men landed from the ships is 850 blue-jackets and Marines.

  INDIA—THE DISTURBANCES IN BOMBAY.—QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether

  1009
  it is true that there has been a renewal of popular disturbances, accompanied by incendiary fires, in the Bombay Presidency; to what cause it is attributed; and, what steps the Government have taken to carry out the pledge given three years ago of measures for the relief of the agricultural population in the Deccan?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: My noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cranbrook) telegraphed the other day to the Governor of Bombay with the view of obtaining the latest information on the subject; and, with the permission of the House, I will read the reply, dated May 21, of Sir Richard Temple—
  "Your Lordship's telegram regarding Deccan troubles.—Recent Dacoities occurred in villages, either side, above and below mountains, western border, Poona and Sattara districts. Robbery only, not murder. Plans laid for seizing money and valuables, to be secreted in hilly jungles for future use. Dacoits, hill men of hardy, daring character, led by one or two educated persons. Numbers small; not exceeding 300. They are in two or three gangs; but steep hills and thick jungle favour their operations. First symptoms early last March, when we placed detachments of troops at all the principal places near Eastern side of mountains to prevent evil spreading, besides increased police precautions. Original leader and gang soon captured. Trouble checked end March to middle April; began again end April. Additional detachments of troops despatched, and special pursuing parties organized under European officers. Capture of one desperate gang just effected, and stolen property recovered; leader not caught, but systematically pursued. Poona city fires directed against two old Mahratta palaces, used by British for public purposes. The incendiarism probably intended to annoy Government. Dacoities at present quite localized. Cause believed to be general. No local reason yet shown to exist. No sign of agrarian trouble. Distress increasing in Eastern Deccan, but relief administered."
  As regards the last Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have only to say that the subject has been under the very careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and the Government of Bombay have recently prepared a Bill, mainly in accordance with certain suggestions sent out to them from the Secretary of State in Council. That Bill is now under the consideration of the Government of India. There will be no objection, when a conclusion has been arrived at upon it, to lay it on the Table.

  ARMY—REGIMENTAL COMMANDS— THE FIVE YEARS' RULE.

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If the general rule in regiments of Cavalry and Infantry is that Officers hold their commands for five years only; if, however, there are certain exceptional regiments in which the Commanding Officers hold their commands for terms beyond five years, whether the practical effect of such exceptional retention of command will be to cause junior Officers to be retired against their will under the new retiring scheme; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to mitigate the exceptional severity which the combined effect of the new retirement scheme and the exceptional prolongation of the Lieutenant Colonels' command will have on the prospects of junior Officers in such regiments?
    COLONEL STANLEY: As a general rule, in regiments of Cavalry and Infantry, officers should hold commands for five years only; but, in the concluding sentence of the Royal Warrant, provision was made for the extension of the term in the case of lieutenant colonels in command, in the event of their being called on, or engaged in, active service in the field, or under other special circumstances. The practical effect on the junior officers might possibly be prejudicial in bringing them under the operation of the compulsory clause of the Warrant; and it is a matter worthy of consideration whether in such cases the retirement of the officers should be dated from the five years' tenure; or, in other words, that the appointments in succession to them should be ante-dated to that extent. I think that such an arrangement might answer financially and otherwise.

  ARMY—CIVIL EMPLOYMENT FOR DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the universally acknowledged and daily increasing difficulties of obtaining old and experienced noncommissioned officers for the Army, he has taken any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee presided over by the Right honourable Member for Pontefract in 1875 and 1876,

  1011
  on the civil employment for discharged soldiers, as to placing at the disposal of the Army, as inducements to non-commissioned officers to prolong their service to twenty-one years, that limited number of permanent posts in the Civil Service of the Country which that Committee found to be available for that purpose, after all the legitimate and reasonable requirements of the Civil Departments have been complied with; and, whether he can give any hopes that this great inducement will shortly be held out to non-commissioned officers to prolong their service?
  COLONEL STANLEY: This question has not been lost sight of; and we are at present in correspondence with the Treasury as regards those appointments which affect the War Office. As to rural post messengers, it was found that, practically, there were no candidates.

  ARMY—THE 88TH REGIMENT—VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, a few months ago, while the 88th Regiment was virtually on active service, volunteers were actually called for and given from the depot of that regiment to other regiments in South Africa; whether, when more reinforcements were subsequently required, volunteers from other regiments at home had not to be again called for to fill the deficiencies thus wholly unnecessarily caused in the strength of the 88th Regiment; whether this departure from the principle of the supply of a regiment with men from its own depôt was simply a blunder, or was intended as a new method of developing the brigade-depôt system; and, whether it was done with the knowledge and approval of the Commander-in-Chief?
  COLONEL STANLEY: I am informed that no volunteers have been called for or taken from the depôt of the 88th Regiment since the outbreak of hostilities. No volunteers have been called for or required by the 88th, which are still in excess of the establishment.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked whether volunteers were not called for between the cessation of hostilities with the Galekas and the breaking out of the Zulu War?
  COLONEL STANLEY: It is very possible that that may have been so; but the point of the Question is answered by the fact that the 88th is in excess of the establishment.

  ABMY—FIRST-CLASS ARMY RESERVE.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL MUREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the long time which must elapse before the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill can possibly become Law, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a Bill into Parliament amending the existing Law which regulates the service of the First Class Army Reserve, enabling Her Majesty to call for volunteers from that body during the present emergency in Zululand?
    COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, that if an understanding could by any means be arrived at, and a Bill of one clause, enabling the men of the First Class Army Reserve to volunteer for service, could be passed through the House without prolonged discussion or the opening up of general questions, he would be willing to introduce such a measure. If, however, it was likely to load to lengthened discussion, it would, he thought, be better to proceed in the matter by means of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, in which there was a clause of a similar nature.
    COLONEL MUREsaid, the Secretary of State for War could only discover whether it would be allowed to pass without discussion by bringing forward the Bill. The onus was upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but, at the same time, he, personally, did not think there would be much opposition.

  LUNACY LAWS—LEGISLATION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state when the Lord Chancellor intends to bring in the Bill relating to the Lunacy Laws, which, a short time ago, he informed the House to be his Lordship's intention to introduce?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his noble and learned Friend would be very glad to introduce it; but he was waiting until some progress had been made in the measures already before the House.

  MALTA—THE MALTESE CIVIL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, When Sir P. Julian's Report on Maltese matters is to be laid before Parliament, and why the Papers as to the Maltese Riots of 15th May last, promised on the 20th March, have not yet been laid upon the Table?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the Report related to the Maltese Civil Service, and that it had only recently reached the Government; but he could not say positively whether he would be able to lay it on the Table. It must first be laid before the Council of Malta, whom it primarily concerned. He regretted that Papers as to the riots, presented on the 15th of May last, had not yet been circulated; but they would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1878— EXAMINATION OF HIGH CLASS SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Vice-President of the Council, "Whether the Scotch Education Department has yet arranged with the Treasury for the carrying out the provisions of section twenty of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1878," for the examination of higher class schools under the management of school boards; and, if not, whether there is still hope of the matter being arranged in time to relieve the school boards concerned from the necessity of appointing their own examiners under the Education (Scotland) Act of 1872?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No change has been made in the decision of the Treasury to refuse to allow the cost of the examination of higher class schools under the management of school boards to be defrayed from public funds since a Question was asked on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). Considerable difficulty has been found in completing the arrangements for these examinations on the terms which were accepted by some of the school boards in small towns; but we hope that, in the case of these boards, this difficulty may be overcome in time
  1014
  to admit of the examinations being undertaken, before the close of the winter session, by Examiners appointed by the Department.

  WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Westminster Improvement Commissioners, appointed by "The Westminster Improvement and Incumbered Estate Act, 1861," to forthwith wind-up the affairs of the Commissioners appointed by "The Westminster Improvement Act,1845," have concluded their labours; if not, when it is expected they will do so; and, whether the Report and Accounts, which were required by "The Westminster Improvement Act, 1847," to be rendered half-yearly, have been so rendered; and, if so, whether the Government will lay the same before Parliament?
  MR. GERARD NOEL: The Commissioners have not yet concluded their labours, and possibly it may take three or four years to realize the remainder of the estate and to pay off the incumbrances. The Commissioners state that they furnished accounts to the Office of Works—then Woods and Works—up to the 16th of November, 1849, at which date their obligation to do so ceased by the operation of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 124. I may add that the Chairmanship of the Commissioners being vacant, I appointed Sir Henry Hunt to that post about 18 months ago, with the view of winding-up the affairs of the estate; and from communications I have had with him, I am sure he will spare no exertion to carry into effect that object with as little delay as possible.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—CARRICK ON SUIR BRIDGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that the Irish Government have ordered the Board of Works to prepare plans for a new bridge at Carrick on Suir, and have called upon the grand juries of the three adjoining counties to present sums of money for carrying out the work; whether the people of the district have begged that a swivel arch or portcullis be included in the plan;

  1015
  and, whether the Government have ignored this appeal, and have insisted on a plan which will impair the navigation of the river?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The facts are correctly stated in the first part of the Question. As to the second part, if the word "town" is substituted for "district," that is also correct. As regards the action of the Government, the case was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is the final Court of Appeal in cases of the kind, and the duty of the Government is simply to give effect to the decision of that Court.
  MR. A. MOORE: Sir, I beg to give Notice that I shall draw attention to this matter on the Vote for the Board of Works.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— ALLEGED CRUELTIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the following account of the slaughter of a wounded Zulu Chief in the Durban Correspondence of the "Daily Telegraph" of Monday the 19th instant:—
  "The following from Colonel Bellairs, D.A.G., has just reached me: Captain Prior, 80th Foot (on April the 5th) proceeded with a mounted patrol, consisting of Lieutenant Ussher and four of his regiment, and Mr. Freter, junior, from Luneberg, in the direction of the Upper Pongola Drift. Having come up with twenty friendly natives, and obtaining information that the Zulus were sweeping horses and cattle from the valley, he went in pursuit, and came within 800 yards of a few mounted men, who were hurrying on horses and cattle, which they abandoned and fled. After capturing the horses (eighteen), and leaving them in charge of Lieutenant Ussher, Mr. Freter, and two men, he went on with Private Bowen, their horses being freshest, following two Zulus who had taken the direction of Dombie. They came eventually within 400 yards, and exchanged shots with them; one of the Zulus was wounded by a bullet, and, the friendly natives coming up, was assegaied. He was recognised as a younger son of Sihayo; the other, who got away, being ascertained to have been Umbelini;"
  whether he has had his attention directed to the correspondence of the "Standard" of the same date, in which cases of refusal to give quarter and of the slaughter of wounded Zulus after the battle of Gingilhovo are mentioned; and, whether he proposes to take any steps in consequence of these statements?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The account of the "slaughter of a wounded Zulu Chief" which the hon. Member has quoted from The Daily Telegraph is, I see, contradicted by a later account which appeared in the Press yesterday, from which it seems that of the two Zulus named one was killed by a bullet at 400 yards, and the other wounded, and that the wounded man escaped. I cannot say whether either story is accurate; but the later version certainly does not bear out the interpretation placed by the hon. Member on the passage which he has quoted. As to the eases mentioned in the correspondence in The Standard, they appear to be unsupported statements of a general character, resting on hearsay evidence, which I should not think it necessary to notice. Circumstances may unavoidably occur in the heat of action which all would regret; but if any English officer, or soldier, had intentionally refused quarter to an enemy who had submitted—which I do not believe—I am satisfied that the military authorities might safely be trusted to deal with the case.

  SOUTH AFRICA—INDENTURE OF NATIVES IN NATAL.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Why no Despatch from the Colonial Office has yet been published in the Blue Books laid before Parliament forbidding the South African authorities to indenture out captured Native women and children in servitude to the Colonial farmers; and, whether former British Administrations have not most strongly condemned this practice on the part of subjects of the Transvaal Republic?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I believe that the practice of indenturing captured Native women and children to subjects of the Transvaal Republic, which was condemned, was one under which children were indentured for 21 or 28 years, and the rights of a master in the indentures of his apprentice were transferable by sale; and that nothing has now occurred which can fairly be compared to this system. So far as I know, in the only instances in which indenturing has now been resorted to, it was necessary to save from starvation destitute women and children who had been deserted by the men of their tribe; and I

  1017
  certainly gathered from the reports of these cases that the term of service was short, and that the conditions interfered no more with the liberty of the apprentice than indentures in this country. But, on looking at these reports again, I have thought it advisable, in order that the circumstances may be perfectly clear and any possible abuse prevented, to direct further inquiry to be made as to the precise action which has been taken; and I shall, of course, inform the House of the results of this inquiry, and of any measures that it may be necessary to take on the subject.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS—THE BUCKINGHAM SCHOOL BOARD.

    QUESTION.
    MR. E. HUBBARDasked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been drawn to the letter of the Education Department of 12th March 1879, informing the Buckingham School Board that—
    "My Lords are unable to sanction the borrowing of money by your board for the provisions of a school for 300 children;"
    to the present proposal of the Buckingham School Board to take a lease of suitable buildings to be erected for the accommodation of 300 children, at a rent that will pay five per cent, over the expenditure, the board reserving the right to purchase the buildings at any time at six months' notice; to the fact that sufficient accommodation exists already in the schools of Buckingham and Gawcott for the educational wants of the borough; and, whether the Department could make such local investigations and tender such advice to the Buckingham School Board as would save them from saddling the borough of Buckingham with unnecessary school accommodation?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, he was aware of the discrepancy which existed as to the sufficiency of the school accommodation in the borough of Buckingham. The Education Department had declined to sanction a loan for the building of new schools, or to express any opinion upon a proposal of the Board to lease premises for the accommodation of 300 children. The question was now one entirely for the ratepayers and the School Board to decide; and in refusing to sanction the loan which had
    1018
    been proposed, the Education Department had done all they could do in the matter.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— THE REINFORCEMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true as reported that reinforcements are about to be sent to South Africa; and whether the soldiers forming these reinforcements are to be taken from various brigades in England; and, in that case, whether the efficiency of those brigades will not be greatly impaired; also, whether, to give a stimulus to volunteering, gratuities of a guinea a head have not been offered?
  COLONEL STANLEY: It is true that drafts have been, and are being, sent out from time to time to South Africa; it is also the fact that for some time past it has been contemplated to send out reinforcements, if casualties in the command become very numerous. Soldiers forming these drafts have in some cases been taken from various brigades in England, and it, of course, follows that the efficiency of those brigades has to that extent been impaired. As to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, perhaps he will ask that again, as I have no means of positively answering it now. My impression is, that a gratuity may have been given in certain cases, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which sat some years ago.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— THE ROYAL MARINES.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. OTWAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question which, to some extent, followed upon the one which had just been answered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was, Whether it is not the case that there in this country and disposable for foreign service about 2,000 seasoned soldiers of the Royal Marines; and, if so, what hinders the employment of these soldiers on service for which they are especially qualified in South Africa; and, whether difficulties exist in consequence of a difference of views between the Admiralty and War Department as the employment or command of the Royal Marines on such service?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is perfectly true that there are about 2,000, or even more, Royal Marines, seasoned soldiers, and fit to embark for the seat of war if their services are required. I have already stated in this House that it is the intention of the Government, should it become necessary to send out battalions for the seat of war, to send first of all a battalion of Marines. There is nothing to hinder the employment of these soldiers in the Service, for which they are specially qualified. In. answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question, I may say there is the most perfect agreement between the Admiralty and the War Department in this matter, and their views are entirely identical.
  MR. RYLANDSasked when the despatch from Lord Chelmsford, in which he asked for three additional battalions, would be laid upon the Table?
  COLONEL STANLEY: I received a despatch last night slightly extending the telegraphic request. I did not wish to convey the idea that reinforcements had been refused. At the present moment the matter is still under consideration, and some drafts have been placed under orders, that is all. I generally publish such despatches as are of interest in the earliest Gazette; and other Papers are in course of time, and as occasion requires, laid before Parliament. The larger portion of the Correspondence received is of a Departmental character, and could not be laid before the House.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Will this particular despatch be given to us?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Oh yes.

  THE STATE OF TRADE—STATEMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. MAC IVERdesired to ask his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade a Question with regard to a statement quoted from a speech of the Prime Minister's in an article in The Times of to-day. He wished to say a few words in explanation of his Question, and, therefore, to put himself in Order, he -would conclude by a Motion. The Prime Minister was represented to have used the following words in reference to a previous speech of his own:—
    1020
    "I said that while the value of our exports had fallen off, their volume remained unchanged. That statement was made upon official authority, and upon facts the accuracy of which no one can impugn."
    He and everybody who was connected with shipping would impugn these facts. He should like to know in what port of the United Kingdom the exports were as large in volume now as they used to be, and what was the character of those exports? ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Member to be referring to words spoken in this House in the present Session; if that is so, he is out of Order.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was referring to an article which appeared in that day's Times. It looked as if that statement was based upon something or another which the Board of Trade had supplied; and he was most anxious to know what were the ports at which exports were going out in the same volume as formerly, and what was their character? He maintained that they could not be manufactured goods; they were probably such things as coals, pig iron, and other materials, which, being sent abroad, would enable foreigners to compete with our manufactures. He did not believe the exports of English or Irish manufactures were large enough to justify the statement. ["Order!"] He thanked hon. Gentlemen opposite for the patience with which they had listened to him. He did not propose to put his Question now; but he gave Notice that he would ask for information on the subject on Monday next. He concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
    MR. BENTINCKseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Mac Iver,)—put, and negatived.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE O'CONOR DON: I trust I may be permitted to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is—Whether the Government now sees its way to hold out any hopes to us of our being able to resume the debate on the important

  1021
  subject which was under the consideration of the House yesterday? and, in asking this, I trust the House will permit me to say one or two words in explanation. I only wish to say that we, who are interested in the Bill, do not desire to make any unreasonable demand of the Government. We do not wish to ask them to name to-day any particular date for the resumption of the debate; but we really do wish to impress on Her Majesty's Government the importance of the subject, and that some hopes should be held out to Members of the resumption of the debate taking place at a reasonably early time after Whitsuntide. I make this appeal entirely on public grounds; and even were I to make it on personal grounds, I think I might have some claim on the Government, considering that immediately I became aware that it was the wish of the Government and of the House that the debate of to-night on an important subject should be continued to-morrow night, I, who had the first place on the Paper for to-morrow, at once waived my right, and the result will be to place tomorrow at the disposal of the Government for the convenience of the House. Well, Sir, I do not really base this appeal on any personal ground at all. I am quite aware that the Government have many important Bills which they desire, and which they have the right, to see pushed forward; and what I would respectfully ask of them is, making all due allowance for these claims on their time, that they would hold out some hope to us of our being able to resume the debate at an early time.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I fully acknowledge the considerate manner in which the hon. Member who has just sat down has made his appeal, and I wish also to acknowledge the way in which he has acted with regard to to-morrow night. I can assure him that I wish to meet his appeal in the same spirit in which he has made it; and I trust the House will allow me to draw their attention to the present position of Public Business. We have brought in, on the part of the Government, no fewer than 28 Bills, all of which are now before the House. Of these, a great number—14—have not passed the second reading, and upon seven of these the Speaker has not been moved out of the Chair, and five are in
  1022
  Committee, and have to be considered on Report. Of the five in Committee, one is the Valuation Bill, with 112 clauses, and at the present time is on Clause 6; while the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, which contains 180 clauses, has only reached Clause 44. So much for the Bills. Then, with regard to Supply, we have had only two Votes out of 26 in the Army Estimates, and we have also only got two Votes out of 18 in the Navy Estimates, and 71 out of 142 in the Civil Service Estimates. Well, under these circumstances, the House will see that there is a very considerable amount of Business—not all of equal importance, I admit; but the House is quite aware that there are several Bills which are of very great public importance; and in regard to one—the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill—I must remind the House that that is a Bill that stands in a very peculiar position, because it is necessary to carry that Bill before a certain day, or else great confusion will arise. That being so, what is the allowance of time at our disposal? Beckoning from to-day to the end of July, I find that there are nine Mondays and nine Thursdays—making 18 days—eight Wednesdays, nine Tuesdays, and eight Fridays. Now, the Wednesdays, Tuesdays, and Fridays are all more or less at the disposal of the independent Members of the House, while Mondays and Thursdays are at the disposal of the Government. That gives 18 days for the Government, which are clearly their own, and 17 days—a portion of which, up to 7 o'clock in the evening, the Government usually have in the form of Morning Sittings: while the remainder of the time and the Wednesdays are, of course, not at all at the disposal of the Government. Under these circumstances, it will be seen that, looking at the large amount of Public Business the Government have before them, and looking to the scanty amount of time at their disposal, and at the disposal of independent Members, the balance is not so greatly in favour of the Government as in popular estimation may be supposed to be the case. Of course, I do no not lay down a hard-and-fast line. Some of the Bills we have brought forward are of a more general character, such, for instance, as that to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has given Notice. Under

  1023
  these circumstances, I think I should not be dealing fairly with the House if I held out at the present time any definite expectation of our being able to accommodate the hon. Member. At the same time, I fully recognize the importance of the subject; and I hope the hon. Member will be able to find a day for the continuation of the discussion. I can assure him that if the Government are assisted by the House in prosecuting the important Business which they have in hand, they will find that it will greatly facilitate our complying with the request, which at the present time it is impossible to do.
  MR. SHAW: I trust the House will allow me to make a few remarks on the subject before the House, although I am extremely reluctant to interpose between my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to put myself in Order I shall conclude with a Motion. I cannot but express my own very great disappointment at the answer just given by the right hon. Gentleman; and I think if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given us a more definite answer he would have served his own purposes much better. Obstruction has become almost a fine art, and the right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, almost said to the House that if they keep these Bills about long and do not allow them to pass, he will not give us a day for the discussion of the University Education (Ireland) Bill. What is the state of this Bill as it now stands before the House? This Bill, be it remembered, has been received and acknowledged as necessary by nearly three-fourths of the Members of the House, and it has been acknowledged it would have been a very useful thing if it could be passed this Session. There is no doubt in the world that there are points in it which we, and the hon. Member who introduced the Bill, are willing to look at and consider fairly——
  MR. NEWDEGATErose to Order. There was no Question before the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood that the hon. Member intended to conclude with a Motion.
  MR. SHAW: I am quite prepared to move the adjournment of the House. I say that those who are responsible for the Bill are most anxious to meet the objections which are urged in a fair and reasonable way. But how have we been met? I take the answer of the right
  1024
  hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as nothing but a distinct refusal to give us another opportunity of discussing this measure. Yesterday, when I addressed the House, I did so under feelings of very great difficulty. I have to acknowledge that usually, whenever I address this House, I receive nothing but kindness; but yesterday I had an impression that there was a great disposition on the part of the House to yield to that ignorant cry of "No Popery," which I should have thought had been dead and buried many years ago, and which, in my heart I believe, nine-tenths of the Members of this House despise.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASER, who rose to address the House from one of the cross seats close to the Bar, was received with loud cries of "Order! order!" and "Bar!" He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order—[Loud shouts of "Order!" and "You cannot speak outside the Bar!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to address the House, he should present himself within the Bar.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERthen came inside the Bar, and said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of Order. A Motion for the adjournment of the House having already been moved and negatived, it is not open to the hon. Member to make a fresh Motion to that effect without some other Motion having intervened.
  MR. SPEAKER: No doubt that Rule applies when a Question is under debate as proposed from the Chair; but I cannot say that the Rule applies on the present occasion.
  MR. SHAW: Mr. Speaker, I wish to get through the few observations I have to make as quickly as possible; but I cannot sit down without again expressing my disappointment that when the noble Lord at the head of the Opposition appealed for a day for the further consideration of this measure——
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he will be out of Order in discussing the merits of a Bill which has been ordered for consideration at another time.
  MR. SHAW: I should be very sorry, indeed, to transgress the Rules of this House; but I was really only wishing to point out the reasons why I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have acceded to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon. The feel-

  1025
  ings in my mind yesterday were those of sorrow and regret. My wish, and that of those with me, has always been to minimize as much as possible the points of difference between this country and Ireland, and to endeavour to find some common ground upon which we can meet to remedy and reform the great evils which exist in Ireland. But what a message we shall have to take back to the people of Ireland on a subject so important and essential to the well-being of the country.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must again remind the hon. Member that he is infringing the Rules of the House.
  MR. SHAW: I must express my regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have transgressed the Rules of the House. I have been carried away by my feelings, and I must say that there was no premeditation on my part. I now move that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Shaw.)
  MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know that at any time since I have had the honour of sitting in this House any message from the Treasury Bench has been sent to the people of Ireland so full of despair and irritation. There is no doubt on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers—there is no doubt on the part of the Members of this House—that the subject of the interpellation to Ministers this evening is one of momentous importance to the people of Ireland. Her Majesty's Ministers own the fact—they own it is most exigent and most necessary; and yet they have to-night told my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) that he may take his Bill under his arm and walk out of the House with it. Let us recognize the fact that the present Ministry have, like other Ministries that have preceded them, mocked the claims, baffled the hopes, and sported with the expectations of the people of Ireland, cruelly to deride and deceive them. Now, I charge, across the floor of this House—and let us have no beating about the bush—I charge that negotiations—semi-official negotiations—were carried on last December on this question in Ireland. There is no use in concealing this any longer—we shall have it out. I say the persons in the con-
  1026
  fidence of Her Majesty's Government have approached the Catholic authorities in Ireland; and I told them at the time, when I was privately consulted, that the Government approached them to betray them. They know it to-night. The Catholic authorities of Ireland were told if a moderate compromise were offered, the liberal feeling and common sense of this Assembly would welcome the solution of so knotty a problem, and the Members would be delighted to have this question out of their way. They were told that this question was embarrassing alike to the Government and the Opposition. We were told, and the Catholic authorities were told—let it be denied if it can—it was told upon what I call quasi-official authority, in Dublin—that this proposal was to meet with a cordial, or, at all events, a friendly, reception from the Government. I said, when I heard that, that I was sceptical. There are Catholic Friends about me now who know that I was sceptical then. I told them what would happen, and it has happened here to-night. I am vindicated now. My hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon undertook the unpleasant duty of proposing a compromise which might have imperilled his popularity in Ireland. He hears me, and he knows that the man who stands between a strong popular demand and the House of Commons, as a middle course, subjects himself to the misunderstanding of his motives, to the possible loss of popularity, and, lastly, to the possible failure of his attempt. I ask my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest regard, not to dig the grave of his own public position by any effort to settle the question, or to extricate the Government from their difficulty. I told him the Government were strong; and if there was any proposition to be made in the way of a compromise it lay upon them to make it. I told him that for the weaker party to make a compromise on this subject would be to put himself in the wrong; and that it was my sorrowful fear that it would lead to cruel disappointment and irritation of the feelings of the Irish people. One hundred and fifty years ago, we braved the penalties of felony for education. We are a people who have bled and suffered for our desire to give education to our youth. To-day we come to your House with a proposal which every man recognizes as

  1027
  likely to afford the basis of a happy solution of the question. Her Majesty's Government have 18 days at their disposal, and they cannot listen to us. "Come to-morrow," they say. I might write over the portals of this House for all Irish Members—"Abandon hope all ye who enter here." When we came here as an Irish Party in 1874, hon. Gentlemen who, like myself, then entered the House for the first time, said—and I believed them, and I believe them sincerely now—"Do not ask for Home Rule, or for separation, but show us what Parliament can do, and we will show you what Parliament will do. Put your finger upon practical questions requiring solution in Ireland, or that an Irish Parliament would deal with, and we will show you that English Gentlemen can solve them for you here." Here is one of these questions. Is it a question of magnitude? I appeal to the Government themselves—I appeal to the previous Government, with whom the question prevailed when they were in power—is this a question of pressing importance? I see here one of the greatest statesmen that England or Europe has ever produced. Yes; I repeat it. I did not then believe the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) acceptable; but that never shook my confidence in the gigantic ability of his character. He proclaimed equally, with his Conservative opponents, that this was a question pressing and goading so far as the feelings of the Irish people were concerned, and he essayed a solution of it. You cannot deny that the Irish Party in bringing forward this Bill offered—I will not say the last, but one of the last, of the tests by which they endeavoured to ascertain if this Assembly is prepared to give that which the Irish nation with an Irish Parliament would give. What you give us now is the confession of impotence to deal with the question as regards time, or unwillingness as regards disposition. I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night—a Gentleman for whom every Member of the Party with whom I serve entertains unbounded respect—that by the answer he has given to-night he has struck a pang of sorrow and regret into the breast of every Irishman who had hoped to see removed a cause of bitterness, irritation, and exasperation existing be-
  1028
  tween the Irish people and this House. I will also tell the Government this—that they have not facilitated the discharge of Public Business by what they have done. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer realize this fact—that we fail to recognize in any one of the measures he has laid before the House one at all deserving to be ranked in its pressure and importance with the settlement of the question of University Education in Ireland. For my own part, I feel, after the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night, that it would be a mockery for my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon to attempt to persevere with his Bill. If he takes my advice, he will rise in his place and remove the Bill from the Order Book, and go back to his constituents and his countrymen, and tell them that his efforts—recognized as he is in this House and in Ireland as a Gentleman of moderate opinions—that even his efforts were vain to extract from the British Parliament this simple measure of justice to our country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERventured to interpose, because he really thought that a great amount of indignation that had been excited by what he said was thrown away, being founded on a complete misapprehension of what he intended to convoy. He was told that he had made a distinct refusal, that he had sent a message of "despair and irritation" to Ireland, and so forth, in regard to this Bill; whereas what he had said was of a wholly different character. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to consider the matter from a common-sense point of view. They knew perfectly well that there was a considerable amount of Public Business which must be got through, and also that there was but a limited time usually given for a Session. They might, however, feel assured that it was the desire of the Government, if it was in its power, to facilitate the discussion of the important subject which was before the House yesterday. The Government had shown that, by the arrangement they made to enable the hon. Member for Roscommon to bring the Bill in. With regard to the time for its resuming consideration, he had said that the Government were unable at the present moment to make a proposal, because of the state of their Business; that what he hoped

  1029
  was that the House would assist them to get on with the Business, and, if they made satisfactory progress with it, they would be glad to do what they could as to giving a day for the University Education (Ireland) Bill. He called attention to the distribution of the time which remained till the end of the Session as between the Government and private Members; and he thought it would be borne in mind that as there was yesterday so there might be again other occasions between this and the time at which they might be able to offer him a day when the hon. Member for Roscommon might have an opportunity of renewing the discussion of his measure. Commanding, as it justly did, very great interest on the part of hon. Gentlemen throughout the House, he thought it very probable that the hon. Member would be able to find another day on which the same thing might happen as occurred yesterday, when hon. Gentlemen having priority on the Notice Paper would give way, and so allow the Bill to be proceeded with without interrupting the Business of the Government. He wished distinctly to say that he had in no way endeavoured to stop or to stifle the discussion of the Bill; but he felt that, in the first instance, the Government ought to receive the assistance of the House in advancing the important Business they had in hand.
  THE O'CONOR DONfelt it necessary, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say a few words. He confessed that he could not regard the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in as completely hopeless a light as the hon. and learned Member for Louth did. At the same time, he felt deeply disappointed at its not being in the right hon. Gentleman's power to give a more definite encouragement to the promoters of the Bill than he now found himself able to do. But he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that at the present moment the Government was not in a position to give them a day, and he did not think it would be wise on their part to press the right hon. Gentleman further on the matter at the present moment. It was not his intention, however, to abandon every hope of passing the Bill; and he would, under any circumstances, put it down for an early day after Whitsuntide,
  1030
  when he and others would repeat the appeal they had made to the right hon. Gentleman to afford them facilities for the discussion of that important measure. He might add that every word which the hon. and learned Member for Louth had said with regard to his conversation with him was perfectly accurate. The hon. and learned Member had pointed out to him, in the very terms he had used to-night, the danger that would be run in the introduction of the Bill. But even if the Government were to treat them in the manner in which the hon. and learned Member for Louth thought it might treat them—and in which, perhaps, it would—he, nevertheless, was not a bit ashamed of having introduced the measure. He did not at all regret having done so; and, whatever the result might be—whether the Bill passed or was thrown out—he did not think he would have any reason to regret that he had proposed a measure which was not of an unreasonable character, but one which, if it had been brought forward by the Government, he ventured to say, would have been deemed moderate and reasonable. Whether the proposal led to the settlement of that question or not, it would, at least, have shown that those who were interested in the matter—and especially those who belonged to that community in Ireland which was particularly interested in the settlement of that question—were not unreasonable in their demands; that they knew what they wanted, and understood how to put their demands in such a shape that they might be fairly considered by Parliament. Whether Parliament rejected those demands or not, they had no reason to regret having made the proposal. In these circumstances, he thought the best solution now, on the eve of the Holidays, was to postpone the Bill; and then, after Whitsuntide, when the Government were better able than at present to give him a definite answer, he would repeat the Question he had put to them to-night.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: On this matter we are not discussing the Irish University question, but we are discussing the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and I wish to point out the differ-once which exists between the position which the right hon. Gentleman took up some time ago and his present position. The impression he made on a former

  1031
  occasion was that the Government were anxious, and were almost prepared, to give facilities for the further discussion of the measure; and he almost announced that they would consider immediately as to the day on which the Bill should be taken. It happened, however, that some private Members—the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) being the first—offered to give up Wednesday last in order that the second reading of the Bill might be taken. What is the impression the conduct of the Government will make out-of-doors? It will be said Her Majesty's Government are waiting to see how the wind may blow on the subject of Irish University Education. The manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the subject shows that the Government are not able to make up their minds, and are waiting to see how the tide of public opinion will run to determine their attitude. I do not think it contributes to the dignity of the Leader of this House that an important question like this should be dealt with as he has dealt with it. My hon. Friend has been asking him for further facilities for the purpose of this Bill; the right hon. Gentleman was able to find facilities for the introduction of the measure, and the state of Public Business was then much the same as it is now; but as he had not ascertained what the state of public opinion is out-of-doors, he has not been able to offer any further facilities at present. Surely, a most unsatisfactory position for a Leader of the House and a Member of the Government. As a Representative of an Irish constituency, I protest against—I will not say the juggling, but I will say the equivocal and ambiguous conduct of the Government in reference to this Bill. I regret the rather too conciliatory tone which I think the hon. Member for Roscommon has adopted on this occasion. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] I am one of those who put very little faith in any compromise that may be sanctioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I felt it my duty to preserve silence, and to give my hon. Friend all the assistance in my power, because I felt that my hon. Friend was engaged in a difficult and dangerous task. There is a time when conciliation must come to an end, and when compromise is only another word for surrender; and, look-
  1032
  ing at the action of the Government, I think that that time has come, and that the Irish Members, who have been sent here to endeavour to settle this question, should take the very earliest opportunity of consulting together in order to see what course should be taken in reference to the Bill and the shifting conduct of the Government.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed a hope that if the Government intended to give an opportunity for the further consideration of this Bill, it would not be brought on so near the end of the Session as was the case with the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill of last year, which was taken after a large number of hon. Members had left London. Referring to what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat, he said that the Members of the House must make up their minds whether they would exercise control over their own Business; because it appeared to him that the section of the House to which the hon. Member belonged had undertaken to exercise a kind of lordship over their time. For his own part—and he believed he was speaking the feeling of the majority of the English and Scotch Members—he refused to submit to such a control.
  MR. COGANapproved of the course which his hon. Friend (the O'Conor Don) had taken in not yet abandoning the Bill. That was a step of the most serious import, and the political feeling it would create in Ireland would be most disastrous and dangerous to the common weal of the United Kingdom. He believed the course which had been already taken by Government with regard to the measure would create a feeling of uneasiness, a feeling of want of confidence in the Parliament being able to deal with matters of great importance to Ireland, and a feeling of distrust, the effects of which he felt would be impossible to exaggerate. He had already stated in that House that he believed it would be an ill day for the United Kingdom if the people of Ireland came to believe that a question which had been admitted by two great Parties in that House to be a question that required settlement, and to be inevitably interesting to the welfare of their country—if they came to believe, after it had been admitted that this question was so important and so necessary to be dealt

  1033
  with, that, after all, their hopes had been trifled with, and that neither the Government nor the House was prepared seriously to take the question into consideration. Whatever might be the fate or the result of the Bill now before the House, he felt that his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had done a wise and good act in placing before Parliament a moderate and reasonable proposal for settling this question. In that proposal he had had the concurrence of many Irish Members who sat on the opposite of the House, as well as on this; and it was so reasonable and so evidently fair that it had elicited the warm support of even so strong an advocate of secular education as the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe). In the few sentences which the right hon. Gentleman uttered yesterday in that House, he spoke what he (Mr. Cogan) believed to be wise advice, when he asked hon. Members to consider whether they would not enter on a new departure in dealing with this question, and endeavour, as an act of great statesmanship, to secure on the part of the Irish people feelings of love, and not of hate. He felt those words of the right hon. Gentlemen were true; and as one who had been for many years an Irish Representative in that House, he had not himself abandoned the hope that the Parliament of the United Kingdom was able and willing to deal with questions that affected the welfare of his country. It would be a matter of deep regret to him if the day came when he should feel it necessary to abandon that hope. He confessed those feelings would be greatly influenced by the future course of Her Majesty's Ministers and the influential Leaders of public opinion who sat in that House; and if—which he would deeply regret—he should be forced to come to the conclusion that this Parliament would not be prepared to deal with this question, as he believed was required by justice and the interests of his countrymen—deeply as he should regret it—having now for 27 years been a Member of that House—he should feel that the time had arrived when he should abandon the hope. He should no longer ask to be elected to this House, when he felt that he was utterly powerless to aid in carrying out the wishes of those who sent him there; and he should feel it to be his duty to
  1034
  retire into private life, deeply regretting that the course taken by this House should have done the most serious thing possible in endangering the continuance of the union between the two countries.
  MAJOR NOLAN: I wish to ask if the country can be expected to believe that it is the difficulty of time which prevents the Government giving a day? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says "Yes;" but I must say that it is a new event in Parliamentary history, when a matter is before the House which may determine whether Gentlemen on this side of the House or Gentlemen on that side shall form the Government after the next Election, that we should be told the want of a day prevents the matter being discussed. Why, there are plenty of ways of doing it. You might make the Session one day longer, or sacrifice a Saturday, or adopt various other methods which will be obvious to the youngest Member. It is quite in accordance, however, with previous experience that the Leader of the Government may not want to commit himself on a great question, and that he may so manœuvre as to keep dangling a particular bait before a large section of the country, and, by refusing to give a day for the matter to be debated, so tide over the time till the next General Election. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken great credit to himself for giving us an hour and a-half for this Bill the other night. That was the first time he had given us an hour for any purpose this Session, and, after all, what did that hour and a-half give us? We know what a first reading is. It gives the Mover an opportunity of making his speech and stating the substance of his measure; but it does not force the Government to express any opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a hour and a-half, knowing he would not be obliged to commit himself to any promise of support. Perhaps the Bill being put down for Wednesday was a little surprise to the Government; but with a great skill they managed to let the debate go on for five hours without showing any sign. At the end of that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer did get up, and he said there were a great many good things in the Bill and a great many bad things, and there were various things that he recommended

  1035
  for consideration. He went into other points; but he never said Yes or No. He never told us whether he was going to support the Bill or oppose it. At the present moment we are perfectly baffled. All we know is that certain Conservative Irish Members have put their names on the back of the Bill; and, on the other hand, we certainly attach some importance to some cheers with which hon. Members below the Gangway opposite greeted some of the arguments against the measure. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to ascertain the feelings of his own Party; and, therefore, to put off committing himself either way till the last day. Now, I will tell you how he will probably treat my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon. He will give him a day very late in the Session, and then at the end of the debate he will say there is no use going on with the measure at such a period of the Session, and that it had better be put off. I believe that is the position in which we shall be placed, unless we obtain some more definite promise than we have yet received. If we have to put the Bill off till next Session, then we shall have to put it off till next Parliament; and at the General Election the constituents in some parts of the Kingdom will be told the Government are against the measure, and those in Ireland will be asked to believe they are in favour of it. In that way the Government hope to secure a majority, if their cards are well played. I do not think this is a high way of governing the country; but we have sometimes seen it done, and it is not inconsistent with the action of the Government up to the present hour. To say that a day cannot be found for a measure supported by three-fourths of the Irish people—for it is supported by Irish Members on that side as well as on this—and a measure which may largely influence the General Election, is to show that the Government wish to retain in their hands, till after the Dissolution, the power of either supporting or opposing us.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the House no reason to suppose that the Government were trifling in the matter. On the contrary, he said he would do his best to appoint another day for the consideration of the subject. They had now been discussing the matter for an hour,
  1036
  and he hoped they would be allowed to proceed to Business.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I shall not detain the House very long; but I wish to point to one or two observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to a number of Government Bills, and to his desire for getting through these Bills before he can consider the question of granting a day for this important Irish measure, and when he allows other determined opponents of justice to the Roman Catholics of Ireland to exercise the time of the House in the discussion of these Government measures, so as to make it impossible for them to grant a day, I think we have a right to assume that there is little probability of our obtaining further facilities. For all we know of the extreme violence—I would add, virulence—of the anti-Christian party of this country, there cannot be the slightest doubt but that they will be able to bring sufficient influence upon probably well-meaning, but susceptible, Members of the House, to use the time of the House in what may be considered legitimate discussion. The Government will, doubtless, give them the opportunity which they require, and which may render it impossible to deal with the subject of University Education. Whatever may have been the charges brought against me on many occasions, I have certainly no desire on this occasion to address the House in language which may be considered, in the slightest degree, aggravating. I may, in. my conduct, have shown a disposition slightly to amend and alter a Christian precept, and to have asked the House to do unto others as they would do unto us. But, on the present occasion, I am singularly disposed to act in the most conciliatory manner towards the Government and Opposition; but I cannot conceal from myself that there is a resolute determination to refuse justice to the Roman Catholics of Ireland amongst an influential party in this country. In reference to the suggestion, I have only one other observation to make. It is too commonly reported—and I am afraid too commonly believed—that this demand for denominational education in Ireland, for Catholic education, for freedom of Catholic education in Ireland, for liberty and equality of education, is a mere sacerdotal and episcopal demand,

  1037
  originating in, and supported by, the priests. It is said that the Catholics of Ireland are merely moving like a drilled battalion at the command of their episcopal commanders-in-chief. I beg to say that nothing of the sort is the ease. No man reverences more than I do the Catholic clergy and hierarchy of Ireland; but I, as a Catholic Member of the House, take upon myself the responsibility of saying that, if there were a hesitation, if there were a variation, in the attitude of the Catholic Bishops and priests of Ireland, with regard to the absolute necessity of the Catholic education of the Catholic people of Ireland, dearly as the people of Ireland love their faithful pastors, from that day a gulf would be fixed between the people and the clergy. If, by an impossible and monstrous hypothesis, the Catholic clergy and Bishops of Ireland were to be in favour of secular education, they might go to Zululand, they might go to Patagonia; but a new class of priests and Bishops would have to appear in Ireland to resume the unbroken traditions of Catholic Ireland. That is, as I have said, a monstrous and impossible hypothesis. The priests and the people are united on the subject; but I beg to assure the House that the question of Catholic education in Ireland is a layman's question. If the present moderate demand of the Irish people is refused, the Catholic laity of Ireland will take it up with determination, and there is no doubt as to what will be the result. Supposing there is any irresolution on the part of the clergy, the laity will insist that the Irish people shall receive an education which will fit them for the combat of life, for progress in every department of the world's affairs, in conformity with the conscience, the hereditary instincts, and the glorious traditions of the Catholic people of Ireland, who look back upon 45 generations of Catholic ancestors.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I must confess there appears to me to be hardly sufficient cause for the expressions of despair and irritation which have reached us from a certain quarter of the House. If hon. Members representing Irish constituencies will consider the position of this Bill, I think they will be obliged to acknowledge that they have cried out before they are hurt. I really cannot remember any
  1038
  Bill of similar importance to the Bill which is before us having made such rapid progress. If they will take the trouble to consider the matter, they will find that it was only introduced by the assistance of the Government on this day last week, and it has already received a considerable amount of discussion on the second reading. I rose yesterday, immediately upon the adjournment of the debate, to press upon the Government the expediency of making some arrangement as to its resumption; and I do not think that anyone will suspect I am indifferent to the importance of the subject, or that I have refrained from impressing the importance of it upon the notice of the Government. I think that the Government, upon further consideration, will see that it is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, that a question which has excited so much attention as this, not only in Ireland, but also in England, and in this House, should receive further and full consideration before the close of the Session. The reason for this was given by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan); and I hope the opportunity will be afforded before we arrive at a late period of the Session. I do not detect in anything which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an absolute refusal to give an opportunity for further discussion. I understood him to state simply the position of the Government Business, and to say, under these circumstances, it was not in his power to fix at this time a day for continuing the debate. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) has taken a proper and reasonable course in putting the Bill down for an early day after Whitsuntide, when the House and the Government will be able to see what progress they have made, or are likely to make, with some of the most important measures, and the Government will also have an opportunity of further considering the importance of this great subject, and the necessity of giving the Bill some further consideration. I really think that hon. Members from Ireland might wait, at all events, until after Whitsuntide, before they express their condemnation of the conduct of the Government; but, so far as I am able to judge, there is nothing which has fallen from the

  1039
  Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night that in the slightest degree approaches an absolute refusal to give the consideration required on behalf of the Bill.
  DR. WARDsaid, hon. Members had complained that the House had been taken by surprise in this matter, and that very short Notice had been given of the Bill. The question, however, had been before the House for the last 20 years. It had been brought forward by responsible Ministers of the Crown of opposite sides; and, under those circumstances, were they to be told that they were taken by surprise? Why, this Parliament had heard the arguments over and over again. There was no proposal in the present Bill which had not already been before the House. Surely the House had by this time made up its mind; and if the Government were in earnest in this business, it certainly must be within their power to give them a Saturday for the discussion of the subject. Hon. Members might say that if such a course was pursued the Motion would be againt the Irish Members. But if that were so, often as they differed, he could assure the House that they would pass the Bill in a proper form. What he wanted to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this—The right hon. Gentleman knew he would have to give in at some time, that he would have to sacrifice a day sooner or later. Let him, then, make the sacrifice graciously now. Give them a day—say a Saturday; that would not sacrifice the time of the Government, but it would meet the requirements of this Bill.
  MR. PARNELL: I do not join in the belief that has been expressed by hon. Members that it is hopeless to try to pass the Bill. The hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) has adopted a courageous course in persevering with the measure for a while longer. At the same time, I do not agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done everything that is required of him. The hon. Member for Roscommon has asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a day for the resumption of the debate, and he did not ask for the day to be mentioned at the present moment, but what was the reply? The Chancellor of the Exchequer went over a long list of Bills introduced by the Government, and he pointed out how very few had been
  1040
  passed, and the small amount of progress which had been made with others. We should have been children, did we not see that he did not mean to afford opportunity for the resumption of the debate upon this Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer retains his present ideas, it is hopeless to suppose the Bill can be passed; and I see no reason why he should retain the unfortunate idea he has taken up. I will not prolong the debate; but I should not abandon the Bill hastily if the Government retain their opinion after Whitsuntide. We shall have had an opportunity of considering the matter, and we may take such measures as may seem desirable and necessary in reference to the subject.
  MR. SHAW: I think we need not continue the debate further, especially after the appeal to the Government by the noble Lord. I shall, therefore, ask permission to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE "HOME RULE" PARTY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) the Question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether we may in future look to him as the Leader of that section of the House below the Gangway, called the Home Rule Party?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question of the hon. Baronet does not refer to any Bill or Motion before the House, and cannot, therefore, be put.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  INDIA—EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. E. STANHOPE, in rising to move "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," in order that the House should go into Committee upon the East India Revenue accounts, said, that in making the usual Statement with regard to the finances of India he felt, looking to the numerous and intricate subjects with which that Statement must necessarily deal, and to the public interest

    1041
    which the subject of Indian finance had recently evoked, that no one who had ever occupied the post which he had the honour to hold deserved more the consideration and indulgence of the House. But whatever might be about to happen in the course of the debate, he felt it to be his duty, in the interests of India, to make as clear and as impartial a Statement as he could, even if, in so doing, he should have to trespass for some considerable time upon that indulgence. No subject was more commonly discussed in the debates of last year than the difficulty which some hon. Members experienced in consequence of the changes that had taken place in the form of the Revenue accounts. At that time he had pointed out that these changes had been adopted in consequence of representations made in the House at different times as to the desirability of assimilating, as far as possible, the form of the Indian to that of the English accounts. It was, however, quite impossible to deny that there was a great deal of force in the arguments of some hon. Members; and, therefore, he had endeavoured to prepare a Statement in accordance with their views. And before leaving the subject of the forms of accounts, he would remark that the India Revenue accounts were, as usual, converted in accordance with the conventional system of taking 10 rupees to the pound. The main reason for this was convenience. Indeed, it would scarcely be possible in any other way to make the accounts really intelligible. It would, of course, be open to the Government to convert the accounts at the rate of exchange of the year; but that would prevent any possibility of comparison, and would cause great difficulty in the presentation of Estimates for a coming year, as the rate of exchange itself would be a mere guess. It would, also, be productive of inconvenience in other ways—for instance, if the Government should want to convey to the House a clear idea of the salary of a member of the Council, or other official, such salary would necessarily appear in varying amounts, whereas they all knew it was really a fixed payment in gold, quite independent of the rate of exchange.
    He now came to the figures which it was his duty to lay before the House for the three years under review. The
    1042
    accounts for 1877–8 showed a gross Revenue of £58,969,300, and a gross Expenditure of £62,512,400, leaving a deficit of £3,543,100. This result, as the House was aware, was mainly due to the famine in Southern India. It approximated so closely to the regular Estimate which was given last year that there was no need for him to trouble the House by dwelling upon the details.
    The figures for 1878–9, as set out in the regular Estimates, showed a considerable increase on both sides of the account. As he explained last year, this was mainly due to the incorporation into the general accounts of provincial income and expenditure amounting to about £2,000,000, and on the Revenue side, also, to the proceeds of the new taxation imposed last year. The gross Revenue was accordingly taken at £64,687,000, and the gross Expenditure at £63,236,000, leaving a surplus of £1,451,000. When it was remembered that, in addition to the expenditure which he anticipated last year, they had had an enormously increased loss by exchange, and had paid £670,000 on account of the war in Afghanistan, this result did not compare unfavourably with that which was predicted last year, or with the Estimate which he gave in December last, based upon such information as the Government then had. It was then calculated that, after payment of the war charges of the year, the surplus would not exceed the sum of £600,000. The real surplus had turned out to be £1,451,000.
    The finances of India had been terribly affected by the recent famine. The direct loss of Revenue, owing to this cause, was estimated at about £9,400,000, in addition to the loans to Native States and the cost of a railway constructed as a famine relief work. Altogether, the Government of India believed that the disbursements necessitated by the famine amounted to no less than £13,000,000, the loss to the country being still greater. From Mysore and Madras, in which parts of the country the famine had made such terrible havoc among the people, the Government had, he was glad to say, received the most conclusive testimony of the great good effected by the charitable funds so largely subscribed in this country. Houses had been restored, thousands of horses had been given or let on hire, seed had been provided, and

    1043
    looms, ploughs, and other implements furnished in numerous cases. From Mysore the Government learnt with gladness that the crops were in good condition, and that there was a prospect of a speedy return to the former prosperous condition of that country. From Madras, for a time, the accounts had not been so good, but recent rains had caused a great improvement in the prospects of the Province; while it had been found possible to discontinue relief works at the end of last year. The Government of India, therefore, in framing their Estimates for the coming year, were able to lay aside any considerable anxiety with regard to the two districts to which he had referred.
    But one or two difficulties had to be surmounted. They had to provide for what he was glad to be able to call the late war in Afghanistan, and they had to meet the enormous loss which would be sustained in the operation of transmitting to this country the full amount of £17,000,000 required to meet all their home payments during the year. The actual payments on account of the war, which had been brought into the accounts of 1878–9, amounted to £670,000, which was considerably less than the sum at which his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cranbrook) and he (Mr. E. Stanhope) had ventured to estimate it in December last—an estimate which was much criticized at the time. For the present year, the cost of those operations was estimated at £2,000,000. He had heard it said that this was an inadequate estimate, and that various high authorities shared this opinion. With all due respect to those authorities, he submitted that when their opinion was formed it was impossible for them to have correct data before them. The Government of India, who were responsible in the matter, had made that estimate, believing it to be a correct one, after full consideration of the circumstances in which they were placed by the position of affairs in Afghanistan, and the policy which was being pursued there. And, accordingly, it was arranged that a sum of £2,000,000 should, with the consent of Parliament, be advanced out of the Imperial Exchequer, no interest being payable, and re-payment to be made in the course of seven years; so that the Government of India would not only
    1044
    have cash in hand for their immediate necessities, but would be able to reduce their remittances to this country by that amount.
    The difficulty due to the Afghan War having been disposed of, there remained one other matter to be considered before the Estimates could be framed. He alluded to the import duties upon cotton goods. The House would recollect a famous Resolution in connection with this subject passed two years ago. In consequence of that Resolution, the Secretary of State, not only in his own name but in that of the Council also, sent a despatch to the Government of India, in which he said that, looking to the condition of their finances, he did not think it probable that they would be able then to achieve the repeal of the whole of the cotton duties, but in which he also pressed upon their immediate attention the necessity of dealing with those portions of the duty which were undoubtedly protective in their effect. Upon those instructions Lord Lytton immediately acted, issuing a Commission to inquire into and investigate the whole subject; and, in the meantime, he exempted from the duty certain coarse descriptions of cotton goods, about which there could be no doubt as to the operation of the duty. That policy was universally approved. Since that time the Report of the Commission had been published; but to judge from certain minutes which had been delivered to the House, it had not been fairly studied by everyone interested in it. What did that Report show? It showed—first, that the extent to which the duty was directly protective had been very much under-estimated, and that it was desirable to extend, at the earliest possible date, relief to the suffering branches of the import trade in those goods; and, secondly, that that part of the duties thus shown to be undoubtedly protective could be removed without any very serious loss of revenue. It then remained for the Government of India to decide whether they would attempt to maintain a limit which was logically indefensible and practically utterly impossible to maintain, and so keep up the sources of irritation that existed between England and India; or whether they would follow the lines of policy laid down by the Secretary of State in Council, commenced last year, and approved

    1045
    by that House, and extend the limits of exemption to all those portions of the duties that were distinctly protective. The Government of India chose the latter course, and what had happened since? A discussion had taken place in that House, and the course determined upon by the Government of India had been entirely approved by a vast majority. Whatever objection might be made, either in reference to the merits of the course pursued or to the mode in which it had been carried out, he was perfectly satisfied that the Governor General of India would not have sanctioned that course except in the belief that it was the best, under all the circumstances, for the interests of India.
    He came now to the Budget of the year. Including, then, the whole of the war expenditure which could at present be in any way foreseen, but excluding, as he had throughout done, the capital expenditure upon productive Public Works, the figures for 1879–80 were as follows:—The gross Revenue was taken at £64,562,000, the gross Expenditure at £65,917,000; or, according to the calculation of net income and expenditure which had been placed in the hands of hon. Members, the net Revenue amounted to £43,623,100, and the net charges to £44,978,100, leaving a deficit for the year of £1,355,000. But if the Bill which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would introduce for the advance of £2,000,000 from the Imperial Exchequer became law, there would remain in hand a sum of £600,000 to meet any contingencies which might arise. Before he proceeded to attempt any general view of the financial position of India, it was right that he should call attention to the changes in some of the items of Revenue and Expenditure which the tables recently distributed would enable any hon. Member to follow as he traced them during the three years under review. Some of the principal variations which were to be observed were due to the great disturbing element of the famine in Southern India and the scarcity which prevailed elsewhere. The not proceeds of land revenue, for instance, were abnormally depressed in 1877–8, and they were largely swollen in the intermediate year by the arrears which had been collected in Madras to an extent beyond expectation. Although a small amount of
    1046
    arrears had still to come in, the revenue under that head was almost restored to its normal condition. In the same way, the drought in Upper India seriously affected the proceeds from the Forests and from Excise; but under both those heads some improvement was expected this year. The receipts from Customs were more difficult of comparison, because of the changes in taxation and the reforms in the import tariff. Last year, mainly by the abolition of the sugar duties, but also by striking out of the tariff articles which yielded only an insignificant amount, and certain coarse cotton goods, revenue was sacrificed to the extent of £232,000. This year the exemptions from the protective import duty of all cotton goods containing no yarn finer than 30's and the changes in the tariff valuations involved a loss of £192,000, making a total of £424,000. In spite of this, and also of the very great commercial depression which had existed, some recovery had taken place in the Revenue. The net receipts from opium showed an extraordinary fluctuation. In 1878–9, they exceeded the estimate by no less than £1,584,000. In consequence of the abundant crop of 1876–7 the stock in hand in 1877–8 was very large. Owing to a reduction of the payments to the cultivators and a failure of the crop, the charges were considerably less; but the saving appeared in the accounts of 1878–9. It was altogether an exceptional year, and the Estimates this year, though very much lower, showed, when compared with ordinary years, the expectation of more than the average receipts. The new taxation recently imposed, and which could be traced in the accounts, partly under the head of assessed taxes and partly under that of provincial rates, was expected to bring in this year about £1,300,000; and there would still remain for future years a small addition for a portion of the famine cess in the North-Western Provinces, which had not yet been levied.
    The salt revenue showed only a very slight increase. The rise which was to be noticed last year, as compared with 1877–8, was due partly to the rectification of an erroneous procedure in the accounts from Madras, and partly to the fact that in the earlier year traders held back in the expectation of the reduction of duty, which did, in fact, take place a few months later. The revenue

    1047
    was now in its normal condition, the recent reforms in the salt duties having produced no particular effect upon the net proceeds. But, even at the risk of keeping the House from subjects of more general interest, he was bound, in justice to the Government of India, to explain what had recently happened with respect to these duties. Last year, he had described at some length the various steps in the process of equalization, and showed how the great and scandalous barrier of the Inland Customs Line—at one time 2,300 miles in length—might very shortly, in consequence of the reforms which had been effected, be altogether dispensed with. This line virtually ceased to exist on the 1st of April last, with the exception of the Trans-Indus section, about 400 miles in length, which it would be necessary to maintain for a short time. The accomplishment of that great reform, accompanied as it had been by the abolition of the sugar duties, which operated as protective duties against our own and in favour of foreign sugar, could not but be regarded as a great step in advance. It had enabled the Government to get rid of the vexatious system of search, of the transit duties upon salt, and, in the case of four of the Native States, of all other local transit duties also. Although the arrangements with the Native States, which had been rendered necessary in consequence, were not yet in perfect order, they were working more smoothly than could possibly have been expected. As the House was aware, it was no part of the original scheme for the equalization of the salt duties throughout India to add anything to the salt revenue. Nor was the increase of duty imposed in Southern India intended to form part of the Famine Insurance Fund. It was intended only to enable the Government to get rid of the Customs Line, while it was expected that the revenue would be the same as formerly. It was now thought that, after deducting the compensation payable to the Native States, and the loss of revenue ncurred by the remission of the sugar duties, the net results of the equalization were to cause a loss to the Exchequer of £48,000 a-year, at first, but that this would speedily be recovered by the increased consumption in many parts of British territory, and in some Native States. It was, of
    1048
    course, too soon to form any confident opinion as to the effect of these measures upon consumption. Among the 130,000,000 of people to whom the duty and the cost of salt had been reduced, it was, naturally enough, expected to increase. And, accordingly, there had been a steady increase in the quantity consumed in Bengal. The amount which paid duty last year was larger than in any previous year. Among the 47,000,000 of people to whom the tax had been increased, it was necessary to watch the effect very carefully. The amount that paid duty in Madras and Bombay in 1877–8 was exceptionally large. Since that time the duty had been raised; but, in spite of the terrible losses of wealth and population which those districts had sustained, the consumption last year was only 3 per cent less than in 1877–8, and, with that exception, greater than in any previous year. As showing the effect of the spread of railways and other causes upon the price of salt, he might say that although in 10 years the duty on salt in Southern India had been increased 66 per cent, the price had only risen 20 per cent; and when hon. Members spoke of the oppressive nature of the tax, he thought they did not pay sufficient attention to the way in which it was collected—namely, by infinitesimal payments reaching over the whole year. It had been stated last year by a very high authority—he meant Lord Northbrook—that the tax which weighed least upon the people and caused least discontent was the salt tax. On the whole, he thought he might say that the great work of equalization had been accomplished without undue strain upon the people, and with remarkable success. It was an achievement of which Lord Lytton and his Government might very justly be proud.
    Having detained the House, he was afraid, too long in considering some of the details of the Estimates, he had to ask its attention to a more general review of their financial position, and before coming to the special case of the present year it would tend to a clearer understanding if he dwelt for a moment upon the results of the last few years. He would take the five years ending with the 31st of March last, during which the present Government had been in Office, and the finances in India had

    1049
    been administered partly by Lord North-brook and partly by Lord Lytton, because they served to illustrate very plainly the main causes of the difficulties with which they had had to contend. They had undoubtedly been exceptional years. The Government of India had first of all to deal with terrible famines. They had been forced to undertake public works to an exceptional extent for the relief of the suffering. And so far from the pressure of public opinion in England having always been to restrict that expenditure, it was notorious that it had sometimes been in the direction of a great, almost an unlimited, increase. The right hon. Gentleman opposite—the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright)—for instance, actuated by the highest motives, pressed upon the Government the immediate investment of £30,000,000 in irrigation works. Then, in 1876, came the sudden fall in the exchanges. And all those difficulties had to be met with a revenue diminished by the recent repeal of the Income Tax. The result of those five years, excluding the proceeds of any new taxation, was a deficit of about £3,000,000 only. But what was the extraordinary expenditure of those years? He was not going to mention the public works expenditure, although that was swollen to an unusual degree by the demands of the famine, because it was not a new policy, but one long accepted and pursued, and it was, undoubtedly, to some extent at least, under the control of the Government of the day. Limiting himself, therefore, to extraordinary expenditure, which arose from causes entirely beyond the control of any Government, what did he find? India had had to provide for famine relief no less than £12,000,000. She had found for net loss by exchange no less than £7,250,000. If he included the present year, the sum would be enormously greater; but, comparing it with the corresponding previous period, it would be found that it represented an excess expenditure of £5,500,000. So that those two items alone, both entirely beyond the control of the Government, had caused an extraordinary expenditure during this period of £19,250,000, or nearly £4,000,000 a-year, while the realized deficit had only been £3,000,000, part of which had been met by increased taxation. Not
    1050
    only did this seem to show a most creditable effort on the part of the Government of India to meet its engagements and reflected great credit on the Governments both of Lord Northbrook and Lord Lytton; but he confessed that after these figures it surprised him to be told that a war charge of £2,000,000 for the present year was the sole cause of any difficulty that existed. The Government had had great difficulties to contend with, and it had met them with vigour and very considerable success. But the great object of directing the attention of the House to this period was to show in a clear light to what an extent the two great and paramount difficulties of Indian finance were the uncertainties which were introduced into it—first, by the loss by exchange incurred in obtaining remittances; and, secondly, by the recurrence of famine. He would deal with those in turn.
    He came first to the item of "Loss by Exchange," and at the outset it was, perhaps, desirable that the House should understand clearly what was meant by that term. The Government of India received its revenue in silver, and had, of necessity, to make very large payments annually in London in gold. According to the form adopted in the accounts, the rupee was taken at 2s.; but, as its value in London was now only 1s. 7d., a very much larger number of rupees had to be provided in India to make those payments in England. When he spoke of the rupee being worth 1s. 7d., he referred, of course, only to its value in relation to gold. The extent to which prices in India itself had been affected it was almost impossible to determine. Some thought that no appreciable disturbance of internal values had followed the fall in silver. But, however that might be, it was certain that the internal change was very much less than that which had occurred in the foreign exchanges. The gross loss by exchange—which was practically, therefore, the cost of obtaining remittances from India—appeared upon the face of the Estimates this year as £3,952,000. But, on the other side of the account, there was the item of gain by exchange, which mainly represented the gain of the Government of India in its transactions with the guaranteed railway companies under the contracts fixing the rate of remittance at 1s. 10 d. per

    1051
    rupee. Deducting this amount, he arrived at a net loss by exchange of about £3,500,000. It had recently been frequently stated that this was an exaggerated statement of the real loss sustained by the Government of India. Well, of course it was. He was careful to explain last year—and his noble Friend and Predecessor (Lord George Hamilton) did the same—that that amount, being calculated according to the conventional system adopted throughout the accounts of reckoning 10 rupees to the pound, did represent more than the actual loss. That had always been obvious to anyone who examined the accounts of the Indian Government. There was no mystery in the way of calculating the loss by exchange, and he would endeavour to explain the matter as simply as he could, taking arbitrary figures for the purpose. To remit £100 at 2s. the rupee, 1,000 rupees were required. To remit £100 at 1s. 7d. the rupee, 1,263 rupees were required. That was to say, the loss was represented by the excess number of rupees required to be sent home at the rate of 2s. the rupee; and, therefore, the sterling loss was 263 multiplied by 2s., or £26 6s. That being the principle upon which the loss was calculated in the accounts, he would now try to state, not what the loss this year was according to the conventional system of taking the rate of exchange at 2s., but what it was compared with the average rate of exchange for some years past, which was certainly not less than 1s. 10½d. Taking the whole amount of the remittances required to meet the Home charges this year, and taking the rupee at the rate of 1s. 7d., as compared not with 2s., but with 1s. 10½d., he arrived at the result that the real loss to India on the total amount of the remittances that ought to have been made this year would have been £3,130,000 sterling. As they only proposed to remit £15,000,000, however, the real loss would be £2,750,000. But the point to which he especially desired to direct the attention of the House was, not so much the actual amount of this loss, as the great and recent increase of expenditure under this head. For the four years before the heavy fall of silver in 1876, the net average annual loss to the Indian Exchequer upon the face of the accounts was £432,000. In the four years since
    1052
    that time, it had been £1,920,000. This year it was in the same way, and, as he had already explained, £3,500,000. Speaking of this evil in 1876, when it was far less serious than at present, the late Mr. Bagehot, whose authority everyone in that House would fully recognize, said—
    "So grave a misfortune has seldom happened to any Government so suddenly and so completely from causes out of its control. … The great peculiarity of the case is the position of the Indian Government, which has so great a burden so rapidly thrown upon it, and is so little able by additional taxation with equal rapidity to find means to bear it."
    Again, it was said that the Indian Government was to some extent compensated for this by the increased purchasing power of its gold in this country. What the effect of that had been he was not competent to discuss, and the subject was too intricate to enter upon at the present moment; but it was clear that the gain could apply only to a very small proportion of the whole remittances of the Indian Government to this country. After all, however, they were really not concerned in calculating what the exact amount of real loss might be. He had only to guard against the idea that it was necessary to exaggerate it in order to prove its gravity. Taking it at £2,750,000, or what they liked, the worst difficulty of all was the disturbing effect which it had suddenly exercised, and continued to exercise, upon all the calculations of the Government of India. What a discouragement to all careful and prudent estimates on the part of the Government of India, when the rise or fall of 1d. in the exchange from causes wholly beyond their control might put a totally different aspect upon their financial position! It was, in such circumstances, as the Government of India said—
    "Extremely difficult to follow any settled financial policy, for the Government cannot even approximately tell what income will be required to meet the necessary expenditure of the State."
    Of course, it had not been the only disturbing element in their calculations. Famine had been another; but, even for that, some definite idea of the average annual expenditure over a term of years had been arrived at. Then there was the direct loss sustained by all Europeans in the employment of the State,

    1053
    who, being in receipt of fixed salaries, had to make remittances to this country. And, lastly, there was the injury to trade. No doubt, there was great difference of opinion as to the precise effect of these fluctuations in exchange upon the trade of India. Into that question it was not necessary to enter; but hardly anyone would deny that with these fluctuations in exchange trade transactions must necessarily be of a speculative, not to say a gambling, character. No ordinary amount of margin would make a merchant safe, and the result was that day after day men withdrew themselves from Indian business, and invested their capital in enterprizes where prudence and foresight were of more avail. In such circumstances it was only natural that the Government of India should have had the subject of the disturbing effect of these fluctuations in the exchange under their careful consideration. And very recently they had addressed to the Home Government a proposal which they believed, if carried out, would remedy the evil. As soon as that despatch was received, however, it became apparent that it could not be discussed with reference to the interests of India alone. Accordingly, not only on account of the importance of the subject, or the weight to be attached to the opinions of those who had put it forward under a deep sense of responsibility, but also because of the other great interests involved, which it was equally their duty to watch over, the Government decided to refer it to the careful and detailed examination of a small Committee. At the outset, it appeared that there were certain points on which it was impossible to arrive at anything like a positive conclusion. To what extent the present disturbance was due to the depreciation of silver, or the appreciation of gold; whether the balance of evidence pointed, on the whole, to a long continuance of the present disturbance, or whether they might hope within a reasonable period for the establishment of a more fixed ratio between the precious metals; when and how the German Government would dispose of any surplus of silver it might possess; and what would be the policy of the Latin Union—these were questions which it was only necessary to mention to show the gravity of the considerations involved. The opinion of the Committee
    1054
    having been received, and the Government having had time to examine the proposals of the Government of India, as regarded their suitability to the peculiar circumstances of India, as well as in all their other bearings, they had arrived at the conclusion that it would be impossible to sanction them, and a despatch to that effect would shortly be sent to India. They recognized fully the motives with which those proposals were put forward; they sympathized cordially with the difficulties for which they were suggested as a remedy, and they felt that in spite of that decision, no Government, of whatever Party, could cease to give the subject a watchful and constant attention. The result of that decision was that the loss by exchange, whatever it might be, must be manfully faced.
    Then there came also the difficulty of famine. The House was well aware that last year the Government of Lord Lytton first took practical steps for the provision of an adequate surplus revenue to meet the average annual sum required for famine expenditure; and as the nature of their proposals had been somewhat misrepresented, it might be well to state exactly what they were. The conclusion arrived at by Sir John Strachey, after a careful review of the finances, was that, in order to place them in a perfectly sound condition, it was necessary to provide for a clear annual surplus of £2,000,000—to assist in which he imposed certain new taxation, which last year brought in £1,200,000. Of these £2,000,000, £500,000 was the normal surplus of income over expenditure, which every Government, like that of India, ought to provide in order to meet any contingencies that might occur, and £1,500,000 was to be devoted to the relief and prevention of famine. It was at the time urged by some people that the sum so raised should be formed into a separate fund, with a separate account; but Sir John Strachey pointed out the difficulties of such a course on the 9th of February, 1878, when he said—
    "With all my desire to see the pledges maintained that we have given, as to the application of a sum not less than £1,500,000 as an insurance against famine, I think it would be irrational, in many circumstances that I can conceive, to object to the temporary diversion of any necessary part of the revenue from this purpose, with the view of obtaining relief which might be no less urgently required than that which experience has taught us to be requisite

    1055
    in meeting famine. …. Without thinking of a future far removed from us, events might, of course, happen which would make it impossible even for us who have designed these measures to maintain our present resolution."
    So, at the time this fund was established, ample notice was given that, in extraordinary circumstances, it might be necessary to suspend its operation. It was hardly possible to conceive how it could be otherwise. Suppose an insurrection—which God forbid!—or any other cause of extraordinary expenditure, they must either have new taxation, or they must suspend the operation of this system. In England they could at once impose new taxation to meet the difficulty; but in India they could not adopt any such course, and the only alternative was the temporary suspension of the arrangements for a surplus. The ultimate results of the arrangements for famine insurance were to be as follows:—It was estimated that the expenditure upon every 10 years famine relief was £15,000,000. Apply £1,500,000 annually to its relief and prevention, or the diminution of debt, and at the end of the 10 years you would have met all your estimated expenditure upon famine, without any addition to the debt. The precise mode of applying this sum to these objects was a matter of much difficulty. It had been the subject of much correspondence; but the final conclusion arrived at was that one half of it was to be held available for remittance to this country in discharge of our gold debt, and the other half was to be appropriated to the extinction of debt in India, or to the construction of Public Works designed to ward off, or to afford material assistance, in the event of famine, or which would guard against future outlay in relief. Well, last year the Government of India did pay in famine relief £550,000, and they provided at the end of the year a surplus of £1,450,000. It was perfectly true they were unable to make any remittance to this country in reduction of the gold debt; that under the state of exchange it was perfectly impossible to accomplish, and the result was that the £1,450,000 remained in the cash balances. This year the very contingency contemplated by Sir John Strachey had arisen; adverse circumstances had to be dealt with. The consequence was that no surplus was provided upon the face
    1056
    of the Estimates; and the Government of India frankly told them why. While the subject of the exchanges was under special consideration, they did not feel justified in imposing new taxation, or in adopting other steps which might, after all, prove to be unnecessary; but now that a decision had been come to, an endeavour must be made to balance income with expenditure. They had, therefore, to provide for the full loss by exchange, and also to obtain that surplus of income over expenditure which was admitted to be necessary.
    There was an estimated deficit of £1,355,000; but if only the state of exchange had been a little more favourable there would have been a large surplus. But, in addition to that deficit, they had not made provision in the Estimates for the £1,500,000 for famine insurance, nor for the further small surplus required to meet contingencies. The result, therefore, was that, speaking roughly, the total deficiency of the year amounted to £3,250,000. He did not forget the increase of debt to be made, in addition. That he would deal with presently. For the moment they were considering only the deficiency shown upon the Revenue and Expenditure of the year. Of this sum of £3,250,000, £2,000,000 was on account of the war, which was an entirely exceptional expenditure, and it was proposed, not unreasonably, to borrow it from the Imperial Exchequer, and to repay it by instalments. Putting that aside as extraordinary expenditure, he arrived at the conclusion that the excess of ordinary expenditure over ordinary income, after fulfilling all pledges and providing for all liabilities, was £1,250,000. It could not be said that that was a satisfactory state of things. It was caused, undoubtedly, by a combination of adverse circumstances; but it was a state of things which, although it was not satisfactory, need not, in the smallest degree, alarm them, for India had surmounted equal difficulties, and would surmount them again. But the House would not be satisfied with any such general assurance; and it would desire to consider how the equilibrium between Revenue and Expenditure could best be re-established. That was the view taken by the Government of India also, and the state of affairs had formed the subject of anxious consideration at home

    1057
    and in India. The conclusion arrived; at was that the first step to be taken to overcome the difficulty was a large reduction of expenditure. That reduction of expenditure was to be not only a theory, but also an established fact. The task was a difficult one, and Lord Northbrook, in speaking of it last year in "another place" said—
    "Although he thought something might he done in the way of reduction of expenditure—and he was satisfied that the Government of India were not neglectful of any opportunity that might occur for effecting reductions—he did not think it likely that the cost of the Government of India could he very considerably diminished. Whatever savings might he made in one direction would be met by the increasing demands for improvements of different kinds throughout India."—[3 Hansard, ccxlii. 1150.]
    In spite of that somewhat discouraging opinion, the Government was determined to make the attempt; and they considered that the reduction should be applied to more than one branch of expenditure. And if the House would allow Mm to trespass upon its attention, he would take in turn each principal head of expenditure.
    First came the Civil charges, in which—looking to the increased demands which would be necessarily made upon them, as improved government extended itself in India, and by the growing intelligence and civilization of the people—there was a natural tendency to increase; and if they were to attain that most desirable object of reducing their military expenditure, it could only be by renewed efforts to promote the contentment and happiness of the people. And if any attempt were made to raise that great question whether it would be possible, after giving full consideration to all vested interests, to revise the future scale of civil salaries and pensions—which he admitted to be well worthy of attention—they should not forget the grave dangers which they might incur if they failed to attract to their service in India the same class of zealous and intelligent public servants as were supplied under the existing system. But there was one means of reducing the Civil charges which had constantly occupied successive Governors General of India—he meant the increased employment of the Natives. Parliament had on more than one occasion deliberately held out such a prospect; it had been embodied in more than one Act of Par-
    1058
    liament; and it had been the declared policy of the country for more than 40 years. But the efforts to put it into practice had been spasmodic, unsystematic, and altogether incomprehensible to the mass of the Native population, while the great increase which had taken place in the number of Europeans in some branches of the Public Service, and various other acts, might have seemed to them to be in partial violation of this policy. It could not be denied that, whatever might have been the intentions of successive Secretaries of State, very little progress had been made in giving effect to it. But ever since his arrival in India, Lord Lytton had applied himself with characteristic vigour to its development; and, accordingly, it had now been decided not only that higher offices should be thrown open than those for which Natives had hitherto been eligible, but also that by diminishing the number of covenanted civilians sent out from this country, larger openings might be given to the employment of Native Civil servants. The process could only be a very gradual one. They must not forget that it was not a quarter of a century since our first systematic efforts had been made for the improvement of the education of the Natives; and so far as experience had hitherto gone, the higher class of administrative offices could only in exceptional cases be intrusted to Native officials; but he was quite sure that in the hands of one who had taken so much interest in the question as Lord Lytton, and who felt so strongly the political importance of associating the subject-race with ourselves in the government of the country, this great reform would be pushed on as quickly as was consistent with prudence. A long time must, however, elapse before any great diminution of expenditure could be looked for from this source. But, quite recently, another practical step had been taken in this direction under the head of Civil charges. The central establishments were to be overhauled and curtailed. The arrangements with the Provincial Governments were to be revised, care being taken, on the one hand, not to interfere with the policy, so successfully inaugurated by Lord Mayo, of extending the power and responsibility of local governments, and, on the other, not to cause the necessity for any further local taxation. There could be

    1059
    little doubt that the general effect of these measures would be to effect a considerable saving, which was estimated by the Government of India at about £250,000 a-year.
    The second great head of Expenditure to which he would call attention was that of Public Works, which was necessarily a little confusing, because it included the expenditure upon productive Public Works, which was treated as capital; secondly, the results of that outlay; and, lastly, the ordinary expenditure upon Public Works paid out of Revenue. He would deal first with the capital expenditure upon productive Public Works. Now, it was very constantly alleged by those who had not looked closely into the matter, that this class of expenditure had largely increased of late years. It would not be difficult to show that this was not the case. Again, its nature was not always fairly described. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) often tried to insist upon its being treated as part of the ordinary expenditure of the year. Its real nature was that of an investment of capital, which was hereafter to bring in a return, and whether that investment was made by guaranteed companies or by the State itself was very much the same thing. In order, therefore, to form a correct estimate of the sums spent upon the construction of railways, they must add the expenditure of capital by the guaranteed companies to that of the State. Calculating in this way, he found that in the 20 years following the Mutiny the capital invested in railways alone averaged about £5,000,000, besides what was spent upon works of irrigation. But the House was aware that, for some years past, the system of constructing railways under the guarantee system had been superseded; and now all railways, as well as irrigation works, were constructed under the direct agency of the State. Those of them which were expected to be remunerative were classed as extraordinary or productive, as distinguished from ordinary works to be paid for out of revenue—a classification which, so far from having originated with the present Finance Minister, dated as far back as the time of the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Massey), though it had since undergone considerable modification. The capital expen-
    1060
    diture upon productive Public Works amounted in 1877–8 to £4,791,000, and in 1878–9 to £4,599,000. But in these years the expenditure was abnormally swollen by the necessity of finding labour for the famine-stricken population of Southern India, and of pressing on such works as would immediately contribute to their relief. The Budget Statement of the Government of India showed that this year the capital expenditure upon railways and irrigation works was reduced to £3,500,000, being £1,100,000 less than last year, the chief reduction being under the head of railways. And now, before attempting to lay down any general principles as to the prosecution of these public works, it would have been highly desirable to have been able to place before the House some idea of the results derived from those which had been already constructed. But he was in this difficulty. This very point was under the special consideration of a Committee up-stairs, which was engaged in considering a comprehensive Report, laid before them by his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council. He would not for a moment venture to steal any of the facts, or to forestall the Report, which had not yet received the sanction of the Committee. Upon that point the House must be content to wait for further information. But there was one way in which, he thought, he could give to the House some idea of the results obtained for all the works hitherto constructed, including those made by the guaranteed railway companies. Large sums of money had been borrowed for this purpose. And, therefore, he thought it would not be uninteresting to the House if he endeavoured to explain, first of all, the precise position of the Debt of India, and, secondly, the effect produced upon that Debt by the system of constructing Public Works. The Debt of India amounted, on the 31st of March last, to very nearly £139,000,000 sterling. Of this amount £52,250,000 was borrowed before the Mutiny, £37,750,000 was added at that time, or, it might be said generally, in consequence of it, and the remaining £49,000,000 had been incurred since, or at the rate of rather more than £2,500,000 a-year. Now, he desired to analyze that sum of £49,000,000, and see to what it was due. Some im-

    1061
    portance might be attached to this investigation, because, although it was quite true that the Debt of India was increasing, the causes of that increase were very often misunderstood. Well, of that amount £4,500,000 were raised to redeem the capital stock of the East India Company, which had been an exceedingly profitable operation to the Government, and had saved £450,000 a-year; £14,500,000 had been borrowed for famine relief, and was, undoubtedly, a dead weight charge upon the finances; and £24,000,000 had been raised for other purposes, and which certainly could not be so described. He found, as a set off against that sum, that during the same period they had advanced as loans to municipalities and Native States for the relief or the prosecution of useful works, upon all of which they received interest at an average rate of 4½ per cent, the sum of £8,250,000; and £33,500,000 had been invested in productive Public Works, which, if not remunerative in what he admitted to be the proper sense of the term, did, at any rate, pay some interest upon the capital invested in them. The result was that, of the whole amount of Debt raised since the Mutiny, only £14,500,000 was entirely unproductive. But, in addition to this sum of £139,000,000, they had borrowed through the agency of the guaranteed companies about another £100,000,000, upon which they had guaranteed interest at the rate of 5 per cent. They had, therefore, to pay interest upon a capital sum of £239,000,000; and the point to which he desired to direct the attention of the House was, that while the amount of this Debt had steadily increased, the charge for interest upon it had steadily diminished. And, in order to make a comparison fair to the results of these works, he did not for the moment take into account the recent fall in the exchanges. But 10 years ago the charge for interest upon the general Debt, upon the debt incurred by the guaranteed companies, and by the State for Public Works, amounted to £8,094,000. This year it was £5,750,000, showing a reduction of £2,340,000. That was a very remarkable diminution. Of this £500,000 was due to reduction in the rate of interest, and the remainder was due to the increased productiveness of the railways. Although he could not suppose that equally good results were to be antici-
    1062
    pated from the development of the railways and irrigation works constructed by the State, this he would say, that the total abandonment of Public Works would be about one of the greatest evils which could befall India. That was not the time to enter fully into the discussion of all the beneficial result which had accrued to India from the construction of those works; but he thought that the financial results alone justified the position which the Government of India had taken upon this question—namely, that it was right to proceed with these works, but in a cautious and prudent manner. He thought, upon the whole, that the expenditure under this head might have been somewhat in excess; but they should never forget that the smallest access of famine might, indeed would, create an enormous demand for Public Works. The pendulum swung now in one direction, it might swing in the opposite directions in a few months. The one essential point, therefore, as he submitted to the House—a point far more important than the precise amount of this expenditure—was to take a prudent and far-seeing estimate of the future, and to fix upon a limit which, looking to the demands likely to be made upon them, it was desirable to establish and to maintain over a series of years. Of all things, the most desirable was a settled policy—fix the limit where they would, but endeavour to maintain it when fixed. In the opinion of the Secretary of State in Council, the principle upon which that limit ought to be fixed was this. Ever since Lord Salisbury had laid down the rule, the principle had been maintained—though in practice it had been somewhat departed from—that money required for Public Works should be borrowed in India, and not in England. To that principle they still gave a most unhesitating adherence. That being so, the limit for Public Works, they thought, should be fixed according to the amount which the Government of India could fairly be expected to borrow in India in an ordinary year without undue disturbance of the money market. That amount had been ascertained to average £2,500,000, and, therefore, they had decided that the limit of expenditure on Public Works ought to be £2,500,000. It was not without great regret that they would abandon a great many Public Works

    1063
    which it had been their desire to push on; but they felt, under all the circumstances, that it was necessary to make a considerable sacrifice, and they were therefore prepared to make it. As compared with last year, it was a reduction of more than £2,000,000. Of course, the whole of the reduction to be effected could not be made for a short time, looking to the contracts they had already entered into. He had now a word to say on the Public Works ordinary. These works were not only roads and civil and military buildings, but also such railways and irrigation works as were not directly remunerative, but were, nevertheless, considered to be necessary; and it included, also, the cost of working and of maintenance. Upon these works the Government of India were of opinion that a great reduction could be made. No new works were to be undertaken, even if already sanctioned, without the special consent of the Supreme Government; a rigid investigation was to be made into the necessity for them. Establishments which were excessive were to be cut down. In the result, it was anticipated by the Government of India that an annual saving of £750,000 would be effected.
    He now came to the head of Army Expenditure. The net charge for the Army was about £14,500,000; but that did not include the whole of the cost, because the expenditure on military buildings, about another £1,000,000, was taken under the head of Public Works. Last year that amount was, unfortunately, exceeded, partly owing to the increase of prices, and partly owing to other circumstances over which neither the Government of India nor the Home Government had any control. The House was hardly aware of the extent to which the increased cost of the Army was owing to recent legislation or to circumstances over which the Government had not any control at all. Whenever a reduction of expenditure was spoken of, the economical eye fixed at once on the Army accounts. The hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) said, the other day, that retrenchment in India meant reduction in the Military Expenditure. Therefore, he need scarcely say, they had not overlooked the matter. It might be said that during the war, which he hoped was now brought to a happy and successful termination, it was difficult
    1064
    for the Government of India to attempt any reduction, and that, even on its conclusion, some additional expenditure would be necessary. That was a controversial matter, into which he was desirous not to enter. But, at the outset, he wished to say that the Government did not look forward to being able in any way to reduce the British garrison in India. That was a question which must be considered and decided upon grounds of which the financial constituted only one of the elements. But the Government of India did believe that reduction of Military Expenditure was possible, and they had considered how it was to be done. And accordingly, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, a Commission of civil and military officers was about to be appointed to inquire in India into the organization and expenditure of the Army, placing before that Commission certain special points of inquiry which had been the subject of recent correspondence, and directing their attention particularly to the reduction of expenditure, where it could be accomplished without loss of efficiency. One member of the Commission would represent the English Army, and would be nominated by the Secretary of State. Of course, it was impossible for him to give to the House any indication of what the results of that inquiry might be. But the Government of India believed that they would be substantial, and they were satisfied that it was the only way in which a successful reduction of Army Expenditure could possibly be accomplished.
    Having dwelt on the three great heads of Expenditure, the House would now allow him to turn to the Home charges generally, which formed, probably, the greatest difficulty with which the Government had to deal. In any circumstances, the remittance to this country of £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 in a year must be attended with risk. These charges had very considerably increased; but their real rise dated from the Mutiny. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), in his admirable Report upon the depreciation of silver, pointed out that the full effect of those charges, though they had previously increased, was only recently felt. While railways were being constructed on a large scale in India

    1065
    under the guarantee system, the money raised in England was paid into the hands of the Government here, and was applied in reduction of the remittances. But after 1871, when that mode of construction practically ceased, they suddenly jumped up to £10,000,000, and were now £15,000,000. The practice of denouncing those charges as extravagant had led many to suppose that the Home Government had drawn enormous sums from India and recklessly squandered them in this country. An examination of the real state of the case would dispel that idea. The total amount of Home Expenditure, exclusive of mere banking operations, was about £15,000,000 a-year. Of that sum, the interest on Debt, guaranteed interest, superannuation, and furlough allowances—all practically fixed charges—absorbed £11,250,000; the effective charges for the Army, £1,000,000; stores supplied on demand of the Government of India, about £2,000,000. This last would undoubtedly, now that the Public Works Expenditure had been cut down, be diminished. But the whole cost of administration in England, which was practically the only amount under the direct control of the Secretary of State in Council, was £275,000. He was not going to argue that that amount could not be reduced—possibly it could be; he was only now endeavouring to point out the smallness of the sum. But the hon. Member for Hackney did not hesitate to charge the Home Government with the most reckless extravagance. In a recent article, the hon. Gentleman said—"The examination of the Home charges will at once show that a year never elapses without various acts of extravagance being committed." That was a serious charge. The hon. Gentleman went on to say—"I might quote innumerable instances," and, accordingly, he gave two instances. But, unfortunately for the argument of the hon. Gentleman, it happened that in both instances the charges were fixed by Act of Parliament. Now, upon these facts it was quite obvious that, without gross injustice to individuals, which he was sure no one would desire to perpetrate, it was impossible to hold out any great hope of a large and immediate reduction of those charges. But they had received many suggestions on the subject. Quite recently, he had seen it proposed that they ought to pay their pen-
    1066
    sions in silver. Independently, however, of the fact that any such change could have no immediate effect, it was perfectly obvious they might, by so doing, run the risk of discouraging a great many excellent persons from entering the Public Service at all. All he could say as to the Home charges—and he knew he could speak not only for the Secretary of State, but for his Council, who felt deeply their responsibility in this matter—was that they would lose no opportunity of reducing thorn as much as possible. The House was already aware that the effective charges of the Army had recently been settled for all past years on a basis which involved a considerable concession to India, and, as regarded future years, the subject was now being considered by an able Committee, of which Lord North brook was the Chairman.
    Summing up these figures, he arrived at the conclusion that, independently of the results which might be produced by the Army Commission about to be appointed, and independently of a reduction of the expenditure on productive Public Works to the extent of £2,000,000, they would have improved their position by the reductions of which he had spoken by £1,000,000 a-year. The House would not expect him to say, then, what proportion of that reduction they might expect to realize in the present year; but, under favourable circumstances, he fully believed that they would be able, at the end of the year, to establish an equilibrium between their income and expenditure, and to provide for every possible claim upon them.
    But then they were told that the position must be eminently unsatisfactory, because of the large amounts which they were about to borrow in India and in England. In the article he had already quoted, the hon. Member for Hackney left, no doubt quite unintentionally, the impression on the mind that they proposed to borrow at once £15,500,000, and to increase the Home charges by £400,000 a-year, and that, therefore, a crisis was at hand. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. He would tell the House very shortly what they were forced to borrow. In the first place, India had to provide for the cost of the war. For that purpose they proposed to borrow £2,000,000 from England. That was a temporary loan, and

    1067
    not in any sense an addition to their permanent Debt. Secondly, for the productive Public Works in India they proposed to borrow £3,500,000 this year. The policy of these loans might be good or bad; but the borrowing of a sum of money for the purpose of investing it in productive Public Works was no more a sign of insolvency than loans were which were raised in this country for improvements by the Metropolitan Board of Works or by the great town of Birmingham. Lastly, there remained the sum of £1,500,030, which was required to pay off the untransferred portion of the 5J per cent loan which was just being paid off. That loan would now be entirely got rid of, and a saving to the finances of India of about £100,000 a-year would be effected. Still, no doubt, that £1,50),000 a-year was an addition to the Debt, and it was the only real unremunerative addition made this year. The cash balances had been reduced to an exceptional extent, first of all, by the great expenditure upon Public Works during the Famine, and then by the abnormal demands made upon them for advances in connection with the war. They in England could hardly realize the difficulty of transporting treasure in India. It became necessary, therefore, before the hot weather set in, to place an enormous sum of money in the Frontier Treasuries. That made an undue Call on the cash balances, and reduced them to an amount lower than the Government of India considered safe. Accordingly, the amount to be borrowed in India was £5,000,000, and a loan was issued to that amount; £4,000,000 of that loan was accepted at 94¾. Considering the present position of the silver market, the large amount of the loan, and the somewhat depressing articles and speeches to which the public mind had recently been subjected, he thought that was a very satisfactory result. Whether the remaining £1,000,000 would be obtained, he was not yet in a position to state; but if it were possible, they would undoubtedly endeavour to raise that sum also in India.
    Then it was said that they were likewise proposing to borrow sums of money in England. He was afraid that when he brought forward his proposals a few weeks ago, the objects which he stated they desired to attain had been a great
    1068
    deal misunderstood. It was alleged, in the first place, that they desired to raise at once a large loan. Nothing, in fact, was further from their intentions, and he distinctly explained to the House on that occasion that they hoped they might have to raise nothing at all in England, at any rate not in the form of addition to their permanent Debt. Then it was said that they desired to control the exchanges, and that the fact of their wanting a loan having somehow leaked out, a favourable effect had, in fact, been produced upon the exchanges. It did not at all surprise him that it had leaked out, considering that notice of his intention to apply for a loan was for six days upon the Notice Paper, and everybody might have known perfectly well that a loan was to be applied for. Undoubtedly, the main ground upon which his proposals had always been based was the difficulty in obtaining their remittances. But, certainly, they had also anticipated that some part of the loan, which was being advertised in India, might not be obtained, and that, therefore, they would have to borrow it in England. Then there was the sum which it would be necessary to borrow in order to offer stock to the shareholders in the East Indian Railway Company, who desired to commute the annuity to which they were entitled by the terms of the recent purchase. It would be out of Order for him to discuss this subject then, and upon careful consideration they thought that this might be best dealt with in a separate Bill.
    Therefore, it was not necessary for them to borrow anything at all at the present moment; but the borrowing powers for which they asked had been so much misunderstood that he was bound to explain, as shortly as he could, the difficulty in which they were placed with regard to their remittances from India. In the time of the old East India Company not only was the amount to be remitted very small, but the Company always reserved to itself the right of bringing over the necessary funds in the manner it deemed best for its own interests, and did in fact do so, to a very great extent, by buying produce bills in India. Since the transfer of the Government to the Crown that plan had been given up, as being an operation hardly suited to the Government. Other modes, indeed, had been adopted. They

    1069
    had bought some gold in India, and transmitted it to this country. They had sometimes bought bills upon England—last year, indeed, they attempted rather a large operation in this direction, but with limited success, because the effect of it was to disorganize for a time the market for their bills at home. Practically, therefore, they were reduced to the mode of drawing bills upon India and selling them to the highest bidder; and although the amount offered varied, of course, from time to time, practically, the rule was to go on selling some of them weekly throughout the year. And this they did, partly because they were obliged to regulate their drawings so as to suit the convenience of the Government of India which had to meet them as they were due, and partly in order to accommodate their customers by letting them make their calculations with greater certainty. There were some who attacked this mode of proceeding altogether, and said that the Council of India were the most unbusiness-like people in the world, because, whether there was a demand for the commodity which they had to sell, or not, they went on pressing their bills upon the market, sometimes in increasing amounts when that demand was at its minimum, and forced down artificially the price by their own action. The answer was that they were obliged to do it, because they must have the money at any sacrifice. But it happened sometimes that they could not sell their bills at all, and what were they to do? The only remedy for such a state of things appeared to them to consist in having a certain reserve of borrowing power which enabled them to withhold their bills when there was no demand for them; and, considering the magnitude of their remittances, that reserve ought to be a large one. The House would bear in mind that after Parliament was prorogued there was an interval of six months, during which they were obliged to bring money home at the rate of £1,000,000 to £1,500,000 a-month—and if the demand for remittances were suddenly to cease, and they were unable to sell their bills even at any sacrifice, they would be left entirely without any means of paying their way. Therefore, after a very careful consideration of the whole case, and after consultation with those most competent to form an opinion upon its diffi-
    1070
    culties, they had come to the conclusion that such a reserve of borrowing power was absolutely necessary. Looking, however, to all the altered circumstances of the case, to the recent slight improvement in the exchanges, and to the fact that the success of the Indian loan rendered any addition to the permanent Debt in this country, as they hoped, unnecessary, they thought that the borrowing power for which they asked need not be so large as they had previously anticipated. They had considered what was the smallest amount to which they could limit their demands consistently with safety. And here he might quote the opinion of Sir Thomas Seccombe, who after 50 years of service in the India Office still gave them the advantage of his ripe experience. Now, no man in England was more averse to borrowing in England, under ordinary circumstances, than Sir Thomas Seccombe. But, upon the whole, he now entirely concurred in the opinion which the Government had formed, that they could not, without danger, ask for any less sum than £5,000,000. Accordingly, when the proper time came, he would propose to substitute that amount in the Resolution now before the House. As to half of that sum, power would be asked to borrow it upon debentures.
    And now, his case was complete. It remained only for him to thank the House for the kind attention which it had given. Whatever judgment might be formed upon the facts now put forward, they would not, as he thought, justify in any way the opinions of those who went about so loudly proclaiming the impending bankruptcy of India. Many facts pointed to a very different conclusion. Her external trade had doubled in 20 years. The gross receipts of her railways testified to the growing activity of her internal commerce. And though, like other countries, she was at present passing through a period of severe commercial depression, and struggling with the difficulties created by the fall in the exchanges, her credit was still high. Sometimes they might have been tempted to make too much of the riches of India. Let them not, under the influence of an unfounded panic, exaggerate her poverty. The future of India, God willing, might be a great one. It should be the grand

    1071
    mission, of the English people to insure it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had intended moving a Resolution, declaring—
    "That this House regards with apprehension the present state of the Finances of India, and is of opinion that measures should at once be taken to reduce expenditure;"
    but after the speech of the Under Secretary of State for India, he considered that his Resolution had virtually been accepted by the Government; and as on Indian questions he was always desirous that, if possible, there should be no entanglement between the two sides of the House, he should move a somewhat different Resolution from that of which he had given Notice. Accepting the assurance of the Under Secretary of State that expenditure would be reduced, and accepting also the declaration of the hon. Gentleman as one for which the Government would be held responsible, that that reduction would be carried out thoroughly and sincerely—in other words, that the declaration would not prove a mere empty promise—he should, at the close of his observations, submit a Resolution which, so far as he could see, it would be impossible for the Government to reject if they were sincere in their desire for economy. He should ask hon. Members to express their opinion—
    "That this House, regarding with apprehension the present state of Indian Finance, approves the decision to reduce Expenditure."
    It might be asked why he did not rest satisfied with the assurances which had been given by the Government, and why he proposed a formal Resolution? His answer was, that the Records of that House showed that there had been Vote after Vote in favour of an increase, instead of the reduction, of expenditure in India; and the reason was that the interests of India had been regarded as an abstract thing, and that the House of Commons represented the popular feeling which erred from the belief that India was an extremely wealthy country. It seemed to him, therefore, that a great deal might be gained by passing a Resolution which was intended, not to cen-
    1072
    sure the Government, but to encourage them in the path which they had declared it to be their intention to pursue. While there was much in the speech of the Under Secretary of State with which he agreed, and though he was perfectly free to acknowledge the ingenuity and ability with which he explained his figures, there were, he thought, one or two remarks which he might just as well not have made. At the conclusion of his speech he referred to the loan in India, and he said that £4,000,000 of this loan, at 4½ per cent, had been taken up at 94¾. This, he added, was not altogether satisfactory; but he thought it was so—and here was the sneer at himself—considering the alarmist speeches which had been made. But could the hon. Gentleman, he would ask, point to anything which he (Mr. Fawcett) had said in that House, or which he had written, which took an alarmist view as to the state of Indian finance at all to be compared with the opinions on the subject which were held by men of the highest position in that country, and even by members of the Council of the Viceroy? Mr. Whitley Stokes, a very good authority on the subject, had said that the finances of India were intolerably bad; and that it would be found, when we desired to increase taxation, that we had exhausted all sources of indirect taxation, and could only fall back upon the direct taxes, at the expense of producing much just discontent. There were still stronger expressions of opinion in the Minutes lately laid before Parliament, and which bore the names of men in high official position. He (Mr. Fawcett) had never spoken about the certain insolvency of India, nor had he ever believed in the insolvency of India. What, however, he had said was, that if the Indian Government was not checked in the course it was pursuing there was nothing else before it but financial insolvency. The truth of this remark had been abundantly proved by the Under Secretary of State himself—indeed, every single thing he (Mr. Fawcett) had ever contended for had now been more than conceded. When he spoke about the excessive expenditure on public works, he had never suggested, as the Government had done in a perfect panic of alarm, that they should suddenly cut down expenditure under that account from £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, to £2,500,000.

    1073
    He had never proposed any such step. The proposals of the Under Secretary of State showed, notwithstanding the phraseology in which they were wrapped up, that the truth had at length dawned on the Government, and that every opinion that he (Mr. Fawcett) had expressed about the financial condition of India had been expressed in too moderate language, and that the Government knew now that their straits were desperate. Had they awakened four or five years before, and had they then admitted some facts that they were now obliged to admit, so considerable a reduction of the expenditure on public works would not now have been necessary, and they would not have had to make proposals that were at once humiliating and unavoidable. It was all very well to say that but for this or that contingency all would be well; all Indian Budgets were dependent on "ifs." There was not a country in the world whose finances would not be in a satisfactory condition if it were not for certain circumstances. If Turkey had not been mismanaged, if her revenues had not been farmed, if her officials had not been corrupt, her financial position would, no doubt, be satisfactory; and so in India; if the Government had not forced the country into an unnecessary war, if her Home charges had not been permitted to increase year by year, if there had been no Famine—if, in short, everything had gone on well, then, obviously, her finances would leave nothing to be desired. In speaking of what might have been, he would not touch upon controversial topics unnecessarily; but he could not regard war as an inevitable act of Providence. Nor, in speaking of the exchange, could he ignore the fact that the policy of the present Government had tended to render it more and more unfavourable. He knew full well, from letters confidentially written to him by persons holding high official positions in India, that the financial condition of India at the present moment was such, and the feeling of discontent there was so deeply-seated, that he was fully sensible of the responsibility with which he spoke. The Government were going to raise £5,000,000 in India, and to take power to raise the same sum in this country, while £2,000,000 was to be lent free of interest.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. FAWCETT, resuming, said, that when the Bill for raising the loan came before the House, it would be possible to insert provisions defining the purpose for which the loan was granted; but still it was clear that India was about to borrow in one single year no less a sum than £12,000,000. It was said with regard to one of the £5,000,000 loans that £1,500,000 was to be devoted to paying off the balance of another loan; but it was to be remembered, at the same time, that, in order to enable the Indian Government to do with a loan of £5,000,000, it was necessary to reduce the public balances by £1,350,000. It might, therefore, be said approximately that India in a single year would borrow about £7.000,000, take authority to borrow £5,000,000 more. In order to obtain a real view of the financial condition of India, it must be remembered that this sum of £7,000,000 was required at a time when additional taxation had been imposed, for the purpose of providing India with a surplus of £2,000,000, of which sum £1,500,000 was to constitute a Famine Fund, and the other £500,000 was to form a surplus without which no Government in the position of that of India could consider itself solvent. Notwithstanding this, India at the present moment was not only without a surplus, but had to obtain advances to the extent of £7,000,000 in one year. It was, therefore, fair to say that at the present moment the amount of the Indian deficit could not be less than £9,000,000. But, in order to appreciate the grave issues which were associated with these proposals of borrowing, it was of the first importance to remember that this borrowing had not been accompanied by any attempt to raise a single shilling of additional revenue by taxation; but the Indian Government was surrounded with such sinister influences that in the midst of this exceptional borrowing they could not maintain the revenue already in their possession, and had been obliged to sacrifice a revenue of no less than £200,000. The Under Secretary of State said that if England had a great exceptional expenditure and had to borrow largely, such were the resources

    1075
    of the English people that it was easy to meet part of the exceptional expenditure by additional taxation. It might be easy; but, unfortunately, it was just the very thing the Government, of which the Under Secretary of State was a Member, did not do during the present year. They were afraid to meet exceptional expenditure by putting on a shilling of additional taxation, and there was no financial authority of repute out of the House who had not described the policy of the Government in that respect as a policy which was alike unsound and improvident. But unsound and improvident as was the English financial policy this year, what was the language which would accurately characterize the financial policy of the Indian Government, when, in the face of such large indebtedness, they not only made no attempt to raise additional revenue by additional taxation, but actually had not the courage to maintain the revenue already in their possession, and sacrificed a portion of the revenue raised from the import duties upon cotton goods, to meet a cry which had come from Lancashire? Even if it could be shown that these duties might be ten times more objectionable than they were said to be, yet, although it might be wise to remit them if there was a surplus revenue, it became the height of folly and imprudence to remit them under present circumstances; for what had really been done in India had been to borrow money in order to reduce duties which were probably paid with more satisfaction than any other duty in the whole fiscal system of India. The most extreme caution was necessary in reference to borrowing money in India. The Under Secretary of State had himself stated that it was not prudent to borrow more than £2,500,000 in India in any one year; but it was now proposed to borrow double that sum in the present year. The advance of £2,000,000, free of interest, by England to India, raised a question of greater financial importance than any proposal that for some years had been submitted to the House. It could be looked upon only in two ways—either as a gift or charitable offering, or a contribution which England was legally and equitably bound to make to India. If it were a gift or charitable offering, he believed it would be most mischievous. If, however, the
    1076
    advance was to be looked upon as a contribution which England was legally bound to make, it was most inadequate in amount. Regarded in the light of the first proposition, he thought that if India was to come to England to relieve her from present necessities, both countries were starting on a path fraught with financial peril. They were told that the Afghan War did not concern India only, but that it was an Imperial question, and had been undertaken to maintain the influence of England both in the East and in Europe. The charge of the war, therefore, should be borne fully as much by England as by India. In advancing £2,000,000, free of interest, to be repaid in seven equal annual instalments, the amount of pecuniary sacrifice made by England in the loss of interest would be about £320,000; and if the Afghan War cost £2,600,000, as estimated by the Under Secretary of State, India would have to contribute £2,280,000 for an expenditure which was to maintain the influence and character of England in Europe. In other words, for every £1 contributed by wealthy England, £7 would have to be contributed by impoverished and embarrassed India. Whenever any spirited act of foreign policy was to be performed, in which the interests of England were involved, if England was only to pay £1 for every £7 paid by India, what an encouragement would be given to throw additional burdens on the finances of India! In consequence of this war, the Native Army had been increased by no less than 12 per cent. That additional expense must be borne by India; but, after all their boasting about what they were going to do for India, the result of their proposal would be that India should pay £7 where England paid only £1. He did not believe that the House of Commons would ever sanction such a proposal. Then, with regard to the loan of £5,000,000, to be raised in this country, the speech of the Under Secretary of State was halting and hesitating. He told them a Committee had been appointed to investigate the subject of the exchanges; but he did not tell them what the Government were going to do. He would, therefore, endeavour to explain what the Government intended to do with the £5,000,000 loan. They meant to become speculators in silver.

    1077
    What would be the effect of their affecting the price of silver? Their proposal was simply a temporary expedient in which they might succeed for a few days; but, in the end, their position would be worse than before. Every additional £1,000,000 borrowed in England would increase the Home charges, and they would thus be bringing into operation an influence which, would make the exchanges still more unfavourable. Silver had become depreciated, and they had been heavy losers in consequence. Why? Simply because for years the Indian Government had been pursuing the perilous course of having the Revenue received entirely in silver, and perpetually increasing the payments to be made in gold. The proposal of the Government, instead of diminishing the payments to be made in gold, would still further increase them, and thus their position would be aggravated. It was said they should limit the coinage of silver in India, and introduce a gold currency. But that would still more unfavourably affect the value of silver, and would be looked upon, from one end of India to another, as a breach of faith with the people. It would be regarded as a roundabout way of trying to screw something more out of them in the form of taxation. The course to be pursued was simply one of common sense; but it was exactly the opposite of that now proposed. Every effort should be made to reduce the Home charges and to diminish the amount of remittances India had to make to England. Last year a Famine Insurance Fund was established, and various new taxes were imposed to create it. Among them was the licence tax, which was virtually an income tax of 5d. in the pound on incomes of not more than 4s. a-week. Every artificer, and even many labourers, had to pay that impost; but not a professional man, with his thousands a year, nor an officer of the Army, nor a civilian, not even the Governor General, with his £20,000 a-year, had to contribute a farthing to it. The only justification put forward for those extraordidary exemptions was that the proceeds of that tax should be solely devoted to the relief of Famine, and that it was only just that those who were to be thus relieved should provide the Famine Insurance Fund, and, consequently, the professional and civilian classes should
    1078
    not be called on to contribute. That was a very sorry excuse for what was done. What would have been thought if this country were threatened with Famine and a Famine Insurance Fund were created, to which the poor should be made to contribute and the wealthy should be exempted, because the former class would be affected by the calamity and the latter would not? But even that plea had been entirely swept away, because not one sixpence of that Fund had been devoted to the purposes for which it was established. How could they, then, with common justice or decency, continue one hour longer those exemptions which made that tax the cause of so much discontent in India? It had gone forth throughout India, on the authority of some of the highest officials in that country, that revenue had been sacrificed, and that the solemn promises of the Viceroy had been disregarded, in order to meet the exigencies of English politics. He did not say whether that charge was true or not; but it had been made, and it ought to be answered. Lord Lytton declared, when the taxes for creating the Famine Fund were imposed, that not a single rupee which they yielded should be devoted to any other purpose than that to which they were pledged; and Sir John Strachey also said that no administrative reform, however necessary, no fiscal change, however wise, could justify the application of the proceeds of those taxes to any other object than that of relief from Famine. Notwithstanding those assurances, that money had been spent in paying the cost of the Afghan War, and in enabling the Government to remit £200,000 of the cotton import duties. That being so, he thought the first part of his Resolution was amply justified. It was not the question whether this or that individual was highly paid; but whether India had got the money to make the payments she now had to make. She must put up with inferior or different service; anything was better than growing financial embarrassment. The Under Secretary of State had fully admitted that there was only one remedy for the existing state of things—namely, the immediate reduction of expenditure. Economy was, undoubtedly, quite practicable. Let them look to the Army. Unless they were prepared greatly to reduce their expenditure on the Army,

    1079
    he believed that they would make no sensible impression in improving the financial position of India. The present Finance Minister for India said some three years ago, in a time of peace, that the military expenditure of that country was not less than £17,000,000 a-year. Since then it had increased by, at least, £1,000,000; and if something was not done, it would very soon reach £20,000,000, or more than one-half of the entire net revenues of India. The Under Secretary of State had told them that the Government were going to appoint a Commission. But what was the Commission going to do? For a great part of the increased military expenditure the present Government was not responsible. It was the result of changes carried out in the English Army. The short-service system was for India one of the most costly arrangements that human ingenuity could devise. It enormously increased the charge for transport and other expenses, while it diminished the efficiency of the Army. If we returned to the old system, India could also obtain recruits at much less cost. India was bound hand-and-foot to our costly military system, and charge after charge was thrown upon her. The increased military expenditure was the more disappointing, because a great portion of the unremunerative public works were intended to have a military value and ought to lead to a reduction of the military expenditure. He would now turn to the Department of Public Works. Here, like the Under Secretary of State, he could not speak with perfect freedom, because he, also, was a Member of the Committee that had been referred to. The Under Secretary of State had quoted elaborate figures to show that these works were productive. But these Returns must be accepted with extreme caution. It would be easy to quote figures on the other side. During the last three years there was no point in the Indian Budget on which the Under Secretary of State had dwelt with more satisfaction than the increasing railway returns. But in the Budget Statement of the present year it was calculated that the returns from the guaranteed railways would show a falling off of £1,800,000, and that they would yield a smaller net return than in any year since 1873–4. He hoped the proposed reduction of expenditure in the public works would be
    1080
    carried out, not too precipitately, but with fairness and consistency. He had heard of thousands of poor labourers being dismissed, but not of a single person with a salary of £1,000 a-year being affected. He hoped the economy, of which the Under Secretary of State had given pledges this evening, would not be of that miserable and contemptible kind which touched the poor, and left untouched everyone who had sufficient influence to make himself heard in that House. The Under Secretary of State had made them promises which, if carried out, would give India cause to congratulate herself upon to-night's debate. He had truly said that for the last 40 years the most magnificent promises had been made with regard to the larger admission of Natives into the Public Service, and yet their number might be almost counted on the fingers. The number of covenanted servants must be reduced, because India could not afford her present staff. This would also greatly reduce the charge for pensions, which was too great to be borne. Out of a Revenue of £37,000,000, a sum of £2,800,000 was paid away in this country in the form of pensions, superannuations, and compassionate allowances. The Under Secretary of State seemed to think he had been unjust when, in a recent speech, he characterized these Home charges as extravagant. But he thought the charge could not be denied. Even with regard to the two items the Under Secretary of State had referred to—namely, £1,200 for the outfit and passage money of a member of the Council of the Governor General, and £2,500 for the outfit and passage money of two Bishops and certain chaplains, he thought the charge sufficiently made out. Why should India pay a single sixpence for a Bishop? The Under Secretary of State said he was compelled to allow these items by an Act of Parliament; but, if that was so, why did he not get the Act of Parliament repealed? It was a mistake to suppose that the Home charges could not be reduced. Let them but compare the salaries received by certain officials in the India Office with the salaries of officials who did the same work in some of the English Government Offices, and they would see that a reduction was not impossible. Instead of diminishing the Home charges, the Government were

    1081
    pursuing a policy which would tend still further to increase them. While advising the Government to carry out in India a policy of rigorous retrenchment, he by no means underrated the difficulties which they had to encounter. He knew perfectly well that the very moment some private interest was attacked it summoned around it a host of friends, who became the keen assailants of the Government who were desirous of practising economy. Nothing would be more unfair or unjust than an attempt to add to the difficulties which the Government would have to encounter if they should carry out the promises of economy which they had made that evening. It was not his intention to make any direct attack upon the Government, for no fair person could hold them solely responsible for the present state of the finances of India. Strongly as he objected to some things which the Government had done—the Afghan War, for instance, and the reduction of the cotton duties—he still admitted that many of the causes that had brought financial trouble upon India were in operation long before the present Administration came into Office. He held that no single circumstance had done so much to bring financial trouble upon India as the amalgamation of the two Armies—a step for which a Conservative Government were not responsible. Nothing, he thought, would be more mischievous than to waste time in recriminations about the past, and in attempting to apportion blame between this Government and that. The House of Commons itself was by no means free from blame. In a country like ours, the policy of the Government became, sooner or later, the reflex of the feelings of the House of Commons, whose Members represented the feelings of the nation. Until recently, public opinion, with regard to the financial administration of India, had always been on the side of expenditure. The English people thought that India was an extremely wealthy country, and could not be too expensively governed. But, within the last year or two, there had been a change in their ideas, and language entirely different from that which was heard a few years ago was now on men's lips. On all sides, now, we heard the financial embarrassments of India spoken of. Although he did not believe in the insol-
    1082
    vency of India, he did believe that if that which had occurred during the last five years were to continue unchecked in the future, India would one day find herself unable to pay her way, and Ministers would have to seek a grant in aid of our Eastern Dependency. If this should ever happen, a burden would be imposed upon England which would be felt in every English home. If anyone should ask him why he brought forward the Resolution which stood upon the Paper in his name, he would reply that he wished to do the little that could be done by a single individual to keep the influence of the House of Commons on the side of economy with regard to Indian administration, and not on the side of extravagance. He accepted, in no grudging spirit, the promise of the Government, that they would pursue a policy of strict economy. He hoped that they would not refuse to accept the Resolution which, he was about to move. It placed no censure upon them; it only acknowledged a principle to which the Government themselves had subscribed. He would probably be asked to withdraw his Resolution; but he hoped the Government would refrain from making such an appeal to him, for they would have to encounter many obstacles in their efforts in the direction of economy, and he believed that by accepting his Resolution they would be strengthening, and not weakening, their hands. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, regarding with apprehension the present state of Indian Finance, approves the decision to reduce Expenditure,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. BIRLEYobserved, that the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney very much mitigated the force of his preceding criticism. Nothing could be more easy than to draw, at the present moment, a gloomy picture of the finances of India. He regretted that the speech of the hon. Member had not partaken of the character of a reply to the admirable speech of the Under Secretary of State for India, He entirely agreed with

    1083
    that part of the hon. Member's Resolution which spoke of the necessity for economy in the administration of the Indian Revenue; but he could not say that he regarded the condition of the finances of India with apprehension. There was certainly great reason for caution in connection with the administration of the finances of that country; but this necessary caution was being faithfully exercised by those who were responsible, both in this country and in India itself. When they considered the enormous losses the Indian Government had sustained on account of Famines, and on account of loss by exchange, the answer to the charges of the hon. Member was obvious; and he thought it was a matter for some degree of congratulation that in the last year referred to in the Accounts, if they excluded the expenditure on account of Famine, the loss by exchange, and unproductive public works, there would be a favourable balance of very nearly £3,000,000. There was a point to which attention had been called by the Under Secretary of State for India, and that was as regarded the salt revenue. It had been frequently said that, salt being an article of universal necessity, it was hard that a revenue of something like £6,000,000 should be derived from it. But when they considered that that was equal to only about 1d. per month per head of the population, and that it was the one means by which some slight contribution could be brought to the Revenue from all classes, much of the objection disappeared, and a still larger portion of the objection disappeared when they considered the measures taken by the Government of India for the supply and distribution of salt. It was more important even than the question of the tax that the Natives should be able to receive regular supplies of salt, of which there had sometimes been a famine. The hon. Member for Hackney referred to the cotton duties. At an early period of the Session the House had devoted an evening to this question, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs), and it was impossible to get up even a semblance of opposition to the resolution which had been come to by the Government of India to remove all those duties which had anything of a protective character; and he confessed he listened with great surprise to the
    1084
    remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, who professed to be a Free Trader, and who yet advocated this tax. The hon. Member said, however, that it was a tax which was paid by the Natives of India with the greatest satisfaction. The hon. Member must have forgotten that that was one of the arguments used by those who were favourable to the adoption of the principle of Reciprocity. Indirect taxes were always preferred to direct taxes, and that was the argument which was used everywhere in favour of indirect taxes. That the duty in question was a protective duty there could be no question whatever. It had been said that the duty had been removed at the instance of the English Government, and at the behest of the Lancashire Members. That was an unworthy observation; but the hon. Member said it was not his observation, but one which had been made by members of the India Council. Why, almost as soon as Lord Salisbury came into Office—in 1874 or 1875—he declared to the Indian Government his strong objection to this tax, and said it must be got rid of as soon as possible; and the noble Marquess had spoken to him about it in terms almost as strong as those he used in his despatch, and explained how much he objected on financial, political, and commercial grounds, to this unjust and impolitic tax. The clear and admirable statement of the Under Secretary of State had, he thought, completely cut the ground from under the feet of the hon. Member for Hackney, and also from under the feet of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and their supporters, and he was confident that the House would agree with the Under Secretary of State as to the future administration of Indian finance. The hon. Member for Hackney had claimed Sir John Strachey as an authority in favour of the statement that the Famine Fund had been unjustly absorbed in the expenditure of the year. What Sir John Strachey said was that "the propriety of the course taken by the Government had been justified by the event." That "any other decision would have resulted in the necessity of imposing new taxation;" and he added that if serious circumstances arose they would have had to choose between fresh taxation and an abrogation of the Fund. The charge, therefore, made

    1085
    against Sir John Strachey was not borne out by the facts. Then, again, the hon. Member said that the licence tax was one in favour of the rich as against the poor. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: Hear, hear!] He was not going to argue the question generally, and he did not know that the tax was founded on an equitable basis; but it was a tax on trade such as was known in many European countries, and it was, in some degree, a substitute for the Income Tax, which failed in India because the Natives would not submit to it. With regard to the question of exchange, the hon. Member for Hackney said there was a tendency on the part of the Government to become speculators in silver; but the Under Secretary of State had carefully guarded himself from suspicion on that point, and every merchant knew that there were times when it would be exceedingly imprudent to sell exchanges. The question of allowances and pensions to European officials had been alluded to, and he was glad to hear the assurance given to the House by his hon. Friend that it was intended in future to employ Natives in a larger degree than heretofore in the Indian Civil Service. He had only, in conclusion, to congratulate his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State on the valuable and remarkable address he had delivered—an address which he believed would have an effect, not only upon the House, but upon the country.
    MR. LAINGwarned the House against the optimist view of the situation put forward by the Under Secretary of State in his able speech, in which he had stated many pleasant things in a very pleasant manner. The accounts presented to the House by the India Office at home were characterized by a greater degree of fairness than those which emanated from the Government of India. The latter were singular illustrations of the maxim that complicated accounts went along with embarrassed finance. The alleged increase of £5,000,000 in the Revenue of India during the past two years was really only nominal. When examined it was found to be due to a mere stroke of the pen, and the ordinary items of Revenue, instead of being buoyant, were stationary, or rather on the decline. Of course, the Government of India were not responsible for the great calamities of Famine
    1086
    and the depreciation of silver; but it seemed to him they were to blame for not having realized the situation soon enough, and prepared for it by a rigid economy. It was as apparent three years ago as now; yet, instead of practising economy, the Government of India plunged into the Afghan War, of which he would say no more than that it might either have been averted or postponed. The accumulated deficit of the last few years exceeded the interest of the Debt. India had thus, in fact, been paying the interest of its Debt out of borrowed money, which was just what Egypt and Turkey had been doing. No doubt, he would be met by the argument of productive public works. The Statistical Abstract contained some figures showing what had been the expenditure upon, and the revenue from, public works during the last 10 years. The expenditure on works of irrigation had been £9,620,000, and on State railways £14,622,000, making a total of £24,302,000. The revenue from irrigation works in 1876–7 was £520,000, and the working expenses were £587,000, showing a loss of £60,000. The receipts from railways were £371,000, and the working expenses £263,000. The result was, the gross revenue was £871,000, and the working expenses were £850,000. Practically, there was no return at all for the expenditure. Returns which showed surpluses were, therefore, delusive, as were the Budgets of Napoleon III., which showed a surplus from year to year, while £100,000,000 was added to the Debt of France. Any Financial Statement was illusory and delusive which did not include the expenditure on public works in India. We had increased the public Debt of India by upwards of £50,000,000 in the last few years, of which more than £40,000,000 had been increased in the last six years. The actual deficit of cash expenditure over cash revenue was at the rate of not less than £7,000,000 a-year. He should be surprised if the Afghan War involved a capital charge of less than £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, which must be followed by an increased permanent charge for occupying Forces of 14,000 or 15,000 men, with camp followers, & c. Everyone would rejoice that the war had been brought near to its close, and they had now to look to the future. In occupying the new Frontier, there

    1087
    would be three Passes which would require protecting, and they were so distant from one another that each would have to rely upon its own strength. The estimated yearly expense of the Forces to be set apart for the defence of the new territory had been put down by Sir Henry Norman, who was the very highest authority, at £1,000,000. The good resolution of the Government as regarded economy, so essential to the salvation of the Indian finances, was badly answered by an extension of the Frontier, which, beyond the first outlay, would add £1,000,000 a-year to the permanent Expenditure. As to increasing taxation, the possibilities of doing so were pretty well exhausted. Indirect taxation was admitted to have nearly reached its limit; and as to direct taxation, the political danger arising from any attempt in that direction was so great, and the amount that could be obtained was so small, that all the wisest statesmen had abandoned the idea. In justification of that view he would proceed to examine the several sources of Indian Revenue, in order to show that little or no additional income could be derived from them. Two sources had been suggested from which additional revenue might be obtained—tobacco, and an income tax. As to tobacco, the first fatal objection to deriving revenue from it was, that a great part of the population of India was so poor that they could get no more out of them. Another fatal objection was, that being of almost universal growth, if they attempted to raise a revenue from it they must have an army of Native Excisemen going through the country and prosecuting every unfortunate man who grew it. The objections to an income tax he had often stated. They were based chiefly on the Oriental habit of mind, which was so jealous on the subject as to make any such imposition odious to the people. When he was in India, there was a well authenticated instance of a well-to-do man having hung himself, his mind being so much disturbed by having an income tax paper served upon him. After all, if they put on an income tax they would collect very little. The fact that last year the Government had fallen back upon the licensing tax was a proof how hardly they had been driven to find a fresh source of taxation, it being a tax amounting to 5 per cent upon incomes of
    1088
    4s. a-week. The Government appeared to underrate the gravity of the situation with regard to Indian finance, and to over-estimate the amount of the reductions that could be made in the expenditure. There was a fixed annual expenditure of £17,000,000, in which no reduction could be effected; and under several other heads, such as that of "Famine," it was scarcely to be hoped that the expenditure this year would be less than that of last. There was also a loss to be expected with regard to silver; although he thought the conduct of the Government was wise in refusing to listen to any of the empirical schemes which had been put forward for changing the standard. As long as the credit of England stood, it would be easy to raise a succession of loans which they would meet until they approached the gulf of bankruptcy; and he concluded by warning the House that these Indian loans would ultimately fall back upon England.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, he was certain the House had listened with much satisfaction to the peculiarly clear and lucid statement of the Under Secretary of State for India. He believed every Member of that House was a sincere friend of judicious economy; and he had equally little doubt that that economy would be practised by Her Majesty's Government, when it could be safely carried out, by following the uniform policy indicated in the speech of the Under Secretary of State. He had no doubt that the employment of Natives in the subordinate posts would lead to this, and also have a very beneficial effect on the loyalty of the people. He need not follow the hon. Gentleman in his suggestions as to economy. No doubt, anyone who had paid attention to Indian finance would find that considerable economy might be made in public buildings in India, and what was called ordinary public works. With regard to the Army, he remembered in a former Session the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), whose experience gave his words great weight on questions of this sort, said that as regarded men very little reduction was consistent with the safety of India, and with regard to the officers no reduction need go very far. He submitted that in order to realize any great scheme of economy of the Indian Army, the House

    1089
    must deal with the standing Armies of the great feudatory Princes. So long as those Armies were maintained, numbering many tens of thousands of men, and large numbers of artillery, it was very difficult, indeed, to effect any measure of economy in the Army of India which would bridge over, to any extent, the deficit. As regarded public works, he quite agreed, from what little attention he had paid to the subject in the present circumstances of India, that they had no choice but to take the expenditure on public works. In dealing with these financial difficulties, there were two ways of meeting them—one was, by economy, to lessen the burdens on the ratepayer; and the other was by benefiting the condition of the ratepayer and enabling him to bear greater burdens. He could not help thinking that something might be clone by the Government in that way. With regard to the question of manufactures, be thought that the people of India, might, to a considerable extent, manufacture for themselves. If India were governed by Native Princes, or by any other Power than England, he could not help thinking that means would be taken to foster, to some extent, at all events, the system of Native manufactures; and for that reason he thought the true interest of India were not consulted by the recent reduction of the duties on the import of manufactures into that country. Referring to the depreciation of silver, he thought, it was not due to any natural law, but to the demonetization of silver by Germany, and the reduction of mintage facilities by the States of the Latin Union. The loss to the Government last year from this cause amounted to £3,500,000, or more than the cost of the Famine and the Afghan War, and it was far from certain that the worst had passed. He believed that the grave character of this matter could scarcely be exaggerated, and should have been glad, had the very able statement of the Under Secretary of State for India comprised some indication that the Government were devoting their serious attention to it. He believed that it would be sometime before there would be an equilibrium in India.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, although the hour has arrived at which, when a debate is expected to be prolonged, we usually adjourn, I do not rise for the purpose of moving the adjournment, but
    1090
    with the object of disentangling the different elements of this discussion, which it appears to me have no natural or proper connection with one another, and the conjunction of which, on the present occasion, may rather tend to perplex the public mind. The discussion upon the India Budget, although it is generally limited to a certain number of hon. Members in this House, yet necessarily, and upon all occasions, involves many topics of great interest and importance. On the present occasion it is obvious that those topics are unusually numerous and unusually weighty; and I do not think, nor do I expect or desire, that this discussion should be terminated at the point which it has now reached. But a very great change has taken place in the position of the House in relation to the question now before it since the debate began. We have had upon the Books for some days a Notice of Motion given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), which appeared to raise a contentious issue; and I, for my own part, came down to the House at 5 o'clock to-day prepared to give strong support, to the best of my ability, to the Motion of my hon. Friend. I was entirely ignorant of what might be the intentions of the Government; all that I knew was that the many grave and even, in my view, alarming circumstances which surround the subject of Indian finance, called for the expression of a very decisive opinion on the part of this House, on behalf of strong, energetic, and effectual measures for the reduction of expenditure. There was the common expectation that we were to have, not merely the usual amicable discussion of incidental points connected with Indian finance, but that we were to have a great issue regularly raised, and that all arrangements had been made for clearing the Paper early in order that the debate might go forward, and the decision of the House taken by division upon the question raised by my hon. Friend. But, Sir, I listened with the utmost interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, to which the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) has done, I think, no more than justice in expressing the feeling of the House that it was a most lucid and able exposition of the complicated facts which he had to lay

    1091
    before us; and it was certainly with an amount of pleasurable surprise to me that, after my hon. Friend had, in the discharge of his duty, represented fairly and equitably the very grave state of affairs which exists, he proceeded to announce that Her Majesty's Government, having considered the state of Indian affairs, had arrived at the decision that it was their duty to take in hand effectual means for equalizing expenditure and charge. That was a most important announcement; but it did not appear to me to put an end to the occasion for discussion, because there still remained a great deal to be said upon a large number of incidental questions materially affecting the conditions of Indian finance. If you were to speak, for example, of import duties on foreign goods imported into India—that, of itself, was a topic which could not go by without discussion. I think there are Gentlemen in this House who feel a desire to discuss such matters; but it does appear to me that it would be most unfortunate that they should be discussed under the notion that we have now any contentious issue before us. The declaration of my hon. Friend is one of the utmost importance. He has made an announcement, and he has given encouragement to the House, for the fulfilment of which Her Majesty's Government are responsible. It may be that when they come to the development of their plans they may be such as to give entire satisfaction; and it is possible, on the other hand, that after those plans have developed questions may still remain on which there is a difference of opinion, and which, accordingly, must be debated between us. But what I feel strongly is that for the present moment the declaration made on the part of the Government has removed all reasonable grounds for anything in the nature of a contentious issue; and, therefore, speaking in the character of one thoroughly disposed to support the original proposition of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), I venture to say to him that I think it would be a great pity that the House, which is substantially unanimous in accepting the pledge of Her Majesty's Government, should be engaged in a debate with the prospect of its terminating with a Division. What I have to suggest to the hon. Member is that the Motion which, under the rather sudden
    1092
    pressure of the moment, he substituted for the original Resolution still leaves the subject clouded with a certain degree of ambiguity; and that, not having understood the amended Motion of the hon. Member to be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, I do not, under the circumstances, think we can fairly expect that it should be accepted. The more natural and usual course, when the Government have evinced an intention on their part, which is substantially agreeable to the views which have been expressed by the House, is not to call upon the House in a formal shape, but to accept the assurance which has been received, trusting implicitly to its fulfilment, or, at all events, to postpone its consideration to a later date, when, if there is found to exist any difference of opinion, the matter can be referred to a Division between the two sides of the House. Sir, I do not know whether I express the views generally entertained upon this subject; but I think I express an opinion in conformity with the general experience of the House, when I say that it would be better, for the unprejudiced and dispassionate consideration of the subjects of great importance and difficulty connected with the present state of Indian finance, if we were to allow the hon. Member to get quit of anything in the nature of a Motion that "you do now leave the Chair." I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will ask the House for the leave, which I have no doubt will be accorded, to withdraw his Motion, in order that the discussion may be allowed to proceed without there remaining in the public mind the misapprehension that we are divided in intention, while our views in the matter are really united.
    MR. ONSLOWrose to a point of Order. He wished to know the position in which the House was placed with regard to the Amendment?
    MR. SPEAKER: The original Question before the House is that I leave the Chair, in order that the House in Committee should consider a financial Resolution, and upon that Motion the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) moved an Amendment. That Amendment is now before the House. If the House think fit to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, the original Question will be put from the Chair, and the debate will proceed.
    MR. FAWCETTthought, after the positive assurance of the Under Secretary of State for India, that a serious and earnest attempt should be made to reduce the expenditure in every Department connected with India, and that Natives were to be largely employed in the Public Service, he should be placing the House in a false position by asking for an expression of opinion upon the question of a reduction of expenditure which had been promised. He therefore begged permission to withdraw his Amendment, though he reserved the right of asking the House next year, if necessary, to express an opinion upon the extent to which the promises of the Under Secretary of State for India had been carried out.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Matthew Ridley.)
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.

    [BILL 138.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDdrew attention to the alteration in the position of Clerks of the Peace which would be brought about by the operation of this Bill; and as the question was one which involved a principle of justice, he was quite sure the House would give it fair consideration. It had always been usual, whenever any change had been made which affected property, that compensation should be given for the loss sustained by reason of such change; and that principle had always been applied in cases where any change had been made which affected the holders of offices, either by depriving them of those offices, or by reducing the emoluments derived there-
    1094
    from. It had been the invariable custom of the House to grant the holders of such offices compensation for the loss sustained. The office of Clerk of the Peace was an ancient office, and was held for life. Formerly, the Clerks of the Peace were paid, either wholly or in part, by fees which they received for cases tried at Quarter Sessions; but in consequence of the change which took place in 1851, at least two-thirds in number of the Clerks of the Peace had had to commute their fees, and were now paid by salaries. But he believed a certain number of them, under 20 he thought, were still paid by fees. The proposition which he had to submit to the House was that, as the effect of this Bill would be seriously to reduce the income of these officers, some compensation should be made to them. Without troubling the House with the details of cases in point, he thought that the precedent established in the case of the Summary Jurisdiction Bill of 1855 ought to be applied on the present occasion. That Act contained the provision that Clerks of the Peace should receive compensation for the loss they had sustained by the reduction of their fees consequent upon the passing of that Act, and that principle had, he believed, been acted upon ever since that time. Compensation had also been granted in cases where offices in different Courts of Law had been abolished; and, again, where, as in the present case, the fees and emoluments were decreased, although the offices might not have been actually done away with. But it might be asked whether it was true that the operation of this Bill, when it became law, would seriously diminish the amount of fees? That, he thought, would be perfectly obvious from the Bill itself. He held in his hand the Calendar for the last Sessions for the County of Kent; and it was clear that of the 44 prisoners tried, 31 would have come under the operation of the Act, had, it been in force. That, of course, meant a loss of a certain number of shillings in each of the 31 cases, which would, but for the operation of the Act when in force, have gone to the Clerk of the Peace. Again, with regard to the County of Middlesex, he had been told that 800 out of 1,800 prisoners tried would at once be summarily disposed of under the provisions of this Bill; and

    1095
    the same with other counties. These figures, he thought, showed that the result of the Bill, in its present form, would he a very material diminution of the amount of the fees now paid to Clerics of the Peace. But he had heard it said that the provisions of the Criminal Code would, when passed into law, compensate Clerks of the Peace for the loss which they were about to sustain by the operation of the present measure. That, however, was not likely to be the effect of the Code in its present shape. Its result would be this—First of all, there were five classes of offences now triable at the Sessions which, under the provisions of the Code, would be triable at the Assizes only. Against those there were two offences—namely, burglary and highway robbery, in which jurisdiction would be given to the Sessions; but he asked any hon. Member who was in the habit of acting as Chairman at Quarter Sessions, whether the cases under the five heads referred to, which were to be taken from the Sessions to the Assizes, would not be much more numerous than the cases of burglary and highway robbery, which would be added to the jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions? The argument, therefore, that the Clerks of the Peace would derive any equivalent from the Criminal Code for the losses which they would sustain by the operation of this Bill, fell to the ground. Again, it was said that the Bill itself furnished some remedy for the loss of fees by the provisions made for appeals. But the number of these, it was well known, would be very inconsiderable; because prisoners and their relations were usually very poor, and in cases where they were defended before the magistrates their means were so exhausted that they were unable to prosecute an appeal. How few appeals, except in bastardy cases, ever came to Quarter Sessions? He ventured to say that the appeals under the provisions of this Bill, so far from adding in any essential degree to the fees at Quarter Sessions, would add very little indeed. Therefore, it came to this—that the incomes of the gentlemen who held the offices of Clerks of the Peace, and who took those offices on the supposition that the fees were to be continued to them, would be very seriously diminished, for which reason he hoped that the House would consider that it was but
    1096
    just and right that the precedent which had been over and over again followed in similar cases should not be departed from in the present instance. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, compensation should be made to clerks of the peace, now paid by fees, for the diminution of their incomes which will be caused by the provisions of this Bill,"—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not trouble the House with many words, for all that he had to say on this subject he stated the other night. He entirely agreed that everyone having a freehold office was entitled, when that office was abolished, to be compensated; but he entirely denied that Clerks of the Peace, or any other clerks, had a vested interest in crime. Their claim was ludicrous. The hon. and learned Gentleman might just as well say, because they had taken steps to improve the dwellings of the working classes, and also to promote education, by which means they hoped to diminish crime, that Clerks of the Peace on that account had a claim to compensation. What Clerks of the Peace had was a vested right to their office, and they had a vested right, as Clerks of the Peace in the Courts, to get all the fees in respect of the business that came before those Courts; and if no business came before their Courts, then they had no right at all to compensation. He would not take up the time of the House by further debating the matter.
    MR. COLEsaid, that, although the claim of the Clerks of the Peace to conpensation might seem very ludicrous to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, yet he must venture to differ from him. He quite agreed with him that Clerks of the Peace had no vested interest in crime; but they had a vested interest in their fees. What was now being done was to transfer the dealing with crime from one jurisdiction to another. The amount of crime would remain entirely the same; but it was treated in a dif-

    1097
    ferent manner. Let them consider I what now happened. A man was charged before a magistrate, and there was a magistrate's or a Justice's clerk, or both, who received certain fees when the matter was inquired into. Everyone who knew anything at all about the Criminal Law was aware that, in the event of the prisoner being committed by a magistrate or a Justice to Sessions, magistrate's clerks' fees on committal were inserted in the order made, and were allowed in the costs of the prosecution. If the case was sent to Sessions, the fees of the Clerk of the Peace were in addition to those of the clerk to the magistrates. In fact, there was one class of fees for prisoners dealt with at once by the Justices, and another for prisoners committed for trial at the Assizes or Sessions. If a prisoner were committed to Sessions for trial, the Clerk of the Peace, for the first time, had something to do with the case; for if the case were prosecuted at the Sessions, he was entitled to fees for such prosecution. No doubt, the Clerks of the Peace had no vested interest in crime—the crime remained the same; but the question under the Bill was as to the tribunal which was to deal with it. It was a question whether a prisoner should be dealt with by the magistrates, or sent to the Sessions for trial. If not sent to the Sessions for trial, prisoners were dealt with by the magistrates; and if dealt with by the magistrates, the magistrates' clerk got his fees; but the Clerks of the Peace got no fees at all. So that, by enabling the magistrates to deal summarily with certain offences, they had deprived the Clerks of the Peace of those fees to which thej7 had been formerly entitled. He could not understand the right hon. Gentleman thinking it ludicrous that the Clerks of the Peace should wish for some compensation for the business of which they would be deprived. What was the position of the case? The Treasury would, under this Act, pocket a large amount of the fees hitherto payable to the Clerks of the Peace. It was perfectly clear to everyone knowing anything about the matter that there were two sets of fees, those payable to the magistrates' clerks and those payable to the Clerks of the Peace. If the magistrates were enabled to commit summarily in the cases provided for in the Bill, a
    1098
    prisoner would not be sent to the Sessions for trial. The result was that those fees which would have been payable to the Clerks of the Peace if a prisoner had been sent to trial were saved to the Treasury. The Clerks of the Peace did not ask for what was called compensation. It was not compensation they wanted; but they simply asked that the fees that they were at the present moment entitled to claim on certain committals should be paid to them. They had been appointed to freehold offices on the understanding that they were to receive those fees. There was no question about that. They did not ask that one sixpence should be paid out of the Treasury that was not paid at the present moment. Certain offences must be now tried at Quarter Sessions, and not be tried summarily by the Justices, and in respect of these offences they were entitled to fees. But it was now proposed to take away from the Quarter Sessions the trying of those particular offences, and to allow the Justices at Petty Sessions to deal with them. No one objected to that arrangement; but it was certainly depriving the Clerks of the Peace of the fees which they would have been paid if those offences were still triable at Quarter Sessions. He did not ask that two sets of fees should be paid; but there were certain gentlemen who were not paid by salary, and only by fees. No doubt, the Justices at Quarter Sessions had the power, if so minded, to say that Clerks of the Peace should be paid by salary; but the Clerks of the Peace could not force the Justices to give them a salary. If they could do so, they would have no complaint; and he should like to see all Clerks of the Peace paid by salary. There was a certain number—perhaps a considerable number—of them paid by salary; and it would be very desirable that all should be paid by salary, as when only payable by fees Clerks of the Peace and magistrates' clerks were offered an inducement to commit prisoners for trial for the purpose of making fees. He did not say that that was done; but, still, he thought all such officials should be paid by salary. He knew many gentlemen who had accepted the position of Clerks of the Peace for counties, and had given up their profession in reliance upon receiving the lees payable in that office. These gentlemen, in many cases,

    1099
    would lose £500 or £600 a-year by this Act; and he would ask if this was fair, right, or just? When they accepted those appointments, it was upon a distinct understanding that as the law was so it should continue. That they should have an interest in crimes as imputed to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was, of course, repugnant to everyone: but that was not the proper way of looking at the question. The crime remained the same, and the whole question was, if they removed these crimes from the jurisdiction of Clerks of the Peace, they removed from them their fees. It seemed to him extremely hard and improper to deprive these gentlemen of the fees which, when they accepted office, they were led to believe were inseparable from it. He would most strongly support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that it had been admitted that the Clerks of the Peace had no vested interest in the crime of the country; but it had been argued that the crime remained, and that they had a vested interest in its not being transferred to a cheaper and prompter tribunal. He could not agree with that view. Under this Bill not only would there be more appeals, but where a person was charged with a crime for which he was liable to three months' imprisonment he could claim to be tried before a jury. Therefore, the Act, while it took away some business, would have the effect of sending some business to the Clerks of the Peace. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that if they abolished a freehold office they were bound to pay compensation, but not otherwise. They were not bound to provide crime for the Clerks of the Peace, and he did not think that Clerks of the Peace had any vested interest.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration," put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. SPEAKERwished to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Cole) that his Amendment involved a charge and
    1100
    could only be inserted in Committee of the Whole House.
    MR. COLEaccepted the ruling of the Chair, and would not press the consideration of his clause. After the strong feeling the House had evinced against the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris, he thought it was idle for him to move this clause, even if he were entitled to do so, as it embodied the substance of that Resolution. At the same time he must express a hope that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would re-consider his decision. It did strike him as an exceedingly hard case on those gentlemen, and he thought something should be done to relieve them.
    MR. RIDLEYsaid, that it appeared to him that if they gave the Justices a right not to proceed to conviction, although an offence should be proved to have been committed, it was desirable that it should be expressed that that discretion should only be exercised on a consideration of the particular case. The words in the 10th clause, as it at present stood, gave the Justices liberty not to convict when they thought fit. Therefore, without considering the particular circumstances of the case, they might think themselves at liberty to excercise this discretion without reference to the case itself. He therefore begged to move, in Clause 16, page 8, line 30, after the word "inexpedient," to insert "under the particular circumstances of the case."
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 30, after the word "inexpedient," to insert the words "under the particular circumstances of the case."—(Mr. Ridley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR HENRY JAMESdid not see how he could move his Amendment to leave out Sub-section 1 of this clause, if the Amendment now moved was inserted. He wished to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland, and he should like to say a few words upon the principle involved in it. This sub-section had the effect of placing every magistrate who administered the law above that House and above the law. It would give a magis-

    1101
    trate power to say—"I think that although the Legislature have said a certain thing is a crime, yet that it ought not to be so." Although this seemed a very small matter, yet he thought the principle involved in it very serious. In the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill a provision similar to this was inserted, by which they gave to every Judge who tried a case a power to say that although the Legislature had said that a certain act constituted a crime, yet if that Judge thought that the Legislature was wrong, he could say that the crime should not result in a conviction, and that the prisoner, however guilty, might go free. A Judge would be enabled, because he thought the Legislature wrong in making a particular act a crime, to say that he would exercise this power and refuse to convict for it. This case might very readily happen. A Judge might say that poaching ought not to be a crime, and that he would not convict for it; and he might tell the jury that he would refuse to convict a man, not because he was innocent of the offence with which he was charged, but because, in his opinion, poaching was not a crime. The Legislature determined what acts were crimes, and ought to be punished; but this subsection, and the power proposed to be put in the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, put the Judge above that House, and put him into a position to say—"I will not allow the jury to convict, not because the man is not guilty—not because it is not a gross case within the purview of legislation—but because I think the crime ought not to exist." He did not think that any such power as that should be given to any magistrate or Judge. He did not object to a magistrate, or a Judge, having the power to say that a case was so slight that a nominal penalty was sufficient punishment; he was only objecting to a magistrate of summary jurisdiction, or a Judge of greater power, being permitted to say—"I will not allow a jury to convict on this crime, because I think that it ought not to be a crime at all." If they allowed that power to be given in small matters, as was done by the Bill, it seemed to him that they would not be able to object to the insertion of a similar provision in the Criminal Code. He would refer, for one moment, to the cases in which magis-
    1102
    trates would be called upon to exercise their discretion. Persons who might be charged before them might be in their employment, or might be known to them, and an appeal would be made to the clemency of the magistrates. At present, the magistrate was able to say—"I am very sorry, but I am bound to obey the law—I am bound to carry the law into effect and commit the prisoner for trial;" but under this section of the Bill it would he in the discretion of the magistrate to dismiss any prisoner, however guilty. He would not be able to say, as before—"I am bound to administer the law," for a discretion was expressly given him here to dismiss a criminal, however guilty, if he thought fit. In dealing with this question, they must consider weak magistrates as well as strong ones. He did not wish to enter into the question of political bias; but there were various questions coming before magistrates upon which they might entertain opinions. He would appeal to those hon. Members who, like himself, were magistrates, and would ask them whether they would like to be placed in this position—that they could not fall back upon the strength of that which they had always been able to do—namely, that they simply administered the law as the Legislature had made it? He could not conceive any position more objectionable than that magistrates should not be protected by the law itself, but left to their own individual discretion in determining whether a conviction should take place. He hoped the House would draw the distinction between the object of this clause—namely, clemency by means of making a conviction only nominal, and the placing a discretion in the hands of the magistrate to say that he would not convict for a crime, however guilty the prisoner might be proved of the offence with which he was charged. He would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland; but it seemed to him that the Amendment would not be sufficient to meet the objection he had raised. So far as he could see, they were introducing a principle into the law which was most dangerous and most injurious to the administration of justice, and which he believed would be personally felt to be a great burden, instead of a benefit, to the magistracy of this country. He

    1103
    trusted that he had not pressed his views too strongly upon the House. He did not like to divide against hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he hoped the House would, if it passed this section, accept the responsibility of affirming a principle which he had pointed out would have such untoward results.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, so far as the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland went, it was not affected by the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton. He thought the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend would be a very great improvement on the Bill, whatever might be done when they came to deal with Sub-section 1. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton had urged that the introduction of the power given in Sub-section 1 would be very dangerous. But it was only proposed by this section to legalize what it was now the constant practice to do in Petty Sessions. A man was charged with an offence, and that offence might be proved; the magistrates, being of opinion that no punishment ought to be inflicted, had been in the habit of saying—"You have been guilty of this offence; but as you are a man of excellent character, and we do not think you deserve punishment, on the whole we will dismiss the case against you on payment of costs." That had been the practice up to the present moment; but when he (Mr. Assheton Cross) first took the chair at Petty Sessions he immediately put a stop to that practice, as he did not think that it was legal, and he had not allowed it to take place since. But the hardship inflicted by the want of such a power was very great; and he thought that a power such as that given by the subsection was required. At present, if a man were fined even the smallest amount it involved the penalty of paying the costs. The magistrates were not to have the smallest discretion in saying whether a particular act was or was not to be a crime; but they were to be allowed to say that, under the particular circumstances of the case, they did not think it necessary to inflict any punishment at all. He agreed that magistrates ought not to have a power to dismiss a case because they did not think the law making it a crime was right; but it was necessary to give them a discretion to say that, under the particular circumstances,
    1104
    no punishment ought to be inflicted. The only question between his view and that of his hon. and learned Friend seemed to be whether a person should be actually convicted or not. It was now constantly the practice of magistrates to dismiss cases upon payment of costs. That was not legal; but, still, it was done, and instead of leaving it in that way it was proposed to give a power in the matter. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland would show more distinctly that magistrates were to exercise their discretion according to the particular circumstances of the case before them, and that it should, therefore, be adopted.
    MR. HERSCHELLagreed with a great deal that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton had said; but he was not now going to discuss the question raised by him. He wished only to draw attention to the Amendment before the House. He should like the matter limited more than the hon. Member proposed. In certain circumstances it was intended to impose a certain limitation. He did not think that magistrates should have any discretion except where, under the particular circumstances of the case, the offence was of a trifling character. Unless the power was specific, the clause might include more than that. He should prefer to have words stating that the offence was so trifling that it was not expedient, under the particular circumstances, to convict for the offence. He should, therefore, suggest that the words of the clause should be altered; and instead of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Northumberland should be inserted the words—
    "The offence was, under the particular circumstances of the case, of so trifling a character that it is inexpedient."
    MR. RIDLEYaccepted the words proposed, and begged to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (Mr. Herschell) agreed to.
    MR. PAGETwished to move an Amendment, at the end of this sub-section, in these words, "or any other nominal punishment." His object in inserting the Amendment was to make the sentences harmonize.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR HENRY JAMESremarked, that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) mitigated, to some extent, the evil which he was anxious to obviate; but he still thought there was some objection to this clause, and for this reason. It had been said that the question at issue was whether the magistrates should he able to say that they would not convict at all, or whether they would give only a nominal punishment. Every Judge was bound to have a discretion as to the infliction of punishment; but his objection was to magistrates being put above the law, and enabled to say that they would not convict of crime. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that wherever even a nominal punishment was indicted costs must follow the event, and that the object of the sub-section was to remedy that. He would point out that the Bill remedied that defect in the law; and that, oven after a conviction, it was in the power of the magistrates to let a person go without the payment of costs. He must protest against the magistrates being for one moment put above the law; and he more particularly objected to this, as furnishing a precedent for a similar but more extended power being inserted in the Criminal Code.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwished to point out that the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper dealt with a class of crime not contemplated when the question was raised before. The Bill contained a scheme of penalties, by which the nonpayment of any sum above £20 was punishable by imprisonment for three months. In many Revenue cases penalties amounted to £1,800 or £2,000; and in a case which was at present proceeding Her Majesty's Government claimed £1,800 penalty. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would think that three months' imprisonment for an offence against the Revenue, in which the penalty amounted to £1,800, was hardly adequate. He wished to prevent the occurrence of offences against the Revenue; and he was afraid if three months were left as the alternative to breaking these laws, that it would not sufficiently deter crime. Under these circumstances, he had to ask the House to add to the powers of the
    1106
    magistrates in those cases, and to extend the punishment in Revenue eases to a longer period of imprisonment—namely, six months. He moved, in Clause 54, page 32, line 3, to leave out from the word "act" to the word "shall" in line 8.
    MR. HOPWOODobserved, that it would meet the justice of the case, if magistrates were allowed to inflict greater punishment in the case of these offences than they could in others. He thought, however, that the Amendment proposed went too far, for it included offences against the Post Office.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved, that he would amend that, and proposed to leave out from the word "apply" to "and," inclusive, in line 7.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that he had to move an Amendment upon the 1st Schedule of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to permit trumpery cases to be dealt with in a summary manner. He proposed to add to the 1st Schedule, amongst the offences which might be dealt with, the obtaining money by false pretences where the value of the money did not, in the opinion of the Court before which the charge was brought, exceed 5s. He had taken the sum of 5s. in order to confine the power to small cases. He might point out that the object was to confine the matter to obtaining money, as it was a much simpler case than that of obtaining goods by false pretences. In the case of obtaining goods by false pretences difficult questions might arise; but the case of obtaining money was much simpler and in harmony with the principle of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 34, column 1, line 20, after the word "sections," to insert the words "7. Obtaining money by false pretences where the value of the whole of the money alleged to have been so obtained does not, in the opinion of the court before which the charge is brought, exceed five shillings."—(Mr. Dodson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that though the Amendment was worthy of consideration, yet he could not agree with it. His reason for objecting to the Amendment was that he feared it might be used for the purpose of collecting

    1107
    debts. He had great objection to allowing the Criminal Law to be made a medium for debt-collecting; and he wished, by every means in his power, to prevent it. He therefore thought it would be right to leave the Bill as it stood.
    SIR HENRY JAMESobserved, that whether made a medium for collecting debts or not, a charge of committing this offence might be sent by the magistrates for trial. He thought it was better to have such a case tried before the magistrates, and a summary conviction take place, than that the matter should be sent to the Quarter Sessions. It was really only a question as to whether a particular offence should be dealt with summarily, or sent to the Quarter Sessions to be disposed of.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked, that the cost of carrying the matter to Quarter Sessions would put a stop to the practice of making use of the Criminal Law in this particular matter for debt-collecting.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 37: Majority 10.—(Div. List, No. 107.)
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that he had an Amendment, in page 35, line 10, to insert these words—
    "Provided that the value does not, in the opinion of the Court before which the charge is brought, exceed forty shillings."
    He did not know the intention of the Government with respect to this matter; but, in point of fact, jurisdiction was given by the Bill to try aiders and abettors without limit as to amount. The compulsory jurisdiction of magistrates under it was limited to the value of 40 s., but aiders and abettors of thefts of, say, £1,000, or a valuable horse, might be tried summarily. He did not know whether it was intended to allow this peculiarity to exist, for it was an anomaly; and he could see no reason why, if a principal could not be tried, an accessory before the fact, or after the fact, should be allowed to be tried. The object of his Amendment was to give the same jurisdiction, with regard to accessories before and after the fact, as was exercised with regard to principals.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am satisfied, and accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. COLE MR. COLE moved an Amendment with a view to limiting the power to try for attempts to steal. As the matter at present stood, there was no limit whatever to the power of the magistrates to try for attempts to steal. It seemed to him that, as respected the tribunal, an attempt to commit an offence ought to be placed on the same footing as the entire offence.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 35, line 16, after the word "servant," to insert the words "where the property which is the subject of the alleged offence does not, in the opinion of the court before whom the charge is brought, exceed forty shillings."—(Mr. Cole.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that a man was charged with attempting to steal money, but the amount of the money might be unknown, the Court could not possibly determine the value of the property which he attempted to steal, and that it would be, therefore, absolutely impossible to carry out this provision. If a man attempted to pick a pocket, it would be impossible to charge him with attempting to steal any specific sum, because the amount of money in the pocket would probably not be known.
    MR. PAGETthought that this Amendment was very objectionable, and he should strongly oppose it.
    MR. COLEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in Schedule 2, page 36, line 5, to insert—
    (11 and 12 Vic. c. 43.)
    "An Act to facilitate the performance of the duties of justices of the peace out of session, within England and Wales, with respect to summary convictions and orders."
    The following words in section thirty-five: "Nor to any information or complaint or other proceeding under or by virtue of any of the statutes relating to Her Majesty's Revenue of Excise or Customs, Stamps, Taxes, or Post Office."
    He said, that this Amendment was simply to do away with the exemption of the Customs and Inland Revenue in proceedings under the Larceny Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  GREAT SEAL [SALARY].

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee thereupon read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    MR. MONKsaid, that it was not usual for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair in order that the House might go into Committee and provide for expenses arising out of a Bill until it had passed its second reading. Moreover, it was later than half-past 12, and the Bill in question was opposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt).
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that this was merely a formal stage of the Bill, the object of which was to sanction, by Resolution of the House, the amount of salary to be paid in case the Bill should be passed.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 13: Majority 9.—(Div. List, No. 108.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Matter considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of additional Salary to any Officer which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law respecting the manner of passing Grants under the Great Seal, and respecting Officers connected therewith.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  COSTS TAXATION (HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL— [Bill 190.]
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Mowbray.)
  COSTS TAXATION (HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL— [Bill 190.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. RAIKESexplained that it was intended to legalize in the case of Provisional Orders the same regulations as to the taxation of costs which had long been established in the case of Private Bills. He therefore moved that the Bill should be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.