Sitting of 9 April 1883

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Alfred Giles, esquire, for Southampton.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Turnpike Acts Continuance Act, 1882, appointed and nominated; Canals, nominated.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions 1, 2, 3.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—London and South Western Railway (Bournemouth Direct Railway, &c.)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Glebe Loan (Ireland) Acts Amendment (No. 2)* [138]; Canal Boats Act (1877) Amendment* [139].
Ordered—First Reading—Second Reading—Committee—Report—Third Reading—Explosive Substances, and passed.
Committee—Report—Bills of Sale (Ireland) Act (1879) Amendment* [105].
Third Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Order* [114]; Army (Annual)* [123], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—EXTRA ALLOWANCES TO PRISON WARDERS FOR EXTRA DUTIES.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any decision has been arrived at as to extra allowances to prison warders in Ireland, in reference to their extra duties performed under the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act; and, if so, when any such allowances are likely to be paid?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I presume the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) intends his Question to refer to duties performed in connection with the custody of prisoners under the Protection of Person and Property Act, seeing that the General Prisons Board made certain recommendations to the Government on that subject. Those recommendations were of a very extensive character, and the Board was informed by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant that they were quite inadmissible in consequence of their unlimited form. His Excellency invited the Board to submit the cases of any individual officers whom it was desired to recommend for extra remuneration on the ground of exceptional responsibility or of expenses out of pocket. This communication was made to the Board on the 5th of February last; but no reply has since been received.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS ACTS—THE NEW SCHEMES OF THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether they are proceeding

  1813
  with their four now schemes under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts, 1875–82; and, at what stage they at present stand?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, in reply, said, he begged to inform his right hon. Friend that the Metropolitan Board was proceeding with the four schemes referred to, and that the local inquiries made, under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had been concluded in each case. If the Secretary of State, on the report of the local Inspector, approved the schemes, Provisional Orders would, no doubt, be issued and confirmed in the usual manner.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Postmaster General, Whether there is anything in the proposed Irish Mail Contract regulating the time to be taken on the land journey and the sea journey respectively, or whether the contract will be satisfied by the whole journey being perfected in ten and a-half hours; and, whether, under the proposed contract, it would be competent for the London and North Western Railway Company to accelerate I their land journey and lessen the present speed of the sea journey, provided the whole journey did not occupy more than ten and a-half hours?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I hope the contract will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days; but, as its terms are not yet finally settled, I think the right hon. and learned Gentlman will agree that it will not be desirable for me to state what may be the precise effect of the document.
  MR. GIBSON: I must really press, with great respect, for an answer. My Question is categorical and quite clear.
  MR. FAWCETT: I have before answered a Question similar to this, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I should be very sorry to withhold any information from the House. The negotiations are now in that state that will soon enable their character to be explained to the House; therefore, I hope he will not press me to be more explicit upon the matter. I may, however, state generally, as I have stated before, that the contract is for ten and a-half hours on the land and
  1814
  sea service combined; but I do not pledge myself that there will not be in the contract a provision stipulating for a certain rate of speed in the sea service taken by itself.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE SHERIFF CLERK OF FORFARSHIRE.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Lord Advocate, What are the terms of the appointment of the new Sheriff Clerk of Forfarshire; whether he can continue to hold with the Sheriff Clerkship various other offices, including the clerkship and treasurership to the Trustees of the Harbour of Montrose; and, whether, for the proper discharge of his duties, it is not judged necessary that he should reside at Dundee?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, the Sheriff Clerk of For-farshire is required by the terms of his appointment to discharge the duties of the office personally at Dundee, and he is debarred from holding any other office of emolument, or practising as a solicitor. Previous to Mr. Ross's appointment, he was permitted to complete his current engagement as clerk and treasurer to the Harbour Trustees of Montrose, which terminates at the beginning of August. A similar arrangement was made with regard to the agency of the bank which Mr. Ross held.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Do I understand that he is to live at Dundee?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): There is no stipulation as to where he shall live; but he shall be always there during his official hours. There is no stipulation as to his residence, and there never has been.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If it is correct that the claims of boys of ten and a-half years of age, whose fathers are living, have been excluded from all consideration for admission to Greenwich Hospital School, in anticipation of any proposed changes, and contrary to the existing Orders in Council; and, whether, if any important alterations are contemplated with reference to the administration and reduction of boys in Greenwich Hospital School, he will give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon

  1815
  those changes before they are carried into effect?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Sir, it is correct that the admission to Greenwich Hospital School of boys of 10½ years of age, whose fathers are living, has been temporarily suspended; but there is no intention of permanently reducing the number maintained at the expense of Greenwich Hospital. Apian is under consideration for educating boys with strong service claims, but not physically eligible for Greenwich School. It is proposed to maintain 800 boys in Greenwich School, and 200 in institutions similar to those in which the daughters of seamen and Marines are at present educated. A Bill is in course of preparation, giving power to the Admiralty to carry this plan into effect; and, on its introduction, an opportunity will be given for discussing any changes in the administration of the school.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked whether, as the funds of Greenwich Hospital were very considerable, the hon. Gentleman would consider the expediency of maintaining the same number of boys at Greenwich Hospital School as were formerly maintained there, and would also maintain the 200 additional boys elsewhere?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY, in reply, said, the question should be considered if it were found that there were now any boys claiming admission to the school in excess of the number for which provision was proposed to be made.
  MR. PULESTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: It is in preparation, and will be presented at an early date.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE EXTRACTOR OF THE COURT OF SESSION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to complaints of unreasonable delays in the office of the Extractor of the Court of Session; whether it is true that in a recent case involving the payment of £20,000 the unsuccessful suitor had to wait five weeks before he could obtain an extract of the judgment of the Court; whether it is true that the prin-
  1816
  cipal Extractor engages in private business as a solicitor; what are the salaries and staff of the office; and, whether he contemplates taking any steps to ensure the public against the delays complained.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, I am aware that complaints have been made of delay in the Extractor's Office; but I have not been able to trace the case to which my hon. Friend refers. The Extractor is debarred by Act of Parliament from practising before the Court of Session, but not from practising otherwise as a solicitor, and he is a member of a firm of solicitors in Edinburgh. The salaries and staff of the office are:—Principal Extractor, £500; Assistant Extractor, £300; Clerk of Records, £100; and four engrossing clerks paid by their writings. In conjunction with the Treasury, I very recently directed an inquiry to be made into this Office, and I hope there will be no ground of complaint in the future.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DISTRIBUTION OF OUTDOOR RELIEF AT STOKESTOWN.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the distribution of outdoor relief in 1880 at Stokestown, county Roscommon, was attended with irregularity and abuse; whether the Local Government inspector, Colonel Deane, reported to the Local Government Board, Ireland, that the irregularity and abuses were chiefly due to the incompetency of the clerk of the union; whether serious complaints were made against this officer in reference to the distribution of seeds in the same union and about the same period; and, whether the Local Government Board, Ireland, will consider the advisability of superannuating that officer?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Local Government Board inform me that it is true that the distribution of outdoor relief at Stokestown in 1880 was attended with irregularity and abuse. The late Colonel Deane reported that he feared the clerk of the Union must have checked the books of the relieving officer in a perfunctory manner; but Major Spaight, the Inspector who succeeded Colonel Deane, did not entertain an unfavour-

  1817
  able opinion of the clerk, and the Local Government Board consider that the abuses were mainly owing to the action of the Board of Guardians. Complaints were made with regard to the purchase and distribution of seed; but it does not appear that any charge of improper conduct was substantiated against the clerk. The Local Government Board have no power to grant a superannuation allowance to the clerk of the Union, and they do not consider that they have any grounds for taking steps with the view of removing him from the position he holds.
  MR. O'KELLYasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the distribution of the seed referred to was entrusted to the subordinate agents of the local landlord; that no effort was made to control it; and that a great number of persons had been proceeded against who complained that they never received any seed in this manner?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that nothing like this had been reported, though the relief was distributed on a scale that was considered excessive.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED DISTRESS AT LOUGH GLYNN.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by a number of tenants on the estates of Lords Dillon and De Freyne, on the 25th of February, at Lough Glynn, declaring that great poverty and distress exist among the small farmers, and recommending that the State should come to their aid and enable them to seed and drain their land; and, whether he can hold out any hopes of relief to these poor people?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, my attention has been called to the Resolution, a copy of which was submitted to the Government at the time that it was passed. In consequence of its receipt, an Inspector of the Local Government Board was specially directed to visit the district. He did so, and reported that, having made careful inquiries into all the circumstances of the case, he had no hesitation in saying that, in his opinion, the statements in the resolution were an exaggeration of facts. No special complaints had since been received from that district.

  THE ROYAL YACHT CLUB—EXCLUSIVE RTGHT OF FLYING THE WHITE ENSIGN.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is any Minute of the Lords of the Admiralty securing to the Royal Yacht Squadron the exclusive right to fly the white ensign; and, whether there is any special cause why the use of this flag should be granted to one particular yacht club, and to no other?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me, Sir, to answer this Question. By an Admiralty Minute of July 22, 1842, the privilege of wearing the white ensign of Her Majesty's Fleet was ordered to be confined to the Royal Yacht Squadron. The Order was given, as it is explained in a Return presented to the House of Commons on the 20th July, 1859, on the ground that the Royal Yacht Squadron is recognized as the leading yacht club of the United Kingdom.
  MR. MACFARLANE: If confusion sometimes arises from the use by the Royal Yacht Squadron of the white ensign of Her Majesty's Fleet, will the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety—seeing that the Royal Yacht Squadron is by no means the largest yacht club in the United Kingdom—of reducing all yachts to the blue ensign, or, still better, to the red ensign of the Mercantile Marine?
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked if the hon. Gentleman (Sir Thomas Brassey) was aware that, in that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, there was a yacht squadron which by no means considered the Royal Yacht Squadron the chief yacht squadron. Was it proposed to give that the same privilege?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY, in reply, said, he had stated the facts historically, and he was not authorized to announce any change.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL ORDERS TO THE COLONIES.
  MR. MONKasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can hold out any expectations that Postal Orders will be extended to the colonies?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, instructions have already been given for the drafting of a Bill, which I hope shortly to introduce, which will authorize the extension

  1819
  of the system of postal orders to the Colonies.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE— DISINFECTION OF HIDES AND OFFAL OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED UNDER THE ACTS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any steps have been taken upon a letter, recently addressed to the Lords of the Privy Council by the Devon County Agricultural Association, on the subject of further precautions against the dissemination of foot and mouth disease?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) I will answer the Question. It would not be possible to carry out an Order for the disinfection of all hides, as suggested by the North Devon Chamber of Agriculture; but I am informed that the Privy Council have now a plan under consideration for dealing with the hides, offal, and other parts of carcases of animals slaughtered in the country when suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. Provisions have long existed for the disinfection of the hides and offal of diseased foreign animals slaughtered at the Foreign Animals Wharves.

  SCOTLAND—THE INDUSTRIAL MUSEUM, EDINBURGH.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the First Commissioner of Works, Why the £5,000 voted last year as an instalment for the completion of the Industrial Museum in Edinburgh has not been expended, and why the works have not yet been begun?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, plans were prepared last year by the Department over which he presided for the completion of the Edinburgh Museum. Those plans were referred to the Education Department; but he believed differences of opinion had arisen between the Department and the local authorities in Edinburgh; those differences had not yet been settled. In the meantime, the Vote would be included in the Estimates.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—THE CLERKS AT DUBLIN.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Postmaster General, If he has received a
  1820
  petition from Clerks in the Postal Telegraph Department, Dublin, asking for an annual holiday equal to the annual holiday enjoyed by Postal Telegraph Clerks in London; and, what reply he has given to the petition?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, two years ago an application was received from the telegraph force in Dublin requesting that those of their number who were in receipt of £2 a-week and upwards might be granted one month's leave in the course of the year; and in May last it was announced to the service generally that no extension of the annual leave could be granted. Since then no application on the subject has reached me from Dublin. I may add that in Dublin the period of annual leave is practically the same as in London—namely, for superintending officers, one month; for telegraphists, who have Sunday and night duty, three weeks; and for others, one fortnight.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) PENSION FUND—THE ANNUAL STATEMENT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the Annual Account of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Pension. Fund, now overdue, will be presented?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the details required by the 5th section of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act of 1879 are included in the Annual Account of the Pension Fund, certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and laid before Parliament. In order to avoid the multiplication of Returns, the Treasury decided that the details in question should not be presented in duplicate. As, however, experience has shown that the Annual Account of the Pension Fund cannot be rendered, audited, and presented within three months of the close of the year, it will be necessary to lay before Parliament a Minute under the Act 32 & 33 Vict., c. 86, discontinuing the Return under the National School Teachers Act "as containing information that is contained in another Account laid before Parliament;" and this I will do forthwith.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS (IRELAND)—THE RETURNS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  1821
  of Ireland, When the following Reports, all overdue, will be presented:—Public Works (Ireland), Annual Report; Local Government Board (Ireland), Annual Report; Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Return from Official Assignees (Ireland) (20 and 21 Vic. c. 60); Return of Persons tried and convicted of Criminal Offences in Ireland (56 Geo. 3, c. 120)?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Irish Government has no responsibility with regard to the presentation of the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works. I may, however, remind the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that, in reply to a former Question from him, my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) fully explained to the House, on the 12th of last month, the facts connected with it. The Report of the Local Government Board will, I understand, be ready in a few days. No time is prescribed for its presentation; and, as it is made up to the 31st of March, I do not think, having regard to its character and extent, that it can reasonably be said to be overdue on the 8th of April. The Return from the Official Assignees will, I believe, be laid on the Table to-day. The Returns under 56 Geo. III., c. 120, were presented on the 22nd of February last.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE ROTA OF JUDGES.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what principle of selection Mr. Justice O'Brien has been appointed to preside at the forthcoming trials for murder and conspiracy in Dublin, he having been the judge who presided also at the second Court Commission in Green Street?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Government has nothing whatever to do with the selection of the Judges who preside at the Commission Court. They sit according to a rotation fixed by themselves. I am informed that Mr. Justice O'Brien presided at the second or last Commission, on behalf and at the request of another Judge, who was prevented by illness from sitting. I am not quite certain whether it is an answer to the hon. Gentleman; but the important point is, that the rotation is fixed by the Judges, and that the Government have no responsibility.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to inform the
  1822
  House, whether the Judge who was ill is Baron Dowse; why Baron Dowse, if recovered, did not take his turn; and, whether Baron Dowse was not sufficiently recovered to preside at the last Wexford Assizes?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That is a matter which the Judges must determine among themselves. Baron Dowse was the Judge whose place was taken by Mr. Justice O'Brien.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— COLONEL HEPENSTALL.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, during the recent contested election for the office of Poor Law Guardian, in the Mullanalaghta Division of the Granard Union, county Longford, Colonel Dopping Hepenstall, a justice of the peace and deputy Lieutenant, made use of his police escort to enable him to intimidate his tenants into voting for the candidate of his choice; whether he went from house to house, gun in hand, accompanied by two policemen, calling on those whom he visited to vote for the candidate he supported; whether, on two occasions, he told the police to drive from the place the electors who were canvassing for the national candidate, and threatened these electors that he would commit them to gaol for three months if they did not go away; and, whether, if this be true, the Chief Secretary will take some steps to prevent police protection from being used for such purposes?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received a telegram, stating that Colonel Hepenstall, who is under police protection, was out, accompanied, as usual, by an armed escort. He saw a crowd crossing his land, and, on inquiry, he ascertained that they were canvassing for a Poor Law election. He ordered them off, telling them that they were trespassers. The telegram, however, does not state whether the land was in his occupation or not. He himself canvassed for another candidate, and being under constant police protection, he was, as a matter of course, accompanied by police when doing so; but he distinctly denies having intimidated or having used the police, either to support his canvass, or drive off electors or canvassers, or having threatened to send any one to gaol. If the hon. Member is

  1823
  not satisfied with this explanation, I will make any further inquiry he wishes.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS FOR THE SHILLELAGH UNION, CO. WICKLOW, AND BANTRY —ALLEGED INTIMIDATION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. J. A. Scott, solicitor, Gorey, and Mr. Dodd, solicitor, Wicklow, acting as the legal advisers of candidates at the election of Poor Law Guardians for the Carnew Division of the Shillelagh Union, were refused admission to the counting of votes by the returning officer on the ground that—
  "He had no power under the direction of the Board of Guardians to admit any person except the candidates and their proposers;"
  whether the brother of the returning officer in question was a successful candidate in the Carnew Division; whether Mr. Swan, a Conservative Guardian, was permitted to be present at the counting of votes in other divisions besides the division for which he was elected; and, whether the Board of Guardians or the returning officer have any power to order the exclusion of the legal advisers of candidates?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is a fact that the returning officer refused to admit the professional gentlemen named to the counting of the votes. The rules which govern the action of a returning officer on this point expressly leave it to his discretion whether or not strangers shall be admitted. In explanation of his decision in this case, the returning officer states that, in his opinion, the attendance of solicitors representing only one side would seriously interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties; and he, therefore, deemed it advisable to exclude them from the scrutiny. It is the case that the brother of the returning officer in question was a successful candidate in the Carnew division. With regard to the presence of Mr. Swan in the board-room, it appears that he went in towards the conclusion of the counting of the votes for the division immediately preceding that for the division for which he was a candidate. As already stated, the returning officer had power to exclude legal advisers; the Board of Guardians have no such
  1824
  power; and if, on this occasion, they endeavoured to influence the returning officer in the matter, they exceeded their jurisdiction, which the Local Government Board will point out to them.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the recent election of Poor Law Guardians for the Bantry Union, and to the widespread system of threats used by certain landlords resident in the Union to their tenants to compel them to vote, or not to vote, in a particular way, or in consequence of having so voted; whether it is the case that Mr. John W. Payne, J. P., agent to the Earl of Bantry, has issued a number of notices to quit and ejectments against voters who refused to vote for the candidates favoured by him, and whether any Return could be obtained of the number of notices to quit and ejectments so issued; whether his attention has been called in particular to the case of Daniel Leary, of Crohingal, Whiddy Island, whom Mr. Payne threatened that he would make pay every penny of rent he owes (including the hanging half gale) the very day after the 25th March, and whom Mr. Payne also threatened that he (Leary) "would rue it" unless he voted in a particular manner;" and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government intend to prosecute Mr. Payne for intimidation under the Crimes Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received no information as to a widespread system of threats such as is referred to; and I am informed by the special resident magistrate that he has heard no complaint of cases of the kind, and that he is personally satisfied that no such intimidation took place. However, I am making further local inquiry especially as to the particular cases mentioned in the latter part of the Question; but there has not been time for the replies to reach me as yet.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE DISTRESS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following telegram from Rev. James M'Fadden, P. P., Gweadon, county Donegal, contains an accurate description of the condition to

  1825
  which the people are reduced in that neighbourhood:—
  "Attitude of poor one of frenzy and despair; in the grip of starvation; without seed to crop land; disease amongst children breaking out at different points in the parish, so that very few townlands are untouched; medical inspector did not visit tenth of cases affected; medical officer physically unable to be present at every case; knows about a sixth of the sickness in the I district; last week a child died in next townland to doctor, to whom he had not been called at all; the prevalent and fatal disease amongst the children is pronounced by medical officer scarlatina with diphtheria; relief was not 'offered and declined,' as said by Chief Secretary on Monday night; relieving officer called at only one house; all are in receipt of private charity and are dependent on it; I am daily besieged by crowds of people asking for meal and seed; Poor Law officialism here a thorough mockery; Government inspector avoids meeting those who are competent to give him a right knowledge of the state of the people;"
  and, whether, in view of such a state of things, he will continue to leave the destitute population of this and other parishes dependent upon fluctuating private charity for the next four months and a-half?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, from the information which has reached the Government, I believe that the telegram quoted contains exaggerated statements in regard to the condition of the people of Gweadon. However, as it impugns the efficiency of the recent inspection of Dr. Woodhouse, the Local Government Board Inspector, and the accuracy of his Reports—the substance of which I communicated to the House on this day week—it has seemed only right to invite his further observations on the subject, and this has been done; but there has not yet been time for his reply to come to hand, except a few lines by telegram indorsing what he said before, and stating he was going again to Gweadon, and would report further. I may observe that the sender of the telegram quoted in the Question appears to be under a misapprehension as to what I said about Poor Law relief being offered and declined. My statement on that subject referred very distinctly to one family only, and, I should have thought, could not possibly be misapprehended.
  MR. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he has any objection to Dr. Woodhouse, in his further Report, stating that persons would have died from starvation but for
  1826
  the private charity which by his Reports he is destroying and bringing to a standstill?
  MR. O'DONNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if, in case the Poor Law Inspector's Reports are impugned, he will make any provisions for Reports by an impartial authority?
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE NEW EGYPTIAN LOANS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the new Egyptian Loans will be raised on the general credit of the Egyptian Government, or whether any portion of the revenues hitherto devoted to the Egyptian Administration is to be specially assigned over for the new debt in the same way as half the gross revenues are already assigned for previous debts; whether the arrangements for borrowing and paying away the money are to be made on the sole authority of the Khedive as an absolute prince, and neither the old Chamber of Notables nor the proposed now Councils are to be allowed any voice in the matter; and, whether the now loans are to be secured by any International obligation, or in any other way, the British Government will come under any sort of obligation to compel payment in case of failure?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, it has been repeatedly stated that the British Government are not responsible for the debts of the Egyptian Government. I mentioned on Thursday last that, under Article 37 of the Law of Liquidation, the Egyptian Government had powers to borrow a certain sum on current account. Whether it will be necessary to go beyond the amount, as limited in the Law of Liquidation, in order to meet the expenditure for the Indemnity and the Army of Occupation, is, as I stated, a question now occupying the attention of the Financial Adviser of the Egyptian Government, who is in Europe, on business connected with the above and other financial questions. Under Article 60, chapter 5, of the Draft Egyptian Charter, the General Assembly must be consulted before any loan exceeding £1,000,000 sterling can be raised.

  ASIATIC TURKEY—THE GOVERNORSHIP OF THE LEBANON.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Miradite Prince, Bib Doda, has been definitely appointed Governor General of the Lebanon, in succession to Rustem Pacha; and, if so, whether the succession of this Prince for that post meets with the full approval of Her Majesty's Government?
  LORD EDMOND PITZMAURICE: Sir, Prince Bib Doda has not been definitely appointed Governor of the Lebanon, and Her Majesty's Government have not given their approval to the appointment.

  THE DANUBIAN CONFERENCE.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in the "Morning Post" of April 6th, that the exclusion of the Roumanian representative from the Conference for regulation of the Danubian navigation was mainly due to the action of the British Government; and, whether the statement is correct?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the statement contained in The Morning Post has no foundation whatever, as a reference to the Papers laid before Parliament will show.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE 61— REFORMS IN ARMENIA.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will present to the House Copies of all communications which have passed during the last two years between Her Majesty and the Ottoman Porte regarding the execution of the reforms in Armenia stipulated for by the 6lBt Article of the Treaty of Berlin; and, whether Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople is now instructed to continue to press for the execution of those reforms in pursuance of that Article?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Lord Dufferin, who will shortly proceed to Constantinople, has received full instructions on this subject. Her Majesty's Government do not think it desirable to present the Correspondence
  1828
  asked for by the hon. Member until a further Report has been received from his Excellency.

  SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the reason of the delay which has taken place in presenting further Papers as to the Cuban Refugees; and, whether they will be immediately presented?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, there has been no unnecessary delay in the presentation of the Papers to which the right hon. Member refers. They were only received last week, and are now in the printer's hands. I hope they will be distributed to Members at latest on Thursday.

  THE METROPOLITAN AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAYS—MEANS OF VENTILATION.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his Department has had brought under its notice any means of improving the ventilation of the Underground Railway by the use of engines other than those of the ordinary locomotive; and, if he is aware whether any trials of any such locomotives have ever taken place?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, no such means as are alluded to in the Question have been brought under the notice of the Board of Trade for improving the ventilation of the Underground Railway. I ought to add that I have no appliances for testing any invention which may be brought to me, and I have no authority to insure their adoption, even if I should approve of them.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SEIZURE OF DOCUMENTS —CASE OF MATTHEW HARRIS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Matthew Harris, T. C. of Ballinasloe, on the occasion of the recent search and seizure of his papers by the police, requested Sub-Inspector Joyce to allow him to see any documents that the police might determine to take away so that he might first index them, with a view to future identification; and,

  1829
  whether the Sub-Inspector, after agreeing to the request of Mr. Harris, took the papers away against his will without allowing him to index them as a measure of precaution; why the Sub-Inspector refused to permit Mr. Harris to take the only measure by which he might protect himself against the introduction of other documents from his papers after they had been taken from his house; whether, under the 14th section of the Crime Prevention Act, declaring all articles seized to be forfeited to Her Majesty, the act of seizure does not involve the consequence of forfeiture, and whether, therefore, the police are not bound, in the case of papers and documents, to abstain from seizure and removal until they have ascertained that the papers and documents are of such a character as to call for forfeiture to Her Majesty;? what has been done, or is to be done, with Mr. Harris's papers; and, whether any assurance can be given that the course pursued by Sub-Inspector Joyce in the case of Mr. Harris—namely, the removal of documents in bulk before examination, will not be again adopted? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the following statement by Mr. Harris:—
  "I called on the police to let me see the alleged document—the document referred to by the Chief Secretary as hearing on a murder case—hut it was refused. The county inspector was not made acquainted by Sub-Inspector Joyce of the seizure, and as to a document connected with murder there is not a shadow of truth in the Chief Secretary's assertion."
  He would now ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was that the Sub-Inspector conducted these proceedings without the knowledge of the County Inspector, his superior officer, who was living in the same town; and, also, if he has now any further information with respect to the one document to which, on Friday last, he attached a criminal character?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I will first answer the Question of which the hon. Member has given Notice. I am informed that after the search had commenced, and when only a few documents had been found, Mr. Harris asked to be allowed to take a note of such as it was intended to remove. To this the Sub-Inspector agreed; but found afterwards that the mass of documents was so great
  1830
  as to render it impossible to carry out the arrangement, and Mr. Harris then made no objection, either as regards the removal or as to not being able to take a note of the papers. All papers were not removed. An examination and selection, so far as was possible under the circumstances, was made. As to the legal points raised in the third paragraph of the Question, I am advised that, if there be a seizure in the sense meant by the Act, there is also a forfeiture; but that a mere removal to a convenient place for the purpose of examination is not necessarily a "seizure" within the section; and, in this instance, the removal was only for examination with the view of determining whether any seizure should be made. If Mr. Harris considers that the Sub-Inspector exceeded his duty he has his remedy. As I have already stated, such papers as are not forfeited will be returned to Mr. Harris. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's further Question, it contains a good many queries, and I will require Notice to answer them. I may say that no difference can be made between the case of Mr. Matthew Harris and anyone else, and as his papers were seized in connection with so grave a matter as murder, the law cannot recognize any sort of distinction of person; and I am not aware whether Mr. Matthew Harris's case should be taken separately from the great number of persons who had their houses searched, and their documents examined in reference to cases of crime and murder.
  MR. SEXTON: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give an answer as to how it was that the search in this case was made without the knowledge of the chief officer of the police resident in the same town?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that as to the question of fact relating to the action of the police, it was perfectly obvious that he should first ask the police as to the state of the case before he answered the question.
  MR. SEXTON: I will ask a further Question on this and other points on Thursday next.
  MR. O'KELLY: I called the attention of the House the other day to the removal of these papers; and I asked the right hon. Gentleman what guarantee there was for a man, after the police

  1831
  have carried away his papers, without having any record of them, that other papers—["Order, order!"]—would not be placed amongst them that were not removed. Such things are not new in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking a Question.
  MR. O'DONNELL: It is not asked that any difference should be made between Mr. Harris and anyone else; but are we to understand that in the case of anyone whose premises maybe searched, papers can be removed by the police without any opportunity being given to the person whose premises are searched to make any record of the papers which are taken from his possession?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That was not done in this case, for these papers were taken away by the police with Mr. Harris's consent. It was thought that this would be for his convenience, as otherwise the police would have been a long time in his house searching the premises.
  MR. SEXTON: Mr. Harris utterly denies that statement.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—RETURN OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS MADE OUT OF AND LODGED IN COURT.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will assent to a Motion for a Return of agreements between landlord and tenant in Ireland, made out of court, and lodged in court, from the beginning of the operations of the Irish Land Commission up to the end of last month, such Return to be in the form given from time to time in the official "Dublin Gazette?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there is no objection, on the part of the Irish Government or of the Land Commission, to the granting of such a Return; but the expense of printing it as a Parliamentary Return would be considerable, and it is possible that objection might be made on this account, as the information is quite easily available already. The Return is published from time to time in The Dublin Gazelle, and the Land Commissioners inform mo that copies for each month can be supplied from their office. If the hon. Member orders a supply he will get it.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in remitting, as he proposes, part of the Railway Passenger Duty, security will be taken to insure that season ticket holders shall at once receive the benefit of such remission by the reduction of the five per cent, duty at present levied upon them over and above the cost of their tickets?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I am not quite sure that I understand the exact object of the Question, in consequence of the introduction into it of the words "at once;" but, if it is that after the Railway Duty Bill passes, persons taking out season tickets may have the benefit of any reduction of the duty as from the 1st of October, I think that will be a matter for the Railway Companies. The duty is paid by them, not by the travellers, and the fares charged on season tickets are not, I think, fixed by law, but by the Companies themselves. I will, however, consider the point before the Bill is introduced, and perhaps my hon. Friend will privately explain to me exactly what his object is.

  MADAGASCAR—SECURITY OF BRITISH RESIDENTS.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any further arrangement will be made to aid and protect British residents in Madagascar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; it is proposed to appoint immediately a Vice Consul, who will reside at the capital, Antananarivo. Mr. Pakenham, Her Majesty's Consul, is resident at Tamatave.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will postpone the Second Reading of the Universities (Scotland) Bill, which stands for Thursday next, till such a date as will permit the reasonable consideration of the Bill by those most interested in it?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I shall be quite ready to

  1833
  postpone the second reading of this Bill until such time as will give opportunity for consideration to those most interested, and I shall be glad to confer with hon. Members as to the time desirable.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE BELFAST MAGISTRATES AND TRADE DISPUTES.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a trades dispute in Belfast, as reported in the "Morning News" of 3rd instant, where during the proceedings before the magistrates, Mr. Hamilton, R.M. threatened to deal with similar future cases under the Crimes Act; and, whether he will inform Mr. Hamilton and other magistrates that under no circumstances is the Crimes Act to be applied to trade disputes, as promised by the Government during the passing of that Act last Session?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he saw in the papers the statement of Mr. Hamilton with regard to the application of the Crimes Act to trade disputes. The Government, of course, had no control over Mr. Hamilton; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) had communicated with Lord Spencer as to whether it was advisable to issue instructions to the police on the matter, directing them not to bring any such cases forward under the Crimes Act, as they were decidedly of opinion that they should not be so brought forward.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE CUBAN REFUGEES— THE DEBATE.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what day he could give facilities for discussing the question of the relief of the Cuban Refugees. As, however, the Papers relating to the subject were to be in the hands of hon. Members on Thursday, he would postpone his Question until Monday next.

  INDIA—MYSORE GOLD MINES— GRANTS OF LAND TO BRITISH OFFICIALS AND OTHERS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether
  1834
  his attention has been called to the statements of the native Prime Minister of the Maharajah of Mysore, in the recently-published papers relating to gold mines in Mysore, that tracts of land in Mysore which had been granted to British officials and others by the British administrators of Mysore without any advantage to the Mysore State, were being disposed of by the concessionaires at an immense profit to gold mining Companies in England; whether, in particular, his attention has been called to the statement of the Dewan that—
  "The Colar concessionaires have in soma instances sold the lands which they ohtained from Government for nothing for almost fabulous prices, the benefits of which are neither derived by Government nor by the Companies who will eventually work the enterprise;"
  and whether the Indian Government took any steps to bring these warnings to the notice of the English public; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the manner in which British officials promoted the said mining speculations in England?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, if the hon. Member refers to previous passages in the letter from which he quotes, he will see that the land in question was not disposed of without advantage to the Mysore State. A sum of 55,000 rupees, representing the capitalized value of the unusually high assessment of 5 rupees per acre, was paid to that State for a square mile of land, previously waste and unproductive. The same letter specifies this same rate of 5 rupees per acre as the basis of the terms on which the Mysore Government is prepared in future to lease land for mining purposes—terms which they consider "the best calculated to assure the permanent interests" of the State. Government has no knowledge of the arrangements made between the Gold Mining Companies and the concessionaires In 187 9 the Government of India caused a careful Survey and Report on the auriferous lands in the neighbouring South-East Wynaad, in British territory, to be prepared by Mr. Brough Smyth, an eminent mining engineer. This Report was published in 1850, by order of the Secretary of State, at a low price, and several hundred copies were sold. It contained distinct warning of the risks of gold mining in these districts. The Government of India will be directed to furnish a Report

  1835
  upon the whole question of the concessions granted in Mysore during' the minority of the Maharajah, and of the connection of British officials therewith. Under these circumstances, I do not see how any inquiry in this country would be attended with practical results.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked if the hon. Gentleman was aware that the concessions for which the Mysore Government received 55,000 rupees were disposed of by the official promoters of Companies for the sum of £250,000, and that these Companies subsequently disposed of their interests to British investors on the Stock Exchange for £500,000; whether he was aware that the Native Ruler of Mysore warned the Government that it was impossible for investors in London to obtain any profit, in face of the sums for which the original promoters obtained the concessions; and whether, under these circumstances, it was not considered necessary to open inquiries in London as to the relations between the original promoters and the promoters on the Stock Exchange, who obtained £500,000 sterling for the trifling outlay of 55,000 rupees?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I must remind the hon. Member that assertions are not facts. As far as we know about the case, 55,000 rupees were paid for this one square mile of land; and the other statements which the hon. Member has made are, as far as we know, only reported in the newspapers.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE ACT, 1882—THE INCOME TAX.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Why an Income Tax at the rate of 6½d. in the pound was charged by order of the Board of Inland Revenue upon half-yearly dividends paid between the passing of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of August 10th 1882 and the 5th October following; and, whether such proceeding is not in conflict with the 9th section of the said Act, by which it is directed that where any dividends are due or payable half-yearly in the course of the said year (the 6th April 1882 to 5th April 1883, inclusive), the first half-yearly payment shall be deemed to have been or be chargeable with the duty of 5d. in the pound in place of the 6½d. actually levied, and if the result of this levy of 1½d. Income Tax six months in
  1836
  advance of the date at which it was legally due, brought within the financial year ending I April 1833, payments which would otherwise have been realised by the subsequent financial year?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, by the desire of my right hon. Friend, I propose to answer this Question. (1.) Income Tax at the rate of 6½d. in the pound was charged upon half-yearly dividends paid between the passing of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of August 10, 1882, and the 5th of October following, in accordance with the general provisions of the law for charging the tax of the year from the 6th of April, 1882, to the 5th of April, 1883, at the rate of 6½d.; (2.) the Proviso to the 9th section, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 41, was not intended to override these general provisions, but was introduced to secure the additional rate of tax, in cases where half-yearly or quarterly payments had been made between the 6th of April, 1882, and the passing of the Act with a deduction of 5d. only; (3.) the estimate of the probable produce of the extra tax of 1½d.—namely, £2,262,000, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House on the 26th of July, 1882, contemplated that the Income Tax on all dividends payable up to the 31st of March, 1883, should be subject to the full rate of 6½d. in the pound. The estimated produce of the arrears of the additional 1½d. to be received in 1883–4 has not been placed at a higher figure than that contemplated in July, 1882, except so far as it was influenced by the improved yield per penny of the assessments for the year 1882–3 since ascertained.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONgave Notice that, on the Report of the Resolution, he would call attention to what was a violation of the law.

  COAL DUTIES (METROPOLIS).
  MR. CHARLES PALMERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will receive a deputation representing the consumers of coal in the Metropolitan district, as well as others interested in the abolition of the Coal Tax, since he has agreed to receive a deputation from the Metropolitan Board of Works in support of the continuance of this system of taxation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not able to say that I will receive any depu-

  1837
  tation from the consumers; but it will be our duty to consider, to the best of our ability, the interests of the consumers, and any statement that might be put forward on their behalf would receive careful attention.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that their intention to secure a liberal measure of self-government for the Egyptians will be sufficiently fulfilled by Consultative Councils and Assembly which even in theory are to have no real power except in case of the institution of new taxes; and, in regard to all old taxes, the budget, and all other matters are to have no more than the privilege of giving advice and no right of decision or control whatever?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that the answer to the Question might have been suggested to his hon. Friend by what everybody knew. The Government were of opinion that the proposals suggested by Lord Dufferin, and approved of by the Government, were proposals well adapted to meet the requirements of the case. He hoped they might be considered and tried in detail, with all that was to be said for them, before any unfavourable conclusion was formed respecting them.

  PARLIAMENT—THE STANDING COMMITTEES.
  MR. SHEIL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, How honourable Members who are not nominated to serve on the Standing Committees are to obtain an authoritative knowledge of the proceedings and speeches in those Committees; and, whether it is contemplated that there should be an official report of such proceedings and speeches, for reference by honourable Members when Bills have been sent back by the Standing Committees for the consideration of the whole House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I apprehend, Sir, as regards the first part of the Question, there is every reason to believe that the proceedings of the Standing Committees will be made known to the public by the newspapers according to the degree of the desire that may be manifested by the public for information, of which those who supply the informa-
  1838
  tion are probably the best judges. But: with regard to the Members of this House, I need hardly remind the hon. Member that it is in his power, and that of any other hon. Member, to attend the meetings of the Committees if he thinks fit. With regard to the second part of the Question, the providing of official reports has not been entertained by the Government.
  MR. SHEIL: I beg to give Notice that, on Thursday, I shall ask the following Question:—Whether the Prime Minister is aware that the space in the Standing Committees Rooms set apart for Members of the House other than those serving on the Committees is very limited; that newspaper reports of the debates in this House frequently differ, and that it is usual in the case of a difference of opinion to accept Hansard's reports, and acknowledge them to be conclusive; whether an official reporter does not attend the proceedings of Select Committees; whether his reports are not sent to every Member of the House; and, whether the same plan cannot be adopted in reference to Grand Committees as that which is now carried out in regard to Select Committees?
  MR. RITCHIEasked, whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had been called to the great danger of the Members of the Grand Committees being suffocated for want of ventilation; and, whether he would take any steps for the preservation of their valuable lives?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, that now that his attention had been called to the circumstances of the case, he would see to it.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was never in a fouler or worse atmosphere than that in which the Grand Committee sat that day, and he would suggest to the Prime Minister that the Grand Committees should sit in the House until their rooms could be properly ventilated.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that that was a matter which he had no power to decide.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—REFLECTIONS UPON A MEMBER.
  MR. WARTON: I beg leave, Sir, to bring a matter before the House which I humbly submit is a question of Privilege. I hold in my hands a copy of a

  1839
  respectable newspaper, The Western Daily Press, published at Bristol on Thursday the 5th of April last, in which it states that a Liberal meeting was held at Devizes, and that at that meeting the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) used certain language about me which I will take the liberty of reading to the House. He said—
  "That blockhead—that pestilent blockhead, for he was nothing else—had blocked 29 Bills already this Session."
  Well, I am not particularly thin-skinned; I am quite prepared in the warfare of life, if called upon, to give and take in a cheerful and good-humoured manner. I have received many dozens—I may say hundreds—of worthless and insulting letters from the country since I have been in Parliament regarding the way in which I have done my duty. I have received letters threatening personal violence, and even death; but I have always followed what I believe to be the correct and proper course—namely, to take no notice of these things. No amount of insolence out of this House, no threats of violence, or even death, should have the smallest possible effect on a man's determination to do his duty. I do not bring up this matter from any personal feeling. It is my regard for the dignity of this House. The dignity of this House has hitherto been maintained by what I trust is no longer a fiction—that all its Members are honourable. We are in the habit of addressing each other as honourable; and I hope we still believe that every Member is still a gentleman, if not in the strictest sense of the word, then, at least, in this sense, that a gentleman should so far respect himself as to respect others; and this feeling of respect for oneself and for others should instinctively prompt a Gentleman, even when 100 miles away from the Gentleman he is attacking, to remember, if not instinctively to feel, the difference between fair argument and vulgar abuse.
  MR. CAINE: Sir, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) has not sent me a copy of the paper, and, therefore, I am obliged to trust largely to memory for what I said on the occasion to which he has referred. I did call attention, in my speech, to the fact that the hon. and learned Member had blocked 29 Bills this Session embodying the political opinions of over 80 Members,
  1840
  and that he was the "most pestilent blocker" in the House. Someone in the audience suggested "blockhead" as a better word; and, on the impulse of the moment, I very sorrowfully state that I adopted the expression, and subsequently repeated it. I frankly admit that the word "blockhead" is not such as should be applied to any Member of this House by another, and I have no hesitation in withdrawing it, and expressing my regret to the hon. and learned Member for using it.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE TRANSVAAL DEBATE.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, with reference to the Notice of Amendment he had given with regard to the Motion respecting the Transvaal, he proposed to make an alteration in it, and he thought it convenient to call attention to it. The Amendment spoke of "the inability of the Transvaal Government to restrain certain agencies;" and, as he had no intention of ruling whether the Transvaal had been unable or unwilling, he proposed to substitute "the absence of any effectual restraint upon those agencies," so as to exclude the question whether the Transvaal Government had or had not been able to restrain them. Therefore, he proposed to omit the name of the Transvaal Government?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, when, and how it was proposed that the House should discuss the Amendment?
  MR. GLADSTONEin reply, said, as far as his Amendment was concerned, it was a mere expression of what he took to be the prevailing sense of the House on the debates which had taken place, and he was not aware that, on their part, it would require much further discussion. It was an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), which stood in order for discussion on Friday, at 2 o'clock.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the Motion and Amendment that were before the House would require to be disposed of, and there were one or two others that would require to be disposed of.
  MR GLADSTONEsaid, he was quite prepared to acquiesce in their being disposed of, and when the Motion of the right hon. Member for Gloucestershire was reached, he would move

  1841
  his Amendment expressing what he believed to be the prevalent sense of the House in the debate.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment which stood in his name.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES PROCEDURE) BILL.
In reply to Mr. SEXTON,
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Criminal Code Bill would be taken on Thursday, if the debate on the Budget Resolutions wore then concluded. The financial debate, however, would have precedence of the measure in question.

MOTIONS.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Explosive Substances.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In dealing with the grave matter, for which the House has consented to postpone all the other Business of the night, I think I shall meet the wishes of the House if I endeavour to do it with the greatest simplicity and brevity, which, I am sure, is the spirit in which the House will come to a consideration of the question. I do not think it is necessary that I should at any length give the House the reasons why it is necessary to introduce a Bill of this character, but introduce it at once; and without delay. This, after all, I think, everybody will admit, is the time to act rather than to discuss. The nature of the danger which we have to meet is well known to everybody in this House and out of this House. I have had occasion, more times than once in this House, to call its attention to the character and imminence of the danger. I have called the attention of the House to the Assassination Press abroad, and to the menaces of what was intended to be done. At that time, some persons, from ignorance, which might be excus-
    1842
    able, thought that was a danger which was capable of being encountered by ridicule. I thought at that time that it was not a danger capable of being encountered in that manner, and I think everybody is convinced of that now. We know what it is that we have to deal with. We have to deal with an organized band, consisting, unhappily, not of the men of the lower criminal classes, but of men in the higher walks of life—men who are banded together against all the interests that keep society alive; men who are like the Assassins of the East, and the Pétrohurs of the Commune, like the worst criminals the world has ever produced. Though they are secret societies hero, they are public societies elsewhere. They advertise their objects; they announce them; they avow them; they collect money for the purpose of committing wholesale murder and burning down civilized towns. That is the nature of the danger with which we have to deal. We have to deal with men who, like pirates, are the enemies of the human race, and who, in my opinion, ought to be treated like men who have no nationality. So, knowing this danger before us—a danger which, like Nihilism, may be called, in some sense, a new danger—we must meet it by new remedies, not, I hope, in the spirit of panic, but in a cool and resolute spirit, and with a determination to strangle those plans and put down the authors of them. The first line of defence we have against these dangers is to b8 found in the police; and as I have the honour to be connected with that distinguished force, I hope I may, in a single word, pay my tribute to the splendid services which the police, not only in the Metropolis, but also in the Provinces, and, above all, in Ireland, have rendered to the cause of society. Sir, I sometimes hear, and I always hear it with regret, and almost with indignation, unjust aspersions on the police; but I always regarded, and I still regard, the English and Irish police as the best in the world. That they are the best police for the preservation of order, consistently with a due regard to liberty, I believe no man will deny. Criticism has been passed upon their capacity for detection; but you must remember that here they work under great disadvantages for this purpose. They work subject to criticism—I think sometimes unwise—which dis-

    1843
    arms them of the means which they ought to possess, and which they ought to employ for the purpose of putting down secret crime. In spite of these disadvantages, however, they have, in the last week, rendered services to society equal to any of those for which successful Generals and victorious Armies have received the thanks of Parliament. I hope I may be forgiven on this occasion for expressing to them my tribute of confidence and admiration—a confidence and admiration which, I believe, is shared by every Member of this Assembly. The next line of defence which we have is to be found in the penalties of the law. With reference to the existing state of the law, it is not necessary to go into any minute examination. I will first only refer to the Explosives Act of the year 1875. That Act was not directed against persons possessing explosives with a criminal object. It was rather directed to defend property and life against the reckless and negligent, or careless use of a very dangerous commodity. I will only say, if it does not come under our immediate business, it will be necessary to reconsider the provisions of that Act. I think they are most inadequate and most defective. Under that Act, it is permitted to every private person to have 15 lbs. of dynamite or 30 lbs. of gunpowder; and, therefore, if you have a lodging-house with 10 persons in it, you may have 150 lbs. of dynamite or 300 lbs. of gunpowder. I think the House will be of opinion that is a condition of things which ought not to exist, and I have given direction to have measures taken to alter that condition of things. There is another great defect. In registered premises a person is able to keep 200 lbs. of gunpowder, 500 lbs. of explosives, and 200 lbs. of fireworks, or in lieu 60 lbs. of mixed explosives—that is, 60 lbs. of dynamite, or something still stronger than dynamite. When I tell the House that the local authorities have no power to refuse any man, however unfit he may be, a register—and at this moment the man at present in custody at Birmingham for making nitro-glycerine, if released, could demand a licence to keep 60 lbs. of dynamite—I think these are conditions which the House would not wish to see continued. The provisions are not criminal provisions. I cannot see why any private person should keep dyna-
    1844
    mite without a licence. I see no reason why a private person should keep a great store of gunpowder; and I see no reason why the local authority should not judge whether the person is fit to be registered or not. Passing that by as not the main object, and coming to the existing state of the law, in the draft of the Bill which I am introducing the House will find in the margin of the 1st and 2nd clause references to the sections of the Acts which at present exist. I will not go into a minute analysis of the existing Acts; but I may say that they are defective in two particulars. They are defective, first of all, because, dealing with different matters relating to explosions, they have very narrow definitions—for instance, explosions near a building where someone dwells, a dwelling-house. Well, that definition is so narrow that it leaves intervals where crime may be committed with impunity. The principle of legislation ought to be to have larger and general words, which are capable of including all the crimes which may be committed. Now, that is the first defect in the existing law; and the second is, that the penalties are grossly, I might almost say ludicrously, inadequate, in some cases, to the offence. For instance, under the 54th section of the Act of 1861, chapter 97, making or possessing explosives with the intention to commit a felony is a misdemeanour punishable by two years' imprisonment. It is perfectly obvious to anyone that to any person possessing this explosive for criminal purposes this punishment is utterly inadequate. That is all I think it necessary to say on the subject, because I am sure I am giving an accurate account to the House of what the law is, which anybody can verify for themselves. The defects of that law it is the object of this Bill to amend, and I think I shall best do what is useful for the House by simply going through the Bill; and perhaps, as this Bill is only just in the hands of hon. Members, I may be permitted to do so. I will point out first to hon. Members the principle upon which the Bill is framed. Where an explosion takes place which leads to the loss of life, that is not dealt with in the Bill. It is not necessary to do so. By the masculine sense of the Common Law of England, if a man produces an explosion by which life is lost he is guilty of murder, and would be dealt

    1845
    with for murder without this Bill. I take up, therefore, the question of explosions at a point which is actually short of murder. The 2nd clause of the Bill deals with an explosion which has not caused loss of life, but with the case where an explosion has actually taken place. The clause says—
    "Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property "—
    that is the distinction, and I think it is large enough to include any explosion, because no explosion of a serious character could fail to be described as one likely to endanger life, or to cause serious injury to property. Then it proceeds—
    "shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be guilty of felony, and on conviction shall be liable to penal servitude for life, or for any less term (not less than the minimum term allowed by law), or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years."
    I do not think anyone will think that is a penalty which is too severe for that offence. The next clause of the Bill deals with the case where there has not been an explosion, but where there has been an intent and an attempt to cause an explosion. That is a degree lower, because the explosion has not actually taken place. I would like to call attention to the first words of the section. It says—
    "Any person who unlawfully and maliciously (a) does any act with intent to cause by an explosive substance, or conspires within or (being a subject of Her Majesty) without Her Majesty's dominions"—
    I wish to call the attention of the House to this—within the Realm the jurisdiction of the Crown applies both to subjects and aliens. Over aliens abroad we have no power. But over a British subject we have authority and jurisdiction for his acts all over the world; and, therefore, if a British subject goes to France or Ameriea, and is a party, either directly or indirectly, by word or deed, or by speech, if he is accessory in any manner to any of these transactions, he is, when he returns to this country, subject to our jurisdiction and to the punishment imposed by our law, just as if what he has done had been done in this country. That is a principle which is distinctly stated in this clause. The clause proceeds—
    1846
    "Any person who within, or, being a subject of Her Majesty, without Her Majesty's dominions, unlawfully and maliciously does any act"—
    we think that will cover all sorts of acts—
    "with intent to cause by an explosive substance, or conspires to cause by an explosive substance"—
    that will cover all conspiracies for the purpose, whether done here or abroad, and whether anything contributing to the conspiracy is done here or abroad—
    "by an explosion in the United Kingdom of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property; or (b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property, or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place, and whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be guilty of felony, and on conviction shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding twenty years."
    There, it will be observed, you have to prove the intent; and if a person makes this attempt, or manufactures the explosives, or possesses explosives with that intent, and that is proved, no man, I think, can say that 20 years' penal servitude is too severe a punishment for such an offence. I come to the next clause, which can hardly be said to be different in the character of the offence, though it is different in the character and the nature of the evidence to be offered. This clause, the 4th, says—
    "Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be guilty of felony, and, on conviction, shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour."
    In the first place, the prosecution must raise a reasonable suspicion as to the conduct of the man who makes an explosive or has it in his possession or under his control; and having raised that suspicion, then it is thrown on the prisoner to show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object. In my opinion, it is perfectly justifiable, when reasonable

    1847
    suspicion has been shown to exist with reference to the conduct of people who cannot, or else will not, give any account of themselves, or why they are in posesssion of a commodity which, even by mere carelessness, may be destructive of thousands of lives and of an unlimited amount of property, that they should be called upon to show their right and the reason why they are possessed of these things. Do not let it be said that this legislation is of an unexampled character, and produced in panic. It is nothing of the kind. It is part of the settled and permanent law of this country. In the Act of 1861, with reference to larceny, if a man is found in the night armed with a dangerous and offensive weapon, and having in his possession, without lawful excuse—proof of which excuse shall he upon such persons—any picklock, key, crow, jack, or other implement of housebreaking, then he shall be convicted. If a man may be called upon to show the reason why he has a picklock in his possession, I think he may be called upon to show also by what right he possess a hundredweight of nitro-glycerine; and therefore I say this legislation is founded on exactly the same principle as that of our existing and permanent law, and no objection whatever can be taken to this clause upon that ground. I do not know that it was absolutely necessary to do so; but the fact of throwing the onus of proof on the defendant induced us in drawing this Bill to put a slightly lower penalty upon the offence in this clause—a penalty of 14 years' penal servitude. The next clause is one which, perhaps, it was not strictly necessary to enact, because to a great degree it is already the law of the land. But I think it desirable that public attention should be called to the fact that it is not only the man who makes this nitro-glycerine, or the man who places it where an explosion takes place, who is guilty of a crime, but that every man, whether he does it in this country, or, if he is a British subject, whether he does it anywhere else, who supplies money, or solicits money for the purpose, or in any way procures, counsels, aids, or abets, or is accessory to the commission of a crime, under this Act, is liable to suffer exactly the same penalty as if he had been guilty as a principal. About the 6th clause I need say little. The House knows about that
    1848
    clause. It is a clause which was originally in the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act; it was re-enacted by this House in the Prevention of Crime Act of last year; and it has proved of singular efficacy, because it was by its use that the Phœnix Park murders were traced. It gives the power to a magistrate—even though the culprit has escaped, the individual who places these explosives may himself be destroyed by it, and you would then have apparently no means of discovering the crime—to enter upon an inquiry, such as that which was entered upon in Dublin, and, by means of that inquiry, you may find who the accessories were who set on any man. Therefore, this clause is one of the most essential and important clauses of the Bill. I have omitted to state, in reference to the 4th clause, under which the onus of proof is thrown upon the defendant, that by Sub-section 2 the defendant is made a witness, in order that he may defend himself. That has been done in all cases where the onus of proof is thrown on the prisoner. I now come to Clause 7, where there is another protection to innocent people being vexed under this Bill, and that is that no prosecution shall be instituted, except by the consent of the Attorney General; and therefore, if, through the police or otherwise, an innocent man may be taken up, and gives an account of himself, the depositions go before the Attorney General, and the proceedings come to an end at once. That is a considerable benefit. Sub-section 2 of the 7th clause is for this purpose—that by a technicality of the law, much to be regretted, if a man is indicted on several counts for felony, the prosecutor may be called upon to go upon one count, and the conviction does not go on the count to which the evidence applies. Here that is prevented. A man may be indicted under several counts, and a conviction may take place on the count which the evidence justifies. The 8th clause applies to the very strong and effective Search Clauses of the Explosive Act of 1875, which, I think, are all that could be desired for the purpose. The 2nd sub-section of this clause is one which is necessary to amend the clause of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1873, under which the master of a ship has power to refuse dangerous goods, or throw overboard dangerous goods, but

    1849
    has not the power at present to break open boxes which he may have reason to suppose contain dangerous goods. It is quite obvious that in the Mercantile Marine it is of great importance that if the captain of a ship should have reason to suspect that he has boxes of nitroglycerine on board, he should have power to open them and get rid of the explosive. That is the object of this sub-section. Then comes the Definition Clause, which is a clause of considerable importance. The word "explosive" substance applies not merely to explosives themselves, but, what is absolutely essential, it applies to all their materials. If you do not do that you do nothing. If you allow a man like Whitehead to have in one room sulpheric acid, in another room nitric acid, and in another room glycerine, and you are to wait until he combines the three, he will defy your law. It is absolutely necessary that all the materials which may be used in the composition of explosives should be brought within the scope of the law. I am perfectly aware that there are many materials of explosives, like saltpetere or sulpheric acid, or sawdust, which may be perfectly innocent in themselves; but no man will be punished unless he has those materials in his possession in such a way as to raise a suspicion that they are intended to be used for an improper purpose. And it is necessary, also, not only to deal with the materials for making any explosive substance, but also with the apparatus and machinery that are intended to set the explosive materials at work. The Bill, therefore, makes mention of—
    "Any apparatus, machine, implement, or materials used, or intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion."
    That will deal with detonators, with chlorate of potash, with sulphuric acid, and with all the means employed for exploding the commodity. I think I have called attention to all the material parts of this Bill. I have heard it suggested that the Bill might have been made a temporary Bill. I do not share that opinion. There is nothing in this Bill which ought not to be permanent. Every provision of this Bill is a provision forming a part of the permanent law of the land; and to deal with it otherwise than as the permanent law of
    1850
    the land would be, in my opinion, at this moment to weaken its authority. You would induce people to think it had been passed in a panic with exceptional severity. It is nothing of the kind. It is a Bill which ought, ill my opinion, to have been passed long ago. It is a Bill which ought to be permanently maintained; and, therefore, I hope there will be no proposal to deal with it on a footing, I will not say to make it useless, but certainly to weaken its authority. If it should turn out—as, of course, is highly possible—that errors have been committed in the framing of the Bill, why, it is perfectly easy to amend the Bill hereafter, as you amend any defective permanent Bill. It is not, therefore, necessary to make it a temporary Bill in order to correct errors in it, and that is the reason why we did not so propose it, and why we cannot accept any proposal of that character. It would be a very great disaster, and great detriment to what we are doing to-night, if any proposal of the kind I have indicated were made, or, still more, were accepted by the House. Now, I have no desire to impress upon the House more than I am sure they feel it themselves the necessity of this Bill and of passing it at once. I know it is not my business to increase excitement—it is rather to allay than to excite panic; but I should be doing very wrong if I concealed from the House my conviction, and if I did not state upon my responsibity what I know, that the danger is very great and very imminent, and that it ought to be dealt with at once, and with a strong hand. The House will not expect me to say more. They will not wish me to say more than that. If I did, I should be committing the grave error—against which I take this opportunity of protesting—of those interviewers, who, in order to gratify the public curiosity, make public very often things which tend to defeat the ends of justice. I think I have sufficiently stated to the House what it is intended to do. I am sure the House properly estimates the gravity of the circumstances that they have to deal with. We, on our part, have done our best to propose a measure which we think the best fitted to cope with the evils with which we are threatened. It is the duty of the Government to press upon the House, at the earliest moment, to pass this Bill. I shall ask the House

    1851
    for leave to introduce the Bill. I shall then ask leave of the House that the Bill be read a first time; and if the House is, as I hope it is, unanimously of opinion that a Bill of this character is necessary, and necessary at once, they will desire to read the Bill a second time. I do not Bee how there can be any dispute as to the principle. Well then, if that be so, the Government are so impressed with the urgent necessity of going on with this Bill, that we shall ask the House, after the Bill is read a first time, it being ready in the usual regular form, to read the Bill a second time, and we shall then ask the House to go into Committee on this Bill. I do not ask the House to proceed with legislation precipitately—that would be panic—but let us go on with this Bill as far as we can, till we see that there are circumstances of a grave character which ought not to be disposed of at once. With those observations, which I have endeavoured to compress as much as I could, I ask leave of the House to bring in the Bill and to read it a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Explosive Substances."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish, Sir, in the few words I want to put before the House, in the first place to endorse everything that has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the efficiency of the police. To them, I think, thanks are due, not merely from this House and the other House of Parliament, but from the whole country for the services they have recently rendered in tracking out these conspiracies to explosion. Very often the police have been unjustly abused; but now that the time has come for testing their efficiency, their efficiency has been attested, and I believe they do deserve the thanks of the country, just as much as our soldiers and sailors who have gone through the hardest battles in all parts of the world. They have great difficulties, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. They have not merely the preservation of order, but they have to preserve order with a due regard to liberty. It is in steering between these two poles that the difficulty and delicacy of their duty very often arise, and I believe they have
    1852
    always done their duty in this way to the best of their powers and with advantage to the country. I will not detain the House more than two minutes with regard to the old law, which was really embodied in the Consolidation Bill of 1875, known as the Explosives Act of that year. I am quite certain that if the penalties had been increased at that time we would not have had to pass the present Bill now. But as that Bill has been alluded to, I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been good enough to state, for the information of the House and the country, that the effect of that Bill has been very largely to preserve life in gunpowder factories and elsewhere, and has in that way done a great amount of good. I wish to say one or two words on the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I wish, as far as I am individually concerned, and as far as those with whom I usually act are concerned, to state at once that we are quite willing, in the emergency which has been brought before us, to give support to the Bill. In face of the dangers to which life and property are at present subject, feeling quite certain that this is a new thing which must be put a stop to, and that all Parties must join together and say at once both to those Englishmen who are in England, and those Englishmen—if they can call themselves Englishmen—who are abroad, and who stir up crime and assassination from places where they think they cannot be touched, it is quite time that all Parties in the State said to them—"We shall take care that your wicked and iniquitous practices shall not bear fruit." Therefore, I agree in all that has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill. I am sure the House must feel that if any person, according to the 2nd clause, causes by any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property, it is a most serious offence, and one deserving of serious condemnation. And so with the 3rd clause; anyone who attempts to cause by an explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or property, even though he does not succeed, is deserving of severe punishment. I think the principle of those two clauses is perfectly right.

    1853
    So also with the 5th clause, which provides for the punishment of accessories, and is, I think, simply carrying out more effectually the existing law. The 4th clause is really a very severe clause. I do not mean to say it is not one that should be passed, nor do I offer any opposition to it myself; but I do not think that the effect of it has been clearly explained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. According to the draft of it—
    "Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, will be guilty of felony."
    I want to know who is to say what is reasonable suspicion? I presume the suspected person will be brought before the magistrate, and that he will be thrown on his defence when he appears before the magistrate. It is a mere question of wording; but I think the term "reasonable suspicion" ought in some way to be defined. Suppose a man has a quantity of gunpowder in his house, and that he has it with the object of poaching. That, of course, is not a lawful object; but would such a case not come within the words of the clause? I draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to that point. I am not, I repeat, prepared to say that a clause of that description ought not to be passed. If the Government come forward, and on their responsibility say that, in their, opinion, this is a clause which ought to be passed under the existing circumstances, I, for one, should not object; but they must take the responsibility of stating what, in their opinion, is necessary. They have information which we have not, and cannot have; and if they state that the clause in its present shape is really essential, I shall support them. I do not think that I need trouble the House further upon that point. On the whole, I think that this Bill will greatly strengthen the law of this country in reference to this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to a rumour that possibly some opposition might be offered to the Bill as it stands, with the object of limiting its duration. For my own part, I must say that, as far as the 4th clause goes, I should be better
    1854
    satisfied if it were made a temporary clause only. ["No!"] I will tell you why I should be better satisfied if that clause were to remain in force for a limited period only. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has brought forward this Bill tells us that this Bill must be passed at once. I, for one, say that when the Government brings forward such a measure as this upon an emergency, this House ought to rise to the occasion, and pass the Bill through all its stages to-night. Only this is not quite the way in which we should legislate for a permanency. This 4th clause is a most complicated one; and, therefore, I should have been more satisfied had its provisions endured for a limited period—say, for two years only. ["No!"] However, I do not desire to detain the House longer, and I shall conclude by expressing my desire to support the Government in carrying this Bill to-night.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I now, Sir, ask leave of the House to read this Bill a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I must now move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Punishment for making or possession of explosive under suspicious circumstances).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had not heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary very distinctly, and therefore did not know whether it was proposed to make any alteration with regard to this clause. Failing that, he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and of the House, to what appeared to him, upon a cursory reading of the clause, to be an imperfection in it. The clause provided—
    "That any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, he guilty of felony, and, on conviction, shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding fourteen years, &c."
    If the clause had been worded—
    "Any person having under his control such explosive substances so as to give rise to the reasonable suspicion that he had it for the illegal purposes contemplated in this Bill,"
    he could have understood the application of the clause. What he would put to the Homo Secretary and to the Law Officers of the Crown was, whether, if the clause were unaltered, any poor man who lived in the country in which game was preserved, and who was reasonably suspected of an inclination to poach, would not be liable under the clause if an ounce of gunpowder were found in his possession?
    SIR JOHN HAYconfessed that he was very sorry to trespass upon the Committee when every moment was of importance; but as he had the honour of introducing the Nitro-Glycerine Act of 1869, perhaps hon. Members would listen to a few remarks he would like to make. That Act continued the law until 1875, and, looking to what had since occurred, he did not think its provisions too stringent. He would have preferred to see the 4th clause of the Nitro-Glycerine Act inserted in the present Bill, instead of the section now under discussion, and the 4th clause of that Act omitted mention of gunpowder. There was great force in the objection which had been taken by the right hon.
    1856
    Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) in respect to explosive substances other than those which were now so dangerous. Moreover, he could not understand what advantage there was in retaining in the clause the words—
    "Under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object."
    Those words appeared mere surplusage, for—
    "Under his control any explosive substance shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object,"
    seemed to be sufficient to meet the case contemplated. If the Committee thought it right, he would move the omission of the words which he had pointed out as merely surplusage.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government could not agree to strike out those words, because they were put in the clause for the protection of innocent people engaged in a legitimate trade. In reference to the more serious observations of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), it was necessary he should explain that the object of the 4th clause, as the Committee would see, was simply to throw the onus of proving his innocence upon the possessor of large quantities of explosives. If the Bill only contained the 3rd clause, it would be almost necessary that the person must be shown to have intended to commit a certain crime—namely, to destroy or endanger life and property. However morally certain they might be that that was the case, they would very often have great difficulty in proving the fact The mere possession by a man of gunpowder, even in a game preserving country, would afford no proof that it was intended for an unlawful act. It must be remembered that proceedings under this Bill would not be taken before magistrates, but before a Judge and jury. Furthermore, no prosecution under the Act could take place without the leave of the Law Officers of the Crown; and when application for a prosecution was made, it must be made publicly. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had mentioned an extreme case which might be covered by

    1857
    the clause. He (the Attorney General) feared that if, in drawing clauses of this kind they were to take cognizance of all extreme cases, all desirable and necessary legislation would be prevented.
    MR. HOPWOODrather feared that, under a panic, they were legislating too rapidly; and there were some hon. Members who would like to consider the provisions of the Bill a little longer. He believed they were all anxious to provide a remedy for the present state of things, and that they desired to meet the emergency which had arisen; but he could not help suggesting that the object in view would be attained quite fully by an amendment of the clause. He had the words of an Amendment, which he was prepared to move, and which would make the clause read—
    "Any person who makes, or knowingly has in his possession or under his control, any explosive substance under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is making it, or has it in his possession or under his control for any of the illegal purposes mentioned in this Act, shall, &c."
    He knew that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had addressed himself to that argument, but not, he thought, satisfactorily. He (Mr. Hopwood) would prefer that the clause should go on to say—"Unless it can be shown to the contrary." That would provide everything that was necessary; and it would provide, also, that the prosecution should not be for a small matter, but should be for something which raised a reasonable suspicion under the Act. No man ought to be hurt under the Bill, unless his possession of dynamite or nitroglycerine gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was about to employ it in endangering life, or in causing serious injury to property. The clause ought not to be passed in the wide form in which it stood at present, or it would establish a bad precedent for future legislation. What made him dwell the more upon this was the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had rather surprised him by suggesting that in their Criminal Law they were always too desirous of specifying the offence. Why, that was the genius of their legislation—it was the very spirit of their Criminal Law; and he (Mr. Hopwood) certainly hoped that they would never
    1858
    depart from it under mere circumstances of emergency like the present.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsuggested an alteration in line 14, subsection 2—that the word "her" should be inserted, so as to make the words—"Such person and his wife or her husband."
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, his Amendment came before that. He would move to leave out, after the word "suspicion," these words—
    "That he is not making it, or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object,"
    and to insert in their place the words—
    "That he is making it, or has it in his possession, or under his control, for any of the illegal purposes mentioned in this Act, unless it can be shown to the contrary."
    MR. RITCHIEunderstood that the Chairman had put the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill. If that were so, was it possible for any hon. Member to propose an Amendment to the clause?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was right. He (the Chairman) did put the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill; but he had done so not anticipating any Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out all the words after "suspicion," in line 5, to the word "object," in line 7, and insert the words:—"That he is making it, or has it in his possession or under his control, for any of the illegal purposes mentioned in this Act, shall, unless he can show to the contrary."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) arose from that right hon. Gentleman not having heard his explanation of the clause. The real point was this. The clause had been very carefully considered—indeed, he (Sir William Harcourt) had spent the best part of three days over it. No doubt, the first idea of everyone would be that which was embodied in the proposals of his right hon. Friend and of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood); but for very good reasons the Government had not felt themselves able to accept it,

    1859
    as they felt that it would entirely defeat the object of the clause in its difference from Clause 3. If the Committee were to accept the words proposed by his hon. and learned Friend they would really be thrown back upon all the difficulties which existed in Clause 3, and from which it was desired to find an escape; because, though the hon. and learned Gentleman wrapped up the matter to his own mind in the words "illegal purposes mentioned in this Act," the question was, what were those illegal purposes? Were they the illegal purposes of the previous clause? Was Clause 4 only to meet the illegal purposes mentioned in Clause 3? Clearly that was so; and, therefore, the Amendment would only re-incorporate Clause 3, and destroy the whole object in view in the attempt to distinguish between Clauses 3 and 4. That was the real state of the case. It was possible that the Government might have come to a wrong conclusion in the matter; but, if so, it was not from any want of the assistance of their able draftsman, or of the assistance of the two Law Officers of the Crown. They had come to the conclusion that the Amendment could not be adopted without destroying the efficacy of the clause; and he was bound to say his own opinion was that the clause, as it stood, was most efficient, because it was a clause which would compel these men to come forward and give an account of themselves. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not consent to alter it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the Committee had decided in their own minds that the Bill must pass that House that night, and he would press it upon them not to alter one word of it. All these clauses had been very carefully prepared and considered; and if any Amendment were inserted it would be necessary for the Bill to be reconsidered, and they would then find themselves in a considerable difficulty. He would much rather pass the Bill as it stood on the responsibility of the Government, and he hoped it would pass that night without any question.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was sure the Committee would allow him to say a word in reply to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. They were not legislating in a panic; but, looking at the House, he felt, at least, entitled
    1860
    to say that they were legislating somewhat in a hurry. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had advised them to pass the Bill on the responsibility of the Government without considering it; but that appeared to him to be a most unconstitutional piece of advice to give to the House. His right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had imputed to him that he had moved some Amendment, or proposed an alteration of the clause which would destroy the efficiency of the Bill. Now, he had made no proposal whatever.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg pardon; I made a mistake in that.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that all he had done was to point out what appeared to him to be a slip in the drafting of the clause. He had endeavoured to speak with the deference which was becoming in a lay Member of the House, and he had asked for explanations from the Law Officers; but he confessed that he was not at that moment satisfied with the explanation which had been given. He believed that his reading of the clause was the true legal construction of it, even though it was not the construction of the Attorney General. They had been told by the late Homo Secretary that the Bill should be passed through Committee without alteration or discussion; and they were told by the present Home Secretary that it was to be a permanent Bill. In order that the country at large should not have the impression that they were legislating in a hurry, some time ought to be given for the consideration of the legal meaning of each of these clauses; or else the Bill ought to be made not permanent, but temporary, so that it might obtain, a thorough reconsideration within some reasonable time.
    MR. BULWERmerely wished to say one word. If the Bill was to be hurried through Committee that night, the sooner it left that House the better. If there was to be no discussion, he did not wish to provoke one; but, as a lawyer who would be responsible for this legislation, he wished to say that he agreed thoroughly and entirely with what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). There could not be the slightest doubt to anybody who read the clause that a case might possibly occur such as that mentioned by

    1861
    the right hon. Gentleman—the case of a poacher, who, having a pound of gunpowder in his house, and not being able to show that he had it for a lawful purpose, might become liable to be convicted of felony under this Bill, and might possibly, though not probably, be sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. If that was not a possible construction of this clause he should be very much surprised, and he declared emphatically that it was a possible construction. The wording could be satisfactorily altered in five minutes. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary did not intend to exclude this possibility—and he had declared that the clause had been carefully and maturely considered—he (Mr. Bulwer) would say no more; but he felt it his duty to enter this protest against the wording of the clause as it stood.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not desire to prolong the discussion; but he wished to point out to the Committee that the construction which had been placed upon the clause on the high authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bulwer) was, as he (Mr. Reid) most firmly believed, the correct one. If any person had a pound of gunpowder in his possession, under circumstances which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had it for an unlawful purpose, whatever that purpose might be—even if it only amounted to poaching—that person would expose himself to the penalties of the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: Why not?] That seemed to him to be going a great deal further than was desirable, or than was intended to meet the evils which now existed; and while he said that, he wished it to be understood that he thoroughly sympathized with the Bill. It had been suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General that there was a safeguard in the provision that the consent of the Attorney General would be required to a prosecution. In his (Mr. Reid's) humble opinion, though he had no doubt that most Attorneys General would do their duty, it was not right that legislation, which was wrong in itself, should be justified on the ground that the consent of Her Majesty's officers, however high that officer might be, was required before a prosecution could be instituted.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could carry this argument a good deal further. If a man carried a basket of sawdust, he would be in danger, for sawdust was a material which might be used in combination with nitro-glycerine and formed into a very dangerous explosive; and, therefore, under the Interpretation Clause, a man who had a basket of sawdust might be brought into peril under the Bill. ["No, no!"] But that was so; and, therefore, that was a very similar case to the one put by the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who had last spoken. But the protection under the Bill was this—that it could not be applied to these extreme cases, because the Attorney General would step in to prevent such a thing from happening. It would be the duty of the Attorney General to probe and test these extreme cases. No Bill could ever be drawn which would prevent extreme cases from, arising; and it was absolutely impossible to draw a Bill which would stop the offences that were aimed at, if Parliament insisted on having a Bill that, under no conceivable circumstances, would for a single moment cause inconvenience to others than those whose punishment it provided for. That was the case with the Prevention of Crime Bill of last year. Over and over again, during the progress of that Bill through the House, he had said—"If you choose to look at it from that point of view, and to consider every possible particular in which the Bill may be abused, you may throw it out altogether; but if you mean to have a Bill which will effect the purpose that you have in view, you must admit these consequences, and rely on the safeguards which will prevent injustice from being done." There was no other method of dealing with the matter at all, unless the Committee chose to reject the principle of the 4th clause altogether. If they said they would insist on the prosecution proving the offence up to the hilt, or the suspicion of an offence—that something was being done—it would be impossible to legislate in such a matter as this satisfactorily. In the old days of the law, if a man was charged with intending to kill anybody, the prosecution had to prove that he intended to kill some particular and specified person, and that was exactly an example of the objection now taken. The Committee must be content to take

    1863
    the general words with their general effect, and rely on the safeguards offered—that the man who was charged would himself give his own explanation, and that the Attorney General would not allow a prosecution except on good grounds. If the Committee would not consent to that, they might as well dispense with the clause altogether.
    Question put, and agreed to.Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Punishment of accessories).
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsuggested a verbal Amendment. The Bill, he said, was directed against the criminal possession, and not against the legitimate possession, of explosives. He suggested that the word "knowingly" should be inserted before the words "procures, counsels, aids, abets, or is accessory to." That would better define the meaning without in any way injuring the clause. He moved the insertion of the word "knowingly."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after the word "whatsoever," to insert the word "knowingly."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'knowingly' be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not wonder at his hon. Friend, making this proposal; but it was really unnecessary, for all the other words implied "knowingly." No man could "procure, counsel, aid, or abet "if he did not know. It would be better to agree to the clause as it stood.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he had no desire to press his Amendment against the opinion of his right hon. and learned Friend.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Definitions, and application to Scotland).
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, had pointed out that the law, as it stood at present, was altogether incomplete and inadequate to prevent the sale and distribution of these terrible explosive compounds, and of the materials of
    1864
    which they were made up. The Government did not desire to hamper their present Bill by any attempt to amend that law; but he (Mr. Gibson) understood that the Attorney General would do something at an early date to amend the law in that respect. Everybody would be glad to know when, and by what method, the Government intended to proceed in that direction, and to procure some machinery of a fit and proper character to restrict the sale of these compounds. He thought that all who dealt in such goods should be bound, as in the case of poisons, to keep a record of those to whom the compounds or materials were sold.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwould say, with regard to the possession of explosives by private persons, that that matter rested upon Orders in Council; and he had that morning directed that the Inspectors of Explosives should consider an alteration of the Order in Council, No. 8, so as to prohibit the right of any private person to hold so much as 15 lbs. of dynamite, which seemed to be an unnecessary and improper right to exist, and also with regard to gunpowder. That the Government could deal with by Order in Council. As to registration without objection, or in spite of the objection of the local authorities, that power was given by the Statute of 1875, and would have to be dealt with by Parliament, and he would have it dealt with as soon as might be convenient. It was not, however, a matter of such pressing importance; because he might point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that as soon as premises were registered the police had access to them, and the police could I always enter upon registered premises.
    Clause agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I shall ask permission of the House to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE—REDEMPTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he wished to call attention to the method proposed to be adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the redemption of the Nationl Debt. In the year 1885, when some £6,000,000 sterling of Terminable Annuities would expire, the amount of the Debt would, as closely as he could calculate, amount to £700,000,000. A reasonable rate of reduction would be 1 per cent, or £7,000,000 annually; and that would be about one-third of the interest on the amount of the Debt unredeemed, or the whole expenditure under the head of charge for Debt. By the scheme now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was estimated that in the course of 20 years the Debt would be reduced by £172,000,000 sterling, though he personally could not clearly see how those figures were arrived at. Short Annuities he regarded as a more effective mode of redeeming Debt than long Annuities; and his proposal was that a group of Annuities should be formed of £720,000, to run for periods of from one to ten years, and averaging about five years, the capital value of which would be £35,280,000. His scheme would provide £7,000,000 a-year for the redemption of the Debt; would pay off £140,000,000 in 20 years, and in 100 years redeem the National Debt. The proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would involve, at no distant period, the application of £14,000,000 to the redemption of the Debt, and £15,000,000 to the interest on the remainder, and the country would not endure a state of taxation in which £28,000,000 or £29,000,000 was raised for what was called the charge on the National Debt, and one-half was applicable to redemption, and the residue to the interest and the management charges. He felt bound to state the taxpayer's objections to the proposal of the Govern-
    1866
    ment, agreeable as the figures no doubt seemed from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. In the plan of the right hon. Gentleman there was not only the scheme of treating the National Debt by virtue of Terminable Annuities, but another and a different scheme which had been combined with it. Following the idea of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fixed at a particular amount the annual charge of the National Debt. That charge, he believed, would not be endured for any length of time. It discharged Debt, certainly; but it withheld from the taxpayer his just satisfaction in the mitigation of his burdens. The two courses proposed were almost incompatible, or, at any rate, were undesirable in combination. If the Terminable Annuities fell short of the £28,000,000, they would be absolutely useless; while if they exceeded that sum the £28,000,000 would in turn be useless. Their financial system could not be based on two distinct principles, and the House should take its choice. The inferior system was that of fixing an annual charge for the Debt while the Debt itself was diminishing, and against that proposal he was anxious to enter a strong protest. With respect to the Terminable Annuities, the House was told that the plan had the assent of the Lord Chancellor; but what had Terminable Annuities to do with the funds in Chancery? According to a State Paper, which he had read with much amusement, the Lord Chancellor had concurred in the arrangement by which £60,000,000 was to be handed over for use as the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think fit, and had expressed his satisfaction at the consummation of the transaction. To this plan, as to the proposal to fix the annual charge for the Debt at £28,000,000, he strenuously objected, and he moved—
    "That it is inexpedient that the accounts of the Court of Chancery should be complicated through the employment of its funds in the operations of the Finance Minister upon the Public Debt, or that its fixed investments should be converted into Terminable Annuities wholly alien to the objects, the convenience, or the advantage of the Funds in Chancery."
    MR. GREGORY, in seconding the Amendment, said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by taking, as he proposed to do, £40,000,000 out of the

    1867
    Chancery Fund, changed the position of the suitors. The right how. Gentleman carried the matter to the enormous extent of two-thirds of the funds to which the suitors wore entitled, and dealt with the interests of persons who had no opportunity of expressing their objection, nor could be consulted on the matter. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was making sufficient provision for the security of the suitors. While sympathizing with the desire to reduce the National Debt by all legitimate means, he held that it was inexpedient to try to do so by the proposed method. On that subject he had a very strong feeling.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient that the accounts of the Court of Chancery should be complicated through the employment of its funds in the operations of the Finance Minister upon the Public Debt, or that its fixed investments should be converted into Terminable Annuities, wholly alien to the objects, the convenience, or the advantage of the Funds in Chancery,"—(Mr. J. G. Hubbard,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, he was sorry to differ very materially from his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory), who had entirely forgotten that the funds belonging to the Chancery suitors were already invested in the funds of the country. If the National Debt was considerably reduced by the operations so ably explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Suitors' Fund must become, from time to time, of greater value just in proportion as the Debt diminished. As the wealth of the country increased litigation would increase, that would bring more money into the possession of the Court, and there was no likelihood whatever that the £40,000,000 would be called for. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt not with Consols, but with the Two and a-half Stock, now at 88, there would be a gain to the State of £2,500,000. He expressed his hearty concurrence with the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hoped the House would not fail to endorse them.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEremarked, that the well-known ability of
    1868
    his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hubbard), and the interest he took in the question, entitled what he said to careful consideration. He did not think it convenient at the moment to enter into the subject; but he hoped his right hon. Friend would not doom it necessary to divide the House. He wished to know in what form and at what time they were likely to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal with regard to the National Debt, so that the House might consider seriously the proposals he had made? He also desired to ask in what respect the scheme differed from the proposals made by the First Lord of the Treasury a year or two ago?
    MR. W. H. LEATHAMsaid, he would only intervene for a moment between the House and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his masterly Budget. In can-dour he (Mr. Leatham) ought, however, to take some exception to the gigantic proportions of his scheme for the reduction of the National Debt, ultimately, by £172,000,000 by means of Terminable Annuities. He did not object to the scheme on the grounds named by the right hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment—for he thought the suitors in the Court of Chancery must take their chance—but on account of the great size of the measure Considering the large amount of their present Expenditure, it seemed to him that an annual charge of £3,370,000 was a great addition to it, and a smaller scheme of reduction of the Debt would be more suitable. That he respectfully suggested for the further consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the proposals of the Government with regard to the National Debt would not be included in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, but would be embodied in a separate Bill, which, at the present moment, was being prepared. It could not be done in a few days, but they had not the least wish for delay; on the contrary, they would proceed as rapidly as possible. Then, as to the difference between his proposal and that of the Prime Minister, he must say that his plan differed in this respect. The proposal of the Prime Minister two years ago was to set up an Annuity for 25 years; the present plan

    1869
    with regard to the Chancery Funds was to set up two Annuities for 20 years; and with regard to the Savings Bank funds, to set up Annuities for five, 10, and 15 years, so that as soon as we ran out a fresh one would be constituted. According to his proposals, the charge would be kept at its present rate. He did not think it would be well to disturb the fixed charge of £28,000,000 a-year, which was established by the late First Lord of the Treasury. He was bound to say that, while differing slightly as to the mechanism establishing that charge, he had always agreed with the principle. He thought that the charge of £28,000,000, which was established by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, was a fair and reasonable amount, and he did not wish to see it diminished at present. If the new plan was allowed to work, at the end of 20 years the then Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to deal with £3,374,000 a-year; and if he found that he could give any advantage out of that sum to the taxpayer, it would be in his power to do so. His proposal was a mean between two extreme proposals, and was consistent with the objection which he took a few years ago to that being made a hard-and-fast rule for more than a certain term. With reference to the objections that had been raised to employing the Chancery Funds, every possible security was given under the arrangement. The question was carefully considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago, and every imaginable difficulty reviewed; and he did not think it possible to add to the satisfactory character of the security which would be given under the Act. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    COMMITTEE.
    WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now
    1870
    charged on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

    £

    s.

    d.

    Tea

    the lb.

    0

    0

    6."

    MR. W. H. SMITH: I had hoped, Sir, that some hon. Member would have risen before it became necessary for me to say a few words in reference to the interesting and exceedingly able statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday last. I do not think I shall be misrepresenting the character of that statement, if I also say that it was a controversial statement. It must be admitted that this is the case, even allowing that the right hon. Gentleman might not have intended it to be controversial. It would be impossible for me to attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman through all the details referred to in his long and interesting speech. I am the less disposed to do so, because I have no doubt that I shall be followed on this occasion by several right hon. and hon. Members, who will deal more ably than I am prepared to do with some very important questions which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and because, for my own part, I prefer to grapple with a subject with which I am familiar, rather than with complicated and intricate matters with which I am only partially acquainted. I would merely venture to make one observation with regard to the unexpected increase in the Revenue, which the right hon. Gentleman has himself said he had not anticipated, and which took place shortly before the close of the financial year. He told us that it exceeded the expectations he gave us reason to expect would be realized by the Revenue of the year, some three weeks or a month ago, by a very large sum indeed; and I cannot refrain from asking the right hon. Gentleman whether there has been, in any degree, the slightest anticipation of Revenue? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not desire to impute irregularities in the conduct of public affairs to him; but there is no doubt that there is a ready zeal on the part of public officers to serve their superiors, which might influence the amount of the Revenue for the time

    1871
    being; and I could not help remarking that, in one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he referred to the improved arrangements in existence, principally in the Stamp Office, in the Legacy Department, and in the Inland Revenue Board, which have resulted in the realization of the Revenue somewhat more rapidly than had been anticipated; and that realization of a portion of the increase was attributed, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman himself to the greater activity and the greater zeal of the officers. The right hon. Gentleman has also referred to the fact that the Income Tax had realized a larger sum than was anticipated from it. A question was asked to-night by my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), which pointed in some degree to one of the causes which may have contributed to the increase of yield from that tax. I think no one' acquainted with the course of trade in this country last year, or who is connected with agriculture, will be prepared to deny that, instead of an increase in the yield of Income Tax, we might reasonably have expected that there would have been a large diminution. I am speaking now—although in a thin House—to some hon. Members who are considered high authorities upon questions relating to trade, and I think they will agree with mo that profits have been lower in the past year on the ordinary trade of the country than almost in any previous year; and, certainly, the farming interest has been far from prosperous. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that I should express some surprise at the excess, amounting to a sum of £238,000, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned as having been realized from the Income Tax. There is another point on which I am anxious to ask a question, and that is, whether the balances which exist in the Public Departments remain substantially at the figure at which they stood last year, and at which they have stood for a great many years? There, again, I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that that zeal and faithfulness—for I will say nothing more than that—in the discharge of the duties which are attached to the great Public Departments, might result in the shrinking of balances which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, if included in the taxation of the present year, must be taken in diminu-
    1872
    tion of the taxation of next year. I believe that the balances stood at something like £1,700,000 in 1880; close upon the same figure in 1881; and at £1,670,000 on the 31st of March, 1882. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the decrease of the spirit duties, extending over a long period of time; and he said there was substantially no adequate compensation for that decrease to be found in the additional yield on other taxes. I admit that there is no compensation, or no adequate compensation, to be found in the yield on other taxes, so far as I can see, with one single exception. The right hon. Gentleman showed that there has been an increase of £500,000 in the yield of the Tea Duty daring the last three years. There is reason to believe that in addition to the increase of the Tea Duty other sources may also have contributed, in some degree, to replace the large falling-off in the Spirit Duties, although I do not say that it at all approaches the falling-off of £5,000,000, which maybe taken as the standard of the consumption 10 years ago, and which ought to be the consumption now realized, if we take into account the increase of the population. But if £500,000 has been realized as an increase on the article of tea alone, I think it is probable that some other taxable articles, and even the Income Tax itself, may have been benefited by the better, the more frugal, and the more sober habits of the people. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, spoke of the expenditure on the several Services; and there, Sir, I would remark that the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year has departed from the practice, which I believe has been up to this year always adhered to by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer—namely, the practice of comparing the Estimates of the present with those of the past year. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I did that.] My right hon. Friend did not compare the Estimates. He entered into a comparison, no doubt, with the Exchequer issues, and with the gross Estimates; but he did not compare like with like, which has often been insisted upon by the Prime Minister a the standard and the view which every financial officer ought carefully to keep in mind. Now, I find that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Supply Services cost so much. The charge for

    1873
    the Army was £15,502,000; for the Navy the charge was £10,409,000. The charge for the War in Egypt stood at £3,896,000; the charge for the Civil Service at £17,350,000; for the Customs and Inland Revenue, £2,870,000; for the Post Office, £3,828,000; for the Telegraph Service, £1,510,000; and for the Packet Service, £720,000. Now, I wish to draw attention to this fact—that these figures, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, were not the figures stated by the Prime Minister, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at this time last year. There have been Supplementary Estimates for the year 1882–3 since March last year. There will be, to some extent, Supplementary Estimates for the year 1883–4. I hope they may not be large. Therefore, it is necessary that we should compare the Estimates of March and April this year with the Estimates submitted to Parliament in March and April, 1882. In the absence of any comparison on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will venture to compare these Estimates myself, because I think that the impression which has been produced is not a perfectly accurate one. The impression created is, that the amount of the increase of the Expenditure is not so great as it really is; and the impression also created is, that our financial position, as far as Expenditure is concerned, is really much more satisfactory than undoubtedly I consider it to be. The gross Estimate for the Army for last year, 1882–3, was £17,726,828; and the gross Estimate for the Army this year is £18,291,766. The gross Estimate for the Navy last year was £10,724,789; the gross Estimate this year is £11,077,163. That is to say, that the actual charge, exclusive of the extra receipts which in one way or other are to be taken in diminution of the gross charge included in it, was, for the Estimates of last year, £15,458,000 for the Army, as against £15,600,000 this year, showing an increase, in round numbers, of £150,000. for the Navy, the Estimate was £10,483,000 last year, whereas the Estimate this year is £10,757,000, showing an increase of £274,000. But when we come to the Civil Service Estimates, the addition is even still more serious, because we come then to deal with that which I am afraid, when it is once increased, can
    1874
    never be reduced, or rather, if it can be reduced, there is very great difficulty in bringing about a reduction. The difficulty of reducing the Civil Service Expenditure is very well known to the right hon. Gentleman himself; and I am sure he will agree with me when I say the difficulty is infinitely greater in dealing with these Services than with the increase of expenditure either of the Army or of the Navy. It is great enough there; but if you have created or increased establishments and entered upon a particular course of policy, you will find it very difficult, if you wish to change that policy, to discharge the men that you have engaged. The result is that in such cases you would incur a loss so serious and so considerable that, in point of fact, no Government attempts to face the difficulty. Now, what is the first Estimate of the Civil Services? Last year the first Estimate was £16,502,789; whereas this year it is £17,253,004, showing an increase in the Civil Services of £750,000. Well, Sir, the Revenue Services also show an increase; but, no doubt, I shall be met by the statement that the Revenue Services—the Post Office and the Telegraph returns—show an ample profit upon the increased expenditure. I hope that will be the case; but we have the admission of the Prime Minister himself that, during the last two years, there has been a decrease in the relative proportions of profit upon the Post Office and Telegraph Expenditure, and that decrease is a very alarming one in the case of a Government carrying on trade, because it is nothing but trade. In 1882–3, the Estimates were £8,790,000; whereas, in 1883–4, they were£9,155,000, and this is altogether exclusive of the proposed expenditure upon the Parcels Post. It is a simple expenditure for the ordinary service of the Revenue Departments; and, notwithstanding the profit from the Post Office and the Telegraphs during the past year, I think these figures are larger and more considerable, and that they show a more rapid advance than was ever shown at any period in the history of the Post Office or of any administration. Now, Sir, what do the gross figures show? They show this—that the money to be paid for the Civil and Military Services in 1883–4, no matter how it is obtained, amounts to £55,777,000 in the gross; whereas last year it only amounted to

    1875
    £53,744,000, showing an increase of upwards of £2,000,000. I again take the gross, because I wish to take into account the whole cost of the Service from whatever source the contribution may be obtained, whether we get it from Egypt, or whether we get it from India—for it must be remembered that a larger amount is to come in this year from India towards the cost of the Army—or whether we get it from selling old ships. What I contend is that the cost of these Services amounts to the figure I have stated, and that figure is £2,000,000 more than it was this time last year. The right hon. Gentleman has displayed great ingenuity in dealing with the figures, and I have no desire to cast the slightest suspicion upon any statement he has made. I only wish to show that there is another view of these Estimates, and that which I consider to be the most straightforward view. It does not matter, in my opinion, how the charge is met, or from what source it is obtained; the only question is, what does a thing cost? If a Revenue is obtained, that Revenue is the property of the public as completely as the taxes taken out of the pockets of the public. But what is the cost of the Services? I can show that the cost has increased during the year for precisely the same things; and although there may have been more men in the Army, or more tons of shipping built, the cost of government is £2,000,000 more than it was at this time last year. I have, to-night, to say a word or two with reference to the charges which the right hon. Gentleman brought against the late Administration in respect to their expenditure. When the present Government came into Office the Estimates on account of the cost of building additional ironclads and re-plating others rose to £25,000,000 in 1882–3, and this year they stand at £26,250,000. Here, again, I complain that the right hon. Gentleman has not compared like with like. In speaking of £26,500,000, he has forgotten, or it has slipped his memory, that the figures in the Return for 1881–2 do not compare with the net figures in the Return for 1880–1. To compare them rightly, there are extra receipts which ought to be added to the charge this year. These extra receipts were taken by the Treasury up to 1881. [The CHANCELLOR of
    1876
    the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Childers): They are added.] If that is so, I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, and I will withdraw the remark, and proceed with my observations in regard to other parts of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the present Government, when they took Office in 1880, complained of the arrears in regard to the building of armoured ships; that a rule had been laid down to build 12,000 tons per annum; and that, although that had occasionally been done by the Government of Lord Beaconsfield, in 1877–8 the Estimates only provided for 9,226; in 1878–9 for 9,849; and in 1879–80 for 6,555 tons. It is satisfactory to be able to refer to a Return presented by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (No. 273, of last year) of the actual shipbuilding accomplished by the Governments to which reference has been made; and let mo ask how the "rule" to which the right hon. Gentleman refers compares with work done in 1871–2? In that year, during the preceding Administration of the present Prime Minister, 6,261 tons of iron-clad shipping were built in the Dockyards, and there were actually built in the Dockyards and by contract 13,920 tons. In 1872–3 the rule was observed to the extent of 6,353 tons; and in 1873–4 it was observed to the extent of 5,003 tons; so that, in the two years preceding the accession to Office of the late Government, in which years the present Government were in power, they failed to build the amount which the right hon. Gentleman now says it was the rule to build in one year. That is a valuable example of how to carry out a precept. Nothing can be more satisfactory than to lay down a rule, and nothing can be more economical than to take credit for your excellent principles, and then entirely to avoid all adherence to them. These figures are probably the lowest that have been known for the last 18 years. No such small figures appear in these Returns as the figures of 1872–3 and 1873–4, the years preceding the Administration of Lord Beaconsfield and the Naval administration of my late right hon. Friend, Mr. Ward Hunt. After that the figures began to rise; they went up to 8,457, and the number in the succeeding years were respectively 14,276 and 11,450, from which they fell to 7,113 in 1877–8, 8,429 in 1878–9,

    1877
    7,427 in 1879–80, and rose again to 9,235 in 1881.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): 1881 was when the present Government was in Office.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; but I am only anxious to show that the present Government have failed to carry out the rule which they now insist upon. These figures for 1877–8 to 1880 do not include four powerful iron-clads which the late Board of Admiralty purchased, and which, at the date of purchase, were estimated at 14,400 tons, but which now figure in The Navy List for 28,220 tons; of that the actual addition to the Navy of iron-clad ships in the three years largely exceeded the so called rule, whilst our Predecessors in 1873 and 1874 fell lamentably short of the rule which the right hon. Gentleman lays down. I did not feel myself rightly bound by any rule of the kind. What I felt I was bound to do was to endeavour to keep the Navy in the most efficient condition, so as to be ready for any emergency that might arise; and I also felt that, from time to time, it was my duty to the country and to my Colleagues, who placed confidence in me, to make such provision as I thought necessary. What I charge against the present Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a Member, is, that they allowed the repairs to fall into such a condition that we had very few ships to avail ourselves of. The error was not so much an error of shipbuilding, but one of repairs, and a serious arrear of repairs. The right hon. Gentleman has heard that before, and I cannot help feeling some surprise that he should again desire to raise a controversy upon a question which we had hoped had been settled some time ago, and which we had also hoped, as far as the interests of the Service were concerned, would not be frequently revived. If there is one misfortune greater than another to the Navy of this country, it is the introduction of purely Party considerations into questions which ought to be kept, as far as possible, from the domain of Party. The condition of the Army and Navy is a question of the highest importance to the country at large. It is a question which ought to be considered, as far as it is possible to do so, apart from Party considerations; and, from the very mo-
    1878
    ment that I became, in any degree, responsible for the conduct of affairs, either as First Lord of the Admiralty, or since in Opposition, I have endeavoured, as far as I possibly could, to abstain from giving anyone the slightest cause to say that I was endeavouring to make political capital out of the condition of the Navy, or the acts of my Predecessors, or doing anything to hamper the Executive Government in the discharge of the duties they owe to the country in maintaining a perfectly efficient Navy. But I have a Return here showing a condition of things which would be positively alarming, if it had not been checked. In 1874, on the 1st of April, the ships thoroughly fit for service were 16 iron-clads, amounting to 101,044 tons, 74,908 horse power, with a total weight of metal thrown by armament of 37,060 tons; and of unarmoured vessels there were 80,073 tons, and 72,472 horse power. On the 31st of March, 1880, there were reported fit for service 272,007 tons of armoured vessels of 195,792 horse power, with a weight of metal thrown of 111,329 tons, and of unarmoured vessels there were 122,427 tons, with 133,186 horse power. Now, I ask which of the two policies was the best in the interests of the country? Was it best that the Navy should be kept efficient for a war which might occur at any moment, or was it best that ships, which needed repair, and were inefficient and incapable of rendering service without repair, should be allowed to remain with their boilers and engines in such a condition that they would not be able to go to sea? In my judgment the late Government did their duty, and only did their duty, in keeping the ships efficient and in building to the extent which they deemed necessary. There is, I think, a danger that the policy which the right hon. Gentleman himself practised in 1869, 1870, and 1871 may be followed by the present Board of Admiralty. If I have made comments on the subject, I am sure they have not been unfriendly comments, or dictated by any Party object; and I notice that the observations which I made last year have been followed this year by such a considerable increase in the provisions for repairs, that I have reason to hope the at the expectation which the House has a right to form as to the condition of the Navy will be realized, and that the ships of

    1879
    the Fleet will be put into a proper state of repair. But I say distinctly that the condition of these Estimates—the fact that it is necessary to add 1,700 men to the Dockyards, and £107,000 to the amount of the Vote, in order to provide for the repairs, show that my contention was right before, and that the necessity for these repairs was very serious. I pointed out and I gave the names of the ships and the weight of the metal, and I pointed out the fact that the Fleet was lees efficient in point of numbers than it was in 1880, and that we were unable to send as many ships and as many guns to sea last year as we wore in 1880. I further pointed out that that was owing to the fact that ships were allowed to remain in harbour unrepaired, which, if intended to be repaired, ought at once to be taken in hand. My desire is to give to the present Government all the assistance I can in doing their duty. I do not wish to place the slightest obstacle in their way, nor to throw odium upon them in the performance of their duty. I think they were wrong in neglecting to do the work which ought to have been done two years ago; but they now show clearly that they intend to do that work. There was a very great arrear with regard to guns, and everybody knows there is much truth in the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the Fleet has been less efficient in this respect than the ships of war of some other countries. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, (Mr. Childers): No!] My ears certainly misled me if I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say that for 20 years the guns of Her Majesty's Fleet had been inferior. I do not think they have been; but I must ask my right hon. Friend to say what was done during the first two years of his administration at the War Department. The right hon. Gentleman found, when he went there, that there had been great pressure put upon the War Department to supply the Navy with good, guns, and that that pressure had hitherto failed to produce satisfactory results, because, although the work was a serious one and it had been seriously undertaken, there had not been sufficient time to complete it. My right hon. and gallant Friend on my right (Colonel Stanley) first seriously undertook the work, and we were in hopes that we
    1880
    should soon have had efficient guns for Her Majesty's Fleet. Then the right hon. Gentleman opposite came in, and a Committee was appointed; but I think I am right in saying that there has not yet been a 43-ton gun mounted in Her Majesty's Fleet, and that no 43-ton gun has yet been delivered to the Fleet; further, that none of the large guns included in the Estimates of 1881–2 have yet been delivered, and that the only delivery yet effected has been the delivery of 6-inch guns. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me a Return showing the provision made in the Estimates for 1880–1, 1881–2, and 1882–3 for new guns to Her Majesty's Fleet, showing the guns which were delivered during each of those three years; and, if he thinks it right to be positively just and fair towards the manufacturing Departments, my right hon. Friend may show the guns in course of construction, and the amount of money expended on them in the course of the financial year. I think I have a right to ask for that Return, in order to make it perfectly clear how great the pressure has been upon the War Department in the last three years, how much of the work has been done, and how much of the money which has been provided has been spent. I think it will turn out that the amount actually expended up to the 31st of March of this year is considerably less than has been provided for, so that the Navy has the credit of being a much heavier charge and burden upon the War Department and the Exchequer than it really has been. I know the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that our guns have been, and still are, inferior to guns that may be found in the ships of other countries; and it is not right, if we have costly ships and still more valuable lives to deal with, that we should have less efficient weapons than the weapons to be found in any other Service. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that he has invited an Army and Navy debate. He has invited a discussion on the whole condition of the Army, Navy, and Civil Services; and he must not complain if I occupy a few minutes in endeavouring to touch the very fringe of the subject, which, no doubt, is one which must be discussed more fully and satisfactorily when we come to the Army and Navy Estimates. I wish to

    1881
    say a word or two upon another question. The right hon. Gentleman made a most ingenious, a most clever, and a most able comparison as to the effect of what is called the pressure upon the taxpayer. The Return to which he drew our attention is a very interesting and a very skilful Return; but I have always thought that there is nothing so fallacious as figures, and a clever and able statistician, or a man accustomed to shuffle figures about like my right hon. Friend, can make almost any display he thinks fit with figures, when he gets them into his hand. The right hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that we are rather better off, and are paying a great deal less for everything than we were 10 years ago; and that, although there is a gross increase in the Expenditure, somehow or other, it comes to be less than nothing to the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman said the first thing we must do is to ascertain what the pressure on the taxpayers is. Now, this Return shows that the pressure is reduced to the figure which, he gives. I will not go into the particular figures which he gives, because it would only add to the complication of the matter. The main object of the right hon. Gentleman's speech Was to show that the increased pressure upon the taxpayer, if you only eliminate the great causes of increase—such, for example, as the increase in the Education Vote, and the increase in the contribution in aid of local rates—then the net result shows some diminution in the pressure on the taxpayer as compared with what it was 10 years ago. In any case, I prefer to take the Estimates as they stand. I think it is more satisfactory to take the figures which are presented to the Committee, and which we understand. The figures are for the Civil Service Estimates for the year, to which I now propose to address myself. The right hon. Gentleman says, deducting the contributions in aid of local taxation, which have increased by £3,110,000; and, deducting £2,000,000 for education, you will see the result is highly satisfactory. Well, I will deduct, if you please, the appropriations in aid, and I will deduct the Education Vote altogether from the present (Estimates, and compare them with the Estimates of 1873 in each case. I find that, deducting the appropriations in aid of local rates, £5,882,000, as
    1882
    shown in the Estimates for 1883–4, and deducting the Education Vote, which amounts to £4,500,000, the sum for the other Civil Services amounts to £6,871,000 now. In 1873 I find that the Civil Service Estimates stood at £11,087,000; but, deducting these appropriations in aid of rates and the Education Vote, I find that the remaining Civil Service Estimates stood at £5,695,000. The appropriations in aid of rates were estimated then at £2,872,000, as against £3,010,000 now; and the Education Votes were £2,500,000. Then, what do I find? I find that the net sum for the other Civil Service Estimates has increased in 10 years from £5,695,000 to £6,871,000—that is to say, that the increase which was looked upon as so entirely satisfactory, and which was said to be really and positively nothing at all to a great country like this, in the opinion of the Government, has been £1,200,000. But it must be borne in mind that that increase is an increase of over 20 per cent; and it is these percentages which alarm me, and the relative proportions which require to be brought home to the understanding of the Government, of the House of Commons, and of the people of this country. There is a positive and a continuous growth in the Expenditure; and it is only deceiving and misleading ourselves, so as to defeat the object we have in view, if we do not put the facts plainly, and in a straightforward manner, before the House of Commons. If we do not do this, and if, by any shuffling of figures, by any mode of dealing with property, or dealing with the income arising from other sources than taxation, we hide from ourselves the real facts of the case, we are only defeating the real object we have in view. The Revenue Departments show a considerable increase; but I prefer to insist upon that which is perfectly clear and patent to all. This amount is exclusive of the grant in aid altogether, and exclusive of the Education Votes. I exclude from them, as my right hon. Friend did, the Votes for English Education, the Science and Art Department, and the Scotch and Irish Votes for Education. I must, in passing, make one remark as to the fallacy of dealing with extra receipts—this income and profit in mitigation of only one portion of our expenditure. I think the compilers—although I am not able to

    1883
    say so positively—of this Estimate of the pressure of taxation have left out of consideration one fact—namely, that the very sums contributed in aid of local taxation are thus reduced, by the charges? which are made and the revenue which is derived in various ways, from the police, from prisons, and from other sources, reducing the amount by the not inconsiderable sum of something between £200,000 and £300,000—the precise sum, I think, is £'228,4 00. So that we have this singular condition of things—that the full credit is taken for the increase of the charges, which ought to be diminished, according to the rule now laid down, by the receipts which come into the miscellaneous revenue, and that miscellaneous revenue is applied in the diminution of other charges to which they have no relation whatever. Now, when you depart from the well-understood rule of taking revenue as revenue and expenditure as expenditure, you get into a vast complication of difficult calculations, some of which are almost certain to turn out to be wrong. It is impossible for the very best and most accomplished person to avoid overlooking something, and then is it fair to say—"Your calculations are all based on unsound principles?" As far as I can see, the contributions in aid of local taxation are not diminished by the sums which appear among the miscellaneous receipts; and there are other receipts which, no doubt, go into the Exchequer in mitigation of this particular charge. I am afraid I have taken up a great deal of the time of the House; but I have desired to compare like with like, and I find that, comparing like with like, the Army Estimates have risen since 1873–4 from £14,416,000 to £16,694,000; the Navy Estimates from £9,875,981 to £11,077,000; the Civil Service Estimates from £11,067,757 to £17,253,000; the Revenue Expenditure from £7,351,941 to £9,155,000; and the total Estimates from £42,712,000 to £54,179,000. But, comparing them with the Estimates of 1880–1, I find the Civil Service Estimates were £15,436,000; the Revenue Estimates, £8,156,000; the Army Estimates, £ 16,64 i, 000; and th e Navy Estimates, £10,492,000, so that in three years the increase has been from £50,725,000 to £54,179,000. These were the Estimates that were handed over to the right how. Gentleman opposite, and
    1884
    the Estimates presented to Parliament this year; and for the same Services which were calculated in the year 1880 it cost £50,725,000. The cost this year is estimated at £55,777,004. There can be no doubt, I think—the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that—wherever the money comes from, there has been an increase of taxation, as well as an increase in the yield, in certain profitable sources of Revenue belonging to the country—namely, the Post Office, but not the Telegraphs; and certain other miscellaneous receipts have come in in various ways. For instance, this year, we have had the advantage of receiving a large contribution from Egypt, in aid of the costs of the Army. How is it this large increase of charge in the cost of Government arises? That is a point which it is well to consider. Is it due to one Government or to another? Is it due to the force of public opinion, or to the pressure exercised by Members of this House? Is it due to the necessities of the case? I cannot help feeling that we must face the question and examine it careful by. I am afraid it is duo, in some measure, and perhaps very considerably, to the fact that a large number of persons in the Civil Service are constituents of hon. Members in this House. It may not be a popular, and I am certain it is not a pleasing view to take, that we are now paying more money for the same work than was paid some three or four years ago, and still more than was paid some eight years ago, and that every man, speaking broadly, in the Public Service costs more money. I do not say he does not do a good day's work in return; I am far from suggesting that there are any servants in the Public Offices who are not entitled to their full pay; but what I do say is, that every man employed in the Public Services costs more than he did three or four or eight or ten years ago. I think it is for the interest of the country, for the interest of the Government, and the duty of this House, to see that every officer in the Public Service, no matter whether high or low, rich, or poor, is properly and sufficiently paid for the work he discharges. But it is an alarming fact that £12,000,000 a-year are paid to persons who have most of them votes and power to influence Members of this House in their own interests, and to forward their own

    1885
    peculiar views and purposes. I want to know whether the Government are satisfied with this condition of affairs? Whether they are willing to allow this continued pressure to be exercised upon them, or whether the policy indicated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) is to be followed by the Government, and that more and more duties are to be undertaken by way of inspection, by way of control, and by way of internal administration, instead of leaving the people of the country, as far as possible, to their own self-reliance, and to the protection of the law, subject to penalties upon those who do not observe the law? I have regarded for some time past with apprehension the tendency of people to fall back upon the Government, in order to ascertain whether the food they buy is good, and whether the people they employ sufficiently discharge their duties. In fact, this reliance upon the State tends to demoralize our people from the cradle to the grave, and leaves them in such a condition that they have no occasion to exercise any of the responsibilities which are attached to ordinary men and women. All they seemed to think is that they should be well cared for and well protected, and carried through life with ease and comfort. But if that course is to be followed, not only must we have a great increase in the charges for the Public Services, but there must also be great demoralization. We have been vigorous and powerful in this country, because we have been self-reliant, and we have been willing to endure some amount of personal inconvenience, and to run some personal risk, in order to obtain that liberty and independence of action which has given to England a pre-eminence in arts, in manufactures, and I believe also in arms. It is for the Government to say—it is not for the House of Commons so much as for the Government to say—what their policy is. I know it may be said, from time to time, that the Government must follow the House of Commons. I say that the Government exists to suggest a policy to the House of Commons. It is the Government which presents the Estimates. No individual Member of the House can add a single farthing to those Estimates; and that represents, to my mind, a principle of the very highest importance in insisting on the respon-
    1886
    sibility of the Government. It does appear to me—and I say it with humility—but it does appear to me that if the Government are not of opinion that the course which is being pursued, the disposition to yield to this pressure, is a wise one, they ought to say so, and to say it boldly and manfully; and I do not doubt myself that, in response to such an appeal and such a statement the House would feel, the country would feel, and, I believe, the Party who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman would feel, that the occasion was one which required and demanded their support, and that it would be readily and cordially accorded to them. Sir, there are one or two questions to which I would ask the attention of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what he proposes to do in the way of remission of taxation, and I now refer to the smallest of all the alterations which he proposes—namely, that with regard to silver plate. I will say nothing of the communications I have had with some of my constituents upon this subject; but it appears to me that no more unfortunate proposal than this could have been made. I understand the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to be that silver plate shall be, in some way or other, shown in bond; but, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, I would suggest that any plan for the bonding of silver plate for the purpose of sale will be practically unworkable. I think anyone who has a practical knowledge of the course of business will feel that silver plate is not a thing which is bought by the merchant for sale from a warehouse, like so much tobacco or spirits. It is bought by those who wish to use it, and the purchasers of it are not likely to go to such a place as a bonded warehouse to make choice of it, nor could the makers of silver goods afford to send persons to the warehouse to attend to customers. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the proposal is, for the so reasons, impracticable. But the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is accompanied with a kind of promise that next year the duty on silver plate will be repealed. There seems to be, however, no doubt that this will have the effect of throwing out of employment every silver worker who is working on design in order to attract

    1887
    the taste of future purchasers. I believe that it will cause a very large number of persons to be entirely deprived of employment, because the silver manufacturers of London will say—"We cannot run the risk of adding to our stock; we must not employ workmen, except for the orders we receive;" and the result will be that they will wait until the duty is taken off. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider these points before he proceeds any further in this matter. I must leave the question of Carriage Duties to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, pointing out, at the same time, that the decrease in the use of carriages evidenced by the decrease in the amount payable for carriage licences has had a very depressing effect upon the trade, and has, in consequence, deprived a large number of persons of employment. There is no doubt that carriages are not a luxury with a great many persons who use them. A doctor, for instance, is obliged to make use of a carnage for the purposes of his profession. I throw out this as a suggestion as to the manner in which the remainder of the right hon. Gentleman's surplus might be employed, and also as a suggestion for giving a stimulus to a trade which has been very much affected by the taxes that have been imposed upon it. I say nothing with regard to the reduction of the Railway Passengers' Duty. But I must express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to bring in increased Governmental control and responsibility on the part of the Board of Trade. I look upon the interference of the Government in any trade as the greatest possible misfortune to that trade, when such interference can possibly be avoided. There are, of course, cases in which Government control cannot be avoided; but, in cases of this kind, although I am willing to support wise legislative measures, and even the imposition of penalties where necessary, I shall always oppose indiscriminate Government interference by all the means in my power. I say that by introducing perpetual supervision of any department of trade you deprive it of the power of going to work in the most profitable way, and thereby do infinite injury to the interest you desire to promote.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not intend to enter upon the debate with re-
    1888
    gard to the Army and Navy; but there were one or two points in connection with the Budget to which he desired to refer. The Budget was a very simple one, everything had gone favourably, especially in the last few months, and the right hon. Gentleman had been able to carry out an act of justice in remitting the ½d. of Income Tax. He wished to say nothing about the reduction of the Passenger Duty, nor with regard to the reduction of cost of telegrams; but he did regret extremely, with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that the matter of silver plate was not dealt with in another way. He was also strongly of opinion that the only effect of the measure that was proposed would be to stop the trade entirely. The public would not buy, because they would know that the duty on the plate was coming off in a year or two, and manufacturers would not make for exactly the same reason, and in that way the workpeople would be thrown out of employment, and the trade would be altogether disorganized. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would concede at once if it was merely a trifling amount of duty that was involved. He found that last year's accounts showed it to be only £113,251, but the difficulty was the drawback; but that must be faced sooner or later, and the best way to face it was to take off all the duty and pay no drawback. He learned that the holders of largo stocks of old plate and of new plate were not the same men. In no case could drawback be paid on old plate, and yet taking off the duty would lower the price of both old and new. Thus paying a drawback on the new only would be hard on the dealers in old plate, if they held heavy stocks. The holders of new plate, in any large quantity were, he believed, not numerous, and, on account of their wealth, were very well able to bear the temporary loss; besides, he believed that the recuperation of the trade freed from the duty would in a few years recoup them for any loss they might temporarily sustain. The bonded warehouse plan, he believed, would have no practical result. He should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have made some concession of the duty on Marine Insurance. That was a matter that had been pressed by Lloyd's and other persons for the past 10 years; and he could not see why

    1889
    some measure of justice, such as was extended to Fire Insurance, should not be extended to Marine Insurance. The great disadvantage of the present system was that it was a distinct tax upon trade, and it operated worst on the smallest premiums, forming a larger percentage on small premiums than it did on large premiums. The duty ranged from 3d. to 6d.per cent, and the amount derived in this way, according to the last Returns, was £141,000; and by perpetuating this wretched little grievance they were driving part of the trade of insurance out of the country and sending it elsewhere. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would put this item in his most favoured list for reduction, and make a point of reducing it in the next Budget to the same level as Fire Insurances—namely, a 1d. stamp on each policy. Then the right hon. Gentleman had not made any allowance for the reduction of profits from fees on patents for inventions. That produced a surplus income during the past year for which they had Returns of £163,441. The Bill before the House would reduce that sum to £70,000, provided there was no increase in the number of patents applied for; but his opinion was that if the Bill was passed there would be no reduction at all upon the surplus; but he hoped before the Bill left the House it would have that surplus done away with altogether by further reduction of the scale of fees, because he did not think the brains of inventors wore a proper subject of taxation for Revenue. Two years ago, when the House fully discussed the matter, it would be remembered that it was admittted, even by the President of the Board of Trade, that if the Patent Office paid its expenses it was all that ought to be expected of it. Before the Bill left the House he hoped to be able to move that if a surplus remained it should be devoted to a fund for the erection and maintenance of a suitable Patent Office and Museum, which were very much needed. The Bill before the House proposed to take steps to erect such a Patent Office and Museum; but it did not say from what fund it was to be done, and he thought it would be a very proper thing to devote any surplus arising from the patents themselves to the purpose. There were two most important points in the right hon. Gentleman's Budget
    1890
    Speech, though they did not properly belong to the Budget of the year. One was that he intended to put upon Corporations charges in lieu of Succession Duties. As far back as 1876 he had occasion to urge the matter very strongly upon the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He pointed out to him that it would be a very fitting thing to make such a change in the Succession Duty. He thought it a very wrong thing that anyone should be allowed so to alienate his property by putting it into trust, and thereby exempt it from bearing its proper share of the taxation of the country. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman thought the time was approaching when some change should be made. He did not know what change he contemplated; but he thought it should be something like payment of duty once in a generation, which was commonly considered 30 years. In Scotland ground rents for land for building had usually a fine of double duty on the entry of a new proprietor, and that was often commuted into a duplicand every 19th year, showing that it was believed that a change of succession came, as an average, every 19 years; and if the right hon. Gentleman adopted that period, he would, of course, get a great deal more than if he took as a basis once in 30 years. Then, with reference to Terminable Annuities, he was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought up that question. He thought Annuities falling in 1885 were the property of the Budget of 1885, when it would be a suitable time for dealing with it; but he did not think that it ought to be forestalled in the way proposed. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman found his Budget rather commonplace, and saw no way of making it brilliant except by bringing up the abortive proposal of 1881; but he thought it a mistake. There were many reasons why he thought so. One was that the right hon. Gentleman himself had shown that the finances of the country were in a sort of transition state. For example, the Education Charge was increasing largely, and he did not think anybody wished that charge to be less. For himself, he looked forward to its being a good deal more. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that, by the improved habits of the people, they were

    1891
    drawing £5,000,000 a-year less into the Treasury from duty on spirits than, allowing for natural increase of population since 1875, would have been expected. That process might go on and, by 1885, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be very thankful to have some of these Terminable Annuities to make up for what he was losing from other sources. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman might himself be still Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1885, when he would have the benefit of the natural expiry of these Annuities; and the term ought not to be forestalled, as it would be much simpler to deal with them then, as to do it now would require a conversion scheme into a lower amount expiring now, which was a needless complication. As regarded the scheme itself, he thought taking £40,000,000 from the Chancery Suitors' Fund a safe enough operation, as he saw that, in 1879, the Fund reached £61,886,000, and he presumed it was a good deal more now. He found, also, that the largest sum ever taken out in one year was £6,598,000; while the smallest ever received in one year was £5,579,000. Thus, the outside possibility of shortcoming seemed £1,000,000 a-year, for which the margin left appeared very abundant; the probability being that, instead of any shortcoming at all, there would be a continued annual surplus. Then they came to the other item—the £30,000,000 from the Savings Banks Funds. These Funds were a more ticklish thing to deal with. Their permanence depended on the continued prosperity of the country, as well as on perfect confidence in the safety of the Funds. It might be difficult to satisfy ignorant people that the Fund was as safe as before it was manipulated. They would only see that something was being done, and might fail to see that the national guarantee remained just as before. He quite understood the detail of the scheme as regarded the £40,000,000; an Annuity of £2,674,000 would replace it with interest in the 20 years. But he did not quite understand the £30,000,000 which was to be converted into one Annuity of £1,200,000 for five years, renewable for 15 years; a second of similar amount for 10 years, renewable for 15 years; and a third of similar amount for 15 years, renewable for other 15 years. It appeared to him that such a scheme would only be complete at the
    1892
    end of 30 years, instead of the 20 years spoken of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)here explained that the scheme was not to be complete at either of these periods, as he intended his plan to create a system by which every five years there would be an Annuity of £1,200,000 falling in, to be used for a still further extinction of Debt, by the renewal of the Annuity.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had been at a loss to understand that part of the scheme; but, as now explained, it evidently did provide for the probable reduction of a large amount of Debt. He ventured, however, to question altogether the policy of the scheme of renewing the Terminable Annuities. Paying debts was an admirable principle; but it was possible sometimes to use a surplus to much greater advantage for the country than by paying the country's debts with it, particularly at a time when the Three per Cents were above par—say, 102, as at present. The Terminable Annuity Scheme in question would inevitably force up the price of Consols, already far above the most sanguine dreams of the original lenders. The Budget had been styled "a rich man's Budget." In no particular was this more the case than in this very matter. Many were asking for a reduction of the taxes on articles of general consumption—such as tea—from which £4,000,000 were drawn—dried fruit—from which £500,000 was drawn—and coffee and chicory, which yielded one-third of a million. All these were things on which the country was looking for some reduction. But how was any reduction to be got except through these Terminable Annuities, expiring in 1885? Excessive taxation had been maintained in order to get that expiry; and now the people were to be robbed of the relief for which they had paid so long and so patiently. The right hon. Gentleman told them that in the last three years the annual average of Debt paid off was £6,829,000; or nearly £4,000,000 a-year more than in the previous six years. In the current year it would be £8,000,000. He had also told them that during the last quarter of a century they had reduced the National Debt by a sum of £107,100,000. That was as much, he thought, as the present generation could

    1893
    be expected to do. Our forefathers did not do their duty in the matter, and had handed down a large Debt. We were not adding to it, but were paying our way, and doing something towards paying it off. They were told that the American people were doing a great deal better than we. But American Debt was all incurred by the present generation. The present generation was endeavouring to pay it off. We were doing still better than that, for we were paying oil debts we did not incur. At the same time, did anyone believe that the Americans were doing this from any keen sensitiveness about paying their debts? Not at all. It was because certain interested parties had pledged the Government to the doctrine of Protection, and the payment of the National Debt was the excuse for it. These parties were looking forward with dread to the time when the Debt would be all paid, and when the Government would be obliged to reduce the Import Duties on account of having nothing to do with the money when they got it. But did anyone doubt that if America had paid Debt a little slower in order to reduce Import Duties a little faster, it would have been far more to the benefit of her people? We need not be so anxious to copy America? A better plan for the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to find out a plan of reducing the interest rate to the people. Already about £35,000,000 had been got from the Post Office Savings Banks. He was getting the money at 2½ per cent, and that 11101103' he was going to use for the purpose of raising the price of the Three per cent Consols, which the people had, consequently, to redeem at a higher price. Instead, he should issue 2½ or 2½ per cent Stock to save the interest to the people. The principle of bringing forward the Terminable Annuities, instead of allowing them to fall in in 1885, was to give future Chancellors of the Exchequer a lesson in a new thing—the mutability of Terminable Annuities. By this moans they might be able to obtain a surplus for some purpose possibly less legitimate than the paying of Debt. I11 that ease the reduction of Debt might yet turn out to be visionary.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he believed that, although the Resolution under discussion related solely to the Tea Duty, it had always been open to
    1894
    Members of that House, upon similar Motions, to discuss the whole question of the forthcoming financial year. And the first point to which he asked the attention of the Committee was one which, although it ostensibly had reference to the Income Tax charged last year, in reality related to the Income of the present year. He ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Income Tax had not been illegally levied; and, in the event of that being so, whether a certain amount of the produce of that tax, which otherwise would have fallen within the present year, was not appropriated to the financial year ending on the 31st of March, 1883? He did not think it would be disputed that an infraction of the law had been committed, and that, although the amount realized by that infraction was small, the principle involved was a very large one; because no private individual would venture to question any taxation authorized by General Circular of the Board of Inland Revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was always responsible for the proper exercise of the legal powers contained in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act; and as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the last Act was passed, he asked him to pay especial attention to the statement of facts which he was about to make. If an infraction of the law had been committed, he was sure that no one would be more ready than the right hon. Gentleman to take steps which would prevent an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer hereafter obtaining more Income than he was entitled to for any particular year. The Committee would be aware that the Income Tax last year was raised from 5d.to 6½rf. in the pound, and this amount was to be levied in unequal portions on the Income of the year; and the clause of the Act under which it was to be raised concluded with words to this effect—that when any dividends or interest were payable half-yearly or quarterly in the course of the said year, the first half-yearly, or the first two quarterly payments, should be deemed to be only chargeable with the duty of 5d.in the pound, and the other half-yearly or quarterly payments should be deemed to be chargeable with the duty of 8d. in

    1895
    the pound. Now, the Income Tax year ended on the 5th of April, and did not tally with the financial year, which began on the 1st of April; and, therefore, no financial year was ever credited with the exact amount of Income Tax received "within the year. For instance, the present year would obtain a certain proportion of the Income Tax imposed last year—that was to say, the portion of the tax which applied to the time between the 31st of March and the 5th of April. As the law stood, all dividends payable between the 1st and 6th of October were only liable to the tax of 5d.; and the second portion of the tax to which they were liable at 8d. in the pound was payable after the 1st of April, 1883; and a certain part of it did not, therefore, come within the financial year which closed on the 31st of March, 1883. Now, the Board of Inland Revenue had issued a General Circular, by which they charged 6½d. in the pound on the first dividends of the year payable in October—that was to say, they anticipated by six months 1½d. of the tax which did not become due until after the 1st of April; and, consequently, a portion of the tax was credited to the year 1882½3, which it did no belong to, and the year 1883–4 was deprived of that sum. No one who read the Act of Parliament could doubt that there had been an infraction of the law. As he had already stated, the amount was not large; but it was possible that, if it had not been credited to the last financial year, the surplus from that year might have been converted into a deficiency. No one would conclude that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had authorized this infraction of the law; but he wished that some Member of the Government would rise in his place and admit that it had taken place; because, so far as principle was concerned, it was a gross infraction. It was for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the Revenue Acts were carried out in accordance with the letter of the law; and if the House were to allow an infraction of the law, however slight, to take place, it would form a precedent which, if there were an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer in Office, might, at a future time, be made use of. He did not think that any satisfactory explanation of what had taken place was possible; but he hoped there would be from some Member of the
    1896
    Government an acknowledgment that the law had been broken, so that this infraction of the law might not be laid down hereafter as a precedent. With the indulgence of the Committee he would now make one or two observations upon the Budget Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, in the first place, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would receive his congratulations on the great ability and vigour with which he had laid his various points before the Committee, because this seemed to him a very satisfactory contradiction of the statement that he had somewhat suffered from the labours of the War Office. But a portion of his statement was of a very controversial nature. And what had been the result? He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), who preceded him in addressing the Committee, had been able to controvert some of the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, and he (Lord George Hamilton) thought he should also be able to do so; and then, if a portion of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was found to be overdrawn, and some of the figures shown to be inaccurate, he believed he would be correct in saying that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was seriously invalidated. Now, the complaint he made was that the right hon. Gentleman, in order to draw a comparison between the present and late Government unfavourable to the latter, was compelled to manipulate the system of Terminable Annuities now in force, in doing which he unconsciously laid down a principle most dangerous to economy, and likely to encourage extravagance in the future. What was the object of the system of Terminable Annuities? He had heard the Prime Minister, who was, more than anyone else, responsible for that system, in his financial speeches often state that, year after year, by Act of Parliament, a certain sum of money was to be put aside for the reduction of Debt; that the reduction of Debt under that system was automatic; that year by year it increased; and that no Chancellor of the Exchequer could, if he wished, in any way interfere with it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had credited himself throughout with the increase in the payment of Debt that resulted from

    1897
    the Annuities, with which he had no more to do than the Man in the Moon. The right hon. Gentleman went a step further—he took the reduction of Debt by Terminable Annuities, and, deducting it from the actual charges for the Army, Navy, and Civil Service, he concluded by saying that those Services cost less than they did eight years ago, and that, therefore, the country was now more cheaply administered. The Committee would understand that if the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were allowed to pass unchallenged, this system of extinction of Debt by Terminable Annuities might lead to great extravagance hereafter; because it would be always possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say—"No matter how great is the increase of the Estimates, so long as, by means of the system of Terminable Annuities, the payment of Debt may be deducted from them." The right hon. Gentleman stated that between the financial year 1873–4 and the financial year 1882–3 the Expenditure had apparently increased by the sum of £8,550,000, and that this increase of charge was paid out of the taxes. But he said there were some deductions to be made from that amount; there was, first, a deduction of £2,000,000 for the increased expenditure under the Education Vote, which was an annual charge; secondly, there was £3,010,000 to be deducted for Grants in Aid of Local Taxation, which was an annual charge also; and, thirdly, there was to be deducted £220,000 for the cost of collecting £7,000,000 additional Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman also took into account the sum of £3,670,000, which he said represented the increased payment of principal of the Debt. He (Lord George Hamilton) had read the Return which the right hon. Gentleman quoted as showing the increased charge for the period between the years 1873–4 and 1881–2; and it appeared from that Return that the charge for the payment of Debt, including interest, was £26,549,000 for the year 1873–4, and £28,187,000 for the year 1881–2, the difference being £1,638,000, and not £3,670,000, as the right hon. Gentleman stated. He (Lord George Hamilton) would now call the attention of the Committee to the conclusion drawn from his figures by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    1898
    "If these are added together it will be found that they represent an increased charge of £8,900,000; whereas the increased charge on the taxpayer is £8,550,000; so that it follows that for Military, Naval, and Civil Expenditure, in spite of a considerable increase of expense in Ireland, the charge of last year is not greater than, but £350,000 less than, for 1873–4."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I said—
    "So that for the Interest on Debt, and for the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates, &c."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, it was unfortunate that an omission had been made in the report. But he had no objection to the addition, of the words, so far as his argument was concerned. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be allowed to take the diminution under the system of Terminable Annuities, and credit himself with that diminution for the purpose of deducting it from the Estimates connected with the Army, Navy, and Civil Service, it was a system that would be of no use whatever in reducing Expenditure; because it would then be competent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say—"Our Expenditure is increasing very fast; but under the system of Terminable Annuities which we are carrying out it does not matter, as our reduction of Debt is greater." He did not regret that his observations had drawn attention to the omission in The Times report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech; but even if the words in question were added, it was no reason whatever that the diminution under the system of Terminable Annuities should be deducted from the Expenditure on the Army, Navy, and Civil Service. He felt bound to press this point upon the Committee at length, because of the use which the right hon. Gentleman had made of the figures in his comparison between the Expenditure of the late and present Governments; and if he now went into controversial calculations he trusted he should be excused, the right hon. Gentleman having somewhat boldly thrown down the gauntlet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the amount of Debt paid off last year was £7,100,000, and the statement was received with applause by hon. Members opposite; but, looking closely into the subject, he found that the actual reduction amounted to the insignificant sum of £21,000, for both

    1899
    Funded and Uufunded Debt. He had to make another statement which he thought would be a very useful reply to a large portion of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had told them a great deal about what the present Government had done during the last three years, as compared with all that the late Government had done in the three years preceding their abandonment of Office. But the right hon. Gentleman never told them what was the difference in the amount of the Income which the present Government had to deal with, as compared with that at the disposal of the late Government. The Statistical Abstract showed that the Income, in the aggregate, of the last three years of the late Government was £244,000,000; while the Income of the first three years of the present Government was £259,000,000, the difference at the disposal of the present Government being an excess of £15,000,000. But that was not all; there were the Extra Receipts, which were treated as Income by the late Government, and these were now being treated in a different way—that was to say, for the last two years they had been deducted from the gross Expenditure on the Army and Navy; and as they represented a sum of £1,600,000, it followed that the actual excess of Income, just referred to, amounted to £16,600,000. Now, he did not find fault with that. On the contrary, he thought the Prime Minister had shown a praiseworthy energy when he came into Office by proposing additional taxation. It was well known that all Governments could put on taxes at first better than they could when they had been some time in Office; and he repeated that the Prime Minister had made good use of the authority and prestige which attached to a new Administration in this respect. But with regard to the composition of the £16,600,000 which he had shown the Government to have had by way of Income in excess of the Income of the late Government during the last three years they were in Office, he had analyzed it, and found it to be made up of the following items—namely, £9,500,000 imposed as taxes in the early days of the Government; £5,500,000 was the growth of pre-existing Revenue and of certain services which the State had undertaken; and the remainder represented the Extra Receipts which were
    1900
    now applied to the reduction of the gross Expenditure on the Army and Navy. He was dealing with the actual Income; and having shown that the Government had received more by £16,600,000 than the late Government, he asked, what had been done with the money? He was sure the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) would excuse him for pointing out an error which, on a former occasion, he had put before the public by taking the Annuity in existence when the present Government came into Office as an additional charge of £1,350,000 per annum. That was not so, because his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), when in Office, had created a Sinking Fund for the extinction of Debt; and £500,000 of the Sinking Fund so created was annually appropriated to this Annuity; the charge was, therefore, only £850,000. After allowing for the payments on account of India, and other items paid by the Government, there remained £14,000,000 of the £16,600,000 additional Income still unaccounted for. It was popularly believed that it had gone in the payment of the debts of the late Government. But that was an absolute delusion. The present Government had not added one farthing of the cost of the arrangements made by the late Government to meet the deficiency in existence before they came into Office. But the Expenditure of the present Government had increased enormously; and the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates for the present year showed an increase of £4,000,000 over the Estimates left by his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) three years ago. It was in this way that the money had gone. Now, with regard to the payment to India in connection with the Afghan War, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was a legacy from the late Government. He had never heard a more extraordinary statement. The truth was that it was nothing else than a hustings' legacy to the Liberal Party. He happened to be in the India Office at the time—only a few months before the Afghan War broke out—and he could assure the Committee that the impression that the late Afghan War was an European war was altogether a delusion. It was a very convenient one, however, because it enabled the

    1901
    then Opposition to say that, for the purpose of carrying on the war, the taxation of this country should be increased to pay for a war, not Indian, but European in its origin. When the Prime Minister had to develop his hustings' theory, he did it in a way contrary to every principle of finance which he had ever laid down, either in the House of Commons or elsewhere. Of the sum of £5,000,000 given to India, only £3,500,000 had been paid, a portion of this being raised by Annuities; and the last portion of the balance of £1,500,000 would not be paid until the financial year ending on the 31st of March, 1886; whereas, if a General Election were to take place, and the majority of the House of Commons were afterwards not to take the hustings' view of the Liberal Party, India would not get all of that amount, although it had been credited to her. Therefore, he said that the principle on which the Government based their hustings' theory was contrary to all that the Prime Minister had ever laid down, either in or out of Office; and to say, in the face of these facts, that the cost of the Afghan War was a legacy from the late Administration, appeared to him rather audacious on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed he had laid before the Committee the real facts as to the Expenditure during the last six years. It was true that there was a large deficiency on the three years ending on the 31st of March, 1880; but that had been converted into an Annuity that was in force before the present Government came into Office, and was not in any way connected with the increase in the Expenditure which had since occurred That was entirely due to the Army, Navy, and Civil Service costing more than it had done before; hence the Motion which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had brought forward on Friday last; and, if the hon. Member would allow him to do so, he would take this opportunity of congratulating him upon the singularly able and clear speech with which he introduced that Motion. But perhaps the most audacious portion of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that in which he treated the sanction given by the late Government to the scheme for the organization of the Army and Auxiliary Forces as entailing on the
    1902
    present Government an enormous Expenditure. He would refer to what occurred in 1870, because he regarded it as a warning to all Governments not to attempt reform unless they knew what the consequences would be. In that year the Bill of Lord Cardwell was introduced; but, his hand having been forced by some Gentlemen below the Gangway, he was compelled to bring in a Bill for the Abolition of Purchase in 1871. The Conservatives did not care much about the system of Purchase, and would have been glad to get rid of it; but they pointed out to the House that if there was to be a hasty abolition of Purchase, without the adoption of some scheme by which promotion could be secured, the country would have to incur a very great burden of cost. Their advice was utterly disregarded, Purchase was abolished, and a system of short service was established. The Bill under which Purchase was abolished went up, in the ordinary course, to the House of Lords. As events had shown, the House of Lords took a very statesmanlike view of the question; they passed a Resolution declaring that they were unwilling to assent to the second reading of the Bill until the House had laid before it, either by Her Majesty's Government or through the medium of an inquiry, a complete and comprehensive scheme for the appointment and promotion of officers. What, however, did the Government do? They made an obsolete use of the Prerogative of the Crown, by which use they hastily abolished Purchase in the Army. It would be very interesting to know what that hasty abolition of Purchase had cost the country. As a matter of fact, they had to pay something between £7,000,000 and £9,000,000 in cash to officers for the abolition of a system which insured promotion. Lord Cardwell gave a solemn pledge that if stagnation resulted a system of retirement would be brought in. Lord Cranbrook, as War Minister, had to introduce such a system; and he (Lord George Hamilton) believed that the consequence was that the Army Estimates had been increased from £500,000 to £1,000,000 annually. The Short-service system might have been necessary—he would express no opinion upon the value or otherwise of the change effected by Lord Cardwell, for he was now dealing with

    1903
    figures. The pay of the private had to he increased 2d. a-day to insure an increased number of men. Lord Cardwell's primary object in introducing the Bill was to weld the Army, Militia, and Auxiliary Forces into a harmonious whole. A most able Committee at the War Office inquired how this could best be done. They found that to do it effectively would cost a very large sum of money; and then down came a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer—a Colleague of Lord Cardwell—and actually said this increased cost was a legacy they had received from the Conservative Government.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not say anything of the kind.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of it as something left by the late Government which would entail a large Expenditure. He hoped that, as the right hon. Gentleman took so very wide and broad a view of what he called legacy, he would enforce it in collecting the Probate Duties. A variety of proposals had to be made for effecting economy in the administration of the Army, Navy, and Civil Services. He fully believed they got more for their money from the administration of the Navy than they did from the administration of the Army, and the reason was not far to seek. Under the Naval system there were always three of the ablest Naval officers straight from the Service at the head of the Admiralty; and, moreover, there was a happy combination of the Naval and Civilian elements, which was productive of efficiency and economy. As to the War Office, although there was at the head an illustrious Duke, who had probably more knowledge of the Army than any other man alive, and although he was assisted by very able men, he (Lord George Hamilton) believed most of the time was spent in fighting who should get the War Office; and that until a system was hit upon whereby the Military and Civilian elements could be amalgamated, the country would not receive as good results from the Army Expenditure as from the Navy. The Prime Minister had suggested that a special Committee, or a number of Committees, be appointed for the purpose of investigating the sources of Expenditure. He (Lord
    1904
    George Hamilton) could not believe that any real benefit would result from the adoption of the suggestion. The House had had experience of Select Committees, and there was one fact which it would be well for a Radical House of Commons to swallow. It might be an advantage, from many points of view, to enlarge the franchise, and to bring into the House of Commons Gentlemen who would directly represent those who would be enfranchised; but Select Committees wore not now as efficient as formerly. Self-preservation was the first instinct; and Members of Parliament, representing large constituencies, knew full well that they must advertise themselves, or else they would lose their seats. It was not possible now-a-days for a Member of Parliament to sit in the House and not ask a large number of Questions. It would be interesting to look back 20 or 30 years, and compare the proceedings of Select Committees of that time with those of the present Committees. Committees were appointed 30 years ago to inquire into most complicated questions—such even as the renewal of the Charter to the Indian Government. If anyone looked at the Report of that Committee, over which Sir James Mackintosh presided in 1833, or another which sat in 1853, and compare it with the Reports of the Committees which sat in 1871, 1872, 1873, and 1874, they would see a great difference. Formerly, the Chairman was allowed to conduct important examinations; but it was not so now. He had had a good deal of experience on Committees appointed to inquire into the affairs of India. What was the result of the Committee appointed, with probably the ablest Chairman who could possibly be got—Mr. Ayrton? That Committee sat for three years: it commenced with 21 Members, and a quorum of seven; but ultimately the number of Members was increased to 30, and the quorum reduced to five. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: No, no!] His hon. Friend contradicted him; but he was, nevertheless, speaking an absolute fact. There was always the danger, in appointing a Committee, that at the next General Election the Chairman and other Members would lose their seats. The idea he had always had—though he confessed it was an idea which did not find favour on either of the Front Benches—was that

    1905
    a Committee for the purpose of investigating into Expenditure was not of much use; but that a Committee might be appointed to supervise the Expenditure, which might be of advantage. It had also occurred to him that if the Estimates were referred to some strong Committee, not very numerous, but having the Minister in charge of the Estimates as Chairman, and if power was given of calling witnesses, a most effective instrument would be possessed for checking unnecessary Expenditure. He knew the theory prevailed that such a course would weaken the supervision of the Treasury. To speak frankly and openly, he must say he had not much faith in the supervision of the Treasury. The duties of the Treasury were too multifarious. More elasticity was required in the Department. At present the rule was to reject every new proposal, and to sanction all existing establishments. Everybody who had a suggestion to make was regarded, more or less, as an enemy of the public purse. Although he (Lord George Hamilton) admitted there was much to be said in favour of maintaining intact the authority of the Treasury, yet he was of opinion that some system, such as he had suggested, would be very effective in keeping down Expenditure. He acknowledged that the House would never give up its control of the Expenditure to a Select Committee. Some arrangement could always be made by which, after the investigation by the Select Committee, the House should still be able to exercise its powers and its authority as to whether or not it would pass the Estimates which had been under the supervision of the Committee. He had always been in favour of economy, and of avoiding unnecessary Expenditure; but one thing must be perfectly clear to everybody—namely, that if the State was to undertake annually fresh services on behalf of the public, the country must be called upon to meet an increased charge. Every year the State was taking upon itself fresh services; and now Parliament was considering a proposal by which bankruptcy arrangements were to become part of the duties of a Government Office. There seemed to be an idea in the minds of Liberal Members that it was only the Army and Navy which put pressure on the Government in regard
    1906
    to the increase of salaries. The Government, however, had a far heavier call upon them from the civilians they employed than from the Army and Navy. He thanked the Committee for the patience with which they had listened to his observations. Notwithstanding the criticisms which he had devoted to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the clearness with which he laid before the Committee his figures; and he trusted that next year it would be the country, and not a Party, which would have the undivided benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's exertions.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he had listened with much interest to the speech of the noble Lord, because, during the last few months, he had constantly accused Her Majesty's Government of reckless extravagance. He did not think the noble Lord had succeeded in making good his case. As the noble Lord admitted frankly, in comparing the Expenditure of different Governments there were certain matters for which allowance must be made. For instance, the Expenditure on Terminable Annuities ought not to be noticed in any such comparison. The noble Lord admitted that allowance must be made for grants in aid for Education, for the Post Office and Telegraph Expenditure, for the Customs and Inland Revenue Expenditure, and so forth. "If they compared the Expenditure in the last year of the late Conservative Government with that of the present year, there was, no doubt, an increase of something not much less than £4,000,000 sterling. But they must allow £1,000,000 for grants in aid, £900,000 for the extra amount voted to Debt, £800,000 for Post Office and Telegraphs, £100,000 for Customs and Inland Revenue, and £500,000 for Elementary Education—a total of £3,300,000. That left only an increase of about £750,000, notwithstanding the Egyptian War. It must also be borne in mind that, last year, the Government had to pay £2,000,000, the legacy left them by their Predecessors, besides the expenses of the Egyptian War, amounting to £4,000,000. The character of the Expenditure of the two years ought also to be taken into consideration. This year, according to the Estimates, £2,000,000 less was being spent

    1907
    on military matters; £900,000 more in grants in aid, which, after all, was not in itself an expenditure—at least, it was an expenditure from one pocket instead of from the other; £700.000 more in Education, which they almost all approved of; £1,000,000 on account of the Post Office, which would come back again in the shape of additional receipts; and a much larger sum would be devoted to the repayment of Debt. It was a matter of satisfaction that there was a surplus on the right side at the end of the year. It was very true the surplus was but a small one—£100,000. Last year, however, there was a surplus of £900,000, and the year before one of £350,000. In the last three years of the late Conservative Government there were deficiencies of £2,240,000, £2,230,000, and £2,000,000—in fact, in the six years of the late Conservative Administration the average deficit was over £1,000,000 a-year. Before that time there were five years of Liberal Government, with surpluses amounting to £17,000,000; and, before that, there were two years of Conservative Government, with deficiencies of £4,000,000. Before that, again, there were several years of Liberal Government, with annual surpluses of £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. In fact, it happened with mechanical regularity—Liberal Government and surplus; Conservative Government and deficiency. In fact, whenever there was a Liberal Government there was a surplus, and when there was a Conservative Government there was a deficiency. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) asked the other day who had benefited by the change of Government? He (Sir John Lubbock) would like to put the question somewhat differently—he would like to ask who was there who had not benefited by the change of Government? When the Expenditure had been once increased it was very difficult to reduce it. The Government had done a great deal in the reduction of Expenditure, and the country were indebted to them for all they had accomplished. If, however, he ventured to make a few remarks expressive of his regret that they had not been able to accomplish more, he did so in no spirit of unfavourable criticism, but rather in the hope of encouraging and helping them, as
    1908
    far as he could, in the future. They must all feel that though a great deal had been done the Expenditure of the country was far too high. In regard to the Army, there was an apparent reduction of £1,480,000—namely, from £17,086,000 to£l5,606,000; but if they compared the Estimates with those of last year they would find there was an increase of £150,000. He was persuaded that that would be a matter of sore disappointment to the country. Moreover, if they looked at the character of the military economies and increases, he was afraid there was very little which would give them any more satisfaction. If he understood the accounts accurately, there was an increase of £400,000 in the permanent Expenditure which was partly balanced by the receipts from stores. He should like very much to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be possible to diminish somewhat the Military Expenditure in our Colonies? In North America and the West Indies the Expenditure was £500,000 a-year; and he could not help thinking that some reduction might be made in that direction. Again, in Hong Kong, they spent £95,000, of which the Colony only paid us £20,000. As to the Expenditure on the Navy, he was afraid there was very little prospect of any reduction as long as they expected so much from the Navy. Considering, as he did, that the Navy was our first line of defence, he should be sorry to see a large reduction in the Expenditure upon that Service, as long as International Law remained in its present condition. He thought, however, that this question urgently demanded the attention of the Government. It must be remembered that the Navy had two main duties to perform—one was to guard their Coast, and the other was to protect their Mercantile Marine. It was a very extraordinary thing that while they had by far the largest Mercantile Marine in the world—more, at the present moment, than all the other nations of the world put together—that they were the one nation which still insisted upon the right of capture and seizure at sea. He believed they might do more to make their ships secure by agreeing to an alteration of the law in this respect than they could by any improvements in the Navy. If a war took place the prosperity of the

    1909
    Mercantile Marine became, to a great extent, a question of insurance; and if merchants who shipped their goods by vessels belonging to one nation had to pay even 2s. 6d. more for insurance than other merchants, it followed that the vessels belonging to such a country were placed at a very great disadvantage. This was not a proper occasion to discuss the question fully; but it was one worthy of the attention of the Government. He believed that an alteration of the law in regard to the right of capture at sea was desired by all other nations but our own; that it would tend towards peace; and that no one would gain so much by the change as they themselves. They would make their ships at sea more secure than at present; and he thought that, in that case, some reduction could be made in the Naval Expenditure. Both the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had, much to his (Sir John Lubbock's) satisfaction, pressed the Government to avoid undertaking commercial business. Again, he thought there was great danger in the system of paternal legislation which had been adopted; that universal inspection must more and more increase their Expenditure, and required to be very carefully watched. The very fact that much must necessarily be done in that direction ought to make Parliament most careful not to go further than was absolutely necessary, for legislation of that kind was very apt to defeat its own object. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade pointed out, a few days ago, to a deputation of shipowners who waited upon him that since the passing of the Act relating to and regulating merchant shipping the loss of life at sea had actually increased. As far as the Telegraphs were concerned, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), a few days ago, paid a well-merited tribute to the Government officials connected with that Department; but, in his view, no excellence on the part of the officials could replace the stimulus supplied by open competition and personal interest. In the address which he recently delivered to the Society of Telegraph Engineers, Dr. Siemens showed that in America, the one great and important country in which telegraphic communication was not in
    1910
    the hands of the State, but remained under the control of private Companies, telegraphy was making the most rapid strides. Therefore, he held that those who desired economy in government must set their faces dead against the multiplication of official inspections and the extension of commercial undertakings by the Government, a course of action against which there were many other and good reasons. A few nights ago the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) brought the question of pensions before the House; and he quite agreed with the hon. Member that there was considerable room for economy in this respect. It was, of course, necessary to distinguish between different classes of pensions. It would, for instance, in his opinion, not only be unjust, but, in the long run, would prove bad economy, to disturb such pensions as had been settled by Act of Parliament and placed on the Consolidated Fund. The only relief they could look for was when pensions dropped in, and by the exercise of greater care in granting new ones. Again, it was important to distinguish between pensions granted for long service and pensions which simply arose from the abolition of offices. With regard to the former class, he agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) that if the right to pensions was abolished the scale of salaries must be increased; and he feared they would end before long in giving pensions too. But it was well worthy the attention of the Government to consider whether steps could not be taken to diminish the second class of pensions to which he had referred. His suggestion would be that the terms of entry to the Civil Service should be so modified as that gentlemen would not be entitled to retire with pensions in the prime of life; and he thought this modification could be effected without running the risk of getting a less efficient class of applicants for appointments. Another suggestion he would venture to make was that the Government should take enlarged powers to transfer officials from one Department to another in case their offices were abolished. With regard to the question of Terminable Annuities, he could not think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was correct in supposing that the suitors in the Court of Chancery

    1911
    would be prejudicially affected by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; because, under the arrangement proposed, every suitor would be as certain of getting Government securities as he was at the present moment. He was of opinion, also, that the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow was a little inconsistent; because, in the first place, he objected to the scheme that it would prejudicially affect the security of the depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank, and then went on to state that it would raise the value of Government securities—a fact to which he should have thought the depositors in the Savings Bank would have been among the last to object. As far as he was personally concerned, he would, of course, rather not see the interest reduced from 3 to 2– per cent; but, at the same time, he was bound to admit that, in his view, the country would benefit by the proposed arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) was another among the objectors to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his objections were based mainly on his objections to the proposal made some few years ago by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)—a proposal which certainly struck him (Sir John Lubbock) at the time it was made as being valuable, and bringing the matter very clearly before the public mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Speech, explained to the Committee very clearly the manner in which he proposed to deal with the Annuities terminating in the year 1885, and stated his view that if everything went on as he wished his proposal would have the effect of cancelling, in the course of the next 20 years, £170,000,000 of Debt. Hon. Members—or, at any rate, some of them—appeared to regard this as a too sanguine anticipation. But, even supposing the anticipation was realized, the country would still be left with a Debt exceeding £500,000,000 sterling; while by that time their keen competitors in America would probably be free from their National Debt altogether. This was a matter calling for most serious consideration in a mercantile and manufacturing country. A country which depended upon agriculture was in a very different position, in that agricultural occupations could be car-
    1912
    ried on in almost any country in which industry and intelligence were to be found. Manufacturers, on the contrary, went to the countries in which they could get the best return upon their capital. It was, therefore, most desirable to lose no opportunity, in these comparatively good times, of reducing their national indebtedness. He hoped, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be discouraged by the criticisms which had been, or might yet be, passed upon his proposals. Rich and prosperous as this country was at the present time, they were heavily handicapped in the markets and the trade competition of the world by the Debt hanging round their neck, and partially crippling their commerce and manufactures. The country stood in a position of great danger in this respect; and he, therefore, hoped that the Government would, avoiding foreign complications, and leaving the taxation for some years at least, in the main, undisturbed, do their utmost to reduce the National Debt.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee longer than a few minutes; but he thought it necessary to reply to some passages in the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). He could not admit that the noble Lord was accurate in stating that the Act of Parliament had been broken in levying the Income Tax last year, as he had alleged, in excess of the rate warranted by the Act. What was done corresponded with the intention of Parliament in passing the Act, with previous precedents, and also with the declaration of the Prime Minister made at the time. The whole question was as to whether the money should have come into the first or the second half of the financial year. There was no doubt whatever that the intention of Parliament was that the Income Tax for last year should be levied at the rate of 6½d. in the pound; but as part of the tax had been levied and raised at a 5d. rate before the Act was passed, it was provided that where it had been so levied and raised the remainder of the tax should be levied at a different rate—namely, 8d. in the pound. This question turned on the construction of a very technical Proviso in the Act of Parliament; but what was done was entirely, as he had said, in accordance

    1913
    with precedent and with the intention of Parliament. And, apart from this, the effect upon the Budget was of a very slight character indeed. With regard to what the noble Lord had said in reference to the scheme of Terminable Annuities, he thought that if the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer lifted from the popular mind any existing illusion in regard to the unalterable character of those Annuities, no damage could be done by dispelling that illusion. These Annuities were a most valuable means for reducing the Debt of the country; and he had no reason to fear the operation of the machinery, though the noble Lord seemed to think it was calculated to cloud the popular apprehension with regard to the broad bases of the scheme. He thought, however, the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in anticipating the Annuities 'coming to an end in the year 1885, and converting them in the way proposed, was matter rather for satisfaction than for regret. The noble Lord, following the line which had been taken by the hon. Member for Glasgow, found fault with the scheme, because he said they were paying off Stock at par, or even above par, while they were on the high road to reducing the rate of interest. He hoped this was so; but it must be observed that if they were on the high road to reducing the interest on a part of the Debt, it was because they were paying off Stock in the way they were. By repeated purchases they enhanced the price of Stock in the market until it had come to be above par. Moreover, what had been done had been done without loss to the nation. If they converted permanent Stock into Terminable Annuities, and paid it off at par, they were paying it to themselves. With regard both to Chancery Funds and the Post Office Savings Bank, they were securing, by a process which involved no loss to the suitors or the depositors in the Savings Bank, an enhancement in the price of Stocks in the market, which would go far to reduce the rate of interest on the Public Debt. The Government had, at all events, not been guilty of that most expensive, inexpedient, and demoralizing system of paying with one hand and borrowing at a dear rate with the other. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Northcote) had had the working of his scheme impeded
    1914
    by recurrent deficits; and he had been forced to incur Debt at the very time he was paying off Debt. The present Government had, at any rate, made the Income of each year pay for the charges which came in course of payment. As far as the increase in the Civil Service Estimates was concerned, he wished to point out that it was largely due to a pressure which was brought upon the Government, and which they found it almost impossible to resist, by Civil servants through Members of that House. Another cause of this increase was to be found in the pressure which representatives of new social classes which were springing up brought to bear, for the purpose of increasing the activity of the Government in certain directions for the protection of a particular class or classes of persons who ought to be able to protect themselves. In his view, the remedy for the state of things complained of was to be found in the display of greater energy, courage, and independent feeling on the part of Members of that House.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), have been of a character likely to do much good, and to open the eyes of many hon. Members, and of the public outside this House, to the fallacies which have been very industriously propagated on the other side of the House. After the speeches of my right hon. and noble Friends, I do not think it necessary to follow, in detail, the ground over which they have travelled. I rise, therefore, simply for the purpose of making a very few general observations on the speech which the Committee heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his Financial Statement on Thursday last. I regret to say that further reflection only confirms me in the reflection which I formed at the time, that the statement was one of an unusual character, and one hardly consistent with the position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing forward and laying before Parliament the Budget for the year. I cannot but think that there was much to justify the remark very commonly made by hon. Members, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was made to be an electioneering speech,

    1915
    such as would be addressed to a popular audience, rather than one to be made on an occasion so solemn and important as when a statement was laid before the House of the financial transactions and prospects of the year. Those who are now engaged, and those who have previously been engaged, in the financial business of the country know the responsibility which attaches to those who are charged with the conduct of the financial business of the country; and they know also how many of the taunts, which may pass current on popular platforms, are not only undeserved, but fail altogether in their aim. It struck me that the right hon. Gentleman, having to get up his case on very short Notice, and having had very few weeks of Office, and being anxious to make a Budget Speech that should be more or less interesting to his audience, rather found his interest in an illegitimate manner by sneers and attacks upon his Predecessors. If there has been rather more tendency in this discussion to take up a Party attitude than might otherwise have been expected, the right hon. Gentleman has himself to thank for it. There is one remark I feel called upon to make. The right hon. Gentleman told us, at the beginning of his address, that he had had very few weeks of Office as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore we could not expect him to be in a position to bring forward a large financial scheme. So far as the right hon. Gentleman himself is concerned, there is, no doubt, great force in that plea; but, so far as the Government is concerned, I do not see any force in it at all. The Government have been in Office three years, and during that time the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has held the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer also. We are all perfectly aware that the enormous amount of business and anxiety falling on the Prime Minister must be such as to render it impossible that he can give that full and careful attention to financial business which can be given when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no other duties; but, then I say if that be so, I think it has not been a wise, or a good, or an advantageous, arrangement, which has in that way put the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer so far in the background as has practically been during the last two or three years. I
    1916
    cannot help saying that, on some grounds, the holding of the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer by the First Lord of the Treasury gives greater authority to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in controlling and curbing the expenditure of the spending Departments, or might do so—that is, if he has time to give to it, he has, of course, greater authority than anybody else; but if he has not time, then the work of controlling the expenditure of the great spending Departments practically falls to the Secretary to the Treasury, who, however excellent an Officer he may be, has not the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the consequence is apt to be that matters which properly fall to the Chancellor of the Exchequer are comparatively neglected. I have felt bound to make these remarks; but I hope I have not made them in an offensive way. I think it right that we should take notice of the nature of the present arrangement; and hope that as we now have a distinct Officer holding the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall have the benefit of the undivided attention which he will be able to bestow upon the duties of that Office. Now, there is another remark I have to make which applies to a great part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He made some defence of his Government, and of Governments generally, as against an attack which he anticipated on the following day from Gentlemen below the Gangway; and in the course of his remarks he more than once referred, in a pointed manner, to what he said were the causes of the Expenditure of the present Government. These causes of Expenditure he described as legacies bequeathed by their Predecessors, or as the war debts of their Predecessors. It is, of course, utterly impossible in this country that you can draw an absolute line at the beginning and end of each Administration, and say—"Here everything ends and hero everything begins." There must be continuity, whether you desire it or not, between the actions or omissions of one Government and the action or abstinence from action of another. But I venture to say that with regard to the charges he made upon his Predecessors as to what he called their War Expenditure, and in treating them in the way he did, the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of very great injustice. Let me

    1917
    take one or two of the items. He spoke of our War Charges; and when he came to particularize them what was the first? The Vote of Credit for £6,000,000, for which we asked Parliament in 1877. In the first place, I deny that, strictly speaking, that can be called War Expenditure at all. It was not expenditure in war, but in measures to prevent war, and it was successful in preventing war. Therefore, I deny that it can properly be called War Expenditure; but I do not desire to raise anything that may be called a quibble upon that. What was it that we required that money for? It was required at a moment when it was necessary that some steps should be taken to uphold the power of this country, and meet possible warlike calls in the East of Europe. At that moment, with the prospect of having to act with great rapidity, we found ourselves in this position—owing to the action of our Predecessors, and the state in which the armaments of the country had been left, we were not in a position, if a sudden demand was made, to use the Forces of this country, and lead them to the seat of war. It was absolutely necessary, if we were to make any use of the Forces at our disposal, that we should have the power of moving them rapidly to any place where they might be required; and it was to obtain that power that the Vote of Credit was asked for, and was granted. The Prime Minister, in speaking the other night on the question of Expenditure, referred, to the experience of the recent Egyptian War, and he took special credit for the promptitude with which the Forces of the country were sent to Egypt. He spoke with absolute truth and great force on the immense importance of promptitude on such occasions as that. Forces which, if sent out at once, can accomplish their object, if delayed for a few weeks, even though tripled or quadrupled, may fail. That was exactly what we felt. We thought it was necessary that there should be at the disposal of the Military and Naval Services of this country the means of rapid and prompt action. The effect of this Vote was that the country, and Europe, were saved from very serious evils that might have befallen them, and the country was able to take a position which has led to results which have generally been acknowledged to be beneficial. But the matter does not rest
    1918
    there. Not only was it in consequence, I will not say of the laches, but of the very economical administration of our Predecessors, that this step was rendered necessary; but our economical Successors had, to a great extent, the benefit of that expenditure. That benefit was not confined to the purpose to which it was immediately applied; but the ships and stores purchased sensibly assisted and strengthened the action of the Government when, the other day, in the Egyptian Campaign, they had occasion to make a sudden demand on our ships and stores. Therefore, it is altogether unjust and misleading to let it be supposed that that was an expenditure of which they were entirely clear. In the original steps which led to the necessity for that expenditure they were greatly concerned; and in the benefit that was reaped from that expenditure they had their full share. That was the first of what the right hon. Gentleman called the war debts of the late Government. There were others which he mentioned; for instance, the war in Afghanistan. I will not raise any discussion on that war. There is a good deal to be said, and I believe a very good case has been, and could be, made out for the action taken on that occasion by the Indian Government; and that, if you go into the origin of matters, a great deal may be said as to past actions which led to that war. I do not, however, desire to raise any question upon that; it is not a point upon which we are particularly anxious to insist. Neither will I say anything about the Zulu War, which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned. That was a war which, I think, may be characterized in the language which the Prime Minister used in Mid Lothian with regard to the Ashantee War—it was a war which we certainly did not desire, but which we had, as it were, forced upon us. Nevertheless, it was forced upon us in our time; and, no doubt, we cannot deny that we may be fairly charged with the expenses of that war; but when we go beyond that, and when the right hon. Gentleman charges upon us the expenses of the Transvaal War, I can use no other language than that it is an outrage upon us. Is it not sufficient that we should have seen our country humiliated, as it has been, and seen all the bloodshed there has been, and should now be seeing

    1919
    our allies deserted, and our name do-graded; but we are told that all this is to be charged against us? I deny altogether the possibility of such a charge being made. I say the present Government is clearly responsible for that war and for what has arisen out of it, as they can be for the improvements which are being made in Piccadilly. They will say, I daresay, that all this has arisen from the occupation and annexation of the Transvaal. You may say every stop in our South African history has been the result of former stops; and you may go back, as the right hon. Gentleman told us the other night, to the time when he was obliged to say to his Successor at the Colonial Office that the problem in South Africa was an insoluble problem; but if we are to believe that the annexation of the Transvaal rendered that war necessary, let us candidly look at the facts. The present Government came into Office when there was no war, they having pronounced against annexation. It was perfectly competent for them, with honour to the country and to themselves, if that was their feeling, then and there to have receded from the position that had been taken up, and they could have accompanied their withdrawal with any safeguards and provisions they thought necessary. But they did not do that. They used language which gave every impression that it was their intention to maintain that position by force of arms. They did not take the opportunity. They had another locus penilentiœ. They might have said this was another part of the proposition for the Confederation of the South African Colonies, and they would not disturb it in the hope that the Confederation might be carried out. But the Confederation scheme broke down, and again it was in their power, still with honour and dignity, to retire from the position in the Transvaal. Of neither of these opportunities did they take advantage; and now we are told that we are responsible, and are to be charged in hard cash with the expenses. I have thought it right to take notice of these matters, because it is too much that we should be day after day, in every quarter of the country, charged with such things as these, which do not belong to us. With regard to the question of expenses generally, undoubtedly every Government ought to be anxious, as far
    1920
    as possible, and consistently with efficiency, to keep the Expenditure of the country within limits. I hope the present Government will be able to do something in the way of keeping down and checking the Expenditure, which requires to be watched in every direction, and kept continually in mind, and within bounds. I do not know that I was altogether satisfied with the line the Government took the other day when this matter was pressed upon them. Apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Speech, was answering, by anticipation, the attack which was to be made upon the Government on the following day; and it may be that, having a little underrated the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he thought he might lure them from the direct scent by giving them his opponents to attack. But those hon. Gentlemen came forward the next day with great directness and vigour. They were not turned from their path; they said many things not pleasant to Gentlemen on this side of the House; but they did not spare Gentlemen on their own side. When the Government found they were as good marksmen as if they wore so many Transvaal Boers, they began to think it was time to look about for a surrender; and what have they done? I will not say they offered a Convention, but they offered the hon. Gentlemen a Committee—or, rather, they offered, if the House pleased, that there should be a Committee or Committees. That was a most liberal offer, and it does great credit to the good nature of the Government; but, at the same time, it seemed to show a want of leading on their part in this matter. It is very like what they have done in regard to some other matters—like their referring the question of the Channel Tunnel, and other matters, to Committees. It did not seem to me that the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were calculated to bear out the severity of his speech. Now, I will pass from that point to another upon which we are brought to book. It is not merely the Expenditure we are told we have incurred, but also the mode in which we endeavoured to meet that Expenditure that we are taken to task for. I cannot altogether make the confession which I suppose I am expected to make. I am not at all disposed to accept all the re-

    1921
    bakes which have been administered to us for the mode in which we provided for that Expenditure. I quite agree that it is desirable, where it can be done consistently with other considerations, in every year to pay off by taxation the full amount of all the charges of that year, and also to make some provision for the reduction of the Debt. But, while I admit that that is, as a rule, desirable, I consider it subject to qualifications and limitations, and to other things which are even more desirable. I cannot accept, and I altogether repudiate, the doctrine which finds favour with the Prime Minister and his Colleagues, and which is very popular when enunciated in this House—namely, that taxation ought to be of a punitive character, or a penal character. What seems to be in their minds is, that if a Government finds itself obliged to enter upon warlike operations, it ought, as a matter of wholesome discipline, to bring those operations to the mind of the people by charging them with the expenses, however heavy they may be, within the same year. There is, no doubt, something very magnanimous in that way of looking at the case; but I myself rather hold this view Assuming that the military operations are necessary and good and right, then I say you ought not to be looking principally to making the mode of meeting the expenses as punitive and disagreeable as possible; but you ought to make it as little disadvantageous to the country as possible. I do not mean that it is to be as easy a matter as possible. I do not mean that you are to meet everything by throwing it upon the Debt, and shuffling out of it in such a way. We did no such thing, and I would not advocate it. When we asked for the £6,000,000 we at once raised taxation. We raised the Income Tax; we raised the Tobacco Duties; but we did not think it right to throw the whole of the burden upon a single year, and so we provided that what was an Expenditure for the benefit of the country should be defrayed in a very reasonable and small number of years—not throwing it upon a future generation, or to any great distance of time, but throwing it over two or three years, with a view to preventing the necessity of putting a burden of stringent taxation on the country at a time when it would have been extremely
    1922
    disadvantageous and injurious to the country to bear it. That may or may not be the right policy, but it is a policy which was openly adopted and argued, and, which I have maintained for many years past, and which I am prepared on all occasions to stand up for as right. I will put it in this way. If you are obliged, whenever a sudden call is made upon you, to raise the whole of the money required at once, you practically have, in the present state of your financial system, no other resource than the Income Tax. In such a case you may have to raise the Income Tax, not by 2d., but by 4d. or 6d., in order to pay off everything at once; but in the following year you would have to take it off again. Now, as practical men, do we not see an enormous inconvenience to the country in thus putting the Income Tax up and down; and do we not see how great an advantage it is, especially at times like those of which I was speaking, when there was great pressure, to endeavour to keep your Income Tax level as steadily as possible? Remember, we put on the Income Tax in such a way that within the few years that were to elapse before the expiration of the Terminable Annuities in 1885, the whole of the expenses would be discharged, and the country would be relieved of them. We are, no doubt, upon that view open to be told that we are taking a wrong financial view. I believe it is the right financial view; but, at all events, it is one which is not open to the sort of charge which the Secretary to the Treasury just now intimated against us—that we were allowing everything to slide, and were not proceeding with any vigour in the matter, but were endeavouring to hope for a surplus in one year to make up the deficiency of another. We had very bad fortune, in some of the complications that came upon us, for which we were not altogether responsible, and also in the great failure that took place in our Revenue, which had been estimated most carefully. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has access to the means of knowing upon what our Estimates were formed—Estimates formed most care-fully, but which, owing to the state of the country, fell £750,000 in a single year. The right hon. Gentleman has had better fortune, and I am quite

    1923
    ready to offer him my good wishes on the results of last year's calculations. He has received something like £1,500,000 or £1,750,000 more than he originally—or his Predecessor—estimated the Revenue at. That is good fortune. I do not suppose he or the Government would claim any merit for that; but it is an instance of good fortune as remarkable as was our bad fortune. After all, these are matters in which we must always be prepared for ups and downs. It is always the case that, make the best Estimate you can, it is impossible to foresee what the result will be. I have made these observations on the charges made by the right hon. Gentleman, for it seemed to me that he was rather intent on drawing the attention of the House away from the actual financial shortcomings of the present Government by throwing them on their Predecessors. I should have been prepared to make some observations on the Expenditure as it stands in their hands, as compared with the Expenditure in former times; but my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) has gone so fully into that matter that I do not think it necessary to do so myself. There is one other matter, or one or two other matters in the Budget on which I should? wish to say a very few words. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster said what occurred to him, and what, I know, is felt in the City with regard to the mode of dealing with the Silver Plate Duty. I will not go into that now; but I cannot help expressing the opinion that more differences will be found in this matter than we have been told of, and I shall not be surprised if the Government find they are obliged to give up their plan. They have made one attempt to deal with the Silver Duty, which was not a success; and I should not be surprised if they had to give up this proposal. I much regretted to hear what was said about the Wine Duties. It seemed to me it was repeating the error which was committed by the Prime Minister when he actually made it one reason for asking for additional taxation that he was engaged in the negotiation of a Treaty with France with a view to the reduction of our Wine Duties, and when he said he hoped to get a reduction of those duties. That all came to nothing; and now we have got again some general language, rather
    1924
    vague, and, at the same time, exciting, with regard to a plan the Government adopt, and which, at the same time, may be produced at the proper time, to set right the scheme of the Wine Duties in a manner that will be satisfactory to Spain and Portugal. I think that language of that sort, when you are not prepared immediately to give effect to your plan, is of an injurious character. It excites trade, and may possibly complicate our relations with other Powers. I regret very much that such language should have been used if no effect is to be given to it. As to another proposal—the reduction in the charge for telegrams—I said on the first night that which I feel bound to say now—that I think, as we were to have that reduction, it was rather hard that we were led, a few days ago, into a vote which we gave entirely on the assurance that we could not afford to make this reduction. Not with any particular pleasure, but from a feeling of duty, I and my Friends near me accompanied the Government into the Lobby in order to maintain the position which they had called on us to take, which was to assist them in protecting the Revenue. If we are to be thrown, over in this way it is not an encouragement to those who desire to support economy. It is not an encouragement to give an unpopular vote for the sake of supporting a Ministry if they throw you over the next day. Then, as to the Railways, I confess I think the Committee would be glad to have some fuller information as to the conditions upon which this boon is to be given to the Companies. I own it seems to me—as it always seemed to me in the old times, when the Railway Companies came to me asking for this relief—that we have a right to demand that some advantages should be given to the State and to the public in return for a concession which, no doubt, raises considerably the value of Railway Stock. I cannot help saying, in passing, that I think this is a matter on which we ought to have a further and fuller explanation. There is another point on which there should be fuller information this evening—namely, as to the proposals for the reduction of the National Debt. I agree with him to a certain extent; but I think that even with regard to that proposal he might have been a little more graceful in the way in which he referred

    1925
    to what had been previously done in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman, however, makes the proposal a very captivating and high-sounding one—to get rid of £170,000,000 of Debt within a limited number of years. That, I know, favourably impressed a great many Gentlemen, who, perhaps, have forgotten that in the year 1875 I made a proposal which eventuated, so far as the paper calculations went, in something like the same result in even higher figures. I induced the House of Commons to take a step which was of a practical character. The right hon. Gentleman does not ask one single 6d. to be expended for the purpose of accomplishing this great feat; but I found myself in a different position. When the late Government undertook to deal with the question, they found that the charge for the interest on the Debt, including the costs of the Terminable Annuities, was £27,200,000, and their first proposal was to raise that amount by additions of taxation, or by abstaining from remissions of taxation, which is the same thing, to £28,000,000, adding an expenditure of £800,000 a year to the charge for the Debt. And then, also, I proposed by Act of Parliament to fix that amount as the amount which should be continuously paid to cover the interest of the Sinking Fund. That was done on the principle that if you have a fixed sum paid every year to cover something more than the interest on the Debt, the something more which is applicable will go to the reduction of principal; and year by year, as the principal is redeemed and the same money is thus applied, a larger proportion of it will go to the redemption of principal, and a smaller proportion to the payment of interest. According to that principle, if you maintain the payment of £28,000,000 a-year, you will find that after a time you extinguish a large portion of that Debt. The right hon. Gentleman says he maintains that principle, whatever doubts the Government had upon it when it was first introduced. I think he, and certainly some some others who sit on the same Bench with him, at that time objected to the proposals, on the ground that it would bind some future Chancellor of the Exchequer when the time came for calling in the great Annuities, and that it was unfair and unbusinesslike for one Party to bind its successor
    1926
    in that way. All our proposal came to was that we bound Parliament, while that Act was in force, to maintain a certain payment in one way or another for the redemption of the Debt. But the right hon. Gentleman binds his Successor or himself much more closely by the Annuities he proposes to set up. I understand that in 1885 there will fall in Terminable Annuities to the amount of £5,130,000, and that upon the cancelling of £70,000,000 of Debt the interest of that £70,000,000, to the amount of about £2,100,000, will be saved. So that there will be, on the one side of the account a saving of Expenditure of £7,230,000; and against that the right hon. Gentleman creates three sets of Annuities, one of £2,674,000, another of £3,600,000, and a third of £700,000, which will bring it to £6,974,000 on the one side of the account as against £7,230,000 on the other side. Is that so?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Well, that is a proposal which is entirely within the lines of the legislation of the year 1875, and a very proper proceeding it is, subject to qualifications, perhaps, as to the amount of the Annuities to be created, to be accepted in principle when the time comes. But I want to know why should it have come this year, and do you thereby gain any advantage over the more simple process of waiting till 1885, when the Annuities fall in, before you deal with the amount? I must say it does not seem very clear to me what is the object to be gained, unless it is to obtain the credit of making an arrangement which really costs the right hon. Gentleman nothing. I will not go into the darker and more mysterious prospect as to the Death Duties, and the Succession Duty on Corporations, and other matters, that are held out to us by the right hon. Gentleman as things which are to be done in another year. Sufficient for the year is the Budget thereof. I can only say that we shall look forward with anxiety to what is in store for us in the future. Undoubtedly, having regard to the serious falling off in the consumption of spirits and fermented liquors, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, it is a moment of some little anxiety as to our financial future; but I adhere to the

    1927
    view which I took some years ago, and which has been quoted by my right hon. Friend, that if there really is such a change in the habits of the people as to largely reduce the consumption of alcohol, there is no fear that either the Revenue, if managed with skill and dexterity, or the country, will suffer from it in the end. The country ought to feel, and will feel, benefit from the great saving that will be brought about. I hope that nothing I have said has given offence to any of those who have heard me. They must remember who threw the first stone. I cannot think it was my duty to pass over without comment such remarks as those of the right hon. Gentleman.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The right hon. Gentleman, and one or two of those who preceded him, have spoken very severely of me, because they said that, in the Statement I made on Thursday last, I introduced matter into my remarks which was unusual—which was not consistent with my position, and which savoured of electioneering; and my right hon. Friend who spoke last went so far as to say that I directed sneers against my opponents. Now, I beg distinctly to state that on that occasion not a single word fell from me which could, by any possibility, be construed into a sneer against anyone. What I did was this. I have referred carefully to the Statement which I made, and I will tell the Committee precisely what I did which seemed to be of so unusual a character in the opinion of some hon. Members. In describing the financial position during the last few years, I alluded to three things—first, to the "legacies," as I called them, of Expenditure which we inherited three years ago, and I described, but certainly not with a sneer, those legacies accurately. I stated carefully, and with the figures before me, what the amount of the Debt paid off was during our three years, the six preceeding years, and during the last 26 years. I gave figures which certainly contained no sneers in them, for they were simply dry matters of fact. I also made a comparison between the Army and Navy Estimates of 1879–80 and of this year, and I endeavoured to give accurately what the differences between those Estimates were, and where were the increases and the economies. This was the only statement
    1928
    which, during the whole of my remarks, I made as to the procedings of the late Administration. It is quite true that I made a comparison between the Expenditure of last year—1882–3—and of the preceding year, so as to show in what respect the Expenditure of last year had been more than the Expenditure of the preceeding years, and how it came to pass, after allowing for this additional Expenditure, the charge on the taxpayer was less last year than the year before. But the year I selected was not one during the Administration of the late Government, and I, therefore, did not refer, either directly or indirectly, to them. I also gave the total Expenditure for the Army and Navy at certain periods since 1857. I think, therefore, that it cannot be said that I instituted any unusual or, indeed, any comparisons at all between the acts of the present Administration and the acts of the past Administration. The three comparisons I made I was bound to make, and they were with regard to the amount of Debt paid off, and the comparative Expenditure on the Army and Navy last year and the four years before. I felt it to be my duty to the whole House, not to any particular Party in the House, that the figures should be stated; and here are the reasons. For some months past, as you know, hundreds of thousands of leaflets have been distributed up and down the country by the National Union of Conservatives, containing supposed figures to prove the great financial crimes of the present Administration. There is not a borough, not a county, in which those figures have not been distributed by thousands, giving in the utmost detail separate items to prove the great financial crimes of the present Administration. I will not trouble the Committee with the manner in which these circulars were distributed. And not only was this the case; but the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), who spoke so well to-night—and we are always glad to hear him, for he speaks with perfect good humour, and his observations are always pointed and interesting to all who hear them—has occupied himself during the past few weeks in circulating these figures here and there, and in bringing them forward as a great accusation against Her Majesty's Government. Well, under those circumstances, it was almost my duty, as Chan-

    1929
    cellor of the Exchequer, not in a long argument, but by a simple recitation of figures, to state what were the real circumstances of the Expenditure of the past few years, and what have been the financial arrangements of the Government during that period as compared with the Expenditure and financial arrangements of previous times. Feeling it to be my duty, I accomplished the task as shortly and as simply as I could; and I am bound to say, from some internal evidence I have had, that I was not only expected to take that line by those who agree with the noble Lord's view, but also by others who, within the last few days, have considered it to be their duty to address their constituents on the subject of the current Government finance. I find, for instance, that the very day before I spoke here on Thursday last, someone was kind enough to send me a newspaper, in which I I noticed that my hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley)—I am not quite sure whether he is in the House now, he was a few minutes ago—when addressing his constituents was asked whether he could give information as to several interesting questions of finance. Specially, they said, they wanted to know what the bill left by the late Government was which was to be defrayed by the Liberal Budget of this year. His answer was the very natural one, that he was afraid that the Liberal Budget for this year was a thing concealed for the moment in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that until the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech—which he hoped he would do on the following night—he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would not be able to answer. It was quite plain that my hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for Sheffield expected on that particular point that a legacy had come from the late Government, and that I should explain what it was—what it consisted of, and how we had paid it, and how we proposed to pay it. And now, because I have done so, and have complied with the anticipation of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, I am told I have done something unusual—something worse than unusual. Really, Sir, I have done nothing but tell the plain truth. It was my duty to put before the House certain facts. Of course, on all questions
    1930
    of this sort we expect to hear arguments and counter-arguments, and no one is surprised to hear from the other side of the House statements put forward to weaken the force of our contention; but that I said anything unusual and unexpected, I think the evidence I have now given to the Committee plainly and conclusively disproves. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken also said that I had taken this course because I had not had sufficient time in the Office I now hold to be able to make any important statements to the House. What I said was this—that I should endeavour to place before the House such statements as I could; and I never conceived that in dealing, for instance, with so interesting a question as the Debt—which it has been my fortune to study both in and out of Office for many years past—I should not be at liberty to make such a proposal as I thought, after full consideration, was a wise one. But what I really said was this—that I did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after being only a few weeks in Office, was in a position to make large Revenue proposals—to propose large changes in dealing with great branches of Revenue. That was what I ventured in my opening words to deprecate, and I told the House some facts as to the Revenue which I was afraid would not be very interesting. But I never imagined that it would be my duty, or that it was incumbent on me, to refrain from dealing with other questions—of making the most ample proposals I thought necessary to the House in regard to other matters. The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of having, in stating these simple matters of fact, committed gross injustice to my Predecessors in charging upon them War Expenditure which, he said, was not War Expenditure at all, because the £6,000,000 which was raised in connection with the contemplated operations in the East of Europe—the Russian scare, or whatever it may be called—was provided to avoid war. Now, the Expenditure which was left to us was only in a small degree arising out of the Vote of Credit. The Expenditure left to us was mainly Expenditure arising out of subsequent operations in South Africa. The whole amount incurred was£l2,000,000, but £4,000,000 was defrayed out of that, leaving £8,100,000. But allowing a deduction

    1931
    by the right hon. Gentleman, the amount left to us was £7,850,000, and it was made up of the war items of 1878, 1879, and 1880. It was, therefore, in the shape in which it came to us, Expenditure for warlike purposes. But the right hon. Gentleman has given a most extraordinary account of the nature of this Expenditure, and of the reasons why he could not defray it. He said it was necessary to incur this outlay because of the insufficient Expenditure incurred by his Predecessors—so insufficient that they were unable to move our Forces without making a special appeal to the House for money to enable them to do so. That was certainly a charge by the right hon. Gentleman against his Predecessors of inadequate protection of the nation, if ever such a charge was brought in this world. But the late Government had been four years in Office then. They had said a great deal about the condition of the Navy, and they had said much as to what they would do when they came into Office. Mr. Ward Hunt, for instance, said a great deal about the state of the Navy, and his determination to take it in hand. We voted them every shilling they asked for; but after they had had four years of Office, and four years to get the Forces we left them into proper condition, the right hon. Gentleman says that the state of things in 1878 was the consequence of what we had left them in 1874; and, not satisfied with that, he also declares that we had in 1882 the benefit of the money spent in 1878, without which we should not have been able to undertake the Egyptian Campaign. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman recollects the answer given to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ash-mead-Bartlett) some short time ago, when he inquired whether the Government had had the advantage of the stores left by the late Government, and the reply was, "Not a pound." The whole amount had been consumed a long time before; and now the right hon. Gentleman brings the charge of our having benefited by them against us again. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Zulu War was a fail-charge, and the Afghan War also. Nobody supposed, however, that the war which was estimated at £7,000,000 would cost £20,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman said also that to charge the Transvaal War on the late Government
    1932
    was an outrage; and how did he prove it? He argued that we might have got over the difficulty of that war if we had agreed to some changes in the Transvaal when the confederation of the Colonies was found finally to fail. Without further inquiry as to that failure, and before consulting those in this country whom it was necessary to consult, we were to suddenly abandon the Transvaal, and in that way avoid the consequences of the war. What would the right hon. Gentleman and his Party have said if we had taken that course? It is possible we may have been too patient in waiting to know more about the state of affairs in the Transvaal, and had we acted in a great hurry it is just possible that war might have been avoided; but treating the matter historically, whether our conduct in regard to the Transvaal was or was not wise, I say distinctly that the war was the consequence of the policy of the late Government, and, as such, I am perfectly justified in saying that the expense of that war was a heritage from the late Government. Then the right hon. Gentleman, passing to an entirely different subject, alluded to the debate on Friday, and said that apparently what I had said on Thursday was directed to my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and that at the end we had to surrender. Nothing of the kind. I said, in reply to a question, that the decision to adopt the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, was arrived at before I spoke. I had been, from the first, anxious that there should be a debate, and I think great public advantage was gained by that debate, and I did something to assist that debate, because those who are impartial will remember that I made a great many references to Expenditure during the last 12 years, which had no connection with the Expenditure of the late Government; and it was my hope that the information I brought before the House then would be useful to the hon. Member for Burnley upon his Motion. But the right hon. Gentleman passed back again to the former question, and discussed at some length the policy which the late Government had adopted in 1879–80 in not meeting the charges for the year with the taxation of the year. He said taxation should not be puni-

    1933
    tive, and that we should not punish the taxpayers; and for that reason he had adopted the policy of deferring charges over a period of years. I remember a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman, and I remember that he gave a description of his financial policy, saying that it was wise to spread Expenditure over a number of years. What did we do? My right hon. Friend, and several hon. Gentlemen who are sitting opposite, said the policy of spreading Expenditure was a dangerous one, because you might have a good year, and then a bad year following, and so the process of spreading would go on. That is exactly what the late Government did. We had the Vote of Credit, and instead of its being paid for the Expenditure was spread; and what followed? We had wars, and the result was that we are now paying, and shall continue to pay until 1885, for four wars which could have been paid off at the time instead of being spread over a long period. I believe that instead of spreading Expenditure over a number of years our duty is to pay it as nearly as possible at the time. It is possible that the whole Expenditure of a year may slightly exceed the Revenue; but our duty is to make that up in the following year. That may be an unpopular proceeding at the time, but it may bring home to the taxpayers what war is; and if it has that effect it does much more good than the popular method of telling them—"Oh! we will spread it, and your burden will be only light, because it will go on for a time." So much for the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman directed against me. I will now give one or two answers to questions which have been addressed to me, and to remark upon certain portions of the Budget. The right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) asked me a question which, coming from a Gentleman who has been at the Treasury, is full of weight. He asked me whether the balances in the Public Departments were greater or less this year than last? I cannot say positively, but no instructions for balances were given; and all I can say is that the balances in London were £50,000 more than they were last year. The right hon. Gentleman also called special attention to the Revenue from tea, and asked me whether I could say that the present steady increase of that Revenue
    1934
    in the last few years, compared with the fall in the Revenue from wine and spirits, was significant? I am afraid it is not so significant as I should wish. He complained rather that I did not make a triple comparison with respect to the Receipts and Estimates of previous years. I find that I did state to the House three sets of figures as nearly as I could.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: My objection was that the figures given to the House were the gross Estimates of the past year, instead of the Estimates of March in one year compared with the Estimates of March in another year.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): If it is important to the Committee I will give those figures; but, after the full information given by the Secretary to the Treasury, I do not think I should be expected to go again into details as to the Expenditure of the last two or three years; and I must say that I could not tell the Committee that a comparison of the gross Expenditure would be any real comparison at all. I have been comparing the net Expenditure, which I think is the only reasonable comparison to make. Then the right hon. Gentleman complains that the Expenditure on ships has been so low that in one year we only built 7,000 tons, and yet we had a number of ironclads under the Vote of Credit in the previous year. That, he says, is why we kept the shipbuilding so low; but that is exactly why our Estimates must rise again. As to the construction of guns, no one could be more anxious than I am to go precisely on the lines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. While I was at the War Office I carried out the wishes of Parliament and the country with regard to the Army, and the result has been an increase of £350,000 a-year on guns. I now come to some questions addressed to me with respect to particular remissions of taxation. With regard to silver and silver plate, it is proposed that it shall be placed in a sort of show-room, where it can be sold before it pays duty. I have noted, and wish to take such advantage as I can from the suggestions made to me on that matter. I will see if it is possible to do something in that direction, and shall be quite open to suggestions from hon. Gentlemen. I must distinctly decline to accept the right hon.

    1935
    Gentleman's warning as to what I said about wine. The words I used were words used with great care, and after consulting the records we possess as to the state of our relations with winegrowing countries. I hope those words will prove true. I referred to the Wine Duties in a way which I know has already been received with approval by those who are interested in the wine negotiations. As to the question of the price of telegrams, in spite of the severe censure I have received for dividing against my hon. Friend and then accepting his Motion, I can only return good for evil, and thank the right hon. Gentleman for supporting me on that occasion. I myself believe that when you have an opinion on a question it is better, instead of being silent and compromising the matter, to fight it out, and if you are beaten to take your beating and make the best of it. Therefore, I did not think it wise that the reduction of the price of telegrams should be forced upon us. What we have done is to set aside the amount which we believe will be incurred if the reduction is made at once, and study the best way of carrying out the reduction. The only other remark I have to make is on what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to our Sinking Fund and National Debt. He said we were not very graceful in the manner in which we developed this plan—because, I suppose, I did not give him sufficient credit for the £28,000,000 he had discharged. My objection to his plan was that it left out of sight the necessity for having Terminable Annuities; and that if, instead of laying down £28,000,000 or £29,000,000, he had arranged Annuities up to that figure, he would have been more likely to stand the fire of the position later on. But that plan having been adopted, I waived my objection. We have accepted it honourably, and intend to carry it out fully. When he asks why we did not wait another two years, all I can say is that when there is a good opportunity of carrying out a plan of that kind it is better to strike the iron while it is hot, than to wait till the last moment, when some accident may happen and prevent our carrying out in 1885 what there was every probability of our being able to carry out in 1883. I conclude by thanking the Committee for the favourable way in
    1936
    which they have received the Budget, which, in its main outlines, has been accepted by the Committee and by the country.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (1.) Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

    £

    s.

    d.

    Tea

    the lb.

    0

    0

    6.

    (2.) Resolved, That there shall be granted and paid to Her Majesty upon a licence or certificate to kill Game to be taken out under the provisions of the Act of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter ninety, for a continuous period of fourteen days to be specified in such licence or certificate, the Duty of ….. One Pound.
    (3.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to Customs and Inland Revenue.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  MOTIONS.

    GLEBE LOAN (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Bill to amend the Glebe Loan (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. TREVELYAN and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 138.]

    TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE ACT, 1882.
    Select Committee appointed, to inquire into the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of "The Annual Turnpike Acts Continuance Act, 1882:"—Lord EDWARD CAVENDISH, Mr. WENTWORTH BEAUMONT, Mr. BEACH, Mr. SALT, Mr. ACLAND, Viscount FOLKESTONE, and Mr. HIBBERT:—Three to be the quorum.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to inquire and report to the House under what conditions, with reference to the rate of interest, expenses of management, maintenance of road, payment of debt, and term of years, or other special arrangements, the Acts of the Trusts mentioned should be continued.
    Ordered, That all Petitions relating to the continuance or discontinuance of Turnpike Trusts be referred to the Committee.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

    CANAL BOATS ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BURT, Bill to amend "The Canal Boats Act, 1877," ordered to be brought in by Mr. BURT, Mr. SAMURL MORLEY, Mr. JOHN CORBSETT, Mr. PELL, and Mr. BUOAD-HURST.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 139.]

    CANALS.
    Select Committee on Canals nominated:—Mr. PEEL, Mr. JOHN CORBETT, Mr. BARNES, Mr. BOLTON, Mr. CARINGTON, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Mr. ISAAC WILSON, Mr. HARCOURT, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Sir EDMUND LECHMERE, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. SHIEL, Mr. HICKS, and Mr. SALT:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLSߞ First Reading—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Explosive Substances (24), and passed.
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*, and passed.

CHANNEL TUNNEL—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
Message to the Commons, in answer to their Message of Thursday last, to inform them that this House has appointed a Committee of five Lords to join with the Committee of the Commons.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE BOERS AND THE NATIVE TRIBES.—QUESTION.
LORD BRABOURNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he was able to confirm or contradict the rumours which were in circulation to the effect that a peace was about to be concluded between the Boers and the Chief Mapoch; and whether, if so, Her Majesty's Government had interfered or remonstrated with the Boers, with the view of obtaining favourable terms for the Chief Mapoch? He had received a letter from an officer of the Cape Mounted Rifles, and he asked permission to read it, because it gave information which their Lordships might be glad to receive. The writer said—
"Let me explain that Mapoch's stronghold is situated between Lydenburg, the base of operations during the Secocoeni War, and Fort Weeber, which was the main camp during the long campaign. Mapoch's country is extensive, and the road through it, by which most of our supplies had to come from Lydenburg, was kept open to transport by Mapoch. The boundary of Mapoch's country joined that of Secocoeni's, and never, during the long war, did we get attacked by Secocoeni's Kaffirs while on Mapoch's country. This says something for the way in which he kept his frontier. Another road, outside his territory, being shorter was tried on one or two occasions, and there we got such a slating that it was not used afterwards except by an occasional despatch rider. I had the pleasure of despatch riding for many months between Lydenburg and the forts, and can, therefore, speak with accuracy. Further, Mapoch furnished Kaffir runners to carry the more heavy portion of the mail from and to Lydenburg, and fed the despatch riders' horses, allowing their masters to rest and sleep at his kraal. All that was known to the Secretary of State was that Mapoch refused to pay taxes. The claim made upon him was, in the opinion of many English, a most unjust one, for although the Boers, prior to the annexation, claimed Mapoch as a subject, still the question could but occur to us on the spot, why, in that case, do Boer farmers living in this district pay taxes to Mapoch?"
The writer then went on to remark that—
"We hear of Mapoch because he is strong enough to make a fight of it; but what of the countless small villages of kraal Kaffirs?"
He next related the cruel manner in which the Boers seize upon and sell the cattle of these poor people under the pretence of collecting taxes; and then he gives the reason why they are so unfairly treated—
"Because, during the war between the Boers and the English, these Kaffirs refused to act as

1735
spies for the Dutch, and offered to fight for the English, if permitted. From first to last, these Kaffirs were thoroughly loyal to the English., from whom they now reap their reward. These same Kaffirs came to me immediately after the surrender of the Transvaal to the Boers, and asked, Baas, we were told distinctly that the Dutch would never again have the country hack, that your great Chiefs had said so, that all we had to do was to he loyal to the English Government who would protect us. We were true to your Government, and we ask you now, Who has lied, Baas?"
THE EARL OF DERBY, in reply, said, the noble Lord seemed to have risen more for the purpose of supplying him with information than of asking him for information from the Government. With regard to the latter part of the statement read by the noble Lord, it seemed rather an argument against the retrocession of the Transvaal two years ago than against anything that had been done by the Government at the present time. He was not aware that it had ever been questioned that Mapoch did render important assistance to the English against the Boers during the war. It was quite true he did; but it was equally true that he then, and he certainly now, declined to consider himself subject to the authority of any Government. At the time when we administered the Transvaal he regarded himself as an independent Chief; and that was a contention which the Transvaal Government had never admitted. He (the Earl of Derby) could not say that, in those circumstances, the Boers were not right in taking steps to enforce what authority they possessed. Mapoch had made no appeal to Her Majesty's Government for support or assistance against the Boers. He was not able either to confirm or to contradict the report which his noble Friend had no doubt seen in Reuter's telegram in regard to the proposed terms of peace. If there was any question of peace between Mapoch and the Boers the Government would, no doubt, receive some information on the subject; but up to the present time they had none.

EAST INDIA—CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (NATIVE JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUBJECTS).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I rise, in pursuance of my Notice, to call attention to the recent action of the Government in India, with special refer-
  1736
  ence to its effect upon the status of the Native communities and upon their relation to the British Power. I have been told that the terms of this Notice are vague, and it is true that they are vague. I will at once explain the reason why. I do not wish to raise by it any single specific issue, or produce any single specific effect, upon the action of the Government in India; nor, apart from the earnest, but I hope fair, criticism of measures and principles that greatly alarm me, do I wish to say anything which should embarrass the noble Marquess now at the head of that Government (the Marquess of Ripon) in a task of which I well know by experience all the difficulties and all the anxieties. But, my Lords, I do wish—and this is all I wish—to give, as gravely and as temperately as I can, timely expression to the fears, by no means peculiar to myself, which have been aroused by what is now passing in India, and to induce, if possible, a consideration of them which will not, I think, be the less serviceable because it leads to no immediate action in this House. Parliament is clearly without the knowledge which could enable it to interfere with advantage in the precise details of Indian legislation, upon which it would, therefore, do well to abstain from expressing positive opinions. But it does not follow from this that Parliament ought, in either House, to be a merely silent and passive spectator of all proceedings on the part of the Government in India. Cases may arise—and the present is, I think, pre-eminently one of them—when it may be most expedient that the authorities in India should be plainly warned-not in a factious, but in a serious and in an honest spirit—by their well-wishers in this country and in this House, against dangers into which they are running, or into which they seem to be running. Now, I am anxious to point out certain dangers of this kind which are, I fear, being incurred, without any adequate appreciation of their magnitude, in the management of by far the greatest of all our national enterprizes. But I can truly say that no one will be more thankful than myself to find that my fears are unfounded, and that the policy undoubtedly indicated by the facts I am about to bring under your notice has not been seriously adopted. This policy may be described in three words. It is the

  1737
  policy of gradually transferring political power in India from European to Native hands. Numerous public declarations have lately been made, and various important measures announced, by the present Government of India, all tending in that direction, and all calculated to create that impression. But in referring to them I shall confine myself to two illustrations. The first is contained in a Resolution published by the Government of India last May; and the second is the proposed alteration in the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, which is now profoundly agitating the whole European portion of the Indian community. I propose to deal with these two matters in the order in which I have mentioned them; and, first, as regards the Resolution of the 18th of May last. The subject of this Resolution is the introduction into India of local self-government, and the point to which I invite attention is not one of detail, but of general principle. I am, and always have been, in favour of the extension of local institutions in India to any degree which is compatible with, and can be made subservient to, the maintenance and support of the British power in that country. Much has been done for many years past in this direction, both by administrative Orders and by Acts of the Indian Legislature; and I am as far from saying that no more can or ought to be done in the same direction as I am from wishing to engage your Lordships in a detailed discussion of this or that particular measure for the purpose. I quite agree that to a great, and perhaps to an increasing extent, our Indian Empire must be governed through the agency of Natives, paid or unpaid, as it was certainly acquired, to a great extent, through the courage and discipline of Native soldiers. It is, however, one thing to admit and even to insist upon this, and it is quite another thing to wish to see the character of the Government of India fundamentally altered. That Government is an absolute Government. It has been so established by Act of Parliament. It is dependent, like all absolute Governments, partly on military force, partly on the support it derives from the acquiescence of a docile population which has daily experience of its benefits. Such, I believe, it must continue to be if it is to exist at all, and I look with the greatest apprehension
  1738
  on any attempts to change its nature. I listen with the deepest regret to all language used by the Head of it in his official character calculated to lead the Native populations of India to suppose that such a change is contemplated by the ruling Power. I must now ask leave to read two of the leading paragraphs of the Resolution in question. It contains many other expressions to the same purpose; but these two set in the clearest and strongest light the sentiment which pervades the whole. Paragraph 5 of that Resolution says—
  "At the outset the Governor General in Council must explain that in advocating the extension of local self-government and the adoption of this principle in the management of many local affairs he does not suppose that the work will be, in the first instance, better done than if it remained in the sole hands of the Government district officers. It is not primarily with a view to improvement in administration that this measure is put forward and supported. It is chiefly desirable as an instrument of popular political education. His Excellency in Council has himself no doubt that, as local knowledge and interest are brought to bear more fully upon local administration, improved efficiency will, in fact, follow. But at starting there will, doubtless, be many failures calculated to discourage exaggerated hopes, and even in somes cases to cast apparent discredit upon the principle of self-government itself."
  Paragraph 6 says—
  "It is not uncommonly asserted that the people of this country are themselves entirely indifferent to the principle of self-government; that they take but little interest in public matters; and that they prefer to have such affairs managed for them by Government officers. The Governor General in Council does not attach much value to this theory. It represents, no doubt, the point of view which commends itself to many active and well-intentioned district officers; and the people of India are, there can be equally no doubt, remarkably tolerant of existing facts. But as education advances, there is rapidly growing up all over the country an intelligent class of public-spirited men, whom it is not only bad policy, but sheer waste of power, to fail to utilize."
  And, at the conclusion of this paragraph, it is added that—
  "The Governor General in Council has no hesitation in stating his conviction that the only reasonable plan for the Government is to induce the people themselves to undertake, as far as may be, the management of their own affairs, and to develop or create, if need be, a capacity for self-help in regard to all matters that have not, for Imperial reasons, to be retained in the hands of the representatives of Government."
  Other parts of the Resolution contain a series of directions as to the spirit in which these principles are to be applied.

  1739
  All over India a network of Local Boards is to be established, with a large preponderance of non-official members. They are to be constituted, wherever it is possible, by popular election. Honorary distinctions are to be given to their members, and the district officers of the Government are, as a rule, to be excluded from them; though these officers are to exercise some sort of external control by way of previous sanction in some cases, and by interference "in the event of gross and continued neglect of any important duty." Now, the first and most important point to be noticed here is the nature of the ground taken up. The measure is not intended to improve the administration of local affairs. An admission that this will not be its first effect, at all events, is made in the most pointed way. Its object is something quite different and much broader. "It is chiefly desirable as an instrument of political education." There may be failures; but—
  "If the officers of Government only set themselves, as the Governor General in Council believes they will, to foster sedulously the small beginnings of independent political life; if they accept loyally and as their own the policy of the Government; and if they come to realize that the system really opens to them a fairer field for the exercise of administrative tact and directive energy than the more autocratic system which it supersedes, then"—
  Well, what then? One is led to expect the announcement of some sort of Millennium; but no such thing—"then it may be hoped that the period of failures will be short"—surely a rather meagre conclusion to draw from so laboured an introduction. My Lords, every line of this passage suggests to my mind topics so vast—I may say so momentous—that it would be impossible, in the limited time in which I should be justified in claiming your Lordships' attention, to do justice to any one of them. But I must ask you to remember that this is part of a document addressed by one of the most powerful Governments in the world to, perhaps, 200,000,000 persons accustomed to look up to their Rulers with a reverence and submission of which we in Europe have almost lost the tradition, and to attach an almost superstitious importance to all that is deliberately said to them by the immediate Representative of their Empress. What suggestions must these words convey to every one of those 200,000,000 who can
  1740
  read them, or get them explained to him by others? A change is to be made affecting every one of their daily relations with the ruling Power. The old system to which they are accustomed is to be superseded. A new system, of which they have no experience, is to be established. Business is not to be done as well as formerly; it is, indeed, to be done a good deal worse; but this is in order to attain a great end—an end so great as to be even more important than good administration. And what is that object? "Political and popular education"—not school education, but "political and popular education." "The small beginnings of independent political life" are to be sedulously cherished, and the officers of the Government are instructed to make every effort to "induce the people themselves to undertake the management of their own affairs." I do not press the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India to tell us specifically what these utterances actually mean. I hope they may have been merely well-meant, though ill-judged, rhetoric. But there can be no doubt as to what they will be taken to mean all over India by men of all races and of all classes. There they will be universally understood as the expression of a wish, on the part of the Government of India, to establish throughout India, as early as possible, a system of representative Native government, and as a solemn charge to all Indian officials, from the very highest to the very lowest, to throw themselves heart and soul into this project under pain of the severe displeasure of the Governor General in Council. Now, my Lords, it is, of course, essential that the Viceroy of India should be able not only to give orders, but to compel obedience to his orders; but a Viceroy's power over the prospects and cherished objects of all the authorities under him is so great that he holds most significant and almost menacing language when he tells them officially that they are expected to adopt his views as their own, and that the independent opinion of men necessarily his superiors in Indian experience is regarded by him only as "a theory to which he attaches no great importance." But what gives special significance to this injunction is that the object of it is here officially stated in so many words to be "that the people may be induced to undertake, as far as may

  1741
  be, the management of their own affairs." Will not this be read as meaning—nay, ought it not to be read as meaning—"We, the English Government in India, feel ourselves in a false position, from which we wish to extricate ourselves as quickly as possible? We must, no doubt, hold Office for a certain time in order to train up you Natives to take our places; but this is our only object. As soon as it is accomplished—and the sooner the better—we shall retire and leave India to be governed by whatever Body her Native Representative Assemblies may see fit to entrust with the task of government." This is the plain meaning of the announcement; and, as a matter of fact, it is, I find, the meaning generally, and not unnaturally, attributed to it by the Native Press in India. It may not be, and I trust it has not been, the intention as well as the meaning of it. But in that case the language I have quoted was surely unfortunate and imprudent, for it is calculated to convey a totally false impression as to the real position and purpose of the ruling Power, and to excite expectations incapable of being realized. On the other hand, if the words I have quoted were really and seriously used with this, or with anything like this intention, I apprehend that in so using them the noble Marquess now at the head of the Government of India has so far exceeded the powers conferred upon him by his high Office—an Office in which I do not doubt that he is animated by the most benevolent dispositions and the best possible intentions. But, my Lords, if it is determined to establish popular representative government in India instead of the government already established there by numerous Acts of Parliament, this step ought to be taken only by Parliament itself, on a full consideration of the momentous questions involved in it. It is far too high a matter to be left to the discretion of any Viceroy in Council for the time being. My Lords, of Parliamentary government in general I will say only one thing. I think that we ought to be on our guard against making an idol of it by inferring from its undoubted services to our own country its invariable fitness for all others. Even among ourselves it is not quite an unmixed good. Party is inseparable from it, and Party warfare is not favourable to deliberate political wisdom. On the other hand,
  1742
  of absolute government, as it exists in India, I will also say but one thing. This form of government is as well fitted for India as Parliamentary government is fitted for England, and for the same reasons. It is the natural result of causes which may be traced far back in the history of the country where it exists. It is the form of government to which the Natives of that country have always been accustomed, which they expect, understand, and submit to without the least reluctance, so long as it is well administered; and it has, in fact, been, and is being, administered with as much attention to the interests of those whom it affects, as much purity, and as much success, as any government in the world. If you will but desist from attempting, in the name of political education, to excite against it the dissatisfaction of its Native subjects, it has also as good a chance, if not a better chance, of permanence as any other government in the world. This Resolution observes, with truth, that the Natives of India are "remarkably tolerant of existing facts;" and of all the existing facts, of which they are remarkably tolerant, the British Government, as it stands, is one of the most prominent, the most important, and the most beneficent. Why, then, should the British Government go out of its way to stimulate and stir up—I may almost say to irritate and worry—its Indian subjects into a less tolerant attitude towards it—an attitude of chronic discontent and dissatisfaction, which they would not feel if left alone, and then to embody the discontent thus artificially created in institutions which they do not understand or wish for? I am sorry to say it; but really the only intelligible motive for so extraordinary a policy is a wish to introduce into India by artificial means that restless, dissatisfied, and intolerant spirit, which here in England we call Radicalism. The Resolution says, no doubt, that—
  "As education advances, there is rapidly growing up all over the country an intelligent class of public-spirited men, whom it is not only bad policy, but sheer waste of power, not to utilize."
  But, my Lords, the proper way to utilize this intelligent class is not to withdraw them from British supervision, whilst, at the same time, assigning to them unaccustomed tasks in which you actually expect them, to make administrative

  1743
  failures, but to employ them in posts where, under official control and guidance, they would themselves form a recognized and honourable part of the established Government. No one who really knows and understands them can doubt that they would infinitely prefer positions of trust and profit in the service of the existing Government to unofficial positions outside of it which would impose upon them much labour and could bring them no profit, unless they yielded to the temptations which would certainly beset them of jobbing and taking bribes. My Lords, I am well aware of the commonplaces about the educational influence of local institutions; but I own I attach as little value to that theory as the Governor General in Council attaches to the opinion of his district officers. I do not believe that any people in the world ever were, or ever will or can be, educated in this manner. The opinion that in England parish vestries have been the great instruments of national political education I believe to be utterly unfounded. Whatever may have been the germs from which, in remote antiquity, the first developments were made towards national unity, all that we now understand by local government was the direct work of Parliament—work performed not for the purpose of politically educating the country, but of getting some part of its business done in the way most congenial to its settled character and habits. Many, indeed, of our local institutions—as, for instance, Municipal Corporations and School Boards—have been simply transfers of large portions of political power from one set of institutions to another. They were the results of the political education which the country had received from the course of events; they were not the authors, they were not the instruments, of that education. The political education given by a Government to the people governed by it must always depend on what the one has to teach and the other to learn. The British Government in India is teaching, and has to teach, a great many other lessons to the people of India than how to raise rates and spend them on objects of local importance. It has to teach, and they have to learn, the very first principles of civilization, order, and prosperity. Great progress has been made in teaching these elementary lessons; and perhaps
  1744
  the greatest, though the least sanguinary, of all physical, intellectual, moral, and religious revolutions ever known in the world has been set going in India by the influence of the English Government. European knowledge is cutting the Native religions into pieces. European law is giving to Native morals a totally new standard. European science is altering nearly every circumstance of Native life; and the peace and order which has been introduced throughout the whole of that vast territory has enormously increased both the population and its means of subsistence. In one point of view, nothing can be better calculated to excite just pride and satisfaction, and no more impressive answer can be given to those who lament or condemn our relations with India than by pointing to these beneficial results of it. But, on the other hand, they suggest most serious reflections. Peace has its miseries and its anxieties no less than war; and when we think of the exuberant population of India, of its vast trade growing with almost fabulous rapidity, of the moral and religious revolution in progress there, I, for one, am obliged to believe that the problems lying at no great distance ahead of us are as much more formidable than those which have been solved by our Predecessors, as a social revolution is more formidable than a foreign war. How are these huge multitudes to be employed, and protected from famine and disease, from themselves, and their own proclivities? These questions are already dimly shaping themselves on the horizon of our power. I do not view the solution of them with fear. I do not doubt that the qualities and resources which have dealt successfully with the simpler and rougher problems of the past will, if they are exerted with undiminished sincerity and vigour, be found able to cope with the more subtle difficulties of the future. But of two things I am firmly convinced. One is that bad administration, oven if by good luck it lasts only for a short time, is an evil so overwhelming and gigantic that no speculative advantages—such as political education—can for a moment be set in the balance against it. For what does bad administration mean in India? It means distress and disease and disorder; famine, cholera, and small-pox; the decay of civilization and the revival

  1745
  of barbarism. The other thing of which I am at least equally sure is that in India good administration must come from above. It cannot come from below. The Indian peasant perfectly understands that the Government must keep an Army and establish Courts of Justice; but he does not understand that sanitation and education and road-making are also administrative duties. This is quite a new, and it is even an unintelligible, idea to him. Entrust to his uncontrolled initiative the doing of such duties, and they will remain undone. In India all improvements of this kind have originated with the Government, and for all such purposes the district officers, practically, are the Government. Hence it is, my Lords, that the one condition which in India makes good administration possible, the articulus stantis aid cadentis imperii, is the full maintenance of the unimpaired power and authority of the district officers. These officers are both the eyes and the hands of the Government. In time of famine, for instance, the efficiency, the resource, the presence of mind, of a district magistrate may be literally a matter of life or death to thousands upon thousands of human beings. I speak of what I know by any own experience, and have seen with my own eyes. No body of men in the world ever conferred more splendid benefits upon any community than the district officers have conferred upon India. Unless I am utterly mistaken, the part which they will have to play in a time not far distant will be even more important than it has hitherto been. But now, in the most transitional, and, perhaps, the most critical period of our Indian Empire, we learn that the direct action of these officers is to be laid aside. The old "autocratic system"—that is to say, the system they have worked with such magnificent success—is to be superseded. A new system, which excludes their initiative and diminishes their authority, is to be established in its place. I can expect no one who has not personal knowledge of India altogether to understand how ominous these words appear to me. This new system, which is to supersede the direct authority of the district officers, and educate the Natives of India to do eventually without British supervision at all, how is it to be worked? In Bengal, we are told,
  1746
  it is to be worked by the Bengalee peasants, and that smaller class of Bengalees who are described as the educated men. Mr. Macaulay, the Government Secretary entrusted with the exposition of the new policy in the local Legislature, has officially described these two classes. The Bengalee peasant, he says, takes a keen interest in the affairs of his own village and its immediate neighbourhood, but knows and cares nothing about politics or representation, and has no idea of giving his time to the management of the affairs of other people. The educated Bengalees, a class which, as we know, consists of journalists and pleaders, have "political enthusiasm," the precise nature of which is not specifically explained, though I must say that such specimens of it as I have seen in the Native Press or elsewhere do not lead me to admire or trust in. Mr. Macaulay, however, explains that—
  "What we require is to establish a touch between the educated member of the Local Board with political enthusiasm, but without much local knowledge or interest, and the member of the Village Union Committee, with local knowledge and interest, but without political enthusiasm."
  I hope I do not lay myself open to the charge of cynical scepticism when I avow that I have no faith at all in either of the two elements which are here indicated as the sources of political education for the people of Bengal. To ascribe to a number of superficially educated Bengalee pleaders or journalists that sort of political enthusiasm which would prompt them to devote themselves, as intellectual missionaries, to the profitless task of leading selfish, ignorant, narrow-minded peasants to recognize by degrees the working of general principles in the detailed administration of the revenues of pounds and ferries, is simply dull romance. It is not, in the most remote degree, founded upon fact. But the most serious thing is the effect which the new system, as it is called, will have upon the district officers. They are told that—?
  "The system really opens to them a field fitter for the exercise of administrative tact and directive energy than the more autocratic system which it supersedes."
  What does that mean? As matters stand, the magistrates of a district put the law in force through the whole of it; and, having the power to keep their

  1747
  district in proper order, they are held responsible for its being out of order. If, instead of giving the orders which the present law enables them to give, they are to be confined to "administrative tact and directive energy," in other words—as relates to a great part of their functions—to wheedling these independent Local Boards and preaching political sermons to them—they will be placed in an entirely new position, and their work will suffer accordingly. The vigorous magistrate will continually find himself thwarted by the prejudices of ignorant, narrow-minded peasants, set against him by the political enthusiasm of the showy and shallow flatterers, who are to be so carefully stirred into activity. The inefficient magistrates will be only too happy to excuse their own shortcomings by the system of divided responsibility now to be introduced. If cholera prevails, if education languishes, if proper precautions are not taken against famine, an admirable excuse will always be available—it is all the fault of the Local Boards. You will be told that the district officer was so sedulously engaged in fostering the small beginnings of popular political life, and inducing the Natives of his district to take the administration of its affairs into their own hands, that he had neither the time, nor the power, nor the permission to manage those affairs himself. What is worse, the excuse will not merely be always ready, it will be true in fact. The real belief of probably the vast mass of the Indian peasantry is that life is only just worth living, and not by any means worth taking much trouble about; that the evils sent by the unseen Powers ought to be borne with resignation, and that it is certainly extremely troublesome, and probably rather impious, to try to remove them. It must never be forgotten that in India the Government is the improving agency, and its district officers the local channels and instruments of its improving influence. In whatever degree the district officers are reduced from power to persuasion, to that extent there will be impediment, delay, and paralysis in the application of all the means by which the lives of the enormous multitudes called into existence by our policy can be made tolerably comfortable. My Lords, I will say no more about this Resolution, except that there are some statements in it with
  1748
  which I am happy to say I feel able to agree. I fully assent to what is said in it as to the arduous nature of the duties of the district officers, and the importance of relieving them from part of their work. Local institutions, worked by Natives, are no novelty in India; and so long as they are auxiliary to the authority of the district officers, and not a substitute for it, I see no harm in their extension. I now pass to another subject closely related to the one I have thus far been considering. I refer to the Bill for the amendment of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. It has already excited so much discussion, both in India and in England, that I need not go into the details of it at length. I will only remind your Lordships of the leading points. The Company's Courts, so-called, were originally instituted for the administration of criminal justice among the Natives of India according to Native, and especially according to Mahomedan, law. The King's Courts were established for the administration of criminal justice according to the law of England in the Presidency towns. Their jurisdiction covered all persons and cases in which Europeans were accused throughout the Presidencies where they are situated. The Criminal Law itself was made uniform for all persons by the Penal Code of 1861. The Criminal Courts continued to be, and still are, different according to the race of the accused person. At one time it was considered, and no doubt was, a great scandal, that practical impunity was secured to European criminals in many parts of the country by the circumstance that no Courts had jurisdiction over them except those of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. To some extent this grievance was remedied by giving criminal jurisdiction over Europeans to the High Court at Agra, now removed to Allahabad, and to the Chief Court of the Punjab. A larger step in the same direction was taken in 1872, upon the re-enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Jurisdiction over Europeans for all minor offences was then given to Sessions Judges and magistrates of the first class being themselves European British subjects. This change was not objected to by the European population. It worked perfectly well for 10 years; and when, a year ago—namely, in March, 1882—the Code of Criminal

  1749
  Procedure was re-enacted for the third time, with certain alterations suggested by experience, no alteration was made in this part of its provisions, though they had been the subject of a good deal of discussion in 1872. There was literally only one person who had any observations to make upon the subject. This was a Bengal civilian, Mr. Gupta. He suggested that jurisdiction over European British subjects ought no longer to be confined to Judges and magistrates who were themselves European British subjects. My honourable and esteemed friend, Sir Ashley Eden, then Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, transmitted this note to the Government of India with an expression of his own agreement with it. But he did not do this till the Code of Criminal Procedure had passed; and as he is not alleged to have made any suggestion on the subject while the Code was under consideration, though his opinion must then, according to the usual course of Indian legislation, have been asked and given, the Government of India might well, I think, have let the matter rest. My Lords, having mentioned the name of Sir Ashley Eden, I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise at the imputation apparently cast upon that able and experienced officer, in a recent speech by Lord Ripon, of having gratuitously and carelessly thrust upon the Government of India unavoidable obligations in regard to this measure, without warning them of its probable unpopularity. It is undoubtedly true that Sir Ashley Eden recommended the careful consideration of Mr. Gupta's suggestion "on some future occasion, if a fitting opportunity occurred." But I believe, in the first place, that his action, so far from being gratuitous, was the result of communications previously made to him on behalf of the Government itself; and, in the next place, that he had the best reasons for believing Lord Ripon to be fully aware of the extreme delicacy of interference with the privileges of Europeans in India; while, on the other hand, he had no reason whatever to suppose that the Government of India would deem it either fitting or opportune to push forward this Bill immediately on the back of those other and more sweeping measures to which I have already referred, and which had already laid in the mind
  1750
  of the European community long trains of suspicion, alarm, and resentment, peculiarly inflammable by such a spark as this. But, be that as it may, my Lords, it is surely an unusual course for a Viceroy of India to throw the blame of unpopular measures upon his subordinates, however distinguished those subordinates may be. It seems, however, that the Government of India, for reasons of their own, resolved to take the matter up, not on some future and more fitting occasion, but at once. And they submitted it for opinion to the various Local Governments, with a strong indication of their own views. The Local Governments thus appealed to acquiesced; and to the introduction of the Bill the assent of the Secretary of State for India was then given, also in strong terms—terms which I think unfortunate, apart from the merits of the question, because they may, perhaps, be regarded as putting some difficulty in the way of the noble Earl the present Secretary of State, when he has to consider the degree of importance to be attached to the feelings since then expressed by the European community upon the subject. My Lords, I admit that if tills subject is looked at exclusively from the official point of view, and with reference to no feelings but those of the Native civilians, the proposed change would, so far as it goes, be a proper one. It would render the functions of the judicial officers in India slightly more symmetrical in one particular. It would, no doubt, be satisfactory to a natural feeling on the part of Mr. Gupta, and perhaps of some few other persons similarly situated. From this point of view, the only objection to the change is that it strains at a gnat and leaves camels to be swallowed. If it is an anomaly that Mr. Gupta should not be able to try a European at all, it is surely as great, perhaps even a greater anomaly, that he will not be able to sentence him to more than a year's imprisonment, when he can sentence a Native to death. But to look solely at the feelings of the Judge in matters of this sort is, I think, to look at them from a totally wrong point of view. The important person in such matters is not the Judge, but the prisoner. My Lords, in these days, when everything is liable to alteration, it may possibly happen that some day your

  1751
  Lordships' right to be tried by your Peers may, perhaps, be challenged. But when that happens—if it ever does happen—I venture to think that those who might then object to that right as an anomaly would scarcely be wise in resting their case upon a picture of one of the Judges of the High Court, writhing under the humiliation of being forbidden to try a Peer of the Realm for picking a pocket. Yet this, or something like this, is the sole reason given for a measure which has produced in India a state of feeling among the European population of which I do not think the importance can be overrated. I am bound to say that on one point the importance of the measure itself does not appear to mo overrated by those who are now protesting against it. I am not surprised that Englishmen and women, living in a country where false charges, supported by artful perjury, are the commonest means of annoyance, intimidation, and extortion, and where they occupy a position necessarily isolated and necessarily invidious, should attach importance to a trial before a Judge who knows their language and understands their feelings and sentiments—an importance which may appear excessive to those who have not their experience on the subject. But that is not the point of view from which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention to this unhappy measure, which, for no adequate reason, has given bitter and deep offence to the whole European community in India, and especially to the unofficial portion of it. What has made the most impression on my mind is this—that in whatever degree it may be proved that the present complaints of the Europeans are extravagant and excessive, in that same degree does it follow that the violence of their language and the depth of their feelings must be ascribed to some other and more far-reaching cause. And, my Lords. I fear that cause is clearly indicated in the strength of their impression—an impression which has become at last irresistible—that the new policy illustrated by the Resolution I have already discussed—a policy by which for the last 12 months the present Government of India has been endeavouring to alter fundamentally the political status of the Native population, and their relation both to the ruling Power and the ruling race
  1752
  —is a policy unfavourable to their interest as Europeans, indifferent to their sentiments, and calculated to mortify, to humiliate, and to depress them. My Lords, India is the last place in the world where matters of feeling, or questions affecting the privileges and sentiments of races, ought to be disregarded. To order cartridges to be greased may be a little thing; but we know by experience it may have considerable con-sequences. The non-official Europeans in India are, as a class, inferior in importance only to the official and military Europeans. The only way of solving the prodigious problems to which I have alluded as arising from the immense growth of population consequent upon peace and good administration is by the growth of commerce and agriculture—that is to say, by the application of capital to enterprise and industry. The capital with which this is to be done is almost entirely English. The persons by whom its application is actually managed are also almost entirely English. For the Government of India to be on bad terms with, or to be distrusted by, the unofficial Europeans in India is like a quarrel in business between partners whose interests are identical, and who are bound together by the strongest ties of self-preservation. Unwelcome as the fact may be to certain theorists, it is a fact which asserts itself at every turn that the men who are now rapidly enriching India by the cultivation of tea, coffee, indigo, and cinchona, by the manufacture of jute, the working of mines, and, the construction of railroads, are not the equals, but, the superiors, of the races benefited by their capital, and governed by their countrymen. And it is another fact of equal importance that this inequality is recognized by the Natives of India as a just, a natural, and a necessary inequality. In that land of castes, divided races, and conflicting creeds, the dominant caste of White men excites, as such, probably less opposition and active dislike than any other. The political equality, which is the aim and the boast of European democracy, is not only unknown to the Natives of India, but it is repugnant to their feelings, and condemned by their religious authorities. The whole organization of Native Indian life is based on inequality. Our own Government of India is also founded on a wise recognition of this inevit-

  1753
  able inequality. If you now place it on any other foundation, or administer it by any other principle, you may be certain that, as soon as your new system begins to bear fruit, the unofficial Europeans will leave India, and take their capital out of the country. Indeed, I noticed the other day a letter in a well-known paper, The Pall Mall Gazette, a letter from a gentleman who, disliking the indigo planters, expressed his hope that this Bill may become law, because he feels sure that in that case it will have the effect of driving them out of Bengal. The guarantee which our countrymen in India demand, and legitimately demand, for safety of their lives, their property, and their personal liberty is, that the country should be ruled by English people, and they themselves be governed by English law, administered in the main by English Judges. My Lords, I cannot too earnestly urge the impolicy, the folly, the danger—I might say the madness—of needlessly provoking the public discussion of these bitter and burning topics. Although, as the Governor General observes, the Natives of India are singularly tolerant of existing facts, they are quite capable of being lashed into fury against the Europeans; and although the Europeans are, as a rule, more or less indifferent to measures which do not immediately and directly affect their position, they are, as the present agitation shows, passionately, if not in every respect reasonably, attached to their privileges. Surely, in these circumstances, the removal of grievances which nobody feels, or anomalies which nobody perceives, is not a fit occupation for Indian statesmen. I do not say that the state of things I have described is an ideal one. There is much in it that is invidious. But it is the state of things you have to deal with in India; and the only practical question is—"What is the best way of dealing with it?" My Lords, there are two ways. One of them is to endeavour to place the Europeans and Natives on a footing of absolute equality by abolishing all laws and privileges that recognize any distinction between them. The other is to take things as they are in good part. To punish any proved act of injustice, and redress any serious practical grievance, if such a grievance can be shown to exist. But to avoid all language, and abstain from all action, likely to force
  1754
  into prominence inequalities you cannot remove. The first of these two policies appears to me unwise to an extent I will not venture to characterize. The second is, I think, commended to our common sense by the mere statement of it. And if I am asked what I should admit to be a serious practical grievance, I point at once to the grievance which, in this very matter, was removed by the Indian legislation of 1872, without any resentment on the part of those who were affected by the removal of it. Again, if you ask me what I mean by a proved act of injustice, I will take an illustration from my own recollections. I remember, my Lords, that the first instance in which I myself incurred considerable unpopularity in India was a case in which it appeared to me that the provisions of the law as they stood had not been employed as fully as they might have been, and as I thought they ought to have been, for the punishment of a European who had caused the death of a Native. But, except in very rare instances of this kind, when there is, at least, a strong primâ facie ground for believing that there has been a miscarriage of justice, I think you cannot too carefully avoid occasions of provoking, in India, the discussion of topics that tend to inflame the passions of separate races. And the fault I do impute to the present Government of India is that it has, on numerous occasions, used language, and that, in all matters affecting the future relations between Natives and Europeans, it has adopted and proclaimed with great parade a policy, certain soon or late to provoke, as it has provoked, and is still provoking, a most passionate discussion of such topics; a discussion in which I am afraid much has already been said on both sides that will not soon be forgotten upon either. My Lords, one last word upon this question of anomalies, and I have done. Anomalies are inseparable from our presence in India. When you have made all the alterations now proposed in the privileges and the rights of Europeans in India, their position there in relation to judicial matters will still be as anomalous as it is in China and Japan, in Turkey and Egypt. But if anyone believes that our position in. India was acquired, and can only be maintained, by disregard of the elementary principles of morals, to such a

  1755
  person all our Indian institutions must, no doubt, present themselves in the light of revolting anomalies. To those who hold this view of our great Indian enterprize I have only one word to say—Leave it alone. A system which you regard as founded upon fraud and maintained by oppression can never come to good in your hands. You are attempting an impossible task. Imitate the honourable example of Mr. Bright, who once, I believe, declined the Secretaryship of State for India, because he could not place himself at the head of a military enterprize. I do not suppose, and I do not wish to imply, that views of this kind, which are openly avowed by Mr. Bright, but which could not be openly avowed with impunity by persons actually engaged in the government of India, are now being secretly harboured by such persons, with the intention of carrying them out in disguise, through measures introduced as inaugurations of a great political principle, and then explained away as mere removals of insignificant administrative anomalies. But, for that very reason, I am convinced that the authors of this unfortunate Bill cannot be indifferent to the alarm, amounting to panic, which it has caused. The measure involves no general principle which can be generally applied; it is not intended to redress any serious grievances; nor does it remove any anomaly deserving of serious notice. It is officially described as a small measure. But, my Lords, the alarm and resentment provoked by it are by no means small. If it was not intended to provoke them, is it worth while to prolong and increase them? Would it not be the part of wise and firm men—men strong and just enough to acknowledge a venial error—were the authors of this Bill now to say frankly—"Since you, the un-official Europeans, attach such unexpected importance to a privilege not considered important by us, it shall never be said that the Government of India preferred the introduction of Party spirit into India, and the stirring up of bitter feelings between its Native and European subjects, to the abandonment of a measure not intended to produce any great results, and the reconsideration of a policy which seems likely to produce results very much greater and graver than any which were originally contemplated in the adoption of it?"
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not in the slightest degree complain of the noble Earl, either on account of the tone in which he has treated an important subject, or for having taken an opportunity to bring it before the House. I entirely agree with him as to the great importance of our giving our attention to the policy that is being pursued in India, and also as to the great interest of the topics to which attention has been called; and I most fully agree with him as to the necessity for caution in dealing with that vast Empire. All I wish is that the task of defending the policy of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) was in the hands of one who had had greater experience of Indian affairs, and who could speak with greater authority than I can command. I shall have to trespass for some little time upon your Lordships' attention, because it will be my duty to answer the noble Earl in some detail. I will refer to the two subjects of local self-government and the Criminal Procedure Bill. "With regard to the measure for local self-government in India, I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl, fastening upon three or four words of this Resolution in May last of the Government of India, has conjured up to his own view, and that of your Lordships, a bugbear which does not exist. The noble Earl has told us that he apprehends that the Government of India contemplates the introduction of representative and Parliamentary institutions into India. If any such thing were contemplated, I should not be surprised at the noble Earl's alarm. But if the Government of India contemplated taking steps for the introduction of such a change, they would not think of doing so without first obtaining the consent of Her Majesty's Government and of Parliament. I may say, however, that no such intention exists in the mind of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon). Look at the words in the Resolution which have so frightened the noble Earl. The Resolution says that the measure is chiefly desirable as "an instrument of political education;" and the officers of the Government are bade "to foster sedulously the small beginnings of independent political life." In one sense every local institution which is to be worked by itself is a beginning of political life.

  1757
  Everything, however small, is political, and in that sense it would be impossible to give the Natives any share whatever n government without making a beginning, as regards them, of political local life. But the assertion that this is but a step to pave the way to the introduction of Parliamentary institutions is one that I most emphatically deny, and is a construction of his words which my noble Friend never intended them to bear. I now come to what I perfectly admit is a most important policy, as shadowed forth in this Resolution. I hold that in dealing with an Empire such as India, perhaps one of the most important principles to be observed is not suddenly to introduce some entirely new policy, but to build carefully upon old foundations; and if I can show, as I think I can, that the Viceroy in this policy is merely following upon the steps of his Predecessors, and building upon foundations they have laid, I can somewhat calm the fears of the noble Earl. Let me first refer to the previous movements in this direction. I have here an interesting extract from a Resolution passed by the Government presided over by Lord Lawrence, who I do not suppose will be considered a person likely to take any rash or ill-considered views. On the 31st of August, 1864, the Resolution from which the following extract is taken was passed by the Government of India:—
  "One of the greatest advantages of this mode of providing for the police of towns is that it renders necessary the creation of a Municipality and a municipal fund; and although the application of this fund is obligatory to the extent of the cost of the police, beyond that limit its appropriation to Conservancy improvement, education, &c, is at the discretion of the municipal authorities. Great public benefit is to be expected from the firm establishment of a system of municipal administration in India. Neither the Central Government nor the Local Governments are capable of providing either the funds or the executive agency for making the improvements of various kinds in all the cities and towns of India which are demanded by the rapidly developing wealth of the country. The people of India are quite capable of administering their own affairs. The municipal feeling is deeply rooted in them. The village communities, each of which is a little republic, are the most abiding of Indian institutions. Holding the position we do in India, every view of duty and policy should induce us to leave as much as possible of the business of the country to be done by the people."
  This Resolution is signed by Lord Law-
  1758
  rence, a man who, above all others, was distinguished for his knowledge of India and of the Indian Races; and does the noble Earl suppose that he would have been guilty of the extreme indiscretion now attributed to Lord Ripon's Resolution of publishing to the people of India that they were quite capable of governing themselves? But it was Lord Lawrence's opinion that it was our duty to leave as much as possible of the business of the country to be done by the people themselves. This policy is also in accordance with the view taken by Lord William Bentinck and Lord Auckland, and Lord Canning attempted to give effect to it in 1861 and 1862. Their words go just as far as the Resolution of the present Viceroy, which has been so much censured. Then I have another quotation to make which contains the opinions of a Viceroy whom, I am sure, the noble Earl must look upon with respect. Lord Mayo, who was one of the best Governor Generals who ever ruled India, and who, when establishing the system of allotting to the Provincial Government certain sums from the Imperial Revenue, took the first steps which led to the foundation of the existing system of municipal administration, said, in a despatch written on December 14, 1870, that the operation of the Resolution passed by his Government would afford opportunities for the development of self-government, and for strengthening municipal institutions, and associating Europeans and Natives in the administration of affairs. He added that he was aware of the difficulties of carrying such a scheme into operation, and was prepared for partial failures; but the object being "the instruction of many people and races in a good system of administration," he felt that the Local Governments and all their subordinates would endeavour to enlist the sympathies and co-operation of many classes which had hitherto taken no part in the administration of public affairs. Anyone who will read the Resolution of the present Viceroy, and compare it with the Resolutions of Lord Lawrence and Lord Mayo, will find that the Resolution of my noble Friend, as regards principle, is but a repetition of the principle already recognized by those Viceroys. I do not understand how anyone can shut his eyes to the fact that the policy which my noble Friend is pursuing is the

  1759
  old settled policy of many Viceroys, and that the principles which he has brought forward are the principles which have been entertained by the Government of India for many years. But my noble Friend, in acting as he has done, has acted not merely with the view of educating the people of India. There was also a practical reason for the course he took. Bear in mind these words which occur in his Resolution—
  "The task of administration is yearly becoming more onerous as the country progresses in civilization and material prosperity. The annual Reports of every Government tell of an ever-increasing burden laid upon the shoulders of the local officers. The cry is everywhere for increased establishments. The universal complaint in all Departments is that of overwork. Under these circumstances, it becomes imperatively necessary to look around for some means of relief; and the Governor General in Council has no hesitation in stating his conviction that the only reasonable plan is to induce the people themselves to undertake, as far as may be, the management of their own affairs."
  The noble Earl said a great deal about the loss of position which, according to him, will be suffered by the district officers; but the very essence of the present scheme is to give assistance to these officers, and there is no intention to set them aside. I entirely agree that the district officers should have very considerable responsibility still as to the local work of their districts. It will be their duty to review the action of the Local Bodies, to check them when they are going wrong, and to insist that the work should be done. It would, of course, be a very unwise policy to determine to hand over the whole local administration of the country to Bodies which are yet untried. The noble Earl said that the Marquess of Ripon attached no importance to the value of the opinion of the local officers. But, as a matter of fact, nothing could have exceeded the caution of my noble Friend the Governor General; and, as the noble Earl will see, when the Papers which he apparently could not wait for are made public, his first step was to discuss the proposed change with the local officers themselves. Among the well-known names of Indian officials who have stated their approval of the principle of the proposal are Sir Ashley Eden; Mr. Rivers Thompson; Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; Sir Charles Aitchison, of the Punjaub; Sir Alfred Lyall, of the North-West Provinces; Mr.
  1760
  Morris, the Administrator of the Central Provinces; and Mr. Bernard, the Chief Commissioner of Burmah. Here are six of the most distinguished men in India, who, though, no doubt, holding different opinions as to the details of the measure, have yet pledged themselves to the principle of an extension of local government. But the noble Earl himself has said to-day that he is in favour of a cautious and wise extension of local institutions, provided that they are co-operative and auxiliary, and not independent of the Government. We propose nothing further. It is precisely what we are doing. To show that the Government in India is conscious of the necessity of keeping in view the circumstances of each district, I may state that instructions are given that each particular Province and district shall have such institutions as are best adapted to its condition. The noble Earl's view seemed to be that there are two conflicting and contending policies—the one the Democratic, the other the Autocratic—and he seems to think we mean to set aside the Autocratic form. If he means that the Government should be entirely Autocratic, I think that would be a3 unsafe in India as elsewhere. I repeat that there is no intention to change the Government of India into a Representative Government. The policy which is being pursued is one, the principle of which has been followed for years past, of admitting the Natives more and mere to a share in the administration of the affairs of their country. Ever since the Mutiny, successive Governments, successive Secretaries of State, and successive Viceroys have introduced more and more the Natives of India into the management, not only of small village affairs, but of offices and very important functions of all kinds in the Empire. Surely you cannot build from the top and have no basis. Are you to bring together the most able men at the summit of your Government and make no use whatever of those humbler members of the community who might assist you? I am, I may assure your Lordships, in favour of cautious advance, whether in this or in any other matter; and I believe the Marquess of Ripon also to contemplate a wise and cautious advance upon the lines already laid down. I believe he is taking this step at a moment when a fresh step is demanded;

  1761
  and I feel confident he will obtain the support of Parliament in the course he is pursuing, as he will receive the cordial and continual support of Her Majesty's Government. The next subject to which the noble Earl referred was the Criminal Procedure Bill; and I think it is to be lamented that this measure has evoked such a strong feeling among the European population in India—fears which I think are unfounded. To explain this matter it is necessary to state what the nature of the measure is, because there has certainly been a great deal of exaggeration connected with it. The peculiarity of this Bill is that it gives jurisdiction to Natives, and I am not to be understood as forgetting that in the observations I am about to make; but what I desire to show your Lordships is that the Government of India have not suddenly adopted some now course, but that they have really been acting in accordance with views held by previous Governments. Tour Lordships are, no doubt, aware that there was a time when Europeans in both civil and criminal matters were subject only to the High Courts; but in 1836, for the first time, they were made subject, as regards civil actions, to the Companies' Courts. I mention this, because it bears on the matter so far as excitement on the part of the Europeans is concerned. Your Lordships must be familiar with the account of what then took place in the well-known Life of Lord Macaulay. The alarm and excitement were then great; it was said that perjury and false accusation would prevail; that no man's property would be safe, and that it would be impossible for Europeans to remain in the country. However, the Act was passed; the Courts have ever since administered justice in civil causes to Europeans as well as Natives, and no one now thinks of complaining. As long since as 1849, when Lord Dalhousie was Governor General, a Bill was brought forward to entirely abolish the exemption of Europeans from the criminal jurisdiction of magistrates in the Provinces, and it did not provide that all the magistrates exercising jurisdiction over Europeans should be Europeans. But it did not pass, because, on its being sent home, it was suggested that it would be well to postpone for a time such a considerable change. The next step was,
  1762
  in 1856, to refer the whole subject of Indian Law to a Commission to consider the reform of judicial establishments in India. That Commission consisted of Lord Romilly, Sir John Jervis, Sir Edward Ryan, Sir John Macleod, Mr. Cameron, and Mr. T. E. Ellis; and they reported as follows:—
  "We assume that the special privileges now enjoyed by British subjects are to be abolished; and we, therefore, make no provision for such exceptional cases. In the system which we propose, all classes of the community will be equally amenable to the Criminal Courts of the country."
  In consequence of that Report a Bill was introduced by Lord Canning, in 1857, bringing Europeans under the jurisdiction of the magistrates, including Native magistrates; but, the Mutiny shortly after breaking out, it was not proceeded with. But this question of the reform of Indian Law was resumed as soon as quiet was restored. In 1860 the Indian Penal Code was passed. In 1870 the Indian Law Commissioners made another Report. At this time they were Lord Romilly, Lord Sherbrooke, Sir John Macleod, Sir Edward Ryan, Sir Robert Lush, and Sir W. M. James. They reported—
  "We concur with the Commission which prepared the Code in thinking it desirable that a general and uniform system of Criminal Procedure should be applied to persons of all classes without distinction, and we regret that greater progress has not been made in giving effect to this principle."
  A measure was introduced in accordance with that Report; but it was amended, and the exemption of Europeans from the jurisdiction of Native magistrates was maintained. In 1872 the matter came up again. The Criminal Procedure Act was then brought under consideration, and this particular point was discussed at the time. It is a remarkable fact that, there being a division of opinion in the Indian Council on the subject, it was resolved by a narrow majority that Europeans should not be under the jurisdiction of Natives. The Members voting in the minority were Lord Napier of Merchistoun, then acting as Viceroy, Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir George Campbell, Sir Richard Temple, and Sir Barrow Ellis, who moved the Amendment. I should mention that in 1857, also, as now again, there was great agitation, among the Europeans against the proposal; and that agitation showed itself in a similar way in 1865, when it was

  1763
  proposed that Grand Juries should be abolished in the Presidential towns. The alarm of the Europeans then was extreme; and to show your Lordships how frightened they were I will read to you a short extract from a Circular issued by a landowners' association at that time. The Circular said—
  "On the abolition of Grand Juries there would be no protection to gentlemen from being accused of crimes of which they were entirely innocent whenever the local magistrate was supposed to be inclined to believe in such charges, and of being put upon their trial whenever a credulous or prejudiced magistrate would be found."
  At a public meeting held in Calcutta very strong language was used. One speaker regarded the abolition of Grand Juries as—
  "The thin end of the wedge, which threatened to bring down and destroy the whole fabric of our Constitution."
  I wish to speak with every respect of the Europeans in India; but on every occasion when any diminution of their privileges has been proposed they have been in the same state of excitement; and what is far more important is this—that the consequences which they so confidently predicted on these various occasions must follow from the changes made have not followed in any one case. That re-assures me, and makes me hope that when this Bill passes into law it will prove as innocuous as have the previous measures to which I have alluded. Your Lordships are aware that the policy of opening the Civil Service to Natives has been carried out to a large extent recently. It has long been desired that the intention expressed by Her Majesty in Her Proclamation should not be made a mere intention, but should be carried into effect to a considerable extent; but it is obvious, for various reasons, that the number of the Natives entering the Service of India through the ordinary channel of competition in England must be very small. In order to counteract that, rules were made, by which it was provided that one-fifth of the number appointed by the Secretary of State to the Covenanted Service of India shall every year be appointed by the Viceroy from among the Natives of India; the consequence of which is that at least one-sixth of the number yearly appointed are, under these rules, which were made under the Government of the noble Earl (the Earl of Lytton), necessarily Natives.
  1764
  Now, it is quite obvious that, under these circumstances, we must look forward to an increasing number of Natives holding high posts in India, and to see every year more and more of them appointed. I wish upon this subject to quote one authority, and one only. In the despatch of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), dated the 7th of November, 1878, he says—
  "The class of appointments for which Natives will be most eminently fitted is, no doubt, the judicial; but in exceptional cases I can well understand that a Native of high executive capacity may be usefully selected for an administrative office."
  It is quite clear, then, that these rules specially contemplated the extension of judicial offices to the Natives of India; and, therefore, as one-sixth every year of the officers of the Civil Service are to be Natives of India, besides those who obtain entrance to it through the examination here, a considerable number of the magistrates must eventually be Natives. Now, I ask your Lordships whether the Government of India were so very rash in considering whether or not the time had come to make a change, when throughout the country there will, before long, be a very considerable number of Natives holding judicial offices? I know it may be said—Why cause this great disturbance about so small a matter? But I think it proves the wisdom of the Government, and is a proof of their caution. What they said was—"We see what is going on; we know what must take place; let us, therefore, try this experiment in good time." Well, my Lords, that is one of the practical reasons which have weighed with my noble Friend in dealing with this subject. The Viceroy took the very proper course of consulting various Local Governments; and, upon the whole, there was a very decided consensus of opinion on their part that the change was desirable. They differed somewhat in detail; but in principle they were agreed. Lord Ripon has, I believe, been supposed in some quarters to have endeavoured unduly to shift the responsibility for what has occurred on others, and specially on Sir Ashley Eden, the late Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; but the Viceroy's argument amounted only to this—"If I am blamed for not having foreseen that this storm would arise, at all events other gentle-

  1765
  men well acquainted with the people of India made the same mistake." That is not an unfair argument; in fact, he says—"I simply swim in the same boat with Sir Ashley Eden;" and, my Lords, I think Sir Ashley Eden may fairly be quoted in favour of the measure. My noble Friend omitted to read the last paragraph of the letter of the 20th of March, 1882, from the Secretary to the Government of Bengal. Now, it is as follows:—
  "For these reasons, Sir Ashley Eden is of opinion that the time has now arrived when all Native members of the Covenanted Civil Service should be relieved of such restrictions of their powers as are imposed on them by chap. 33 of the new Criminal Code of Procedure, or when, at least, Native covenanted civilians, who have attained the position of district magistrate or Sessions Judge, should have intrusted to them full powers over all classes, whether European or Native, within their jurisdictions."
  What the Bill does is this—it gives four classes of magistrates jurisdiction over Europeans in the Provinces, such magistrates being possibly Natives. The first are the Sessions Judges, who are officers holding sessions in each large district. The next are the district magistrates, who are also officers of great importance. The others are the Assistant Commissioners in non-regulation Provinces, and the cantonment magistrates being magistrates of the first class. As regards the Sessions Judges and district magistrates, there is a general consensus of opinion that they ought to be intrusted with this jurisdiction, though it has not been so with regard to the other two. Now, then, let us see the amount of their jurisdiction. The Sessions Judge, as regards a European, may sentence him to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or inflict a fine, or both. The magistrate may inflict imprisonment not exceeding three months, or fine up to 1,000 rupees, or both. This being the limitation of their powers, what are the safeguards? In the first place, there is an appeal to the Sessions Court from the magistrates, and there is an appeal from that to the High Court. By the Criminal Procedure Code, 1882, the High Court has practically unlimited power of interference with magistrates' decisions—(1) Section 435 of the Code authorizes the High Court to—
  "Call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court;"
  1766
  (2) Section 437 gives the High Court power, on examining any record, under Section 437, to order a further inquiry to be made; (3) Section 439 enables the High Court—
  "In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself, or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge,"
  to exercise any of the usual powers of a Court of Appeal—namely, (a) it may reverse the finding and sentence; (b) it may alter the finding, maintaining the sentence; (c) it may, with or without altering the finding, reduce the sentence; or (d) it may alter the nature of the sentence. A further special provision authorizes the High Court to enhance the sentence. Then, consider how the whole circumstances of the country are now changed. In introducing these reforms we are only adapting ourselves to the times. Formerly things might be done in the mofussil, as it is called, which the Government did not hear of for many weeks. Now we have railways and telegraphs, and a Press which certainly is not deficient in criticizing official acts; and with all this machinery it is impossible to suppose that anything would be done by a Native Judge which would not shortly be reported to the Government if it aroused the jealousy of the European portion of the population. Such a state of things affords the best guarantee that justice will be done. But I do not say that this alone would justify us in conferring jurisdiction on the Natives. The question is, whether they will exercise that jurisdiction wisely? Now, Natives have exercised jurisdiction over Europeans for many years past, and have sat in the highest Courts of Justice. The present Advocate General to the Government of India is an Armenian Native of India; and a short time ago a Brahmin, whose name I will not venture to read to the House, was standing counsel to the Government, his duty being to conduct prosecutions against Europeans. The noble Earl said, no doubt, that this Criminal Procedure Bill must be read by the light of the local government policy; and he thought that the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the Natives would not otherwise have attracted so great an amount of attention. This may be so; there may be in the mind of the Europeans a feeling that

  1767
  there is too great a desire on the part of the authorities to extend the privileges of the Natives. It is a question, and a high question, of policy; and it is natural that the Europeans should be jealous. But has it not been our intention, for many years past, to give the Natives a higher position; and does not that necessarily, to some extent, lessen the privileges of the Europeans? I do not hesitate to say that this is a necessity arising from our policy. I believe it to be for the ultimate safety and security that there should be a gradual introduction of Natives into our Service; and I should dread to see this country lay down the rule that we would abide by a high autocratic policy, ruling by the sword alone, rather than by conciliating and obtaining the good wishes of the Natives. That is the spirit in which the Viceroy of India has addressed himself to these questions; and I believe it is a policy which will not diminish, but strengthen, our rule in India.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: The noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships has shown, by his able speech, that there was no occasion to apologize for the short period of his acquaintance with Indian affairs; but I think the noble Earl, in diminishing the scope and effect of the policy of the Government of India, has taken a different view of it from that taken by the Governor General himself in the first instance. As a despatch of mine has been adverted to, I will not take first the question of local self-government, but begin with the measure upon which the noble Earl spoke last. I have ever been, and am, most anxious that considerations of Party should not enter into Indian discussions, but that every subject connected with India should be kept clear from Party lines, and should be treated upon its own merits. I think also, as I have expressed in the despatch, that we should avail ourselves of all the knowledge of those educated Natives of India, and of their services in places adapted to them. I have always, since the time when I first took an interest in Indian affairs, been of the opinion of Sir Stafford Northcote, Canning, and many others—that it was an essential part of our system to employ the most trustworthy Natives, and employ them largely; and, indeed, it would be impossible that we should be able to govern a people of
  1768
  200,000,000 without so employing them, and I am just as anxious now as I was at the date of the despatch referred to that it should be so. But with reference to Executive appointments, the noble Earl will see that I laid down a different rule. While asserting their fitness for judicial work, I distinctly said I was not prepared to extend those to them, because difficulties might be raised by their coming into collision, as superiors, with Europeans. Sir Ashley Eden has been cited here, and in India, as a strong advocate for Mr. Ilbert's Bill; but he limited himself to the Covenanted Civil servants, in recommending the appointment of Natives who had risen to a certain position to the posts in question; he was leaving India, and left the Government there the duty of testing unofficial opinion, and selecting a suitable time. But with regard to the measure itself, a peculiar course seems to have been taken by the Governor General in the recent discussion upon it. Everyone seemed disposed to rid himself of the responsibility of its initiation, and there was a general inclination on the part of everyone present to relieve himself of the odium of having been the person to introduce it. Mr. Ilbert, the Legal Adviser to the Government, said it was most unlikely that he, who had so recently come to India, and necessarily knew so little of those affected, should have proposed the measure; and the Governor General did not seem to like the notion that he had suggested it; or, from a generous disinterestedness, threw upon Sir Ashley Eden the suggestion, and upon Sir Alfred Lyall the formation, of this great, but by no means popular, measure. And here I may point out certain disadvantages of a system which sends out a legal Member of Council, fresh from England, naturally desirous to connect his name with new legislation, though I am far from the opinion that such Members have not done most efficient service. Still, the means being by, to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done; while the Governor General may too often have reason to say, like King John to Hubert—"Hads't not thou been by, this measure ne'er had come into my mind." In this way the Legal Adviser, inexperienced and new, is the instrument of hastily bringing in measures which are as hastily withdrawn. But we are told

  1769
  that the step taken is logical and inevitable. If we are to govern India according to the principles of logic, and take one step after another in accordance with them, the Europeans may well show that alarm which the noble Earl seems to make so light of. Suppose we were to apply those principles to the Army or the Executive Government of India, and say that because the Natives have filled adequately subordinate posts, therefore we are to imply that they are qualified to act independently of the Government without being controlled by them. That is the whole matter at issue. You are proposing to give them a jurisdiction which they never had hitherto, and a position which, if founded on the ground of logical progress, will carry them very much further than this Bill. In all the resolutions of the Indian Government, I find the statement that the time has arrived for these changes; and I want to know what there is to show that the time has arrived when every one of these disturbing measures is to be put into execution, and why? According to the admissions of the Government of India, there was no demand for this Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill on the part of the people, or on the part of anyone, but Mr. Gupta. Therefore you have this—that after 10 years of deliberate sanction to this particular exemption, and submission to it by both Europeans and Natives, when there was not a single grievance alleged, and nothing to show that everything was not working as it should be, you take this time for stirring up this question and raising these animosities. Indeed, the authorities put before us give but a faint idea of the kind of feeling in India on this subject. Those who have seen the letters from every part of India must be convinced how real and genuine is the feeling against the Bill. Nor is it doubtful that it has elements of permanence which former agitations had not. Look at the language of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal upon this point, and add to it the large subscription, it is said of £30,000, to give duration to the opposition of the European community. Mr. Rivers Thompson gives the solemn warning—
  "I should be wanting in my duty, if I failed to press upon the Government that I hope that in their abstention from any personal contact with public feeling, they will not allow them-
  1770
  selves to think that the calm, which I trust will supervene, is any indication of apathy or indifference. It may be the opinion of the Government that this is a case of temporary excitement which will soon be over. Still, I feel that in my whole experience of India this is unmistakably the strongest and most united and unanimous expression of public discontent which I have ever known. I believe that the last stage will be worse than the first; and if there is any thought that this is a transient ebullition of feeling, I believe that view will in the end be proved to be wrong. I therefore wish that the Bill may be withdrawn."
  Far be it from mo to say that there are not a great number of Natives who would do their duty conscientiously. I only say that we are here attempting to deal with two separate peoples, who have different objects, different sentiments, and different modes of life, caste, rank, treatment and estimate of women, exemption from appearance in Court, and other circumstances separating Indian life from English. Those who are in favour of the Bill may say what they will; but when we find that an association has been formed by Europeans, and £30,000 subscribed for carrying on resistance to this measure, there can be no doubt that there is considerable feeling in the matter. And I regret to hear the noble Earl say that he hoped the Bill would be carried. It is a most serious matter when we come to consider that the Europeans in the Provinces will have to submit to men whom they will not look upon with respect, or consider qualified to govern them. In 1872, when this measure was considered, it was deliberately rejected by the Governor in Council. If you say that the time has now come for making these changes, why was it not considered the time then? There was then the possibility and probability of Native Covenanted Civil servants attaining an high position. Sir Fitzjames Stephen has thought the measure so dangerous that he has conceived it to be his duty to write a letter, which most of your Lordships have probably seen, to show how strongly he feels that they were right in 1872, and that there was no occasion to vary from that position. As to the anomaly which exists under the present system, why our whole position in India is, to a certain extent, an anomaly. You cannot rectify that. It exists, to a great degree, in the force of character in the dominant race; in a great degree in the peculiarly submissive and trusting disposition of a great

  1771
  portion of the Natives. They are ready to hang on to the stronger race, and do not want to be deprived of their services. I will venture to say that, in many instances, a Native would be better pleased to be tried by an English than by a Native Judge; and, further, that a Mahomedan, going before a Hindoo Judge, would consider himself far more liable to be dealt with unjustly than if he were going before an English one. Then the noble Earl said that there was great authority on his side. There was one most remarkable fact which must be admitted, and that was that the Local Governments were in favour of the Bill. Why, the reasons for that were two—first, because the Bill had been pressed upon them by the Governor General, whose strong opinions in favour of it were known throughout India; and, secondly, because they did not foresee what was going to happen. Nay, nothing is so astonishing as the ignorance shown by them of non-official feeling. And yet the Marquess of Ripon himself did not appear to be unaware of what was likely to happen, although he seemed to have expected that Sir Ashley Eden should have prophetically warned him. In a speech made months before, on Mr. Stokes' Bill, the noble Marquess said—
  "I should he very glad, if it were possible, to place the law in regard to every person in the country, not only on the same footing, for that the Bill, I hope, will practically do, but to embody it in the very same language, whether it relates to Europeans or Natives. But no one who recollects the history of questions of this kind in this country can doubt that to deal with that special chapter which regulates the procedure with regard to Europeans and Americans would be to deal with very difficult and very delicate questions. Cases have arisen in which the Government has been beaten in the Legislative Council. We all know the agitation which has taken place, and the strong excitement which has arisen in past times on questions of this sort. They are not to be entered on without very full consideration."
  But they were entered upon without consideration, and without seeking from the non-official Europeans in the country any information as to their feelings. There was not a single person who seemed to have felt their pulse at all; they appeared to have been unconscious that the non-official Europeans had any feeling at all on the matter, until it flashed on them like a spark of gunpowder. Had it been foreseen, in all probability there
  1772
  was not one of those officials who thought the time had come, but would have said that, "although we may approve of the principle of the Bill, this is not the time nor the occasion for introducing it." But if the hour had not come, the man had, and the Government of unrest has stirred conflicting elements which it will take long to appease. I know that my noble Friend says there have been Reports on this subject, and in favour of it; they were considered in 1872 by a competent Council. I have not heard from the noble Earl that they were considered carefully and deliberately by the Council at home. It would certainly have been desirable that the opinions of those who were opposed to it should have been known.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to say there was no dissentient.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: It is quite absurd to say that an administrative difficulty has arisen which requires the adoption of this change. The administration difficulty has been started; but it would be quite competent and easy for any Government to provide sufficient English Judges to meet all the demands—which, I am happy to say, are not great—in regard to the trial of English criminals. It is not because they are guilty of crime that Europeans dread this measure, but because, being innocent, they dread to be accused before Judges who do not understand their feelings. An English man or Englishwoman may have been misunderstood by, or supposed to have wronged, some Native who procures false evidence, or resorts to forgeries, too common, alas! in many parts of India; and the injury done him or her cannot be redressed by telling them to appeal to a distant Court. But if the failures of justice—and you contemplate them—should come out, and there should be signs of partiality or injustice from want of appreciation of English habit, feeling, or action on the part of these Judges, the outcry which you despise now will swell to much greater dimensions. With respect to Mr. Ilbert's Bill, the Government, with the fact that a storm had arisen in India against it, and with the difficulties they will find in giving effect to it, are, as I understood the noble Earl, determined to carry it out. I hope that may not be so. I hope

  1773
  that the Government, with its hands so full of questions so momentous—such as the disturbance of the Bengal Settlement, the question connected with local self-government, and other matters of infinite importance which the Government have stirred in India—will be content with these subjects, and will not add to them changes calculated to excite the feelings of a class which has been most obedient to the law, and which has given no just cause of complaint since this matter was finally settled in 1872. Is there no danger that the excitement may extend to the question of Natives trying Europeans in the Presidency towns, where that system has been acquiesced in, under special circumstances, and without the idea that it was to be a premise for the logical conclusion of this Bill and of other measures which may spring from it? As to the Local Self-Government Bill, the measure is one which should be well discussed, and put prominently before the country, so that it may know what is going on. We are, unfortunately, without full Papers on the subject; and, therefore, we are at a loss to know what has taken place in regard to it in various parts of India. But I believe I am correct in saying that, with respect to this scheme of local self-government, there is hardly a district officer in India who has not emphatically condemned it. Among those who are with the people, and who have been acting with them in such local self-government as at present exists, there are, I believe, but very few who give to this Bill their approbation in its main provisions and its entirety. Everybody will admit that there should be an improvement in local government in India; that you should take steps, as far as you can, to improve the Natives, and make them more acquainted with the necessity of sanitation, vaccination, and so on, and to call out their faculties in assisting those who administer the local affairs of the country. But this measure of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) is founded on a totally different principle. The object of the noble Marquess's measure is, wherever there are local governing committees to take from them the European and English representation, and leave them purely Native Bodies, and make them ultimately elective. The object is to eliminate the official European ele-
  1774
  ment. On that single point I venture to say that there is hardly a man in India, or in this country, who has been connected with the active Administration, who is not of opinion that it would throw the country into barbarism if they went as far as was proposed by the noble Marquess. The missive went forth from the noble Marquess that there was to be throughout all India a network of local self-government for the purpose of political and popular education, with a design to elevate a people who must be dependent into independent political life. We are not without some experience on this subject. One authority, Mr. Lee Warner, cited, when favourable, on any point by the Government of India, has said that if this withdrawal of official control, as contemplated in the Resolution of May 18, is literally carried out, the political future of the country will be sacrificed, and the principal work of the last 20 years will be undone. That I believe. Sir Salar Jung, the great Native Administrator, whose death we all regret, did this very thing; he gave over the local administration to Local Bodies for seven years. The time came to an end very shortly before his death; and what was the result? The good roads that were given into their custody were gone; everything was in confusion; and all the works they had destroyed by their negligence and inefficiency had to be recommenced. Then you propose that to these people shall be given sanitation. In the large towns, where there is more watchfulness, the people can act in masses if the managing bodies fail in their duty, and there is a Press and men of intelligence to enforce the law; but even the sanitary arrangements of the Municipality of Calcutta itself are far from satisfactory, and I have seen statements that a large proportion of sewage added to the hydrant water would make the mixture served out in the municipal tanks. This was said by the Government analyst. Are you to give over vaccination to Hindoo peasants? They would rather resort to the goddess of small-pox than to the matter which Dr. Jenner introduced, and sanitation generally is alien to their habits. There is no question that the object you have in view would be frustrated by taking away the centre of authority; he must be the person to take the initiative; but now this power

  1775
  is to be taken away from him. The noble Marquess is afraid of dissension within the Boards. He speaks of the effect produced by the absence from them of the pressure of official control. It is well known how hard it is to spur these Boards into action. The noble Earl has quoted Sir Ashley Eden and Sir Alfred Lyall; but they have expressed opinions totally opposed to his views. As to the former, I am authorized to say that his statement was that under no circumstances would it do to have Local Boards of which the district officer was not Chairman; and as to the latter, I feel sure that I remember seeing, though I cannot lay my hand on the Paper, that the non-officials required were not to be found in his Province. Do you suppose that there is such unanimity of sentiment throughout India that the Local Boards, without European officials, can check that hostility of castes and sects which divides the various factions and parties, and which only the presence of European officials prevents breaking out into full force? Do you suppose these Boards will act with cordiality and unanimity? It is one of the noble Marquess's fundamental principles that there should be small districts. How can you expect to find in these small districts education and intelligence, or persons capable of managing these Local Boards? Do you suppose the local gentry will care to meet on these Boards the traders to whom, perhaps, they are in debt; that high caste and low caste, Hindoo and Mahomedan, will fraternize and act together for the benefit of the whole; that no jobbing for parties and individuals will prevail? It is admitted by one of the most eminent officials you have that such proposals, if carried out, will throw back India 20 years. Then, where is the money to come from? The other day I was told of a large district, the revenue of which amounted to 2½ lakhs. I have calculated that if that district were divided into small districts of 10 square miles, and the 2½lakhs were divided among those districts, the share for each district would be 300 rupees; 300 rupees to spend for sanitation, water, and other works! What would be the result? These works, which are necessary in India, are inter-dependent; but if you have a separate Board for each small district with no official President,
  1776
  with a civil engineer, who is never to take the initiative—for that is expressly laid down in the Resolution—how could those works be properly managed? The noble Earl says that care must be taken to instruct these Boards in drainage operations. That must be done by the Government engineer; but he is to be the servant of one Board or of many, and how is he to solve the problem of serving many masters? It is important in India to give an exhibition of power, and there is no power so strong as the power of initiation. But what is now proposed will promote the idea that this power has passed into the hands of the Natives. The Government engineer is not to initiate, but to be a servant in a small locality, with 300 rupees to spend upon public works! If the Government has engineers to spare for such work as that, there is certainly room for economy. The Chairman, if it is necessary for a time to have a European official, is not even to vote; he is to leave the members of the Board to themselves, and they are to take the initiative. But if there is no control within—you say there is to be control from without—friction with individuals is to be replaced by collision with the whole Board. Suppose that your controller without enforces works, and you come to taxation in order to supply these needs forced upon you through control without—suppose it came to be a question of local taxation; if the matter were loft to these Local Boards, they would certainly fix taxes upon articles of primary necessity. If you check them in this, they will not care to serve on the Boards again. If they cannot collect the taxes as they like they will soon fall away. I do not know whether your Lordships' attention has been called to a law made by the Emperor Nicholas, establishing similar bodies in the villages in Russia. In the neighbourhood of large towns they did do something, but elsewhere they entirely failed. Twenty-five years ago one of the greatest dangers this country has ever passed through took place in India—the Mutiny. Many are now living in India who remember the shock of those occurrences; but great numbers have come, and are coming away, and its lessons are fading from men's minds. Now, notwithstanding that experience, after 25 years you venture again to rouse the ambitions of the

  1777
  people. The educated, talking, professional Natives of India—what are they? I will not speak of them in my own words. What does Mr. Monro say of them? He says that among the large and influential classes he finds a desire to obtain benefits for themselves; much clamour and much public speaking, but little public spirit; much grasping at power and position, and much talk of Constitutional principles, but little practice of Constitutional morality. But, my Lords, let us come nearer home. We were told that one of our great advantages would be that we should have the services of the educated and Europeanized Natives in this country. You are trying in vain, I think, to graft on Eastern civilization Western institutions. There is no Democracy, there is no "demos" in India to which you can appeal. If you give local institutions, they will end in embarrassment and confusion. Let me tell your Lordships what one of these highly Europeanized Natives in this country, who are to be of such service in governing India, says of our rule. He is very likely to be satisfied with the petty details of unpaid local government. He says, in a speech which is published by the East India Association, that—
  "Events have taken a course which has made England the worst foreign invader that India has ever had the misfortune to have—that India did not get a moment's breath from the rush of Europeans that took place."
  He goes on to say that—
  "At present the Indians are loyal, but that they may any day become disloyal; there is but a short step from one to the other."
  What is it that the Government now propose to do? Suppose a difficulty were to arise between the Natives and the governing Power—between the sword and those who submit to the sword. What would happen with these thousands or tens of thousands of Local Boards meeting in secret to plot rebellion, with no European present? Directly you take away the Europeans from the local committees you will take away the authority which gives excellence and stability to the work done in India; and you will attempt to use materials for building for which the Natives of India have neither the force, nor the desire, nor the will, in any way, for it is wholly alien to their feelings. If paid for the work they might do it; but, otherwise, the objects are such as they
  1778
  take no interest in. Unless this scheme is carried out carefully, it will act in a most disastrous manner to the interests which the Government now profess to support. In Bombay local funds' committees abound, but with an official Chairman. Some unpleasant differences had arisen between the Governor General and the Government of Bombay, in consequence of the course taken by the former. The Government of Bombay was ready, even against its judgment, to endeavour to carry out the scheme of the Governor General; but when it was proposed to take away the Europeans, who were the life and soul of the committees, the Government of Bombay strongly protested that such a measure was not compatible with safety, and that it was practically a subversion of their existing system. With reference to the language of mine to which reference has been made, I said that it was perfectly proper that Natives should be employed in judicial capacities for which they were specially fitted. But my language cannot be distorted so as to make me appear to approve their being given a jurisdiction they had not previously enjoyed. I meant that they should be permitted to exercise judicial functions among Natives, holding the same relative position that they had always held towards Europeans. I admit that it is most desirable, if you can, to teach the people to manage small local affairs, and to become acquainted with the most important interests of their own localities. But to conduct the education of these people by taking away their teachers from the midst of them is an absurdity. It was the "association of Natives and Europeans to a greater extent" that was advocated by Lord Mayo; but the plan of the present Governor General is their dissociation. To lay down for the whole of India one fundamental principle that must be acted upon, whatever the circumstances might be, is what the Government of India has done, though it leaves the mode of carrying this into effect for a time to Local Governments. Local Boards are to be elected at some future date in every locality by the resident electors—something very like household suffrage. I do not believe that these wild and extravagant schemes can do anything more than excite in the minds of the Natives of India, and particularly of the portion called the Euro-

  1779
  peanized Natives, hopes and passions which may be difficult to quench, and which may lead at any time—though I hope to God they will not—to such difficulties as arose at the time of the Mutiny, and your scheme, as laid down on May 18, will inevitably fail. If it does fail, it brings discredit on your Government and confusion in India; while, if it seems to succeed, it will but lead to further demands on the part of the Europeanized Natives which will in time destroy the dominance of England in India.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If, my Lords, I had been asked in what tone and manner a subject of this nature would be treated by the House of Lords, I should have expressed some confidence that whatever differences of opinion might exist as to policy between the different sides of the House, yet the same tone would prevail on both sides, and that all would agree that our aim and object in the government of India should be to govern equally, justly, and impartially, for the benefit of all subjects of the Crown. I should have said that the object of noble Lords taking part in such a debate would be to mitigate any exaggerated jealousies and antipathies of races, to avoid saying anything which might be offensive and irritating to any class of the Natives of India, and to appease, instead of inflaming, panic and needless alarm. I should be doing injustice to the noble Earl who introduced this discussion if I did not say, after making due allowance for the doubts expressed by him as to the policy of the Indian Government on certain points, that the tone and the character of his speech was in accordance with my expectations. I wish I could say the same of the speech your Lordships have just heard. The speech of the noble Viscount was full of arguments from panic, not from policy, and full of reference to opinions expressed by Englishmen of such a character as are calculated, not to mitigate, but to inflame the antipathies, jealousies, and passions of race. I heard the speech with regret. It seemed to be mainly addressed to vituperation of the Viceroy for a supposed attack, which he never made, upon Sir Ashley Eden, and for, as was most groundlessly alleged, putting pressure upon the Local Governments to obtain from them opi-
  1780
  nions in accordance with his own views. With the exception of that part of the speech which consisted of vituperation of the Viceroy, I heard little or nothing from the noble Viscount in the way of argument. There was a marked contrast between the speech of the noble Viscount and that of the noble Earl. In parts of his speech the noble Earl wont far to admit that, under certain conditions, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill might be proper. The truth is that the question before your Lordships has, off and on, been under discussion in India for 33 years; and the principles which it is now proposed to adopt have, over and over again, been recommended by the highest authorities in India and England. So far back as 1857 Sir James Colvile said it must be adopted in time. Surely, after so much consideration of the matter, and such frequent postponements, the action of the Indian Government cannot be said to be precipitate. It is a remarkable fact, which justifies the Government of India in seizing every opportunity of establishing sound principles on a subject of this kind, that to abolish exemptions invariably takes much time. It took much time, for example, to get rid of the general exemption of European British subjects from the jurisdiction of the Local Courts, although those Courts were in the hands of British Judges. Panic after panic was caused by the proposal to do away with that exemption; and it was not until 40 years after the power to abolish it had been given that the thing was done. The noble Viscount referred to the opinions of Sir Fitzjames Stephen, a learned Judge, for whose high character and great abilities I have as much respect as the noble Viscount has. Indeed, the respect which I entertain for him has, perhaps, caused me to regret the more that he should have been led to publish anything which might have a tendency to increase the difficulties of the Indian Government on this subject. But what did he say of the state of things which the Indian Government could not find an opportunity of abolishing until 1872 His words are—
  "In the state of the law before 1872 the position of European British subjects undoubtedly did constitute a serious practical grievance. In the remoter parts of the country they enjoyed something equivalent to impunity in

  1781
  criminal cases which were not of sufficient importance to attract special attention. The expense and delay, for example, of having a trial in Calcutta for an offence committed, say, on a tea plantation in Assam practically prevented prosecution. This grievance was felt more and more as a large number of Europeans were introduced into India belonging to a class likely to commit less crime."
  The noble Viscount seemed to think that there was no class of European British subjects in India likely to commit petty criminal offences, which must be repressed by prompt punishment; but that, evidently, was not the opinion of Mr. Justice Stephen. To say that the time has not arrived for the passing of a measure which a country has long wanted simply because an outcry has been raised against it would be to invite an outcry in every case of the proposed abolition of any privilege or exemption. It is remarkable that the legislators of this country did not form the opinion that the Mutiny made it necessary, in order to preserve our position in India, to keep Natives out of public employments. On the contrary, they thought that the true lesson to be learnt from the Mutiny was that confidence should be placed in those Natives who were willing to servo the Government, and that they should be given an interest in the government of their country. That policy was first established by the Act of the Imperial Parliament which vested the government of India in the Crown, and which made provision for examinations for the Covenanted Civil Service of India, to which Natives were to be admitted. Then, in 1861, when the High Courts were established, the British Legislature provided that there should be Native Judges in them. That provision is fatal to the argument that it is not proper that British subjects should be liable to be judged in criminal as well as in civil cases by Native Judges. Then came the Act of 1870, which enabled the Local Governments to appoint any Native to any office or employment in the Indian Civil Service, which terms wore intended to include the office of Session Judge and district magistrate—the judicial offices with which we are now dealing. The noble viscount having to justify and explain his own despatch, written in 1879, says—"It is true that we intended that there should be Native Judges for Natives; but we did not
  1782
  intend that they should have jurisdiction over Europeans." But if Native Judges are trusted to adjudicate justly in oases in which Natives are concerned, why should they not be trusted in cases in which Europeans are interested? How can you trust a Hindoo Judge to do justice to a Mahomedan, or a Mahomedan to a Hindoo, if you cannot trust the same man to act with impartiality and integrity in a case affecting the interests of a European? It should be remembered that the exemption at the present time is an exemption only of natural-born British subjects, their sons and grandsons. Native Judges have jurisdiction over all Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, and Europeans of any nationality not entitling them to the privileges of natural-born British subjects; also over those who are subjects of the United States of America. You trust the Natives now to exercise the power of judgment over these Europeans; arid by the arrangement made in 1879 you have made it necessary that one-sixth in every year of all the Civil Service in India shall be filled with Natives, in addition to those who pass examinations in this country. The consequence will be that in a few years you will have more than one-sixth—or at least one-sixth—of the Session Judges and district magistrates belonging to that class of Native Judges to whom you now object to give criminal jurisdiction over British Europeans; and if the policy proposed is not carried out, the effect will be, under these circumstances, to revive, in one-sixth part of your Local Courts, the very state of things which existed in 1872. This would happen also—that a European subordinate would have jurisdiction over cases which his superior Judge was disqualified from trying. The question might be asked, What has been our experience hitherto of Native Judges? My Lords, for many years, while I was at the Bar, I practised in Indian cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and during those years there were few such cases of any considerable importance in which I was not engaged. I had, therefore, good opportunities of observing the manner in which, in civil cases, the Native Judges did their duty; and I have no hesitation in saying—and I know this was also the opinion of some of the most eminent Judges who sat on the Judicial Com-

  1783
  mittee during that time—that the judgments of the Native Judges in India did not suffer by, but bore favourable comparison, as a general rule, with, the judgments of the English Judges there. I should be sorry to say anything in disparagement of those English Judges, who, as a class, were most anxious to carefully discharge their duty; but I repeat that I have no hesitation in saying that in respect of integrity, of learning, of knowledge, of the soundness and satisfactory character of the conclusions arrived at, the Native judgments wore, as a rule, quite as good as those of the local English Judges. And since 1861, my Lords, we have had further experience of Indian Native Judges in the High Courts, whore they have had jurisdiction over Europeans. How have they used that power? Have they not deserved the confidence of the public? I venture to say they have. What are the objections against the principle? First, there is the idea of national privilege; and I can only say that, if that be the principle we should act upon, we are condemning ourselves, for we judge Hindoos and Mahomedans by English Judges. If it is to be the universal notion that every man of a particular race or religion should be tried or judged by Judges of his own race or religion, all I can say is that it is not our practice in India, any more than at home, and I hope it never will be. Nothing but a very degraded state of the Judicature, or inability on the part of the superior Government to keep it in proper order, can justify the application of that principle. Another argument brought forward is that, in this matter, the opinion of unofficial Europeans in India should be preferred to that of officials. I would ask, my Lords, who are the Government of India—the unofficial class? Does the responsibility of government rest with them? Have the unofficial class better means of forming sound opinions on such a subject than those who govern? It appears to me, my Lords, that this argument is an astounding paradox. It is quite true that the opinion of the unofficial class may be entitled to respect, and it should not be ignored; but, in a matter of this kind, to put that opinion, in point of value, above that of the official—the governing class—is a surprising paradox. My Lords, I contend that the effect of
  1784
  the policy proposed on the minds of the Natives would be most salutary. Its effect on the official class of Natives must be beneficial, as proving that trust is reposed in them, and giving them fresh motives to be faithful to that trust. And what would be the effect of it on the unofficial classes? They will perceive in it a further advance in the beneficent policy of treating all the subjects of the British Crown with fairness and justice—proof that it is the aim and object of the British Government in India not to increase or exaggerate, but to diminish, as far as they can, those antagonisms of race which have hitherto been attended with so much disadvantage. The noble Viscount spoke once or twice as if we had no choice between one or the other of two extreme courses—to do nothing or to remove all anomalies; but things more or loss anomalous must exist in every system. Why should we not take a middle course, as the Government of India has in this case, I believe, succeeded in doing? I do not go into the details of their scheme; but I cannot help submitting to your Lordships that what is being now done is the necessary sequel to the steps which the Imperial Parliament has obliged the Government of India to take, for the admission of Native Civil servants in India to judicial office.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) had stated that his noble Friend (the Earl of Lytton) preached the doctrine that, because there had been a panic, therefore legislation should be suspended. He had done nothing of the kind. He had merely called attention to the extraordinary outburst of feeling on the subject in India. Some of the arguments used by the noble and learned Earl savoured to him (the Earl of Carnarvon) much more of the arguments they had lately heard used by the Colleagues of the noble and learned Earl in "another place" as to Irish conciliation. He did not doubt the good intentions of the present Governor of India; but his fear was that the humanity and sympathy of Lord Ripon were carrying him beyond the limits of policy and prudence. The English in India looked upon the proposed change as an inroad upon their property, liberty, and status. The non-official classes of India had never been so united as they were on

  1785
  this subject; the English Press was unanimous; and nine-tenths of the Civil Service were agreed upon it. The noble and learned Earl seemed to ignore all those distinctive differences between England and India. His argument was an abstract one; but he (the Earl of Carnarvon) wished to lay down two propositions—first, the vital necessity of preserving the harmony between the Government of India and the non-official population; and, in the second place, that if, indeed, there were a drift of opinion in the direction of the change indicated by the Ministerial advocates, and if that opinion had been running for many years in the same direction, it was most important that when the change was made it should come gradually, and not by leaps and bounds. If he was not mistaken, the state of the case was this. In 1872 a compromise was arrived at; between 1872 and 1882 there had been a very great growth of the non-official population in India; and, of course, the greater the amount of the English population, the greater the necessity for insuring to them all the proper safeguards of justice. In 1882 the Criminal Code was once more revived; and, that being so, he could not help asking why it was that in 1883 a question obviously of fundamental importance should be brought up, and he could not understand upon what principle such a course as that was taken. As he understood from the other side, it had been argued that this change flowed out of the change which his noble Friend (the Earl of Lytton), as Governor General of India, had made; but he apprehended his noble Friend would deny that, for his change had amounted to this—that one-sixth of the Civil servants in India might be appointed from the Natives. He failed to understand that there would be the least administrative difficulty in this, for the railways and telegraphs would give ample opportunities for avoiding any which might arise. It would be perfectly possible to appoint Natives in those Provinces when there were very few Europeans. Anomalies they must have in India so long as they retained their power there. If the Government really set themselves to work to sweep away anomalies, the first which they would have to remove was the British Government itself. It was strange that, although they had had many authorities cited, not one word was
  1786
  said about the opinion of the Judges. It had been argued, indeed, that as Native Judges tried civil cases, there could be no reason why they should not also try criminal. But it was in criminal cases that so much distrust existed in the popular mind. It was said that, as we permitted Europeans to try Natives, why should not Natives try Europeans; and why, when Natives tried Europeans in the Presidency towns, should they not do so elsewhere? But the analogy would not hold good. In the Presidency towns the Courts were placed in the full blaze of public observation. You had newspapers and reporters; and although it was true that a European convicted in the Provinces could appeal, still he might be thrown into prison and his character receive a slur from which he could not redeem it. Besides, before the appeals could be heard, he might be kept in prison for a long time. There was a case not long ago where an Englishman in Upper Burmah was condemned and placed by a Native authority in prison with an iron collar round his neck, and detained for a considerable period. Supposing that had been done by one of these Native Judges in India, how strong would have been the feeling if it was known that the sentence was unjust? The Government contended that they were only logically carrying out the system as it at present existed; but if they proposed to justify their position logically they would have to go a great deal further; for, as it was, Native Judges would have different powers from English Judges, and a logical view necessitated putting both on the same footing. This, indeed, was what the Native Press was already clamouring for, and he did not suppose Her Majesty's Government were prepared to sanction that. It was said that an overwhelming consensus of great authorities was in favour of the change. The opinions of Commanders-in-Chief were more valuable on military matters than on questions of Imperial policy in India, as to which their views were almost always traditional. Why had not the opinion of the Judges of the High Court of India been given? In the discussion which took place on the subject in the Council, Mr. Stewart Baillie, a distinguished civilian, remarked that he failed to perceive either the extent or the depth of feeling aroused in favour of the measure;

  1787
  while an eminent Indian, a Member of the Council, said that while under the dictates of prudence he was in favour of the measure, yet his heart was against it. With regard to the question of privilege, it must be remembered that the privilege was not of the Judge, but of the prisoner, and that it was common to the whole of the countries of the East. There was nothing in English law making such an exemption. If Englishmen were subjected in distant Provinces to the jurisdiction of the Native magistrates, cases of hardship and abuse must arise. It appeared to him reasonable that Europeans should desire to be tried by a Judge of their own nationality. It must be remembered that the English population were always in the position of a garrison, and that nothing ought to be done which was calculated to alienate the loyal sentiments they possessed towards us. He deeply lamented that such a measure as this, which would lead to an antagonism of race, had been brought forward; and he hoped that, in spite of the language that had been used that evening, the Indian Government would reconsider their determination to press it forward. If the measure were so serious as some persons said it was, they should pause before they carried it through; while, on the other hand, if it were a merely trivial matter, they should, with kindness and confidence, give way to the strongly-expressed feeling of the European inhabitants of India.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, there could be no doubt that the subjects brought before the House had attracted great interest in India. He had listened with attention to the speech of the noble Earl who had succeeded him in the Government of India, and to the arguments which he used. That part of the speech which dealt with what was called local self-government might, he thought, be dismissed without much difficulty. It was evident that the noble Earl misapprehended the scope and extent of the measures introduced by the Viceroy. As was clearly pointed out by his noble Friend the Secretary of State, Lord Ripon had been simply carrying on the edifice which had been begun by his Predecessors.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: Am I to understand that I am in error in assuming that the district officers are to be excluded from the Local Boards?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he would notice that particular part of the subject later on. The noble Earl had characterized the measures of the Viceroy as an introduction of Radicalism into India. But there was no foundation for such an assertion in fact. It was 30 years since the question of municipal institutions in India was first mooted, and since that time many men who knew most of the feelings and dispositions of the people of India had pressed on the Government to give more powers of local self-government to the people. The noble Viscount who spoke last had called the creation of small Municipalities in India absurd; but he (the Earl of Northbrook) recollected the question of the size of the Municipalities in India being discussed in the Legislative Council by men of the highest experience, who had spout their lives in that country. Mr. Clive Bayley, who had experience of three Provinces of India, said, in 1873, that he could mention many small towns—places almost too insignificant to be called towns—which had enjoyed municipal institutions, and had worked them with great credit and very satisfactorily. In the same debate Sir Barrow Ellis, another eminent authority, said that, in the Presidency of Bombay there were many small Municipalities which had been carried on with complete success. The noble Viscount asked whether there was any administrative officer in India who would assert that it was desirable that the members of those Municipalities should be left to manage their own affairs without the intervention of an European officer. Why, it was the very men who knew most about the country, who had said that the defect of those municipal institutions was that, on the whole, the civil servants, no doubt in their desire to secure the efficient administration of Municipalities, were rather in the habit of forcing their opinions on those bodies, and of not giving the people sufficient scope in the management of their local affairs, so that they did not take the interest which it was desirable they should take in such matters. For example, he would give the House the opinion expressed, as long ago as the year 1861, by Sir Donald M'Leod, a most experienced officer, who had filled the Office of Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab with great distinction. Sir

  1789
  Donald M'Leod said that the genius of the Natives was essentially suited for municipal organization, and that—
  "Municipal institutions were as well adapted to the Natives of India as to those of England."
  He further said no Government official ought to be associated with, or allowed to interfere in any way in, the nomination of Members, and that—
  "In short, the Municipal Body should he, as regarded essentials, really independent so far as interference of our officials goes."
  He would put that opinion against the opinion of the noble Viscount, who said that no district officer was in favour of the people managing their own local affairs. Again, quite lately, Mr. Crossthwaite, a Member of the Legislative Council of the Governor General, with as great a local experience of the North-West Provinces now as any man could have, gave his opinion entirely in favour of local self-government, as explained in Lord Ripon's Resolutions; and added that he would have gone even further, and given those Local Bodies at once still more power than was proposed by Lord Ripon; that we were more likely to make a mistake in giving too little power rather than too much to the Local Bodies; and that we must give confidence to the Natives, and try to get them to work with us in the management of their affairs if we wished to enlist them as efficient aids. The noble Earl who had succeeded him as Governor General had declared that Lord Ripon's plan of local self-government was a scheme to change the fundamental nature of the government, and to establish representative government in India. Now, the Viceroy of India was surely more likely to understand the meaning of his policy, and to interpret it correctly, than the noble Earl. What did the Viceroy say as to the intention, of his own policy? There were Resolutions of the Government of India published on the subject, and afterwards a discussion in the Legislative Council of India on the first of the Bills being introduced into the Legislative Council for the purpose of giving effective shape to those Resolutions. Lord Ripon, on that occasion, gave a description of his policy, which was diametrically contrary to the interpretation which the noble Earl and the noble Viscount bad put upon that policy. The noble Viscount said that
  1790
  the Viceroy wanted to have a stereotyped system all over India; that no district officer could have anything to say to those Municipal Bodies; that all India was to be given representative institutions, and there was to be no latitude in the matter. In his speech, made in the Legislative Council, in November, 1882, upon the Central Provinces Bill, the Viceroy spoke as follows:—
  "In drawing up the Resolution of the 18tli of May last, the Government of India very particularly pointed out that they had not the slightest intention of laying down hard-and-fast rules of a uniform character for the extension of local self-government throughout the whole of this vast peninsula. It would have been an exceedingly absurd idea if it had ever entered into the heads of the Government to do anything of the kind. The circumstances of different parts of India are most various. We have in this country races almost on the verge of the savage state; and we have, on the other hand, large populations marked by a very considerable advance, political and social, and counting among them men of very subtle and developed intellects. It is, of course, obviously impossible to deal with a country in that condition upon any uniform plan in regard to a system of local self-government.
  "Therefore, what we proposed was that, laying down a few broad and general principles, those principles should be applied according to the peculiarities and requirements of the different parts of the country in different ways, so as to meet those requirements and to suit those peculiarities; and we especially and clearly pointed out that we thought it was very desirable that the mode in which the principles of that Resolution were to be carried out should be varied, not only from province to province, but in the different parts of each province itself; because we wanted to make trial of various methods of procedure, various modes of composing the local boards and electing and controlling them, in order that, after experience, we might learn in the course of time what were the best methods of dealing with these matters, and what might be the system generally applicable, at all events, to the great divisions of the country."
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKexplained that he had read from the words of Lord Ripon's Resolution.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he disputed the correctness of the noble Viscount's interpretation. The noble Viscount bad better read the passage.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he had quoted the words in which it was stated that the Government of India wished to extend throughout the country in every district a network of Local Boards to be charged with definite functions.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he must complain that the noble Vis-

  1791
  count had read part of Lord Ripon's words apart from the context, and from subsequent utterances, in which he said that it was impossible to establish a uniform system, and that it was necessary to take into consideration the requirements of different parts of the country; and that the Government hoped by experience to find out the best mode of dealing with existing circumstances. He protested against the noble Viscount placing interpretations on Lord Ripon's policy which his explanations did not justify.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONremarked, that the noble Viscount had read a passage in which Lord Ripon had distinctly spoken of establishing a network of Local Government Boards.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he thought Lord Ripon was more likely to know what his intentions were than either the noble Earl or the noble Viscount. With regard to Sir Ashley Eden, he (the Earl of Northbrook) believed that his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) had correctly referred to Sir Ashley Eden's opinions, who, without being an advocate of any particular scheme, was, on the whole, favourable to an extension of the policy of local self-government. How far Sir Ashley Eden considered that the district officers of Bengal should be dissociated from the Local Bodies of Bengal he did not know; but he thought that Sir Ashley Eden considered that those officers should have more control than his successor—Mr. Rivers Thompson—proposed to give them by the Bill he had introduced into the Legislative Council of Bengal. As he had not himself seen the Bill, he could not say more upon that subject. It should be clearly understood that what might be suitable for one part of the country might not be suitable for another. The real policy of the Government was indicated by Lord Ripon's opinion which he had quoted. As his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India had said, it was not a new policy; it was a policy which had been carried on for the last 20 or 30 years by successive Governments in India. He himself (the Earl of Northbrook) had been engaged in the year 1873 in passing Acts establishing municipal institutions for many different Provinces in India. If the noble Earl opposite, who succeeded him in the Office of Viceroy, had applied
  1792
  his abilities to the subject of local self-government, he was satisfied he would have arrived at the same conclusion as he (the Earl of Northbrook) had—namely, that this was not a new policy; but that the Government, in carrying it out, were only carrying out what had been considered right, proper, and safe for the country.
  With regard to the other question before their Lordships—the alteration proposed to be made in the Law of Criminal Procedure—his noble Friend behind him, and the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, had told their Lordships clearly how small was the change proposed by the Government of India, and how consistent it was with the policy of the Parliament of England, and of successive Administrations of this country, whatever might have been their political opinions, as well as of successive Governors General of India. Whether it was Lord Dalhousie, with his Imperial instincts, or Lord Canning, with the responsibility laid upon him of dealing with the Mutiny, or Lord Lawrence, with his great knowledge of the internal organization of the country, or Lord Mayo, associated from childhood with the Conservative Party: all alike hold that, so far as was possible in India, there should be no distinction of class or race, and that there should be one law for all Her Majesty's subjects. Was this disputed by noble Lords opposite? Did they remember the Charter Act of 1833? By that Act India was, for the first time, opened to Europeans. Before that time no European could settle in that country unless licensed by the East India Company. When it was then proposed that Europeans should be allowed freely to resort to India, it was also declared that Europeans and Natives should be subject to the same laws, Lord Ellenborough expressed himself against the proposal in language almost identical with that used to-night in their Lordships' House, and he received an answer in the other House of Parliament from no less a man than Thomas Babington Macaulay—an answer which was given in one of the most eloquent of his speeches, and which was received with cordial approval by Mr. Wynn, who having been President of the Board of Control, represented the Conservative Party upon the subject in the other House. In 1833 Parliament passed a clause enacting that—

  1793
  "No Native shall by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disqualified from holding any place, office, or employment."
  And the Court of Directors interpreted those words in an explanatory despatch to mean—
  "That there shall be no governing caste in British India; that whatever other tests of qualification may be adopted distinction of race or religion shall not be of the number."
  When the Grown assumed the government of India, after the Mutiny, under a Conservative Government, it was announced that all Her Majesty's subjects—
  "Of whatever race or creed, were to be freely and impartially admitted to offices the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity duly to discharge."
  These were the words of the Queen's gracious Proclamation of the year 1858. When Governor General of India, the noble Earl opposite, in May, 1878, urged a great increase in the employment of Natives; and in recommending his views to the noble Viscount (Viscount Cran-brook), who was then Secretary of State, said that he desired—
  "The new Native Civil Service to be regarded as a branch of the Covenanted Civil Service; no distinction being made in the duties, or responsibilities, of those particular posts which will be open alike to both branches, and the status and position of officers holding the same posts being the same, whether they were taken from the one branch or the other."
  This proposal received the warm approval of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), and was carried into effect. How did the noble Viscount reconcile that with the statement he had just now made that the Natives introduced under those rules were not members of the same Service as the Europeans? If words meant anything, the declaration made by the Viceroy meant nothing less than that the Natives who had been admitted into the Covenanted Civil Service were to be in the same position as the other members.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, the noble Earl did not seem to be aware that they could not be made members of the Covenanted Civil Service without an Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that an Act of Parliament was passed in 1870 giving ample power to appoint these gentlemen to the Covenanted Civil Service.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid, that he had recommended that, under certain conditions, Natives appointed by nomination in India should, without passing a competitive examination, be constituted into a branch of the Covenanted Service. But it had been ascertained that the Act in question distinctly excluded all such persons from that Service; and, therefore, the Native civilians appointed under statutory rule were certainly, in the present unaltered state of the law, not members of the Covenanted Service.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that the noble Earl and the noble Viscount seemed to be anxious now to appear less generous than they really were. Whether they had been more generous than they intended or not, they had, undoubtedly, deliberately sanctioned the admission of Natives into the Covenanted Civil Service, for this was the first rule sanctioned by the noble Viscount, under the Act of 1870, upon the recommendation of the noble Earl—
  "Each Local Government may nominate persons who are Natives of India within the meaning of the said Act for employment in Her Majesty's Covenanted Civil Service in India within the territories subordinate to such Government."
  The rule would be found in Papers presented to Parliament in the year 1879. He thought that he had proved that this had been the policy even of the noble Earl; and the only question was, whether race distinctions were to be kept up in this particular case which was now under consideration. That was the principal point, and it was a small point. The race distinction was introduced in 1872, and he was very sorry for it. In introducing the Criminal Procedure Act the Government of Lord Mayo had not raised the question of race disqualifications between magistrates and Judges of the same rank in the Service; but the mistake, as he (the Earl of Northbrook) considered it, was made in Committee upon the Bill, when the race distinction was introduced which had given rise to the present difficulty with which the Government of India were endeavouring to deal, and he might inform their Lordships that some of the most practical men in India were against the provisions which became law in 1872. No man had calmer judgment or greater respect for his fellow-countrymen than Lord Napier of Magdala; but he was

  1795
  opposed to the race distinction. Two Civil servants of high reputation, Sir George Campbell, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and his successor, Sir Richard Temple, were likewise both opposed to it; and the opposition was initiated by Sir Barrow Ellis, a man of great experience and remarkably sound judgment. Therefore, when it was said that there was no one in favour of the policy now carried out by the Government of India, a great mistake was made. He did not, indeed, remember any subject in which the weight of authority was greater than with regard to the abolition of this race disqualification. It had been attempted to undervalue the opinion of the different Lieutenant Governors; but anyone who was acquainted with them would be satisfied that the opinions they had expressed represented their honest convictions. It had been said elsewhere that the Viceroy had endeavoured to force this Bill upon India by his majority in the Legislative Council against the opinion of the non-official Europeans. Nothing could be more contrary to the fact, for nothing could be more calm, more deliberate, or more regardful of public opinion, than the manner in which Lord Ripon had proceeded since the Bill was introduced. In his speech in the Legislative Council in India upon the measure, Lord Ripon showed how superior he was to all feeling of irritation—a feeling which might well have been the result of the attacks to which he had been subjected. Upon the answer to a very simple question depended their Lordships' estimation of the Bill. Were the Native officers in the Covenanted Civil Service fit to exercise the functions which the measure would impose upon them, or were they not? If they were not fit, by no means allow them to exercise those functions; but if they were fit, no question of race ought to stand in their way. It was a mistake to suppose that the Native magistrates and Judges whom the Bill affected were inferior men. The measure would only confer jurisdiction upon magistrates of the first class, who had served 12 or 13 years in the Civil Service, and passed the necessary examinations, and who were selected by the different local Governments as fit and proper persons, and upon Sessions Judges, who were officers of still longer service and experience. It had been, said by the
  1796
  noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) that the Government proposed to take from British subjects in India privileges which they enjoyed in Turkey, Egypt, China, and Japan; and he asked whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies would permit such a monstrous thing as the exercise of jurisdiction by a Native Judge over a British subject in Ceylon or Hong Kong. But it should be borne in mind by those who made use of that argument that the system of law in Turkey and the Levant was not adapted to the cases in which Europeans were concerned. Consular jurisdiction was, therefore, exercised under Treaties. In India, however, the Criminal Law was far more simple than the Criminal Law in this country, and was applied to all the inhabitants of India. As regarded the Colonies, the noble Earl was mistaken. In Ceylon there were Native magistrates and a Native Judge of the Supreme Court who exercised jurisdiction over British subjects, and in Hong Kong a Chinese magistrate had exercised a similar jurisdiction. In the High Court of Calcutta Native Judges had for 20 years exercised criminal as well as civil jurisdiction with very great credit to themselves. In the Presidency towns Native magistrates had possessed for many years criminal jurisdiction over European British subjects without any complaint, and civil causes affecting European British subjects were satisfactorily dealt with all over India by Native Judges, to whose merits their Lordships had just heard the highest testimony given by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. In his (the Earl of North-brook's) opinion, the Viceroy had taken a right course in endeavouring to remove the race disqualification introduced in 1872 with respect to criminal procedure; and he felt confident that the prophecy that danger would result from the proposed step would not be fulfilled. Before sitting down, he wished to say that he had watched the career of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) with all the interest which anyone must feel who had experienced at one time the responsibility of the high Office he now filled. He had noticed the able manner in which Lord Ripon was dealing with many important questions of administration in India, and he had always observed in him the most anxious desire to

  1797
  do his duty fairly by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, alike to the Natives of India and to his fellow-countrymen. He hoped that that discussion would show, at any rate, that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give him their hearty and entire confidence in regard to those measures which he had introduced, believing that they were right in themselves, and that they were not likely to produce any of those ill effects which noble Lords opposite seemed to apprehend from them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, at this late period of the evening I shall not prolong the debate but for a few minutes, as I feel that both sides of the subject have been very fully discussed; and, besides, I feel that there is some difficulty in following the noble Earl who has just sat down. He is a man of great authority, but I think he crushes his opponents with the weight of his authority. Whenever anyone tries to fulfil his duty as a Member of this Legislative Assembly, and ventures to criticize the course which any agent of Her Majesty's Government has thought fit to pursue, his only answer is—"Which ought to be right; they on the spot or you?" Well, that is an excessively compendious system of political philosophy, which would speedily put an end to Parliamentary debate. It would only be necessary for the Government to publish such opinions as they were able to collect in favour of their policy, and forthwith to proclaim them, and to put up a noble Lord with the authority of the noble Earl, who would exclaim—"I am Sir Oracle; let no dog bark." In this way, it would only be necessary to suppress any attempts at criticism on the part of the Opposition. In the remarks which I am about to make I will endeavour, as far as possible, to refrain from giving any opinion of my own, and speak rather from the facts of others. I confess that there is some difficulty in doing that, because information is not the strong point of the argument which we have had to-night. Now, it appears to mo that a phrase which the noble Earl dropped furnished a key to the discussion. He said that we must go back to first principles—we must adhere to a generous policy. In other words, the Government of India is to be conducted on vague sentiment and à priori reasoning, and that is very much
  1798
  the principle on which Lord Ripon appears to have gone. "You must get rid of these race distinctions," said the noble Earl. My Lords, that is a very fine popular phrase. It may be very fitting for popular use; but does the noble Earl get rid of these race distinctions? He laid it down as an inexorable principle that no person was to be excluded from office on account of his race—that no person was to be prevented from holding any appointment for any reason except unfitness. But are these the principles on which the Government of India is to be conducted? Is there really to be this universal admission to office without the slightest regard to race? Is there any man who will have the hardihood to tell me that it is within the range of possibility that a man in India should be appointed Lieutenant-General of a Province, or Chief Commissioner, or Commander-in-Chief of the Army, or Viceroy, without any regard whatever to his race? That he should be appointed simply with reference to his fitness? My Lords, I do not see what is the use of all this political hypocrisy. It does not deceive the Natives of India. They know perfectly well that they are governed by a superior race, and that all this talk is hollow and unreal. There was considerable difference of opinion as to what Lord Ripon meant in the Minute that has been quoted; but surely Lord Ripon must know what his own opinions are, and I think the words of the Minute very clearly show it. Perhaps I may be permitted to point out that a speech made in debate in the Council can be no kind of answer to the words that are written in the Minute. A speech is not official in the sense that a Note or Resolution is; and though the latter may not have the weight of an Act of Parliament, it has all the force of an official act. The noble Earl referred to the point that Lord Ripon was ready to allow considerable liberty in the application of the principle in question; but it by no means followed that Lord Ripon has not authorized a very large, and, as we think, a very revolutionary change, extending over the whole Peninsula. The two propositions are in no way contradictory of each other; and this phrase about setting up a network of Local Boards is not an isolated phrase picked out, as the noble Earl said, without considering the

  1799
  contexts of other parts of the document. After discussing the question of the latitude of application, and saying that a large latitude of application must be left to the law, the document goes on—
  "But there are, nevertheless, fundamental principles, which, after every allowance has been made for local liberties, must be universally followed and frankly adopted if the system is to have a fair trial."
  Then the next sentence is to the effect that efforts are to be made, as far as possible, to establish a network of Local Boards. Therefore, when the noble Earl speaks of this reference to a network of Local Boards as an isolated phrase, he is guilty of that want of examination of documents which he has charged against noble Lords on this side of the House. I do not think, my Lords, that the attempts of the noble Earl to minimize the marked changes which the Marquess of Ripon has made are at all borne out by the words of the Resolution itself. The noble Earl sought to show that Sir Ashley Eden was in favour of this system set up by Lord Ripon. I have received from Sir Ashley Eden a card of very recent date, which is as follows:—
  "I said that under no circumstances would it do to have Local Boards of which the district officers were not Chairmen."
  That is a point of vital importance. No doubt there were Municipal Bodies in India from a very early time, and that they exist still. No doubt the genius of the Indian people is suited to Municipal Bodies of this character. But the question we want to know, and that has raised so much feeling and apprehension, is whether or not these Local Boards are to be under the district officers of the Provinces, or whether they are to have any dependence, however qualified, upon these officers? We wish to know whether these Local Boards are a germ or not? We live in days of evolution; in days when the doctrine of evolution has a high position in both science and politics. I must say that anybody who wished to alarm the English population could not have done it better than by the language in this Minute. It is full of the catchwords of cosmopolitan Radicalism. The Governor General begins by saying—
  "That the municipal institutions were not quite so successful in all cases, and that the
  1800
  problem before the Government is one of no slight difficulty. The attempts hitherto made have been made with too little success, and the best men do not present themselves as candidates."
  All that does not look as if the change was very congenial to the population of India. But then the Viceroy asks where the remedy for this is, and he says—
  "The remedy must be in ascertaining, by patient and practical experiment, how best to call forth and render effective that desire and capacity for self-government which all intelligent and fairly educated men may safely be assumed to possess."
  I believe that in the Teutonic races intelligent men do generally wish to possess self-government, and have generally been successful in attaining it. But that, speaking of all races, all periods, and all climes, all intelligent men desire, and have a capacity for self-government, is the most startling statement of historical philosophy it has been my good fortune to come across. These commonplaces of Radical philosophy have, no doubt, alarmed the people, and they wish to know if this desire and capacity for self-government is to be carried out; for people who have a desire for self-government may, perhaps, extend it to political affairs, and when the Viceroy says we are to call it forth, we fear there are wider political schemes connected with it which may justly alarm Europeans. With respect to this matter of the alteration of the Criminal Law, it has been so thoroughly discussed that I do not wish to say much concerning it; but I desire to observe two things. In the first place, we have been assured by the noble Earl that those who are concerned with the actual government of the Provinces are immeasurably superior Judges to those outside. But the Natives who could be appointed to these Judgeships are mostly, if not all, Natives of Bengal, and the present Governor of Bengal is an opponent of the scheme. I think we have wandered from the path in trying to deal with it on first principles. The question is, what will the political effect of it be upon the European population, and through the European population upon the prosperity of India, which depends upon them. That is the whole question. I do not agree with the noble Earl that it is simply a question whether these Judges are fit or not. The Lieutenant

  1801
  Governor of Bengal said that this was unmistakably the most united demonstration of popular discontent he had ever witnessed. I will not say what these Judges will do; I only want to say what the European population expect them to do; and I will, therefore, read from a speech of a Member of the Legislative Council, Mr. Robert Miller, in which he said—
  "I will appeal to the universal Indian experience to bear mo out; false evidence is cheap. I am stating a fact well known to every zemindar, to every ryot and European who was ever engaged in litigation, that the practice of bringing false charges for the purpose of ruining a rival in business is a well-known practice."
  This is a fact of which European capital is to take account before it allows itself to be locked up in India. Apprehensions of that kind are likely to move men of business very deeply, and you will easily believe they are not lightly entertained. There are similar speeches delivered at public meetings, and some are expressed in language so violent, that it is better not to repeat them. The gravamen of our charge is that a great Malthusian difficulty confronts you in India, and that you show no sense of the policy required to meet it. The population is increasing at an appalling rate, faster than the resources of the country are increasing at present; and if you hope that the resources will increase faster than they do now, it is to England and to English capital alone that you can appeal with success. It matters not whether there be Administrative inconveniences or not; they must be settled by Administrative re-arrangements; but the interests of the Europeans cannot be permitted to be ignored. The Government by their policy have brought themselves into this position. If the charges are true, and if the effect of this Bill is great, a great injustice will have been committed. If the effect is small, the Government have committed a portentous folly. For the sake merely of gratifying the feelings—or, if you like, the legitimate ambition—of a small number of Native Government servants, the Government are promoting an hostility which will be far more dangerous than the hostility of the coloured millions of India, and they are alienating from the shores of India that capital and industry by which alone the millions of India can live.

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  Bill brought from the Commons.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in rising to move, "That Standing Orders Nos. XLIX. And XXXV. be suspended," said: My Lords, a similar Motion to this was made in 1847; therefore it will be in accordance with precedent if the House thinks fit to take the course which I now have to propose. The Bill which I hold in my hand, and which has passed through the House of Commons to-day unanimously, I understand, and without alteration, is a Bill the necessity for which is caused by circumstances which are known, no doubt, generally to every Member of this House. It is unnecessary and would be inconvenient for the Public Service that I should enter into any detail, or should state with any particularity the precise circumstances in consequence of which Her Majesty's Government have thought it necessary to propose the Bill. I must, of course, make some statements as to the Bill itself; but I wish to assure the House that there are circumstances which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, make it absolutely necessary for the public safety that this Bill should be passed into law with the utmost possible despatch. We make that statement upon our own responsibility, feeling deeply the gravity of the situation, and that the necessity we have to put before the House is an indispensable, imperative, and unavoidable necessity. It is for that reason alone that I ask the House to take the unusual and extreme step of proceeding to pass a Bill through all its stages which has only been brought up to the House within the last three or four hours, and necessarily, therefore, one which your Lordships have had a very short time to consider. With regard to the Bill itself, the 1st clause, I need not say that it is unnecessary for the case of murder to be dealt with; that is already provided for; but the case that has to be met is the case of an attempt which fails. The 2nd clause provides that any person causing an explosion likely to prove dangerous to life shall be liable to penal servitude for life, two years' imprisonment being the minimum punishment. The next case is that in which the explosion does not actually take place, but there is an intent to

  1803
  cause an explosion. That offence is punishable by 20 years' penal servitude, with a similar minimum punishment. Where any person is found with explosives in his possession under suspicious circumstances, he is similarly liable to 14 years' penal servitude or two years' imprisonment. There is also a clause dealing with accessories, and another giving the Attorney General power, when he has reasonable ground for believing that a crime has been committed, to order that an inquiry take place, although no person has been charged with the offence. It has been found by experience that the result of such inquiries has been to often lead to the discovery of the person who committed the crime. This is a very valuable provision, which, I hope, will form part of the permanent law of the country. The other clauses are in the nature of securities. It is quite clear that the very unusual powers and the severe penalties imposed by the Bill, and the extensive powers conferred on the Government, could not be safely exercised if they were entrusted to subordinate officers throughout the country; but the Government have provided a safeguard that no prosecution can be undertaken under the Act except by the fiat of the Attorney General; and, therefore, no serious consequences can arise under it to any individual, unless there are circumstances of so suspicious a character that the person inculpated ought to go to trial. There is a power given to the master of a vessel who finds explosives on board to throw them overboard without being liable to an action. These are the principal clauses of the Bill, and I shall be happy to give any further explanation in my power, but, in moving the Resolution, I take leave to repeat that the Government consider this to be a most urgent matter, and believe it to be absolutely necessary that this Bill] should pass this House without delay.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No. XLIX., that no motion for making or dispensing with a Standing Order be made without notice, he now read:" The same was read accordingly:
  Then it was moved, "That Standing Order No. XXXV., that no two stages of a Bill he taken on one day, be now read:" The same was read accordingly:
  Then it was moved to resolve, "That it is the opinion of this House that it is essentially necessary for the public safety that the Bill this
  1804
  day brought from the House of Commons, intituled 'An Act to amend the law relating to explosive substances,' should forthwith he proceeded in with all possible despatch, and that notwithstanding Standing Orders Nos. XLIX. and XXXV. the Lord Chancellor ought forthwith to put the question upon every stage of the said Bill in which this House shall think it necessary for the public safety to proceed therein."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there are some provisions in this Bill which, I think, are an improvement in the present law. The 1st and 2nd clauses, securing the punishment of any person causing or attempting to cause an explosion, or keeping explosives with the intention of endangering life, are obviously clauses which are very much wanted in the present law, and which, I think, are highly commendable. If it were merely a question of passing these, I should have no observations to make, even on the unprecedented course taken by the noble Earl. But the Bill is much stronger than that. It is a Bill of a very remarkable character. In the 4th clause punishment is inflicted for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, any person so convicted being liable to 14 years' penal servitude. That is an unusual provision, although, perhaps, not absolutely unprecedented. But in view of the great danger these explosives cause, and the very serious events which have taken place in various parts of the world, I do not know that reasonable objection could be taken to that clause as it stands, if the words "explosive substances" meant what the phrase is usually understood to mean. But the clause assumes a different character when it is read with the Interpretation Clause, which defines what "explosive substance" is, and which makes it really the most violent in the Bill. Now, the materials for making explosive substances include a number of things which are used in ordinary arts. It has been said, I think, by the distinguished chemist Liebig that you can know the prosperity of a country by the amount of sulphuric acid that it manufactures; and yet that is one of the substances which it will be an offence under this Bill to have. The same is true of nitric acid, alcohol, sawdust, cotton waste, nitrate of silver—largely used by photographers—and of a number of other perfectly innocent substances possessed by a great many persons. I confess that,

  1805
  even if their proceedings he regular, the Government have exercised an unwise discretion in taking this opportunity of adding so wide an enactment to the Statute Book. My objection to this Bill is that it is not a temporary Bill. It is to be a permanent measure; and if you once pass it these liabilities will be placed on the Statute Book and remain there. This is legislation which has obviously been adopted in a panic. It has been constructed with little care, and it is being rushed through both Houses of Parliament. Not only so, but it makes large inroads on the present doctrines of our Criminal Law. In the first place, there is the examination of the prisoners. It is not our practice that prisoners should be examined.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That applies to witnesses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; it applies to prisoners. That is an entirely new principle introduced into our Criminal Law. Then, again, it is not our practice that a prisoner's wife should be examined; but the principle again is broken down. It is not our principle that a man should be called upon to criminate himself; but it is enacted here that a witness shall not be excused from answering a question on the ground that it may criminate himself. Therefore, you are reversing all the traditional doctrines of the Criminal Law. An emergency is met by a Bill which runs for a certain number of months or years. Then you might carefully consider the circumstances under which you are asked to make such large inroads in the doctrines of your Criminal Law, or you might refer it to a Committee to obtain the views on which the Government obtained the Act; but no emergency can justify a permanent measure of this description. But here, without any statement of their case, the Government are taking advantage of the present panic to make permanent alterations in the Criminal Law of a very objectionable character. They are making it, too, in a manner for which there is absolutely no precedent in this House. The noble Earl said that there was a precedent for suspending the Standing Orders in the case of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. But that was a temporary measure, and the suspension was passed nemine contradicente. But there is no precedent, I believe, in either House of Parliament
  1806
  for suspending a Standing Order for passing such a Bill in a single night when the Bill was permanent, and objection had been taken to it. I regret very much that the noble Earl has taken this course. I utterly repudiate the idea that it is necessary. It cannot be necessary to pass a permanent measure in this way, though it might be necessary with a temporary measure. I emphatically object to the liberties which have been taken with the Forms of the House. No Notice whatever has been given to the Opposition that a measure of so violent a character was about to be proposed. It would be useless for us, in the present state of the House, to oppose the wishes of the Government. If they had given us a day's Notice, the matter might have been different. Instead of doing that, they have perpetrated a sharp bit of Parliamentary practice; and you must not complain if your turn comes to undergo a similar thing. You have made a breach in the traditional courtesy of the House without any ground whatever. You knew of the necessity two or three days ago, and it was perfectly possible for you to have informed the Members of this House, and so enabled them to exercise their independent judgment on the provisions of the Bill. I freely recognize the necessity of some urgent legislation, and I am fully prepared to entrust the Government with such a temporary measure as they might desire; but I protest against this violation of Forms, which are intended for the security of Parliament; I protest against this violation, in a panic, of the doctrines of our Criminal Law; and I protest against the introduction of this Bill by the practice of a manœuvre which is unworthy of the Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack answers the noble Marquess with regard to the provisions of the Bill, I must protest, in the strongest terms consistent with Parliamentary courtesy, against the language used by the noble Marquess. I protest that when we come to this House, in the name of the Executive Government, and say that the purposes of public safety require that this Bill should be passed, the Leader of the Opposition should thereupon taunt the Government with a manœuvre and a want of courtesy. I am astounded that

  1807
  the noble Marquess or any Member of the Opposition should descend to such language. The noble Marquess might say that the urgency of the case was not such that it was necessary for us to have come to the House to ask for these powers; but I say we had a right to expect that no personal accusation should be made of a petty manœuvre, when we are performing a solemn public duty. Never, in all my experience in Parliament—and it has been considerable in this House—have I heard language which gave me so much pain—more than that, humiliation—as that used by the noble Marquess. I may leave my noble and learned Friend to answer the noble Marquess's remarks upon the Bill; but I must say that, while I hope I do not use terms of personal offence, I can feel nothing but indignation at the language of the noble Marquess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would first deal with the criticism of the noble Marquess in regard to certain clauses. The noble Marquess had said that in the Interpretation Clause a great many substances were included which ought not to be so. But their Lordships would see that the principal clause ran—
  "Under such circumstances as give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he has the same in his possession or under his control for an unlawful purpose."
  That, together with the necessary consent of the Attorney General, would be a sufficient protection. The reason why the Bill was drawn in that way was that it would be altogether nugatory if that provision were omitted. If those who had a criminal purpose could not be interfered with while they had in their possession the uncombined elements of explosive substances, which might at any moment be combined with great ease and at once employed to do irreparable mischief, there might as well be no Bill at all. And those who had sulphuric or nitric acid, or any other substance, in their possession for legitimate purposes of which they could give an account, would be fully protected, in the unlikely case of their falling under suspicion. The clause would not operate unless there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion, or when it could be shown that the articles were possessed for a lawful purpose,
  1808
  or unless the Attorney General authorized a prosecution. Then, with regard to the clauses as to witnesses, they wore not objectionable in principle. They authorized the husband or the wife to be celled as witnesses if they themselves wished it. If there was a primâ facie ground of suspicion, and the explanation was not sufficient, the accused might, if they desired it, give evidence that would excuse them, and show that the articles were intended for a lawful purpose. If it was right to pass that Bill with those stringent clauses for the public safety, it was also right to introduce in favour of any accused person the power of giving evidence for his own exoneration. As to the clause that a witness examined on oath should not be excused from answering on the ground that he might criminate himself by any statement he might make, but that it should not be used against him, there were now many examples of it in our law. He then came to the objections made by the noble Marquess to the manner in which they were proceeding with the Bill. The noble Marquess said they were legislating in a panic. He would not be tempted to recall the echoes of a recent debate; but he must say that if ever there was a reasonable ground for alarm, the events which were known to them all must surely furnish that ground. He totally denied the propriety of the application of the word panic in the only sense in which it could properly be used on that occasion. The sense of a great public danger with which they were brought with some degree of suddenness face to face no doubt was now; but panic was generally understood to mean exaggerated and irrational alarm. He ventured to say that when they discovered a conspiracy for the destruction of public buildings or life, or both, on a large scale, the manufacture on a large scale of materials for that purpose, their transportation from foreign countries, their being brought from one large place to another, and their application actually in one instance with partial success, and in other instances the attempt made manifest, and the fact that these things did not proceed from the exceptional wickedness or folly of some chance individual, but were part of an organized conspiracy, and were so generally felt to be serious, that the whole House of Commons, without a dissentient voice, had

  1809
  thought it their duty, on the urgent representation of the Government, to pass a Bill of that nature through all its stages, he thought he need not say more about the imputation of panic. The Government had reason to know that this was a case so serious that it was not only necessary to legislate in that stringent manner, but not to lose a day in passing their measure. As to the objection that the Bill was made permanent, the dangers which led to the Bill, so far as they depended on the nature of those explosive substances, the facility of their manufacture and transportation, and of using them for purposes the most destructive and ruinous to the public interest, were in the nature of things permanent. It might be that this particular conspiracy might pass away and be put down; it might be that they might not at all times have so much reason to put in force the provisions of that Bill as they had at this moment; but the nature of those explosive substances remained, the power of using them remained; and all those who were disposed to do things that were injurious to this country knew that substances of that kind might be made and used for such purposes. There being, therefore, in that sense a permanent danger, the Government thought it their duty to ask Parliament to apply a permanent remedy. If hereafter a state of things should arise which would disarm those substances of their dangerous character and make them no longer instruments so easy to be used by wicked persons who had for their object the dissolution of all society, then, perhaps, such a Bill might be necessary no longer; but until science should discover the means of depriving them of that nature, a measure of this kind would be requisite. The only reason for dispensing with the Standing Orders was urgency, and that urgency remained whether the Bill was temporary or permanent. The Government thought it ought to be permanent. Though he much regretted the want of unanimity on the Bill, it was not necessary there should be unanimity in order to suspend the Standing Orders. With regard to the absence of Notice, the Government did not themselves know that the Bill would be passed through the other House in all its stages, so that it was impossible that Notice could be given in the ordinary sense of the word.
  1810
  The Government had every reason to believe that noble Lords on the Opposition Bench had as much knowledge on the subject, and as early, as they had. Therefore, he did not think the Government were liable to the charge of want of courtesy, or sharp Parliamentary practice; and he believed they were only doing their duty to the country in demanding urgency for this Bill.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill, having been introduced in this exceptional manner, should have been of a temporary character only.
  On question, agreed to, and resolved accordingly.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 24.) Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYcharged the Government with having, by their mode of introducing the Bill, ousted the House of all judgment on the disputed clause. If they had made it a temporary Bill, they could have considered the various clauses later. He admitted the emergency; but the plea of urgency was only a plea for ousting the House of all power of discussing the Bill. The House had no Notice until 8 o'clock that evening that the Bill would be passed through all its stages, and the Government were masters of the situation. He believed the Government had set a dangerous precedent, which would affect their Parliamentary procedure, for there was no justification for their present course, which had been adopted without the slightest excuse.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must deny that the proceedings of the Government had been in any way objectionable. He did not know until that evening that the Bill would pass through the House of Commons in all its stages. As to Notice, his object had been to give the earliest possible Notice in his power. Copies of the Bill had been sent at once to the Leaders of the Opposition, so as not to take the Opposition by surprise. He had not anticipated that a Bill of this urgent nature would be opposed, and he was surprised at the intention expressed by the noble Marquess to oppose the Bill. If the Bill were made temporary, it would have to go back to the other House, and it was impossible to say what they would do with

  1811
  it. He could not see what was the object of the noble Marquess in endeavouring to embarrass the Government.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, the noble Marquess was not embarrassing the Government at all, for there was no opposition to the Bill. The Bill contained clauses which were open to discussion. The 6th section was one that in the Irish Act was made only temporary, the period of its operation being three years. If this Bill had been drawn in the same manner as the Irish Bill with respect to these provisions, there would have been no reason to object. After the declaration the Government had made on their responsibility, and with the knowledge possessed by their Lordships as to what was going on in that City, it would be wrong to stop the Bill; but it was fair to protest that this clause had quite a different purview, and had nothing to do with the permanent part of the Bill as it stood, so that it might have been limited in duration as its permanent adoption needed discussion.
  On question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  Then it was moved that the Bill be now committed to a Committee of the Whole House; on question, resolved in the negative.
  Then it was moved that the Bill be now read 3a on question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly.
  Then it was moved that the Bill do pass; on question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill passed accordingly, and a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
  House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.