Sitting of 22 August 1883

MINUTES.
Resolution in Committee—East India Revenue Accounts, debate adjourned.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Post Office (Money Orders) Acts Amendment * [263], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) * [288], and passed.
Withdrawn—Medical Act Amendment* [162]; Contempts of Court * [300]; Stolen Goods * [258]; Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.)* [289]; Indian Marine * [284].

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 2, 9) BILLS.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Lords' Amendments considered.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed satisfaction with the Amendments made by the Lords, the effect of which would be to retain in the hands of Parliament the power to interfere with these monopolies without raising the question of compensation.
    Lords' Amendments agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  STREET TRAFFIC (METROPOLIS)— WHITEHALL.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he was aware that the road between the House and Charing Cross had been closed for repairs, to the great inconvenience of hon. Members; and, whether it would not be possible, in future,

  1645
  to postpone the mending of streets leading to the House until Parliament had risen?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question,

  INDIA—CRIMINAL CODE (PROCEDURE) AMENDMENT (MR. LIBERT'S) BILL —REPORTS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Prime Minister, Whether the opinions of the Local Governments of India upon the Ilbert Bill would be laid upon the Table in dummy during the present Session, so that they might, when received, be printed and circulated during the Recess?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he did not like to answer the Question without consulting the Indian Department; but, so far as he could judge, the request was a reasonable one.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Prime Minister a Question of which he had given the right hon. Gentleman private Notice—namely, What course the Government intended to pursue next Session in consequence of the rejection by the House of Lords of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As to what has happened, of course it is a matter beyond my remedy; but, undoubtedly, it is a subject of very great regret indeed to Her Majesty's Government that this Bill should have failed to pass into law, as we deem it to be a Bill of decided public utility, and adapted to meet the most obvious demands of justice. With regard to the future, I cannot, of course, anticipate the exact arrangements of Business for next Session; and it is a possibility that a Bill relating to registration in Ireland might have its most important provisions included in a measure of a larger character. But, setting aside that possibility for the moment, and assuming that it will not arrive, it certainly would be our desire to reintroduce the Bill at the very commencement of the next Session, and to press it at once on the attention of Parliament.
  MR. PARNELL: In reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I would wish to ask whether the Government, in the Registration Bill which it is proposed to introduce next Session, would draft that measure so that it may take effect at the revision for 1884?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a Question of important detail, which will have the best attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. We will endeavour—and, undoubtedly, are endeavouring—to give early effect to any measure we propose on that subject.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Prime Minister for a similar assurance in regard to the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend will see, I am sure, that the Local Government, Board (Scotland) Bill is a measure of general political expediency. The other measure, besides being a measure of general political expediency, is also, as I have said, a measure adapted to supply the obvious demands of justice.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked, Whether it was really the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed, at that period of the Session, with a Bill which was certain to meet with so much opposition as the Medical Act Amendment Bill?
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he thought the House was really entitled to a definite answer from the Government on the matter.
  DR. LYONSsaid, it would be most important to have a decisive answer on this matter from Her Majesty's Government, as there were several deputations in town of distinguished gentlemen from Scotland and Ireland, who were most interested in the question, and it would be most convenient if there was definite information as to the intentions of the Government.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that hon. Members were not unnaturally anxious

  1647
  for definite information in this matter. He had hoped to have been able to take the second reading of the Bill before this, and that it would have been in their power to devote a part of Thursday to deal with it. He was sorry, having regard to the great interest which the Government took in this Bill, and to the very great importance of its provisions, that that could not be done. Since last night he had no opportunity of communicating with his noble Friend the President of the Council, who conducted the measure through the House of Lords; but he felt that that being Wednesday morning, the 22nd of August, hon. Members had a right to expect what the opinion of the Government was on the present state of facts; and his opinion, and the opinion of his Colleagues, as far as he could ascertain, was that, it being impossible to take the second reading of the Bill before tomorrow, it would be quite impossible to carry it through the House this Session. With the deepest regret, therefore, he should answer that it was not in the power of the Government to carry the measure through the House this Session.
  MR. CALLANasked whether the decision of the Prime Minister with regard to the Medical Act Amendment Bill would apply to the Stolen Goods Bill which came from the House of Lords, and which had not been read a second time?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would ask the hon. Member to communicate with the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert) on the matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Issue of £23,734,011 out of the Consolidated Fund).
    MR. HEALYsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that a large number of people were now imprisoned in the counties of
    1648
    Armagh and Monaghan upon what he believed to be false evidence.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman could have raised the question on going into the Committee; but he could not do in Committee.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought he would be just as much in Order in discussing the question now as if they were in Committee of Supply. If, however, the Chairman desired, he would wait until the particular Vote which included the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter).
    MR. CALLANasked if he and his Friends would not be in Order in discussing the matter on Clause 2 of the Appropriation Bill, which included the amount for Law Prosecutions in Ireland; or whether it could not be discussed on Schedule B?
    MR. PARNELLasked if it would be in Order to raise the question of the convictions at Crossmaglen upon the third reading of the Bill? If that would be orderly, perhaps it would be as well to take the discussion on the third reading.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought if the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were acted upon, it would, no doubt, be a great convenience to the House.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he did not understand why he would not be in Order in calling attention to the matter on the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter).
    THE CHAIRMANwas not prepared to say the hon. Gentleman would be out of Order in raising the question on the clause relating to the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland; but, at the same time, the course suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would prove the most convenient to the House.
    MR. CALLANpointed out that on the third reading the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would not have the right to reply to any statements made; whereas in Committee he would have that right.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, under the circumstances, he would introduce the question on the third reading of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow,

  INDIA—EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS—THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. J. K. CROSS: At last, after long waiting, I have an opportunity of trying to explain to the House the financial position of our East Indian Empire, and that task is neither simple nor easy. If the Accounts to be considered comprised the Receipts from taxation only and the administration of the Revenue gathered from this source, there would be little difficulty in giving a short, clear statement of fact; but, as hon. Members know, the Indian Finance Accounts, on which I have to speak to-day, comprise not only the usual financial arrangements of a Government which directly and indirectly rules 250,000,000 people, they also include the Provincial and part of the Local Expenditure of nearly 600,000 towns and villages, they comprise great schemes of irrigation and navigation, and they have relation to the railway projects of our Indian Empire. Such being the case, I propose to state—first, the gross receipts classed under the head of Revenue, and the gross charges classed under the head of Expenditure; second, I shall try to separate from these general Accounts the receipts from taxation, and show what is the cost of the government of India to the Indian people. I shall then examine the principal items of receipt and charge, showing how they have grown or shrunk. After this, if there is time, and if the House is not wearied, I will give to hon. Members some account of the financial position and prospects of our Indian Empire.
    The Accounts presented for review relate to the finances of three years—the closed Accounts of 1881–2, the Revised Estimate of 1882–3, and the Budget Estimate of 1883–4. The gross Revenue of 1881–2—the first of these years—is £73,695,806; the Expenditure from the Revenue, £71,113,079; leaving a surplus of £2,582,727 of unspent money from the Revenues of the year, besides which, in that year, the Provincial Governments spent less by £1,519,792 than the amount of their allotments—the unspent money being in all, therefore, £4,102,519, and the actual Expenditure
    1650
    £69,593,287, against an actual Expenditure of £75,898,558 in the previous year, or a reduction of gross Expenditure of £6,305,271. The year 1881–2 was, on the whole, the most prosperous financial year which India has enjoyed; for the result I have described was accomplished, notwithstanding that £1,500,000 was laid aside for Famine Relief and Insurance; the amount spent on actual Relief being £34,849; on Protective Railways and Irrigation, £750,000; and on Reduction of Debt, £715,151. During that year the amount raised from taxation and rent under the following eight heads of Revenue—namely, Land, Salt, Stamps, Excise, Provincial Rates, Customs, Assessed Taxes, and Registration, being all, in fact, that is raised in rent and taxes by the Indian Government, was £42,210,709; or, if you consider the Land Revenue, £21,948,022, as rent, and not as tax, the amount of taxation is £20,262,687, or one rupee per head on the population of that part of British India directly under our rule. The favourable results of that year, further details of which will be found in Major Baring's Financial Statement, at paragraphs 68 and 69, induced the Government of India to relax the restrictions placed upon the Expenditure of the Local and Provincial Governments in 1879, when famine, loss by exchange, and war pressed very heavily upon India. The Supreme Government was also, during that year, able to return to the Provincial Governments £670,000, which had been withheld when these troubles threatened to upset all financial calculations. In consequence of the favourable financial position the Government were able to reduce the tax on salt by 25 per cent. and to abolish the Customs Duties on all imports, excluding liquors, leaving in the pocket of the people, including some remission of Provincial rates, no less a sum than £2,800,090, which, had these taxes been maintained, would, of course, have swelled the receipts of 1882–3.
    I now come to last year, the second which I mentioned as coming under review, the year ending March, 1883. The gross Revenue is estimated, after very careful revision at £67,920,408, and the Expenditure from Revenue at £67,696,116, including the unexpected item of £1,325,496 for the Egyptian

    1651
    War, and leaving a surplus of £224,292; but in this year, unlike 1881–2, the Provincial Governments have spent from their balances £1,525,400, making the total Expenditure of the country £69,221,516, as against £69,593,287 in the previous year, or a reduction of £371,771; and this Expenditure includes £1,500,000 again laid aside for Famine Relief and Insurance, £25,600 being spent on Famine Relief, £144,200 on Protective Works, and £1,330,200 on reduction of Debt. The total amount raised under the eight heads I previously mentioned as rent and taxes is £39,601,600, of which £21,700,400 comes from Land Revenue, which may be taken as rent, leaving the taxation of the year £17,901,200, or a reduction of £2,361,500 as compared with 1881–2, and costing about 14·4 annas per head on the whole population of British India under our direct rule.
    I now pass to the gross estimated Revenue and Expenditure for 1883–4, as shown in the Budget Estimate. The Revenue is estimated at £67,274,000; the Expenditure from the receipts of the year £66,817,000, leaving a surplus of £457,000; but, again, as in 1882–3, the Provincial Governments propose to spend £1,499,000 from their balances, making the gross Expenditure of the year £68,316,000, which is £905,000 less than in 1882–3. Again, there is laid aside and included in the Expenditure £1,500,000 for Famine Relief and Insurance, of which only £12,500 was, in the Budget, estimated to be spent on actual relief. The amount raised from land and other taxes under the eight heads of Revenue of which I have previously spoken is £39,757,300; and if we deduct the land revenue from this amount the net taxation of the whole of British India under our direct rule will be £17,964,600, or a slight increase of £63,400, making the amount raised from the inhabitants of British India about 14½ annas per head in the year ending March, 1884. I have now put before the House the main features of gross Revenue and Expenditure for two years, and the expectation for the third. I am so anxious that they should be fully understood that I ask to be allowed to recapitulate them. Taxation has been reduced, leaving nearly £3,000,000 a-year in the pocket of the people. The Expenditure in the three years under review is, in 1881–2,
    1652
    £69,593,287, being a reduction of £6,305,271; 1882–3, £69,221,516, being a reduction of £371,771; 1883–4, £68,316,300 being a reduction of £905,000. This Expenditure includes £1,645,000 for military operations in Afghanistan, and £1,325,000 for the unexpected Egyptian War, towards which £500,000, true sterling, has been contributed by England. It includes also £1,500,000 yearly for Famine Insurance and Famine Relief; and out of £4,500,000 so charged in the last three years only £73,000 has been spent on actual relief, the remainder being spent on productive works and reduction of Debt. In these three years the amounts raised in India by taxation—other than land tax—are, in 1881–2, £20,262,687, or one rupee per head; 1882–3, £17,901,200, or 14·4 annas per head; 1883–4, £17,964,600, or 14½ annas per head. Such are the main features of the Accounts which I ask the House to consider. But before I pass from this part of my subject, I may say that the final Accounts of 1882–3 appear so much better than the Estimate that the surplus of £224,000 will be £750,000; and, as I said a few days ago, the surplus of 1883–4, estimated at £457,000, will probably, should there be no famine, be £ 1,000,000 in addition to that sum; but no one can forecast until the rains shall be over the result of this year's Revenue. Statements are often made that we are grinding out of the people of India £70,000,000 a-year in taxation. I think Arthur Helps says that a lie only lives for a day; but it may be "the" day, meaning the day during which its currency pays. That is the principle, or, rather, the want of principle, underlying some of the articles on Indian taxation which have appeared in the public prints. I have told the House that the amount raised by the Government as rent and taxes is from £39,000,000 to £42,000,000 a-year. Yet the gross Revenue is estimated at £67,000,000 this year. There is a great difference between these sums. How does it arise? The reason is, as I told hon. Members at the beginning of my speech, that many things are included in the Revenue Account which are not taxation. This year these receipts are—Opium, which produces £9,200,000; tributes from Native States, £701,000; forest receipts, £936,000; Post Office,

    1653
    telegraph, and Mint (heads 12, 13, and 14), £1,670,000; receipts from the Civil Department corresponding to our Court fees and education contributions (heads 15 to 20), £1,402,000; interest on local loans, receipts in aid of superannuation, and miscellaneous credits (heads 21 to 24), £1,269,000; the receipts from adjusting entries made on account of the Army and sale of stores (head 36), £866,000; Revenue from Public Works of all kinds, both ordinary and productive, £11,473,000; amounting in all to £27,517,000; which, added to the £39,757,000 which I said was derived from rent and taxes, gives the gross Re-venue of 1883–4 £67,274,000. If our Government at home owned all the land of the United Kingdom, and rented it out, calling the rent Revenue, and if the gross receipts of all the railways which pay badly, and the net receipts of those which pay well, together with the receipts of canals and waterworks, and the foes of our Law Courts, were included in our Annual Budget, we should seem to be grinding a fearful amount of taxation out of the people of this country; but it would be just as sensible to call these items taxation in England as it is to call them taxation in India.
    And now, Sir, I must trouble hon. Members with some few of the dreary details of account so distressing to the House of Commons. I do not need to dwell upon them, because Mr. Water-field, our very able Financial Secretary, has prepared an explanatory Paper which I have circulated among hon. Members, and it tells much more fully than I can by speech the details of the various items of receipt and charge coming under review. I would also draw the attention of those Members of the House who wish to obtain some general view of the financial position, without going into detail, to the Tables given at page 48 of the Financial Statement, which show the broad transactions of the three years under review, and also the heads of Revenue and Expenditure arranged in convenient groups. These Tables, with the consent of the House, will be adopted in the Finance and Revenue Accounts in future years. They present the main facts of Indian Finance in an intelligible form. There are, however, some features to which I should like to direct attention. The details of
    1654
    the first year coming under review, the year 1881–2 show a remarkable bound. Though the Opium Revenue fell off by £618,000 as compared with the previous year, the receipts from taxes and Railways increased so much that the surplus of the year, estimated at £855,000, was, as I have said, £2,582,727. Salt produced more than in 1880–1 by £259,632; Excise, £292,048; Forests, £165,115; State Railways, £287,407; Guaranteed Railways, £720,826; East India Railway, £472,672. This boom of prosperity enabled the Government to propose great reductions in taxation. If the taxes had been maintained at the previous rates, the finances of last year and this year would, of course, have shown very heavy surpluses, amounting to at least £3,500,000 a-year, besides providing for Famine Insurance; but the Government of India wisely determined to go as far as possible in the direction of Free Trade. They abolished the Import Duties upon everything but liquors, and reduced the Salt Duties by 25 per cent. The advantage of this reduction is shown in the increased consumption of the article during the last year, 1882–3; for, whilst the reduction in duty is 25 per cent. the falling-off in Revenue is only 18 per cent. and the price has fallen 12¾ per cent in Oude, and 23 per cent in Bengal. In the current year Major Baring estimates the net Salt Revenue at only the same as last year, or, indeed, at £13,000 less; but there is every reason to believe that this Estimate will be considerably surpassed. The Duty is only two rupees per maund, and this tax is really a great financial Reserve, which might be called upon should the necessities of the case unfortunately require it, a contingency which I devoutly hope may be avoided. The abolition of the Customs Duties on imports has, of course, reduced the receipts from this head; but it has brought the Indian people face to face with the cheapest means of clothing themselves. At the same time, it enables India to take her place as a great producing power. And now that all restrictions are removed, no doubt there will be a great development of her industries. The net Customs Duties are now only £1,109,000 and £1,111,000 respectively in the last two years; of which £400,000 is derived from wines, spirits, and beer, and £700,000 from the Export Duty on

    1655
    rice—a tax which the Government of India is anxious to abolish, and which, had it not been necessary to begin to pay the arrears due to the Treasury for Army Pension Charges, might shortly have ceased to exist. The Estimate of the Opium Revenue is less in 1882–3 than in the previous year by nearly £600,000 net; and this year Major Baring estimates it at a further net reduction of £182,000, the price having fallen from 1,324 rupees per chest in 1881–2 to 1,222 rupees in 1882–3; while the duty on Malwa opium has been reduced to 50 rupees per chest. The production of opium varies greatly from year to year. At present the reserve is falling. Notice has been given that the sales will be reduced after August, 1883, from 4,700 to 4,450 chests a-month, and in April, 1884, to 3,800 chests a-month. Of course, it has yet to be seen whether this reduction in quantity will have much effect on the price; but usually when the quantity of any commodity offered for sale is reduced the price rises. And this, I hope, will be the case with our opium. Remarks have been made on the great variation in the cost of the collection of the Opium Revenue; but on examination it will be found that it does not vary greatly in proportion to the number of chests produced. I have had a Table made showing the cost per chest for 10 years, and it shows but little variation, though, of course, when the cultivators are paid 5 rupees per seer, it costs more than when they are paid 4½ rupees for the same quantity. The Revenue from Excise grows at a moderate rate, showing that the Blue Ribbon Army has not yet got possession of the Natives. The net increase under this head is £190,000 in 1882–3; and a further increase of £9,000 is expected in 1883–4; but this is a very moderate Estimate, and will probably be considerably exceeded, as this item depends much on general prosperity. The next item of Revenue calling for notice is that derived from Forests, which shows an increase of £19,000 in 1882–3; but, from anticipated large Expenditure on the completion of surveys, the Estimate for 1883–4 is reduced by £76,000, increased receipts being estimated at £14,200, against an increased charge of £89,800. This is, and has been, a steadily growing item, and again I must
    1656
    remark on the safety of the Estimate. Forestry has become a very important Department in India, and the preservation and development of this branch is receiving much greater attention than formerly. The extent of land under this Department is now 33,000 square miles, or 21,000,000 acres, the gross receipts amounting to nearly £1,000,000 yearly, and costing about £650,000. The thorough education of young men to work this Department has engaged the careful attention of the Government of India; but there being no practical Forestry, on a large scale, available for instruction here, the students have to go to France. This Department, if well worked, should in the future be a great advantage to India, and a source of revenue to the Government. The Post Office, Telegraphs, and Mint form the next head, the net cost of which in 1882–3 was £274,731, and in 1883–4 it is estimated at £369,800; the increase being based on an anticipation that less silver will be coined this year, depriving the Mint of some £50,000 of receipts, and that an additional £85,000 will be spent on telegraph lines. The postal and telegraph business is a constantly increasing one. There are now 4,800 post offices, against 2,880 in 1872; and 7,000 letter-boxes, against 1,885 10 years ago. The telegraphs now extend to over 20,000 miles of line and 55,000 miles of wire. I ought to mention that all this has been constructed out of Revenue, and I do not know any other country of which the same can be said. The receipts of the Civil Departments show a small reduction of £78,676 in 1882–3, and a further estimated reduction of £32,100 in 1883–4. The receipts from miscellaneous sources under heads 21 to 24 are also less in 1882–3 by £338,901, and are estimated at £98,800 less this year. All these Estimates of receipt appear to be made on exceedingly cautious lines, and are likely to be exceeded. The expenses of those Departments shown under heads 18 to 26 in Abstract E of the Budget Statement, and at page 9 of Paper 268, show that tendency to increase described by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), my Predecessor, when he said—
    "Looking at the increased demands which would necessarily he made upon them as an improved government extended itself in India,

    1657
    and by the growing intelligence and civilization of the people, there was a natural tendency to increase."
    This natural tendency to increase was shown in the Accounts for 1881–2 by an increase of £470,000, partly through increased political and marine charges, and partly through the increased cost of education and police. We know well that advance of education means heavier cost, and that higher civilization is accompanied by a growth of the police charge. The number of schools registered on the Government books has increased greatly, being in Bengal alone 15,290 in 1871, and 58,097 in 1882. There is also an increase in the new Agricultural Department, and in the cost of bringing emigrants into British Burmah. In connection with the new Agricultural Department, I ought to mention that two Native gentlemen, sent by the Government of Bengal to the Agricultural College at Cirencester, passed out this year on the completion of their course at the head of the list of students. The miscellaneous Civil Charges, shown under heads 27 to 31 in Abstract B, exhibit no material change, though Superannuations, Pensions, and Allowances show some increase. Some time since I explained to the House how the Civil Superannuation Charges had grown from a net average of £860,000 a-year in the three years ending 1874 to £1,850,000 a-year in the three years ending 1883. These charges will still grow, and it is well for hon. Members to recollect that every additional appointment to the Services in India means not only a present increase of official salary, but a future liability for pension, in addition to the salary of the official; and it means a permanent addition to the Home Charges to the extent of the pension in question in all cases where the position is filled by a European.
    And I now come to the Army Expenditure of the last two years. The gross totals shown in the Accounts are £17,434,000 in 1882–3, and £16,064,000 in 1883–4. These are large sums; but they compare with £28,086,000 and £18,861,000 in the previous years, 1880–1 and 1881–2, the first of which was the heaviest year of the Afghan War. The £17,434,000 spent in 1882–3 includes the cost of the Indian Contingent in Egypt, towards which a sum of £500,000 was contributed by England. In order
    1658
    to arrive at the net cost of the Army to India we must deduct this sum, and we must also deduct the receipts, which are really matters of Account, and which amount to £988,000 in 1882–3, besides £40,000 from the sale of stores, &c, returned from Egypt. Deducting these, we have the net cost to India of £15,906,000 in 1882–3, against a net cost of £15,039,000 in 1881–2, and of £23,864,000 in 1880–1. This year we expect that the net cost will be £15,198,000. I speak of the net cost because I am speaking of the burdens thrown upon the Indian Revenues in each year; and, in speaking thus, it is necessary to deduct from the Indian gross charge any English contributions towards it. But, I may be asked, what has been the real annual cost of the Indian Military Establishment, irrespective of and not including either Afghan or Egyptian War? Well, it has been in the last four years—in 1880–1, £15,794,000; in 1881–2, £16,054,000; in 1882–3, £15,121,000; and in 1883–4, £15,198,000. The House will like to know to whom these sums have been paid. Taking 1881–2 as an example, the last year of which we have the closed Accounts:—The active Force in India cost £11,316,000; payment to the War Office for active services, £505,000; other small payments in England, £23,000; Military Stores, £544,000; Transport of Troops, £416,000; Furlough Allowances, £318,000; total, £13,122,000; whilst the Pensions in India were £703,000; and in England, £2,229,000; together £2,932,000, making a grand total of £16,054,000. The cost of the Effective Forces of the Indian Army for the last four years has been—In 1880–1, £13,057,000; in 1881–2, £13,122,000; 1882–3, £12,207,008; 1883–4, £12,095,000, showing a very distinct reduction; but this reduction is, to some extent, neutralized by the continued growth of the Pension Charges. Some little time ago I described to the House how the Non-Effective Army Charges had grown from £1,930,000 a-year in 1873 to £2,850,000 a-year in the last three years, and I told the House that for a number of years they had been under-estimated by considerably over £200,000 annually. In every Estimate of the future cost of the Indian Military Service we must take account, not only of increasing charges, but also

    1659
    of the arrears of over £2,000,000 which India owes to the British Treasury at this moment. I cannot, therefore, estimate the Non-Effective Charges at less than £3,100,000 per annum. Meanwhile, it is sufficient for me to say that the Military Estimates for the year are lower than any since 1876–7; and if it were not for the increase of the Non-Effective Charges they would be much more favourable. In speaking of military expenses, I may refer to the Report of the Simla Army Commission, about which a good deal of expectation has been roused by the statement that a saving of £1,250,000 had been promised if the recommendations of that Report were carried out. These recommendations, however, were by no means adopted in their entirety by the Government of India, who finally adopted a scheme by which a direct saving of £360,000 a-year was anticipated. The Commission recommended, as hon. Members know, that the Armies of Bombay and Madras should be withdrawn from the control of their respective Governments, the whole Indian Army being placed under one Commander-in-Chief, and divided into four Army Corps, each under a Lieutenant General with a complete Staff. But, after giving full consideration to the proposals of the Commission and of the Government of India, the Secretary of State in Council informed the Government of India that it had not been shown that this measure would, in itself, effect any reduction of charge or increased economy in administration. There are reasons, too, of a political character against the principle of the change recommended. The conclusion, therefore, of Her Majesty's Government is that they are unable to adopt the recommendations in face of the political objections which may be urged against the proposed changes in the constitution of the Bombay and Madras Armies, and the absence of proof of financial saving. I may say that the increased cost of superannuation, to be added to the Non-Effective Charges, and which seems to be inseparable from all Army reform, was not taken into account by the Army Commission or by the Government of India. At the same time, considerable reductions have been made. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, speaking as Indian Minister last year,
    1660
    described those reductions, all of which have since been carried out; the result being that we have an Army slightly increased in numbers, with an ultimate saving of £200,000 a-year in India. The shortcomings of Army transport during the Afghan War showed that it was necessary for the efficiency of the Army to organize a Transport Department. This has now been done, with the result that 46,000 troops, stationed chiefly on the Frontiers, are equipped with one-half regimental transport, all in regimental charge. Of these troops 23,000 could be put into the field at once without requiring any additional carriage. For the present this transport is distributed over a larger number of corps than it will completely mobilize, in order to teach officers and men the management of transport. In addition to this, a general Transport Service is to be maintained at certain central garrisons. It is so organized as to be capable of rapid expansion in time of war. Two of these stations are depôts of instruction, to which detachments will be sent from regiments, to go through a regular course of instruction in transport duties. The regimental and depot transport maintained during time of peace provides for the immediate mobilization of 33,000 troops—namely, 10,000 in the Punjaub, 10,000 in Bengal, 8,000 in Bombay, and 5,000 in Madras. The establishment of this service will entail no increase of cost. Those who wish to have more detailed information of military matters will do well to read the able Minute of General Wilson, which is attached to Sir Evelyn Baring's Financial Statement already presented to the House. The arrangements and efficiency of the Indian Army were fully tested in the late Egyptian Expedition, and, with the unfortunate exception of the outbreak of glanders in the 6th Bengal Cavalry, everything went forward with most perfect regularity; indeed, I have been told by those who were upon the spot that the Indian Contingent did not wait one moment for anything, and we all know how greatly all arms distinguished themselves in action.
    I now come to the Public Works, which are divided into two branches—Ordinary and Productive. The total Expenditure on both branches in the three years ending March, 1884, is

    1661
    £29,036,000, towards which there has been provided £9,402,000 from Loans and Reduced Balances in India. In the previous three years the amount spent was £28,482,000, towards which there was provided £14,399,000 from similar sources. In the last three years £554,000 more has been spent; but £4,997,000 less has been borrowed and used from Balances. I must speak separately about these works, and I will take the Ordinary Works first. They are entirely constructed from Revenue, and comprise seven items on the Expenditure side of the Finance Accounts, 42 to 48 inclusive—namely, State Railways, Capital Account; State Railways, working expenses and maintenance; Subsidized Railways, Frontier Railways, Irrigation and Navigation, Military Works, Civil Buildings, Roads, and Services. In the three years under review, the amount spent under these heads is £20,758,210, against £18,935,806 in the previous three years, showing an increase of £1,822,404, or £607,000 per annum. I should like to explain to the House how this expenditure has arisen, because I do not agree with the criticisms of my hon. Predecessor. I do not consider this expenditure necessarily bad; indeed, if prudently carried out, I consider it the very best expenditure which any Government can undertake. It is really improvement of estate from surplus income; and if it can be accomplished without an increase of Establishments, it is all gain. The question which we ought to decide is—what is and what is not prudent expenditure? The first item, State Railways, is for Railway extension in districts where lines are generally needed, or will serve to obviate famine. The second is the working expenses and maintenance of these lines, and this is more than balanced by the corresponding entry on the Revenue side, amounting to £192,000 in 1883–4, against an Expenditure of £185,000. The third head is for land given to railways and interest paid to Subsidized Railways—that is, Railways undertaken under guarantee of interest. The fourth is for Frontier Railways, undertaken for strategic purposes, the financial advantage of which is doubtful, though sometimes they may be necessary. This is not an item of expenditure for which we are directly responsible. The fifth head is for such Irrigation and Navigation
    1662
    Works as will, in the opinion of the Local and Imperial Governments, develop the districts in which they are undertaken, although they may not produce net direct Revenue. The sixth item is the annual charge for the building and maintenance of Military Works, which I would gladly see reduced; and the seventh is the item which includes all the Public Buildings, Court Houses, Government Offices, Post Offices, Gaols, Schools, Dispensaries, and Warehouses for grain storage. It also includes the money spent on Roads, Ferries, Bridges, Culverts, Drainage Works, and on the improvement and making of the smaller tanks and wells. These operations are undertaken in India out of current income; and they therefore appear in the annual Accounts as one of the heaviest items of Expenditure. The direct receipts, however, from them are not inconsiderable, amounting to £772,000 in 1882–3, and to £865,000 in the Estimate for 1883–4. There is every reason to hope that these receipts will continue to increase, though we must look rather to the greater welfare of the people than to cash results as the effect of this expenditure, just as, in England, money spent on similar works is recouped to the localities spending it, in convenience rather than in cash. The difference between the plan of making these improvements in England and in India is, that here we borrow for these works, whereas in India they are constructed out of current income. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) seems to consider roads, railways, schools, dispensaries, tanks, and so forth, as luxuries which India cannot afford. He recommends that the money spent on these items should be laid by to meet famine when it comes; he objects to allowing the Local Governments to spend their own money; he would have them wrap up their pound in a napkin, like the timid servant in the parable. But, Sir, this policy would result in universal stagnation and paralysis. It seems to me that if ever you are to develop local self-government and local interest in India, you must let the local authorities spend their own funds on their own improvements, so long as they keep within their income and devote their expenditure to objects which have been approved by the Supreme Government. The Expenditure under the seventh head was

    1663
    £3,128,000 in the year ended March, 1879. On the 22nd of May in the same year the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) said—
    "No now works were to be undertaken, even if already sanctioned, without the special consent of the Supreme Government; a rigid investigation was to be made into the necessity for them"
    —as though that investigation should not have been made before they were sanctioned— "Establishments which were excessive were to be cut down."—(3 Hansard, [246] 1063.)
    As the result, it was anticipated by the Government of India that an annual saving of £750,000 would be effected. And the Accounts show that a reduction of £201,607 was made between 1878–9 and 1879–80. The Expenditure on this seventh item in 1879–80 was reduced to £2,926,112. It had been £4,298,018 in 1875–6. This year we budget £4,303,700. The hon. Gentleman now almosts boasts of the reduction in 1878–9 as if it had been a desirable thing. In 1879 he deplored the necessity for it. Sir, the reduction was forced on the Indian Government by war and famine. It was not a good thing. Nay, I will go farther, and say it was a great disaster. I have made it my business to ask every prominent civilian whom I have met, who has returned from India during the last three years, what was the effect of the reductions in the Public Works Expenditure generally in 1878–9 and 1879–80; and the answer is always the same. Thousands of men usually employed on useful works had to be discharged. Every improvement was stopped, and scores of Civil Engineers sat in their offices, twiddling their thumbs, with nothing to do but to draw their salaries, and to speculate on the pension terms which would have to be offered to them to induce them to retire. The Establishments, certainly, were cut down, but at an extra cost of £369,000 for superannuation—this being the amount which had to be paid in the course of the next two years to the retired Engineers. I wish, as far as possible, to avoid contentious matter. But after the hon. Gentleman opposite has so publicly stated that in Indian finance we have cast economy to the winds, and that we are spending in India £3,500,000 more than our Predecessors, I am obliged to dwell on the facts of the case.
    1664
    I now ask the House to consider the Productive Works—that is, speaking roundly, those Railways and Irrigation Works which have been constructed out of borrowed money, or under a Government guarantee of interest, which is very much the same thing, so far as the liability of Government is concerned. The total capital involved is £163,000,000. The gross receipts of 1882–3 show a decrease of £412,000 as compared with the previous year; but the Estimate for 1883–4 shows a recovery of £238,000. The decrease was caused by a falling-off of £417,000 in the net traffic receipts of the East Indian Railway. The total amount of Revenue is £10,782,000 in 1881–2, against £9,382,000 in the previous year; but it falls to £10,370,000 in the year ending March, 1883, and is put down at the very moderate Estimate of £10,608,000 for 1883–4. The current Revenue from these Productive Public Works now exceeds the charge for interest and maintenance, the profit being £454,000 in 1882–3, and £520,000 in 1883–4. These results are eminently satisfactory, especially when we recollect that these works wore a charge of £1,600,000 on the Revenue in 1872, and that the rate of guarantee given on the Railway lines constructed some years ago was so high. For many years these Railways were a heavy direct charge upon the taxpayer in India. No less a sum than £24,000,000 has been paid in interest in excess of the net receipts. Some of the lines were most expensively made; and, the guarantee being 5 per cent on a very heavy cost, the Railways really for a long time had no chance against their capital accounts. They have, however, now turned the corner, and seem to be fairly on the high road to prosperity. If these Railways could have been started at 3½ per cent. the profit to the Government would be over £2,000,000 yearly. While, as a whole, the Productive Works Expenditure more than pays, the financial results of the Irrigation Works are not so good as those of the Railway Works. They are weighted with the cost of several foolish schemes, undertaken by enthusiasts long ago without sufficient consideration; among which are the Madras Irrigation Company's Works, which have cost £1,750,000, and which have produced nothing. Altogether the Irrigation and Navigation Capital Account

    1665
    stands at £20,036,024, and produces only 4 per cent on the investment, after paying current expenses; but it is, of course, difficult to estimate the indirect advantages conferred upon India by the great increase of production which irrigation has rendered possible. The Railways, I have said, are the profitable branch of the Productive Works Expenditure; and, in order to bring their position clearly before the House, I hope that I may be allowed to state a few facts concerning them. We know the results in detail to the end of 1882. The total Capital Expenditure is 143 crores of rupees, or, nominally, £143,000,000 sterling. The Receipts are £15,231,261; the Expenses are £7,580,549; the Net Profits are £7,650,712, or 5·37 per cent on the total capital employed; if we add the excess of interest paid to the Capital Account of the Railways, raising that capital to 167 crores of rupees, the Dividend now earned is about 4·6 percent; whereas in the United Kingdom the profit last year on the total capital invested was only 4·32 per cent; and there is one very remarkable fact which is well worth noting by investors—that whereas the gross traffic on the English lines only amounts to 9 per cent on the total capital embarked on the Indian lines, it is already nearly 11 per cent. Given these figures, it is not surprising that the question of increased railway extension presses for solution. There is an extraordinary consensus of opinion on this point amongst all men in England who know India. There are still immense tracts of country, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 60,000, and in one case 160,000 square miles in extent, containing nearly 20,000,000 people, without a single railway through them—and this, too, some of the most fertile land of India, capable of great agricultural development. The Central Provinces and the neighbouring parts of Bengal might, I am assured, produce food for 20,000,000 more people than they contain. At present, at Bilaspur, wheat is about 7s. the quarter, while salt is double the Bombay price. At Nagpur, 20 years ago, rice was sold at 200 to 250 seers per rupee, a rate of 6d. per 100 lbs. The making of a trunk road doubled the price, and the approach of a railroad again more than doubled it. Can anyone doubt that the placing of a main
    1666
    railway in the Central Provinces—a country the size of Prance, and one, too, in which there is a steady and regular rainfall of 40 to 60 inches a-year, so that real famine has never been known—can be otherwise than an immense advantage, not merely to the district itself, but to those adjacent parts of India which are subject to scarcity. It is for the House of Commons to decide whether or not the Indian Government shall be encouraged to make such arrangements as will make it certain that railways shall be made. And, looking to the fact that the cost of all material is exceedingly low, and that the making of railways is now well understood in India, I have no hesitation in telling the House that I firmly believe it to be good policy to encourage such work within reasonable limits. There are districts, too, where railway lines are needed to bring food within reach of great masses of the people when famine comes. When famine comes, if the railway is there, time and distance are annihilated; you can bring in food. But without railways, when a drought occurs, such as that which fell upon Madras, Bombay, Mysore, and Hyderabad in 1877, the people die by hundreds of thousands before the grain can reach them. You may have unlimited money, and be willing to use it; you may have vast stores of grain 500 miles away; but you cannot get the grain to the people. Carts and pack bullocks are the only means of conveyance, and when drought comes there is neither forage nor water for your beasts of burden. The introduction of railways in such cases would enable the surplus produce of these districts to find markets in good seasons; whereas at present the surplus of a good crop is often wasted or becomes food for the weevil worm. If the surplus products of good years could be fully utilized, by the completion of communications it is probable that private trade would deal with scarcity, and even with famine, more ably and more surely than Government can deal with it. In this matter of railway development India wants no help; she asks for nothing but permission to develop her own resources; and those who deny her that right incur a grave responsibility, which I have no wish to share. I should be sorry if the House, from what I have said, should

    1667
    run away with the idea that nothing is being done towards railway extension in India. The State will spend this year £4,400,000, though we only borrow £2,500,000; and private enterprize, so called, that is the Southern Mahratta, Bengal Central, and Bengal and North-Western Companies, will spend, perhaps, £1,600,000, making in all £6,000,000 which will be spent on railways this year. There is also another very useful scheme proposed by the Hyderabad Government, and sanctioned by the Government of India, by which the present railway may be extended to Chanda, opening up an extensive coal field, and connecting the South with the Central Provinces.
    Another item of Account to which I have to call attention is Exchange. Sir Evelyn Baring has placed this in more simple form than it has yet been in the Financial Statement of the year. The charge is more a charge in Account than an item of Expenditure, and it is caused by our method of reckoning 10 rupees as equal to the pound sterling in the settlement of the Home Accounts. Now, the rupee, with the old average price of silver, never was worth more than 1s. 10¾d., though reckoned in Account as 2s.; and at present it is only worth 1s. 7½d. Before we can really understand the nature of this item of Exchange we must dismiss from our minds the idea that there is any necessary proportional connection between the rupee and the pound sterling. I know there is a lurking fallacy in the corner of many men's minds that the rupee is one-tenth of a pound, and that the sovereign is 10 rupees, or that this ought to be so. Sir, the rupee is 165 grains of pure silver and 15 grains of alloy, minted in India, and put in circulation there as the standard coin and measure of value throughout the Indian Empire. The sovereign is 123·274 grains of gold of 22 carats, or –916 fine, minted in England, and put in circulation here as the standard coin and measure of value throughout the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no more connection between the sovereign in England and the rupee in India than there is between butter in Bond Street and bread in Bombay. When hon. Members who do not look into these matters have mastered this simple fact they will understand this item of Account better than
    1668
    they do at present. It is a disturbing element of unknown quantity and great power; and the entire separation between the standards of value of the two countries since the closing of the bi-metallic mint in France renders it especially desirable that we should not increase the sterling charges, while we are so uncertain how many rupees will be wanted to pay £1 worth of charge. In addressing the House on this subject four years ago I ventured to say that the silver question would probably not trouble us greatly till the American currency was well filled, but that, when America had absorbed as much as she required, we should have a recurrence of the disturbance. I do not venture any prophecy on this matter; but I certainly think that disturbance is not further off than it was four years ago, and I confess that it is not without anxiety that I look forward to the possible or probable stoppage of the American coinage of silver, and the effect which it certainly will have on our Exchange transactions with India. The indebtedness of India to this country, though reckoned in pounds sterling and dischargeable in rupees, is, as hon. Members know, really paid in produce, and whatever facilitates the export of that produce is an advantage to India. Low cost of carriage of grain from the interior to the seaboard is of vital interest to the Indian taxpayer, because the lower the cost of carriage between the point of production and the consuming market the greater will be the value at the place of production. In other words, a given amount of produce would discharge a greater amount of Debt.
    This brings me face to face with the last part of my subject, the Indian Debt, said by some public writers to be so onerous and enormous a charge upon India. The total Debt, including every liability and guarantee on account of public works, is £229,000,000, against which we have public works, which pay good interest on £163,000,000, leaving an uncovered Debt of £66,000,000; not an excessive amount for a country of 200,000,000 people, whose trade is rapidly increasing, and whose annual exports exceed the total amount of her net National Debt. I may mention that the last reductions of freight on the railways have already had a great effect on

    1669
    the wheat export, which has risen in the two months ending May 30 to 4,166,000 cwt., against 2,705,000 cwt. in the corresponding period of 1882, and 2,024,000 cwt. in 1880–1—thus proving how important a factor cheap communication is in our financial arrangements.
    There are many other points on which I should like to have spoken to day; but they hardly come within the scope of a financial speech. Before I sit down, however, I must say one word on the most regrettable event which has happened in India lately—that is, the retirement of Sir Evelyn Baring. His financial rule will long be remembered, not only for his continuous efforts to develop the policy laid down by his able Predecessor, but for the brilliant success of his own administration. In taking leave of him as our Finance Minister, I can only say how deeply we regret the parting. He leaves a clear field for his successor, who is no prentice hand, and in whose care we may safely leave our finances. One word more of regret. My Colleague, Sir Louis Mallet, whose name is most intimately connected with the commercial politics of the last 40 years, has, unfortunately for us, decided to withdraw those services which have in times past been so valuable to the Government of India. No one can blame him for this step. He has amply earned his rest, and, though he will be no longer with us in Office, we hope for many years to come to have the satisfaction of referring to his great experience whenever occasion may require it.
    There is only one point more, one, perhaps, more political than financial; but much depends on the terms on which we live with our neighbours, and it has been the endeavour of the Government of Lord Ripon to cultivate good relations with the Ameer of Afghanistan. I may say that our relations are those of cordial concord. And we believe that in his own ability to defend his State lies our best safeguard from Frontier complications. The cordial friendship of the Ameer is far less costly than his shyness, and the Government of India have thought it right to enable him to maintain his position, even at some cost to themselves.
    My task is done; I hope the explanation which I have tried to give will enable hon. Members to grasp the present financial position of our Indian Empire.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. J. K. Cross.)
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: While I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on his lucid and able speech, I cannot but say a word with regard to the contemptuous treatment which the Indian Budget has received from Her Majesty's Government. The debate has been postponed until that important Statement, affecting more than 200,000,000 people, has to be made in a House containing less than a score of Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and not half that number on the Opposition Benches. The Statement of my hon. Friend is quite worthy the attention of a full House. The administrative and judicial hierarchy of India is not generally understood in England. There has, up to the present, been a considerable distinction between the services of the "regulation" and "non-regulation" Provinces. The former are the older and earlier settled States, and embrace the Governorships of Madras and Bombay, and the Lieutenant Governorships of Bengal and of the North-West Provinces. The latter contain the Provinces of the Punjaub, Burmah, Oude, the Central Provinces, and Assam. The chief civil and judicial officers of these non-regulation Provinces are styled Chief Commissioners and Judicial Commissioners, except in the Punjaub, where there is a Lieutenant Governor and a Chief Court. In the regulation Provinces the superior civil and judicial appointments have only been open to the Members of the "Covenanted Services"—that is, to those who have passed the regular Indian competitive examination in this country. In the non-regulation Provinces, on the contrary, as they have been annexed and their Administration arranged more recently, the Executive and Judicial posts have been entirely in the patronage of the Governor General of India. There has been, practically, no criterion of examination. The Viceroy could appoint anyone, Native or European, he pleased. The most important office in the hierarchy of Indian Administration is, undoubtedly, the district magistrate, who, in the non-regulation Provinces, is styled Deputy Commissioner. Above him are the Commissioners, who superintend

    1671
    several districts, and above the Commissioners the Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and Chief Commissioners. But the magistrate of a district is the principal and central figure in Indian Administration. He occupies a dominant position in a district which varies in size. The average population of a British district is not far short of 1,000,000; but in many cases it exceeds 2,000,000, and in some there are more than 2,500,000. He is the representative of the British Government to all in his district. He is the chief collector of revenue. He is the highest executive officer of the district, and he has judicial functions as well. There are first and second and third classes of magistrates. There are also joint and assistant magistrates who help in his Courts with somewhat less salary. But no one can be a district magistrate who is not a magistrate of the first class and also a J.P.; and no magistrate can execute criminal jurisdiction over Europeans who is not himself a European British subject. He must also be a magistrate of the first class. The criminal jurisdiction of the magistrate is limited to sentences of three months upon Europeans and two years upon Natives, with proportionate power of imposing fines. Upon him the whole machinery of Government depends. Above the magistrate in his judicial capacity are the district and Sessions Judges, of whom there is one for each district. These are for judicial affairs, and, if they are themselves Europeans, have the power of sentencing Europeans to 12 months' imprisonment, and fines; and of sentencing Natives to longer terms of penal servitude. Above the Sessions Judges are the High Courts in the regulation, the Chief Court and Judicial Commissioners in the non-regulation Provinces. These have unlimited jurisdiction over both Natives and Europeans. Hitherto a European could not be tried and sentenced for a criminal offence by a Native magistrate or Judge, and not even by any European magistrate who was not of the first class and a J.P. There were but two exceptions. In the High Courts there are a few Native Judges; but these never sit alone, there being always European Judges present. In the Presidency towns of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta, Native magistrates have been allowed a certain
    1672
    amount of jurisdiction over Europeans. But then there is the immense security of a large British resident population, of an English Bar, and of English Judges. Before Mr. Gupta's case, I believe, there was no instance of a Native magistrate or Deputy Commissioner, and Mr. Gupta was only temporarily in charge of a district. Now, what changes does the Illbert Bill introduce? Before considering them, it is essential that the Act of Parliament of 1870 should be borne in mind. This law enabled the Viceroy to mate rules for the nomination to public offices of Natives of proved merit and ability, not members of the Covenanted Service. Although this was passed in 1870, no step was taken under it for 10 years. The Duke of Argyll, acting as Secretary of State for India in 1869, and writing in his official capacity, on behalf of the Government of the present Prime Minister, stated clearly what it would be well that those who have to deal with India should never forget—
    "Since Europeans have generally those qualities by which they have won and still hold the Indian Empire, the tests of competitive examination are, on the whole, good teats, as between different candidates of the English race. But this principle cannot be safely relied upon as regards the Natives of India. It is notorious that in their ease mere intellectual acuteness is no indication of ruling power. In vigour, in courage, and in administrative ability some of the races of India, most backward in education, are well known to be superior to other races, which intellectually are much more advanced. In a competitive examination the chances of a Bengalee would probably be superior to the chances of a Pathan or a Sikh. It would, nevertheless, be a dangerous experiment to place a successful student from the Colleges of Calcutta in command over any of the martial tribes of Upper India. It should never be forgotten, and there should never be any hesitation in laying down the principle, that it is one of our first duties towards the people of India to guard the safety of our own dominion."
    Indeed, two years earlier, Lord Lawrence, whose name has been unwarrantably used by agitators in this country, was extremely cautious in dealing with the question of Native officials in India. In his Minute of August 19, 1867, while assenting to the principle that certain posts—not the highest, by any means—should be open to Natives in the non-regulation Provinces, he concludes with the following very forcible remarks:—
    "The Government of India have not overlooked the circumstance that Natives entrusted with administrative duties have a difficulty in

    1673
    dealing with independent Europeans. The Governor General—that is, Lord Lawrence—in Council expects that the local administrators will frame their proposals with due regard to the expediency of providing English officials for all districts in which European settlers or travellers abound."
    Lord Northbrook and Sir Arthur Hob-house, who are now talking so grandly about the rights of the Natives, did absolutely nothing during the years they were in Office. Lord Lytton, however, who is accused of many things by his political opponents, first moved in the direction of giving higher offices to Natives of India. In 1879 he drew up the following Rules:—1st. Each Local Government was to nominate Natives for posts within their Provinces hitherto limited to members of the Covenanted Service. Such nominees would have to pass the usual Departmental examination; except in the cases of Natives of not less than 25 years of age, if they were of proved experience or members of a profession. 2nd. These names were to be provisionally approved by the Governor General in Council. 3rd. The total number of persons thus appointed was not to exceed each year one-fifth of the number of Englishmen annually appointed. The first division of these nominees—that is, those without experience in a profession and under 25 years of age—could not be confirmed in their appointments until two years of satisfactory service had been reported by the Local Government and a Departmental examination had been passed. 4th. The Governor General might transfer them from one Province to another; and they might be dismissed by the Local Governments, with the Governor General's sanction. The Native officials appointed under these Rules since 1879 are styled members of "the now Native Statutory Service." Mr. Ilbert would repeal the words which confine the power of criminal jurisdiction over Europeans to magistrates who are themselves European British subjects. He proposes to give the power and criminal jurisdiction to four classes, who have not hitherto enjoyed it, provided they are magistrates of the first class and Justices of the Peace:—(a.) To Indian Natives in the Covenanted Service. Of these, there are at present nine, (b.) To the members of the Statutory Native Service just referred to. (c.) To Native Assistant Commissioners in non-regulation Provinces.
    1674
    (d.) To Native Cantonment magistrates; and also to all Native district magistrates and Sessions Judges. The really important head under which Natives in any numbers will be admissible to high Executive and Judicial offices is the second. In time they might, as members of the Indian Civil Service, amount to a sixth of the Official Service of India. How, and in what way, has this Bill been introduced? At a time when there was no call for it, nor any necessity. It is enough, especially in Oriental countries, to propose grave legislative changes when they are imperative. The immediate effect of this Bill may be small—that is, so far as concerns the number of those Natives who will at once get the power, though, none the loss, great hardships may be inflicted upon those Europeans, especially in out-of-the-way districts, who may come under the jurisdiction of a Native magistrate or Assistant Commissioner. Could a Native magistrate be loft in charge of a disaffected district in the case of a rising? Suppose that only half-a-dozen Native district magistrates obtained under this Bill the supreme executive power and the large judicial powers which they would have over their respective districts. In the tea-growing regions of Assam, or in some of the more turbulent portions of the North-West, where the few Whites are scattered and isolated among hundreds of thousands of Natives, what infinite mischief might be done by an ignorant or a prejudiced Native magistrate? European enterprize and capital would be driven out of vast districts which it is now developing. As was said lately by an eminent statesman—
    "The men who are now enriching trade 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."
    This capital is entirely British. There can be no doubt about the effect produced by this Bill, be it just or unjust. It has stimulated race antagonism to an extent without parallel since the evil days of the Mutiny. The European population have risen against it with a unanimous and fervid opposition of unprecedented determination. The lower class of Hindoos, especially in Bengal, have been stirred up to a counter agitation

    1675
    of dangerous intensity. If the Bill be the insignificant measure some of its supporters represent, I would ask, was it wise, was it statesmanlike, with so little excuse, and for objects so slight, to apply the torch to such combustible material? Lord Ripon and his Advisers have stirred up a fever in India, which, at best, it will take years of prudence and calm to allay. What adequate reason can be given for the menacing convulsion his policy has fomented? We in England can barely imagine the strength of the indignation which these proposals have aroused among our countrymen throughout the length and breadth of India. Enthusiastic meetings have been held in every town, in every district. Resolutions have been passed against it and protests signed by thousands. Out of the 50,000 European civilians in India, probably not one-fiftieth part have failed to pronounce their resolute opposition to it. And it has been no mechanical or perfunctory agitation that this Bill has aroused. It is the determined, bitter, unanimous resistance of the whole British community—that is, of the enterprizing, civilizing, and progressive influence in India. The Volunteers, who number some 10,000 men, have actually threatened to return their arms if this Bill be passed. Even the Army, the very basis and symbol of our power, is deeply moved by the prospect. In several stations it has been difficult to restrain the soldiers from taking part in the meetings held to protest against the Bill. The British soldier, face to face with millions of an alien people, feels instinctively that which Ministers seem incapable of grasping. He realizes that anything which weakens British prestige in the East inflicts a perilous blow upon the British power. Nor is the official class—that vast body of highly educated, experienced, faithful, and high-minded men, who conduct the administration of India with the greatest credit to themselves and the most real benefit to the Native population—less hostile to the measure. Excepting a few high-placed officials, who belong to Lord Ripon's little clique of sentimentalists and academical Radicals, the immense mass of official opinion has pronounced against the Bill. I suppose not less than nine out of every 10 officials who have had the opportunity of declaring their
    1676
    views upon Mr. Ilbert's proposals have given an adverse opinion. Their Reports have been withheld from the knowledge of the country as long as possible; but they must soon be known. The misrepresentation of the debate in the Indian Council by a telegram from India, paid for with public money, is a painful and novel experience in our public life. The attempted concealment in this case and in others of like gravity is poor policy on the part of the Ministry. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal has spoken out most unmistakably against the Bill. He is but the type of thousands. The High Court of that Province has issued as able, as fair, and as convincing a document as was ever penned. The Prime Minister yesterday ridiculed the feelings of the English in India. Hon. Gentlemen opposite contemn the opinion of their own countrymen. They pass by with easy self-satisfaction the well-weighed judgments of these real experts in Indian affairs, of these men who thoroughly know that vast country, its history, its passions, its dangers, facts about which sentimentalist crotcheteers in England are as ignorant as events have proved them to be about Ireland, about Zululand, about all their foreign and imperial policy. The English in India they describe with glib assurance as a prejudiced caste, whose knowledge and experience are not to be held in comparison with their own fantastic theories and their destructive humanitarianism. It would be just as fair to speak of the prejudice of physicians in a delicate case of disease, or of the prejudice of lawyers in a recondite question of law, or of the unreliability of merchants in a great question of trade, as to stigmatize, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have done, the men by whose system and administrative capacity and valour we rule India. The independent and permanent Executive and judicial functionaries throughout India are infinitely more trustworthy than the Viceroy's Council, most of whom are mere nominees of the Viceroy himself, men often chosen because their general views coincide with his, and because they are likely to vote as he wishes them to vote. It is a remarkable fact that all the independent Members of the Council are antagonistic to the Ilbert Bill, and that those who support it have received their position from Lord Ripon or from the present Ministry.

    1677
    What does Lord Ripon himself know about India? Probably less than Mr. Lal Mohun Ghose knows about England. Mr. Ilbert himself is a young barrister of some ability, whose brains were crammed with theoretical knowledge, and with philosophical abstractions and dreamy speculations—a very poor preparation, indeed, for the art of government, and generally implying a proportionate ignorance of men and things. This measure was wholly uncalled for. There was no demand among the Natives. There is no assertion of any denial or miscarriage of justice under the present system. It is true that since the introduction of the Bill the Baboos of Bengal have stirred up an agitation in its support. But even they do not allege that justice is not impartially administered at present. The Report from the High Court of Bengal, a body of most eminent and learned judicial functionaries of the highest character and the widest experience, is conclusive upon this point. Sir Richard Garth, the Chief Justice, is a man whoso great talents and probity of character inspire universal respect; and the Report upon this Bill, drawn up by him and by his Colleagues, is a model of clear and powerful reasoning. Its tone is moderate and judicial; but its arguments are irresistible. Native suitors infinitely prefer to go before English Judges. The poorer class especially seek the White magistrate. They know that neither fear, nor favour, nor presents, can pervert his decision. Those who seek justice undefiled invariably seek the Court presided over by an European. Moreover, the decisions of an European Judge are accepted with contentment even by those who lose. The bearing of Native litigants towards magistrates of their own colour is very different. They believe his judgment to be affected by some influence extraneous to the suit. They complain and they appeal. Often do Native disputants, in remote districts where there is no White magistrate, refer their differences to the arbitration of any European trader or resident rather than go to their own Courts. These are facts which anyone who knows India can confirm. Well, then, what is the excuse for this proposed change? It does not consist in any failure of justice, or in any practical grievance felt by the Native population. It is based on the desire to remove
    1678
    anomalies. It is a straining after an impossible equality of races and position which can never be attained so long as the British flag flies over India, and an English Administration governs the country. Once begin to base your Indian legislation and policy on the removal of anomalies, and you enter upon a course fatal to your dominion in India, fatal to the prosperity and wealth of these Kingdoms. The removal of anomalies, indeed! As Sir James Stephen well says, if this be your principle the greatest anomaly of all is the presence of Englishmen in India at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman and his Viceroy prepare to drive his countrymen, bag and baggage, out of the country they have rescued from war, from tyranny, and cruel devastation? That is the only logical and practical outcome of the argument as to anomalies. As the Judges of Bengal state in their most convincing Report—
    "The anomaly involved in he present state of the law is merely one instance of a state of things on which the entire structure of Indian society depends."
    This Bill does not extinguish anomalies. It only brings them out in clearer relief. Do you allow Native officers to lead your troops? Do you allow Native soldiers to man your artillery? Would you appoint a Native Viceregent of the Queen? Dare you give a Native Judge power of life and death over English men and women? The advocates of this Bill overlook one striking anomaly which it promotes. It denies to the British non-official residents in Hindostan, many of them men of the highest ability and the most cultured education, the power of acting as magistrates or Judges. Yet it would confer the power of fine and imprisonment over British men and women upon Natives who know little or nothing of European ideas and habits. This prating about anomalies is idle and unfruitful, save of mischief. It can only lead to the undermining of the base upon which your beneficent rule in India must rest. Now, Sir, I ask the question of the Government—Are they prepared to give up India under any circumstances, or on any plea, or at any time? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated on July 27—
    "if we are endeavouring to make the resources of India auxiliary only to the greatness of England …. then we ought to walk out of India, and the sooner we do so the better."

    1679
    These are vague and dangerous words. Let us not deal with theories. Let us keep to facts. Do not lot the torch of vacillation, and of hypothetical conditions, under which India may or may not be abandoned, be applied to India as it has been to Ireland, and with like disastrous results. We do govern well. British rule has conferred vast and inestimable benefits upon India and her myriad and heterogeneous population. We can prove those blessings—the priceless boons of order and peace, of rapid communication, of a better morality, of education, of impartial justice. Our rule will bear scrutiny. It will stand the closest comparison with that of any other conquering race the world has ever known. But there is another side to the picture, and that is the question of the interests of this country. Few realize what the possession of India means to these Islands. There is a volume of trade amounting to over £50,000,000 every year, which is rapidly increasing—a field for British enter-prize practically boundless. There is employment, profitable to themselves and beneficial to the country in which their energies are devoted, for thousands of active and enterprizing Britons. Have you realized what the loss of India would mean to the people of this country, your own people, your flesh and blood, whom you are bound to consider first and foremost? Are our markets so many, is our trade so flourishing, are others nations so fond of receiving our products, that we can treat with indifference anything that weakens our hold upon India? What would the working classes of this country say to your sham philanthropy if they realized what the loss of India would mean to them? Is the wage fund so abundant, is labour so highly paid, that our artizans and labourers can lightly put up with a diminution of their weekly wage by a sum of from 5s. to 10 s. for every able-bodied man? That is what the loss of India would mean. I speak not of honour and power and high repute, of Imperial grandeur and prestige. These, we know, are antiquated delusions in which our foolish and wicked fathers believed. The wise men of the present prefer surrender, humiliation, and insult. Anarchy is the latest specific for the reformation of mankind. With India goes the commerce of the
    1680
    East, which is now poured into the lap of Britain—the trade of China and Japan, of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, of the Islands of the Archipelago, of Persia, Arabia, and Egypt; and even that of our Australian Colonies would be at the mercy of a Foreign Power that held India. If a Liberal Cabinet do not appreciate the value of that with which they are tampering, at least the great despotism of the North knows what it is worth, and so Russia spends millions in sapping up to our Frontiers, hoping for a rich harvest in your day of trouble. Now, in view of the immense, the inestimable, importance of India to England, I affirm that the determination of British statesmen should be to maintain the authority and power of Britain unimpaired. I believe that, though but a humble Member of this House, I speak the mind of the great Conservative Party on this subject, and, more than that, the mind of the great bulk of the English people. It is no Party question. It is the life of the nation, the greatness of the Empire, the prosperity of our race, that are at stake. It is due to the greatness of the interests involved that there should be no doubt or qualification in this matter. A familiar collection of crotcheteers and anarchists were gathered together at Willis's Rooms a fortnight ago. The well-known names, the friends of every country but their own, that hounded on Russia in 1876 and 1877, that have since composed the Afghan, the Transvaal, and Zulu Committees, that have pressed upon the Ministry the anarchization of Ireland, are now banded together to support Lord Ripon in his destructive policy. Misfortune makes strange bed-fellows. I was interested to notice the conjunction of those fallen stars, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The right hon. Member for Bradford referred to my interest in this question with somewhat of a cheap sneer. I was not aware that the administrative success of the right hon. Gentleman had been so conspicuous as to justify his treating even my views with contempt. There was, indeed, a third anxious to encourage the political aspirations of the Baboos of Bengal—the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). Times have changed since one of

    1681
    his present protégés—;a learned Baboo pundit—wrote of the official character of that hon. Member in Bengal—
    "While he ruled this Province with a rod of iron he was the cactus grandiflorus of English despotism; but when he transmigrated to the House of Commons they exposed his cui bono in all its naked deformity."
    What a spectacle for gods and men! This trio of anarchists, led by the Baboo Lal Mohun Ghose. Never shall vague and mischievous rhetoric and pseudo-philanthropy shake the pillars of our Indian Empire. Never shall the pernicious humanitarianism of the clique that filled Willis's Booms on Monday last break up that glorious heritage of power. Under no circumstances will "we walk out of India." The buttresses of English power in India are adamantine, and so they shall remain. That is the resolve of the British people. It may, however, be said—"We concede much of what you say. But the way to strengthen our hold in India is to win the affection of the Natives, and to conciliate them to our rule. You must give them these privileges they ask for, and they will be loyal subjects of the Queen. "Now, I dispute this proposition. You must give India good government. She has it to a degree that she has never had before we conquered the country, and to a degree she never could enjoy under the rule of any Native race or dynasty. India must have liberty, she must have justice, impartially administered. Both she enjoys. Equality with the dominant race is impracticable. It is impossible, unless we are prepared to march out of India sooner or later. India was won by the superior qualities of Englishmen in arms, in statecraft, in commerce, in administration. India can only be kept under the British flag by the maintenance of that undoubted superiority. Do you think that for generations, for centuries, the same qualities that make the English people the Imperial, the civilizing race of the world, can be given to the Hindoo? Can you make him courageous instead of timid, honest instead of a believer in prevarication, incorruptible instead of a regular taker and giver of bribes? Can you eradicate the ingrained vices of Oriental peoples, which thousands of years of steady habit and degradation have made part of the Eastern character?
    1682
    Can you give to the Hindoo Judge more than a faint conception of our English thoughts, habits, motives, and life? Why, the relations that exist between the sexes in Europe are to an Oriental incomprehensible. He regards women as little better than animals. Are English women to be subjected to trial before a Hindoo Judge? Equality! Why, the name is preposterous in India. When gentlemen, like Mr. Lal Mohun Ghose, come here and prate about the rights of man and the equality of Native and European, they conveniently suppress the tremendous inequalities which their own civilization is based upon, and which he and his compatriots cherish as their dearest heritage. They say nothing about their insuperable barriers of caste. They are very quiet about the fact that Natives enjoy privileges in Courts of Justice which are not granted to Europeans. The wife of the highest English official may be called upon to give evidence in open Court. Many Native women—and not only they, but Hindoo men of certain rank—are exempted from any such responsibility. These are anomalies which the Bengali Baboo, who clamours for the right of criminal jurisdiction over Englishmen, would not like to see removed. Why, even in the Northbrook Club, it is notorious that the Native members of different castes and creeds regard each other with scant pleasure. And this in England, where such prejudices might be supposed to be, at least, in abeyance. This craving after an impossible equality is the curse of every people where it has taken root. It is based on the worst qualities of our human nature—selfish, self-asserting egotism. It has ruined France, and, if it be encouraged in India, it will be the parent of revolution and anarchy. Liberty is the sacred right of mankind, equality is the dream of theorists and the idol of anarchists. You, whose fatal counsels and still more fatal mismanagement have convulsed Ireland with sedition and ruin, appeal to Ireland as your justification for the agitation you are now fomenting in India. Has your policy in Ireland been so successful that you can call it to witness in the case of India? You found the Irish people prosperous and orderly. Where is the gratitude and the love which you fondly expected from the Irish people? You have roused a Frankenstein monster

    1683
    which will overwhelm you. The I Liberal Party in Ireland is gone. Mallow and Monaghan are the answers of the revolution to its short-sighted Ministers. And so, if your advice is not followed, and if the Baboo agitators are not given their way, we are to "have another Ireland in India, with 250,000,000 instead of 8,000,000." And this from you after the lessons of the past three years. Blind leaders of the blind, what strange fatality put such a self-convicting metaphor as that in your mouths? An ounce of courageous statesmanship is worth all the high-flown sentiments and humanitarian platitudes in the world. "Justice and Equity!" Those twin shadows of delusion in the ingenious eloquence of the Prime Minister will, no doubt, once more be trotted forth to do duty in the sacred cause of the Baboos of Bengal. Justice and Equity! How often have those words in the most impressive tones of the right hon. Gentleman, and with all his wealth of gesture and of elaboration, been given as the plea for some fresh onslaught on the loyal subjects, or on the Imperial interests of England? In those words Ireland was convulsed and demoralized. The Irish Land Act and the Coercion Bills were both defended by this formula. Under that plea the Transvaal surrender took place, and thousands of our Native allies were given over to spoliation and to death. Zululand is their latest victim; and many a British Colonist has cursed the day on which false sentiment usurped the place of statesmanship, and a sickly cosmopolitan humanitarianism supplanted that ancient patriotism which is now but an obsolete and ridiculed tradition. It was in the name of "justice and equity" that you would have swept away the solemn recognition of the Almighty by Members of this House. Now, you would undermine the very foundations on which our splendid and beneficent Empire in Hindostan rests, for the same misleading and fatal shibboleth. Oh, Sir, is there no justice for the interests of England? Can no equity be found for the claims of the Empire of Britain? Can the Prime Minister of England never feel some of that "deep emotion" which stirs him to eloquent protest on behalf of a French Company, when the influence and power of England are at stake, when the rights and the lives and the future of the English
    1684
    race largely hang upon his decision? We won India by the superior qualities of the English race. We can only keep India by preserving that superiority. The Native has found the acknowledgment of that superiority no hardship hitherto. He has never known any sort of rule but a crushing tyranny, rarely redeemed by good administration. He has been accustomed to look up to the White rulers as blessed visitors, who give him order and prosperity, and show him an example of honour and gallantry and purity which he admires if he does not imitate. It is not by force alone that British rule in India is maintained. The 60,000 British bayonets that garrison that vast country are but a drop among the teeming myriads by whom they are surrounded. It is the repute, the prestige, the innate sense of superiority that makes that little band of soldiers and administrators respected and obeyed by the masses around them. They have been convinced by the past history of their relations with Englishmen that the courage of the English race is indomitable; that their tenacity is unyielding; that though they may be repulsed once, or twice, or thrice, yet will they return to the struggle, with unabating resolve, till resistance is vanquished. This feeling must be maintained. But if this mischievous measure become law a dangerous blow will be struck at the popular idea of British superiority. The Native who sees an Englishman tried and sentenced by one of his own race will soon lose the natural respect which at present is felt for an Englishman, and will begin a course of encroachment which can only end in trouble and mutiny. The Oriental mind mistakes concession for fear. It cannot comprehend the high-flown motives which lead, for instance, to the surrender in the Transvaal, or to the scuttling out of Afghanistan. As a Native said insolently to an English official a few months back—"You will soon have another Afghanistan, and we will be the Afghans"—that is, we will drive you out of India. This shows the injurious effect of our retreat from Candahar. Already a great change has come over the bearing of the Natives in Bengal since the Baboo agitation began. Every letter from India speaks of the changed manner of the Natives, of their insolent and defiant demeanour. This may seem a small

    1685
    matter to our smug Radicals at home. But it is a very serious thing indeed for Europeans living almost alone in a distant Province, among thousands of alien, ignorant, and excitable people. Those who have not forgotten the awful deeds of the Mutiny, when massacre and horrible outrages were the lot of hundreds of English women, cannot but feel indignant at the recklessness that is fomenting a like danger now. Insults to Europeans have trebled since the introduction of this Bill, and there have been several cases of grave outrages upon English women. But who is it demand these new rights? The better class of Natives do not want them. The manlier and more virile races do not care for them. A very remarkable proof of this appeared in a recent issue of The Pioneer of Allahabad. In a letter signed "Mahomed Noor Khan, Pensioner, late Rassaldar, 7th Bengal Cavalry," the writer asserts, as the result of 26 years' experience, that cases, civil or military, are more impartially tried by Europeans than by Natives. He proceeds thus—
    "With the exception of the obese and feeble Bengalees, who would be found utterly incapable of defending their country should an emergency arise, no other race in India would hail the passing of a measure which, instead of improving the condition of the people, would simply entail disasters and misfortunes, unheard of and unprecedented, on this unhappy land. And if the Government be desirous of completely ruining the country, it cannot do so better, or sooner, than by passing this obnoxious Bill. My object in addressing you is that no heed should be paid to these clamorous Baboos; that the Bill, already a source of discord and ill-feeling, may be consigned to the names; and that the Government of the country may be carried on upon the same principles as heretofore."
    Of all Eastern products, the Bengali Baboo is the most unpromising and the most unlovely. He has a supple character, and a glib tongue. He is master of smooth phrases and specious arguments. Of solid and generous qualities he is devoid. These are the men who hope to make a good thing out of the agitation, that are inflaming the minds of the populace against English rule. Macaulay draws a good picture of the Bengali of 100 years ago. His modern descendant is not more manly, but he is more mischievous. He has learned the vices and the cant of our civilization, but not its virtues. Is it kindness to the
    1686
    people whose cause you think you are defending? Supposing the Bengali got his way, and drove the English out of India, what would be his fate? How long could he hold his own? Not for 12 months. As before, so then, the stouter and braver races of the North and West would soon make him regret the loss of British protection, and of British liberty. The Sikh, the Mahratta, the Pathan, the Ghoorka, the Afghan, would ride roughshod over the soft Bengali. If he fancies himself now chastened with whips he would soon experience the scorpions of Oriental conquest and despotism. These are just the class who, if they get power, would misuse it, who would "take it out of the Whites," as one of them boasted not long ago he meant to do. My argument has hitherto been mainly based on the weakening of British authority throughout India, which this change would tend to bring about. But there is a very practical danger to the European settlers and merchants. The characteristic vice of Eastern legislation is perjury. The subornation of witnesses is not altogether unknown in England; but it is a fine art in Hindostan. Troops of false witnesses can be hired for a few rupees, ready to swear anything or everything. In the case of Natives, this often equalizes itself. If the prosecutor comes into Court with 50 false witnesses, and the de-fondant meets his charge with 50 rebutting perjurers, a balance can be struck. Everyone who has experience of India knows the prevalence of this false swearing. But Europeans in remote corners of India, especially in Assam and the tea-growing districts, where they are far from European communities and surrounded by swarms of an alien population, will be peculiarly helpless if tried before a Native magistrate. They would be overborne by the stream of lying witnesses; the magistrate might easily be prejudiced against them. He would not understand the English feeling or mode of life. An English artizan or clerk, for example, an engine-driver or warehouseman, would be quite at the mercy of his enemies in a distant Province. He could not afford to employ an English lawyer, or, if he could, there would be none within reach. That the Europeans in the Mofussil, and especially in outlying districts, feel this danger acutely the vehemence and unanimity of the proteats

    1687
    against the Ilbert Bill prove conclusively. No one can read the determined and almost desperate opposition of the whole European community to this change in the law without feeling that to them it is a matter of life and death. Many, indeed, openly say they cannot stay in the country. Will those friends of India who are trying to render life for their countrymen impossible in that country make a computation of the loss to their Indian clients if British capital be withdrawn from India? It is with no vainglorious self-righteousness that Englishmen may point, as a sufficient vindication of their Empire in Hindostan, to the matchless benefits which their supremacy has conferred upon the inhabitants of that vast and heterogeneous country. The history of the world can show no parallel to the rule of Britain over India. There 250,000,000 of people of many races and hostile creeds, of ancient origin and chequered history, enjoy the benefits of a regular and beneficent Administration. These myriads of people, alien in blood and religion, in language and manners, yet enjoy, under the British flag, blessings to which, in the long history of their past, their forefathers have been strangers. For a century they have had peace instead of desolating struggles, security instead of wars and invasions, in which the conquerors pillaged, massacred, and oppressed the vanquished. They have had order and law; not the occasional tranquillity of a rigid and unbending despotism, but the regular order of a civilized Power, guided by principles of justice, and administered in the main by just and honourable men. They have lived under, not the capricious edicts of tyrants, but the well-considered provisions of an established code of laws. Commerce, which was limited by the hostility of rival States and by the difficulties of intercommunication, has been marvellously developed by the union of all India under one civilizing Power, and by the promotion of those wonderful means of communication with which science has furnished man. Ten thousand miles of railways already exist in India. The time of journey from Bombay to Calcutta is not a tenth of what it used to be. Before the end of this century it is probable that the length of railways will have been trebled. What this means as an active agent in developing
    1688
    the wealth of Hindostan, in preventing the scourge of famine, in promoting the general comfort of the people, the most ignorant can form some estimate. The education of that vast Continent is progressing. The humblest student of the history of this most interesting country cannot but wonder at the change which a few generations of British power have wrought. He will behold a land not long since swept over by hostile and remorseless hordes as with a besom of destruction, downtrodden and oppressed and despoiled, now in the peaceful enjoyment of order and good administration. He will see hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile soil recovered from desert jungles, that owed their growth to the terror of wild beasts or of hostile incursions. He will see everywhere law, and even progress, instead of capricious tyranny and stagnating corruption. All this he will find; and seeing it, the Englishman of this generation, if he be true to his country and to his race, to his great ancestors, whose courage and skill, whoso resolution and statesmanship, have won this splendid country for him, and have conferred such priceless advantages upon its people, will make it his first duty and his highest pride to hand down that matchless heritage of beneficent power unweakened—nay, more strong and more secure—to those that come after him.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, in rising to move—
    "That, in the interests of India and of the United Kingdom, it is desirable that India should not bear the charge of the Consular and Agency expenditure on the Persian Gulf, and upon the Tigris and Euphrates, and that the concerns of British trade and commerce in Western Asia should be in the hands of officers more completely responsible to the Home Government,"
    said, he was one of the very small number of Members present when the House was counted out on the occasion to which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had referred. He regretted the occurrence, as he believed nothing could more strengthen the policy of Lord Ripon than a discussion in that House on Mr. Ilbert's Bill. Passing from that subject, however, he wished to express his opinion that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India was full of very hopeful encouragement. It was a practical statement, and it contained something more

    1689
    than the germ of a suggestion which would be in the course of another year largely developed. He alluded, of course, to that part of the speech in which his hon. Friend referred to public works and the development of railways in India. He desired to call his attention to a practical question connected with his Amendment. It related to the increase and the stability of British trade in the Persian Gulf and on the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates. At present that region afforded the best promise of an increase of British interests with regard to trade. It was, however, quite an anomalous state of things that our Consuls and Representatives at Bagdad, Muscat, Bushire, and other places in that region should be paid out of Indian funds. The reason why the anomaly existed was that, to a certain extent, it was not an anomaly before the construction of the Suez Canal, because no part of the earth had been so affected by that construction. In 1860, before the construction of the Suez Canal, the amount of tonnage in the Persian Gulf did not exceed 3,000. Last year it was 60,000, and there was no increase comparable to that in any other part of the world. He believed there was a small Steamship Company, acting under a Firman granted by the Porte, plying on the Tigris from the Persian Gulf to Bagdad. This Company was at present in receipt of a subsidy from the Government of India for carrying Her Majesty's mails on the Tigris and Euphrates; and the vessels had been violently laid hands on by the Porte, prevented from discharging cargo or mails, and compelled to go some hundreds of miles to Bushire. He was disposed to think that this highhanded conduct on the part of the Porto was due to the fact that Her Majesty's Government was not properly and directly represented as it should be in those places. Consequent upon the opening of the Suez Canal and the abridgment of the distance from this country, these regions had become more important than ever in the interests of England; and it was a monstrous abuse of our power that we should impose these charges upon India, and in the highest degree short-sighted in the interests of this country not to have officials there directly responsible to Her Majesty's Government. He hoped that next year the India Office would agree to the appointment
    1690
    of a Select Committee to consider the agricultural condition of India in connection with the Report of the Famine Commission. He concluded by moving his Amendment, not intending to press it, but hoping that some satisfactory statement on the subject would be made by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the interests of India and of the United Kingdom, it is desirable that India should not bear the charge of the Consular and Agency expenditure on the Persian Gulf, and upon the Tigris and Euphrates, and that the concerns of British trade and commerce in Western Asia should he in the hands of officers more completely responsible to the Home Government,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. E. STANHOPE, without wishing to enter into the collateral question raised by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), observed that in 1879–80 a Special Committee inquired into the incidence of these charges between India and England; and his impression was that the Committee were of opinion that, on the whole, the existing arrangement was the best. He had listened, in common with everybody in the House, with great interest to the able and lucid Statement of the Under Secretary of State, and was only sorry he had not had an opportunity of making it earlier in the Session. He should like to point out the new position in which they stood in regard to Indian matters in consequence of the New Rules of Procedure. Hitherto it had been possible to bring Indian questions forward on going into Committee of Supply; but now they could only bring on Motions germane to the Votes. Thus there was hardly an opportunity during the Session of raising Indian questions, except on the Indian Financial Statement, or when a private Member was successful in the ballot. The result, he was afraid, would be—possibly even next year—that those who desired to speak on the condition of our Indian Empire would be forced to take the occasion of the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech, unless the Government afforded them some better opportunity earlier in the Session than at

    1691
    present. In listening to the Under Secretary's speech he could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman was a good deal overshadowed by the discussion which took place on the question of the reduction of the Indian Expenditure, because a great part of that speech was taken up in apologizing for certain items, and in pointing out that, after all, they were being gradually reduced, and that with regard to others he hoped the Expenditure would be increased. He did not think it necessary to point out the fallacy of comparing one year's Expenditure with another's by simply contrasting the gross Expenditure. He had endeavoured to prove the other day, when he brought forward a Motion which was accepted by the House, that the Expenditure now was £3,500,000 larger than in 1880; and he was not aware that any attempt had been made to controvert that proposition. The only reply of the Under Secretary of State for India was that, although this might be true, the Expenditure of the present Government was upon good objects; that of the late upon wicked objects. He did not know that the Liberal Party had a monopoly for doing good in India. But that had nothing whatever to do with the question. The argument would be quite germane if they were discussing whether the Afghan War were just or unjust; but now that they were endeavouring to compare the ordinary Expenditure of one year with that of another, it was trifling with the question to drag in extraordinary Expenditure of that kind, and so leading people away from examining into whether the ordinary expenditure had been increased or decreased. He assumed, as a matter of fact, that the ordinary Expenditure had been increased by £3,500,000; and when the hon. Gentleman said that the reductions which took place in 1879–80 were not to the advantage of India—of which he made a very considerable point—he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman what caused those reductions? In the first place, the Government for the time being examined very carefully into the condition of financial affairs in India, and came to the conclusion that it was right that a considerable reduction of Indian Expenditure should take place. They made proposals to Parliament to that effect; and how were they met? The Prime Minister stood up in that House and told
    1692
    them his objection to those reductions, which were now said not to be to the advantage of India, was that they were inadequate; and he urged the House not only to accept the reductions then proposed, but to reduce the Expenditure of India by no less than £4,000,000 in addition. With regard to the item of Public Works, the Under Secretary spoke as if the Government had made a new discovery that Public Works were a good thing for India; but Lord Salisbury, during the time he was at the India Office, had probably done more for the development of Public Works in India than any previous Secretary of State. He (Mr. Stanhope) desired most heartily that Public Works should be pushed forward as the finances of India could afford and the material condition of the country would justify, but not to push them on in advance of the material condition of the people. He contended that they ought to maintain a fixed policy, to say what amount it would be justifiable to spend over a reasonable series of years, and not to allow that amount to be exceeded by the pressure which came from all quarters. When the hon. Gentleman pointed out to them that the Effective Charge for the Army in India had been reduced during the present year, he stated that he (Mr. Stanhope) was heartily glad to hear it. But he was exceedingly sorry to hear that, although the Government had undoubtedly taken steps which had the effect at present of reducing the Effective Charges for the Government in India, they had also taken the very decisive step of rejecting all the proposals for the reduction of Army Expenditure made in the Report of the Simla Commission. The House had been unfortunately kept in the dark as to what those proposals were, and he protested against the action of the Government in that respect. The time had come when Papers giving full information ought to be before the House. It was all very well to say that the Correspondence was not complete; but no Indian Correspondence ever was complete. He feared it was too late now to make any remarks upon these proposals with the hope of inducing the Government to act upon them. He regretted that Major Baring had been called upon to vacate the responsible position he occupied in Egypt. It was a misfortune to India that a master of

    1693
    finance should be called away from India just as he had begun to thoroughly understand the finance of that country. Happily, Major Baring was able to leave the finance of India in a sound position. He (Mr. Stanhope) also regretted that Sir Louis Mallet was no longer able, on account of ill-health, to continue at the India Office; he could only hope that that gentleman would long be spared to serve his country in other ways. Reference had been made to the relations with Afghanistan. He did not desire to dwell upon that matter; but he hoped the Government were going to produce Papers in regard to it. They all knew perfectly well there had been recent negotiations with the Ameer of Afghanistan. The Ameer had expressed a desire to visit India; but for what purpose they were not told. Now, apparently, the journey had been abandoned. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), in an able and instructive speech, had introduced the question of the Ilbert Bill. Although the matter had been very little mentioned in the House, it was one of the deepest importance to all those who took an interest in the affairs of India. There were some hon. Members who were in the habit of alleging that the fears of the Anglo-Indians on this subject were exaggerated. It ought to be remembered that the people who were in the best position to judge were those who had had experience of India by living among the population, and who knew the difficulties with which the Anglo-Indians had to contend. There were many who thought that the Anglo-Indians had established most conclusively that the privileges it was now proposed to take away from the Europeans were the important safeguards against the real danger. Who was it who held that opinion? The Judges of the High Court of Calcutta held that opinion. They were well qualified to form an impartial opinion on the subject. After quoting the speech of Sir Stuart Bayley in the debate of March 9, in which he pointed out the dangers to which it was stated the Europeans in India would be subject, they said—
    "The Judges concur in the views here expressed; and they consider that the dangers thus described in the case of planters and manufacturers would he even greater in the case of persons in a humbler position in life, railway employés, artificers, and the like. These men
    1694
    are continually brought into contact with Natives in ways which may easily give rise to misunderstandings and ill-will. Should an accusation he brought against them, they labour under great disadvantages; they are often isolated from other Europeans: they generally have but an imperfect acquaintance with the vernacular languages; they are unable to retain the costly services of European advocates; and they might, in some circumstances, find it impossible to secure the assistance even of Native practitioners. It is easy to see how the grossest injustice might easily be inflicted in such eases by an officer who from any cause fails fully to realize the position of the accused. It is, at any rate, certain that Europeans of this class would feel an entire want of confidence in any hut an European tribunal. On the whole, after making every allowance for temporary excitement and agitation, it is, the Judges think, impossible to doubt that European residents in the Mofussil do really consider themselves to be, and in fact are, in a position which justifies them in regarding this privilege of being tried by an European, on whose independence and impartiality they can fully rely, as one of very real importance to them."
    That opinion so held by the Judges was the opinion which up to this time had been held by all authorities on the subject of the Government of India. He would venture to quote again a remark which was made on the subject by Lord Lawrence. Writing in 1867, Lord Lawrence said, in regard to the re-admission of Natives to the Civil Service—
    "In arriving at this decision the Government of India has not overlooked the circumstance that Natives entrusted with administrative duties have a difficulty in dealing with independent Europeans. The Governor General in Council expects that the local Administration will frame their proposals with due regard to the expediency of providing English officials for all districts in which European settlers or travellers abound."
    That was the opinion of Lord Lawrence; but it did not appear to be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), who had spoken of the opposition to this Bill in most contemptuous terms. The right hon. Gentleman had said that all the opposition came from the lawyers, not hesitating to attribute the meanest motives to his political opponents; and he added that the reason why the Judges objected to it was that a Native was recently appointed as Acting Chief Justice at Calcutta. A more impertinent insinuation he (Mr. Stanhope) never heard of; and if it had not come from a person in the position of the right hon. Gentleman he would not have noticed it. The right hon. Gentleman would be

    1695
    very much surprised to hear that all those Judges and all those Civil servants were just as much devoted to India as he was, and that they were just as anxious that the relations between Europeans and Natives should be improved—and, what was more, they had laboured during a long and trying career in India to effect that object. He should not be surprised that many of those gentlemen should be deeply hurt by that observation of the right hon. Gentleman. The fact was, the opposition to the Bill did not come from the lawyers. It was quite true that the legal element was as much opposed to the Bill as the Civil servants, nine-tenths of whom, both in India and England, were opposed to it. ["No!"] He said that deliberately; and, what was more, there were many Natives opposed to it. It was, in short, a case of experience against sentiment. Was experience to go for nothing? Those most opposed to the Bill had spent their lives in India; they had experience of what Native Judges could and could not do; and what they said ought to be weighed by the Government before anything was done. Not one single Local Government in India was in favour of the Bill, as it had been introduced, and the two principal Governments concerned—those of Bengal and Assam—were opposed to it in every form, and desired to have it withdrawn. Now, what were the grounds for the Bill? None whatever had been alleged. No one had seriously ventured to put forward the idea that there was any real inconvenience which required a remedy. On that subject the Judges were entitled to express a very strong opinion, and they told us not only that there was no inconvenience now, but that there was in the immediate future no prospect of any, and they went on to say that the course of legislation since 1793 had been invariably against the policy of the measure. They also pointed out that it was contrary to the settlement of 1872. The deliberate compromise then arrived at was that there should remain on the Statute Book this special privilege of Europeans in India. He had not been able to discover in all the papers he had read any reason for the proposal, except the one broad ground that it was desirable to abolish all race distinctions in India. The answer to that was that it
    1696
    was impossible to do so. Race distinctions necessarily arose in consequence of our position as a Governing Body, and if they were to be got rid of Natives would have to give up far more of them than Europeans. He would like to read a short passage from a speech of Sir James Stephen, who was a great authority. Sir James Stephen said—
    "In countries situated as most European countries are, it is, no doubt, desirable that there should be no personal laws; but in India it is otherwise. Personal as opposed to territorial laws prevail here on all sorts of subjects, and their maintenance is claimed with the utmost pertinacity by those who are subject to them. The Mahomedan has his personal law, the Hindoo had his personal law. Native women, "who, according to the custom of the country, ought not to appear in Court, are excused from appearing in Court. Natives of rank and influence enjoy, in many cases, privileges which stand on precisely the same principle; and are English people to be told that, while it is their duty to respect all these laws scrupulously, they are to claim nothing for themselves? That while English Courts are to respect, and even enforce, a variety of laws which are thoroughly repugnant to all the strongest convictions of Englishmen, Englishmen who settle in this country are to surrender privileges to which, rightly or otherwise, they attach the highest possible importance? I can see no ground or reason for such a contention. I think there is no country in the world, and no race of men in the world, from whom a claim for absolute identity of law for persons of all races and all habits comes with so bad a grace as from the Natives of this country, filled, as it is, with every distinction which race, caste, and religion can create, and passionately tenacious as are its inhabitants of such distinctions."
    Some contended that the opposition to the Bill was contrary to the policy of the Act of 1833, which laid it down that no Native, by reason of race, religion, and so on, should be disqualified. But could anyone say it was possible to carry out that principle in every case? [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: Hear, hear!] Was the hon. Gentleman who cheered prepared to appoint a Native Governor General of India? Did he think that within any reasonable distance of time Natives could be so appointed? Lord Ripon was anxious to shift the responsibility from himself, for he said—
    "The great change which has taken place in regard to this question from an administrative point of view has been that made by Lord Lytton's Government in 1879;"
    and he wont on to argue that "Lord Lytton's system," "Lord Lytton's rules," caused an irresistible necessity for this measure. Lord Lytton certainly

    1697
    did more for the admission of the Natives into the Public Service than most Governors General, and a great deal more than Lord Ripon by this Bill could possibly effect. Lord Lytton, in accordance with an Act passed in 1870, when the present Prime Minister was at the head of the Government, framed Rules for the larger admission of Natives into the Public Service. There was no suggestion from the opponents of the Bill that the Natives should be kept out of the offices then thrown open to them. What they said was that when appointed they ought not to be given a new position for which there was no necessity and no justification. His own opinion was that the chief importance of the Bill was derived from the fact that it followed so close upon the heels of the Local Government scheme. That scheme, whether good or bad, was an honest attempt to associate Europeans and Natives in the government of the country, and the experiment was about to be tried by Lord Ripon in all parts of the country and under all possible conditions. The first essential to the success of that scheme was that the Natives and Europeans should meet on the new Board on an equal footing; and at the next moment, when race feeling should be allayed by every means, and when everyone wished to see this Local Government scheme tested fairly, this bomb-shell was thrown in. By so doing they introduced at once race feeling of the most vitally dangerous character; and he was afraid they would find the result would be that a state of affairs had been brought about by which, without conferring any boon on the Natives, they would be taking a course offensive to the Europeans and dangerous to the success of the experiment they were about to try. The Natives believed that we were taking a step which was gradually to lead to the abolition of English and European rule. The Native Press throughout India were endeavouring to teach the people that a new era was about to dawn, and that this Bill was the introduction of a new system, for which they could not be too Boon prepared. He should say that he read this morning the language of the Prime Minister yesterday with intense regret. Anything more indiscreet than the sort of language in which he spoke of the Bill as if it were only a step towards
    1698
    a wider policy without limitation as to time, it would be impossible to imagine. Holding the opinion of the Duke of Argyll, and always remembering that our rule rested on the recognition of the fact that we were the stronger, the policy recently adopted was, in his opinion, most unfortunate. There were two ways of ruling a great Empire like India, which included a great number of Europeans and a great number of Native races. One was to raise the Natives to the level of the Europeans, and the other was to bring the Europeans down to the level of the Natives. In the old Roman Empire the former course was always followed. They were doing exactly the reverse; they were levelling down to the Natives. They were taking away privileges which had for a long time been enjoyed by Englishmen, and they were to confer no benefit on the Natives. It would achieve no practical object, and he therefore ventured to enter a protest against it, on the ground that it appeared to him to be full of danger. But he did not yet despair. The reason why he had not brought forward before a specific Motion on the subject was simply this. Now that Lord Ripon had received the opinions of all the Local Governments of India we could not doubt they would have weight with him. There was no one who would deny that those opinions ought to be conclusive. Could they conceive that a measure ought to be passed which not one Local Government said ought to pass, and that it ought to be pressed upon an unwilling European population? He fully admitted the difficulty in which Lord Ripon was placed; but he hoped that even at this hour prudent counsels might so far prevail, and that Lord Ripon would not be carried away by the encouragement he had received from certain Radical Clubs in England; but, looking to the truest interests of India in the future, he would endeavour to avert a danger that must be great, and must increase with agitation in India.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he should not follow the hon. Member who had just spoken on the question of the Ilbert Bill. He (Mr. Fowler) was disposed to think that it would be found that there had been much exaggeration in the minds of the opponents of this measure,

    1699
    and he was entirely satisfied with the explanations given by the Prime Minister so recently. He desired to confine his remarks to the question of Public Works—a question second to none in its importance. It divided itself into two portions, first, as to works made out of Revenue; and, secondly, as to works constructed by means of borrowed money. As to the former, he never could understand why works which would here be made by means of borrowed money should in India be made out of Revenue. He remembered discussing the matter with Mr. Grant Duff as long ago as 1873, and the only reply he got was that the Government dared not trust itself, or its officers, to increase borrowings. That seemed to him a very poor answer. It might fairly be said that a Government which could not trust itself to select what works were fit to be made was not fit to govern a great Empire. At that moment it appeared, from the paper he held in his hand, that India paid £7,000,000 every year out of Revenue for works most of which would be paid out of borrowed capital at home. The salt tax was almost £6,000,000; so that, in fact, they taxed the people's salt in order to make these works. Then, again, they derived a large revenue from opium—a revenue much disapproved of by many of them. And yet they continued paying for works out of Revenue, as if their taxation were of the most satisfactory kind possible. It was said that the burden of taxation was not heavy in India. That might be so; but so long as they had a salt tax, and a revenue from opium, he should regard with aversion the paying for Public Works out of Revenue. Had India a Parliament it would not be done; and the only explanation of the present position was that she had no Parliament. He would now pass on to the second head—namely, Works paid for out of Borrowed Money. The position of India was certainly very peculiar economically. She had, in fact, enormous surplus produce, but she was deficient in markets. She could not get her wheat to the coast, except at great expense. Where there were no railways, every 20 miles carriage by carts added 1s. a-quarter to the cost of the wheat. So, as had been explained already that day, a great harvest might
    1700
    be a calamity to the people, because the prices of grain fell heavily, and the cultivator could not sell his surplus at a price sufficient to enable him to pay his taxes or rent. Over great areas there was no railway, and, therefore, no market. The opening of a line from Bhopal to Gwalior, for instance, would, he was assured, bring down 200,000 tons of additional wheat to the ports every year. It was impossible, when considering this matter, not to be struck with the contrast between India and America. In India they had 250,000,000 of people, and 10,000 miles of railways. In America they had 50,000,000 "of people, and 100,000 miles of railways. America, in about 40 years, had made 100,000 miles; and India, in about 25 years, had made 10,000 miles. So the resources of America had been developed to an infinitely greater extent than the resources of India. He should like to mention one or two American facts. In Oregon the export of wheat had risen from nothing to 5,000,000 bushels a-year since railways had been established there. From Illinois the export of wheat had doubled under the development of the railway system, and the same progress had taken place in Missouri and Nebraska; and in Missouri very little was done before the railways came, though they had much water carriage in that State. The American experience was well summed up by Mr. E. Atkinson, an eminent authority. In 1880, he said—
    "In all these great achievements in human progress—in the production or leading forth of the wealth of the mines, the forests, and the soil—it has been the railroad that has made all other inventions worth applying; that has caused abundance to rule where famine might have been."
    The importance of this question was evident from the amount of wheat they imported. In the year ending the 31st of this month, they would have imported from all quarters about 20,000,000 quarters of wheat; and he was assured that they could procure the whole of this amount from India, if she only possessed adequate means of transport. It appeared, from Sir Evelyn Baring's statement, that the present cost of carrying wheat in India over 616 miles of railway was greater than the cost of carriage over 960 miles in America. In America it cost about 6d.

    1701
    per quarter per 100 miles, while in India it amounted to nearly 1s. He had no doubt that India would prove to be one great source of supply of wheat in the future, if not the greatest; and he wished to observe that the wheat trade from the Persian Gulf was growing rapidly, and India needed every facility in order to enable her to compete with this important rival. Many improvements might be suggested as to the management, of Indian railways. He thought there should be less of Government interference in details; and he thought that Native labour might be more largely used with a most economical result. And Government might do other things. It might encourage the use of good seed; it might promote the establishment of warehouses and of agricultural banks; and it might do much to extend a knowledge of agriculture amongst the people. Two questions arose as they considered this subject—Why were not railways made faster, and why were they not made cheaper? One great objection also arose, and that was as to borrowing money. It was, however, absurd to foresee any real danger in this direction, when they had just heard that the total uncovered Debt of India was only £60,000,000 sterling, and that the railways paid more than 4 per cent on the whole outlay upon them, including the loss of interest incurred in the early days before the traffic had been developed, and when so much money was wasted in construction. But in 1878–9 a Committee of that House resolved that the Government of India ought not to borrow more than £2,500,000 for the purpose of making Public Works. To impose such a limit was, in his opinion, most unbusiness-like. The amount required at any one time must depend on the circumstances of the period. He could understand what hon. Members opposite called "a policy;" but he could not understand "a limit" of money. He was for a policy of the prudent extension of works, without a hard-and-fast line as to the amount to be expended in any one year. Were their railway system really developed, the benefits to India and to England would be great. As to the former, he believed that the land revenues would increase rapidly; and with the improved condition of the people there would be an increased revenue from stamps, and an increased
    1702
    demand for salt. To quote the words of Mr. Juland Danvers, in his last Re-port on Indian Railways—
    "In 1860 not 1 cwt. of wheat had been exported from India; last year, 9,379,236 cwts. were consigned to the United Kingdom."
    —Now 19,000,000 cwts. were exported—
    "In fact, the indirect are greater than the direct gains, though not measurable with the same exactitude, and to railways is greatly due the extended trade, the increased revenue, the success of the great fiscal reforms which have of late been effected, and the improved condition of the people."
    But the people of England would also derive benefit. In the first place, the demand for rails and engines would be of great service to some of their industries. Ear more important, however, was the consideration that in taking wheat from India they were dealing with a country with which they had true freedom of trade—a country which took our goods in return free of duty, and not, as in the case of America, a country which imposed on them a heavy duty. So an extension of this trade with India would probably cause a great demand for the produce of their looms. Therefore, for every reason, he asked the House to insist on a consideration of this question, and to refuse to lay down a limit as to the power of the Government to borrow. Those who refused to assist the people of India in the development of their country incurred a great responsibility; and, alike in the interests of England and of India, he asked the House to encourage the Government of India in the great work of extending the means of transport throughout the country.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he was somewhat dismayed by the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. W. Fowler), because, if it meant anything, it meant the reduction of taxation and unlimited borrowing powers. If that policy were carried out, in a short number of years they would have to impose a great deal more taxation than at present. Not very long ago he saw in a journal with which he believed the hon. Gentleman was connected—The Economist—that half the railways in America paid no dividends at all. These Companies had been promoted by enormous grants of land. There was no comparison at all between the United States and India. In America they had

    1703
    the largest and most fertile territory in the world, in which Europeans could live in comfort all the year round. In India the conditions were exactly opposite. What his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) and those who sat on his side of the House advocated in reference to Public Works was that that policy should be continuous. When he was in Office the Government had to deal with Indian finance during a period of great pressure. The present Under Secretary had to deal with a period of great prosperity; and, therefore, what they had said was that, while continuing to spend money on Public Works, the Government should spend a little less money than usual during a period of prosperity, in order that they might be able to spend a little more than usual during a period of pressure. It was a great misfortune that this Financial Statement had been made the second Order of the Day at a Morning Sitting on the last Wednesday of the Session. Private Members had been induced to consent to a curtailment of their privileges in order that more time might be given to the discussion of important Public Business, and this was the practical result. In one part of the speech of the Under Secretary of State for India he entirely concurred—namely, that in which the hon. Gentleman regretted the loss India would sustain of the services of Sir Edward Malet and Sir Evelyn Baring. He could not, however, agree with that portion of the speech which related to the question of exchange. No doubt, the value of gold and silver, like that of other commodities, depended on the law of supply and demand; but it should be borne in mind that the gold was the standard by which the price of silver was calculated. Now, he heard that there was a reasonable prospect of a great discovery of gold in South Africa, and if that occurred, the increased supply of gold would indirectly appreciate silver, and they would once more see it back at something like the figure at which it stood three or four years ago. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had introduced the burning question of the Ilbert Bill, and had brought out the obvious objections to that proposal. He would add a few words to his hon. Friend's remonstrances. The right hon. Gentleman the
    1704
    Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) outside the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister inside the House had contrived to entirely misunderstand what would be the practical effect of this Bill, and also the nature of the objections to it. The measure was introduced on a false plea. It was said to be intended to remedy an administrative difficulty; but it was clear that difficulty did not now exist. If the Bill passed into law it would certainly raise an administrative difficulty of a most serious character. The right hon. Member for Birmingham assumed that all the Native Civil servants who, under the provisions of the Bill, would have criminal jurisdiction over Europeans, were civilians who had undergone a certain course of training in this country. But that was not the case, and in future years the greater bulk of those who would have to administer the Criminal Law would be Natives who had never left India at all. What was the objection which lay at the root of the agitation of Europeans against the Bill? It was that they were especially liable to have false charges made against them. He had seen a remarkable letter from a respected planter in Assam, in which he said—
    "The dishonesty of the smaller Native officials in Assam is appalling. It is well known to our officers. False witnesses can be had in any number at every Court. They hang around, sitting under the trees, and can be got to swear and learn their eases beautifully at four annas."
    Under these circumstances, was it too much to ask that Europeans should have continued to them the right which they had enjoyed from time immemorial of being tried by men who could speak their language, understand their customs, and appreciate their motives? Last night the Prime Minister likened this Bill to the abolition of slavery; but there could not have been presented a more preposterous simile, because, in this case, the inherent rights of Europeans were to be taken from them without any compensation, whereas, in the abolition of slavery, compensation was given to those who had deprived the negroes of the inherent right of liberty and freedom. He believed the apprehensions of many Englishmen were unduly excited. But, supposing the Bill passed, and that upon false and perjured evidence, a European was imprisoned,

    1705
    would not there be an uproar from one end of India to the other, which would make it impossible to proceed with the various schemes for establishing local self-government in India? The idea of establishing local self-governing institutions in India was based on the assumption not only that all Natives were equal, but that Europeans and all Natives were equal. In his opinion, their government of India was strong as long as it confined itself to the discharge of paternal and autocratic power, protecting the large masses of the people from the predatory instincts of a small warlike minority; but it would become weak the moment they instituted local self-government, because the Western idea of self-government was based on the fact that the people of a community were equal, and more or less homogeneous in race, which the people of India certainly were not. A Native Member of Lord Ripon's Council had said that his head, under the dictates of prudence, was in favour of the Bill, but his heart was against it. Such sentiments he (Lord George Hamilton) believed were held by most of the intelligent Natives. The difficulties in the way of this Bill were so many and so great that he hoped the Government would either withdraw it altogether, or that they would modify its provisions in a way that would sooth the apprehensions of Europeans. The Viceroy had a majority in his Council, and the Government had a majority in the House of Commons; and if they cared to make an unwise use of that majority for the purpose of passing into law a Bill which would do more to create race prejudices than any measure which for many years past had been mentioned in connection with India, upon their heads, and upon their heads alone, the responsibility would rest.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHexpressed his satisfaction at the excellent and cheering statement of the Under Secretary of State, and congratulated the Government on the remarkable improvement that had taken place in the finance of India in the last few years. He believed nothing would give more satisfaction to the commercial classes of this country than the prospect of an extension of the means of communication with India. There were no two countries in the world capable of a greater increase of
    1706
    mutual trade than the United Kingdom on the one hand and India on the other. India produced everything we wanted, and we supplied everything India wanted. But this country wanted, above all things, an outlet for her manufactures; and just as we developed the resources of India should we find a market for our commodities. This country always suffered from an over-supply of capital, and India was crying out for capital, and there was needed a bridge to bring the two things together. The great barrier interposed of late years had been the excessive fluctuations in the value of silver. Since 1871 silver had fallen 20 per cent in relation to the value of gold; and the result was that capitalists who had invested money in silver-paying securities had got such a fright that they were not likely to do so again. Where was the inducement to English capitalists to lay out their money? The only inducement they could have was to pay the interest in gold, as the English capitalist would no longer consent to invest his money in countries whore the interest was paid in silver. There was no relation between the currencies of the two countries, as there was an incessant see-saw going on. It seemed to him not at all unlikely that they would have another catastrophe in the course of the next few years that would still further reduce the value of silver in relation to gold, and almost put an end to the flow of capital from this rich to that poor country. It was possible that in 10 or 20 years there would be another drop in silver equal to that which had taken place; and he should not be surprised to see the rupee ultimately standing at 1s. instead of 1s. 7d., as it was now, through the unfortunate action of Europe in regard to silver. So long as the present state of things existed it would be hardly possible to devise any means by which the capital of England could be offered in large quantities to India. It was not necessary to submit to this state of things, which was mainly caused by the aversion of our financial classes to the bi-metallic system which France, the United States, and probably Germany would re-establish if this country would join them. He would wish to have a larger opportunity of discussing this matter, which lay at the very foundation of the welfare of India and the

    1707
    future development of that country; but he would not now do anything more than express the hope that the Government next year would appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the monetary question, especially in reference to India, and do what nearly the whole of our Indian officials believed in, and give an opportunity of proving to the world that it was quite possible to restore the monetary connection between gold and silver, and thereby pave the way for the future development of the resources of India.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he hoped the House would agree with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and that they would do so without unnecessary delay. The Government supported this Motion in order to enable the House to make progress with three of the Orders of the Day. Those Orders were the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Patents Bill, Committee on the Post Office (Money Order) Acts Amendment Bill, and consideration of the Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Bill as amended, and he would undertake not to prolong discussion after a quarter to 6 o'clock. It was proposed to resume the debate on the Indian Financial Statement to-morrow, when the House would meet at 3 o'clock; and after the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and one or two other Orders had been disposed of, it was proposed to continue the debate on the Indian Financial Statement. He trusted, therefore, that the House would assent to adjourn the debate.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that although he did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of the Motion, he thought it was necessary to draw attention to the extraordinary conduct of the Government in treating a debate upon Indian affairs in this manner. He should like to know the opinion of the Postmaster General upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had often protested against the careless treatment which India received at the hands of Parliament; but he feared that since he became a Minister his ideas had somewhat changed. He should like to hear from
    1708
    the noble Marquess what Bills besides the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill he proposed to take to-morrow, and at what hour the discussion on the Indian Financial Statement was likely to be resumed, as many hon. Members had remained in town at great personal inconvenience in order to take part in it. He entered his protest against what he called a political scandal—namely, that the Indian Financial Statement should be taken on the last Wednesday afternoon in the Session, and then postponed to make way for possibly less important matters.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUEsaid, he hoped that the debate would be resumed to-morrow in ample time for Members who so desired to take part in it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he felt bound also to make what protest he could against the extraordinary conduct of the Government in this matter. They appeared to consider that the interests of India were sufficiently looked after if the Indian Financial Statement were taken on the last Wednesday of the Session, not as the rstfi Order, so as to secure the whole day for its discussion, but as the second Order; and then, after some three hours' debate upon the fate of an Empire containing more than 200,000,000 of human beings, the House was told that it must make way for Bills of far less importance. The Lords' Amendments to the Patents Bill, which they were asked to consider, and which extended to seven pages, had not been obtainable in the Vote Office longer than an hour. He should, therefore, divide the House against the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, he trusted the hon. Member would not pursue such a course, which would only be wasting the time of the House. It was really important that the Bills referred to by his noble Friend should be taken, and on the following day the debate on India could be resumed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the reason given for the adjournment of the debate was a very poor one indeed. He should support his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.
    The House proceeded to a Division:—
    MR. SPEAKERstated that he thought the Ayes had it; and, his decision

    1709
    being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: On a question of Order, Mr. Speaker. [Loud cries of"Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to call on the '"Noes" to rise in their places.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (seated, and with his hat on): We are not supporting a dilatory Motion, Mr. Speaker. [Cries of"Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to call on the "Noes" to rise in their places.
    MR. HEALY (seated, and with his hat on): On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, we are not supporting a dilatory Motion. The Rule says any person——[Loud cries of "Order!"] We are perfectly in Order. I ask, Mr. Speaker——[Cries of "Order!"] We are perfectly in Order. Gentlemen who do not know anything about it might hold their tongues. The Rule, as I understand it, says that when a Motion is made for dilatory purposes, those who are in favour of it must rise in their places. Consequently, it is not permissible in this ease. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will read the Rule?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I ask that the Rule be read.
    MR. SPEAKER: I will road the Standing Order, and I think that the hon. Members will at once see that the construction which they put upon the Rule is incorrect. The Standing Order is in these terms—
    "That, after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion, when, after the House has been cleared for a Division, upon a Motion for the Adjournment of the De-hate, or of the House during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Committee do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee, that the Ayes or Noes have it is challenged, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand glass, call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places."
    I must call upon the "Noes" to rise in their places.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise——[Loud cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: Surely the hon. Member, after hearing the Standing Order——
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise, Sir, to apologize for contesting a ruling which I now see to be right.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to call upon the "Noes" to rise in their places.
    1710
    Right Members only having stood up, Mr. Speaker declared the Ayes had it.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.
  (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Holms.)
  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.

    [BILL 261.] CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Order for consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in moving that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be considered, said, he wished to explain that the whole of them had been assented to by the Government. They were either verbal Amendments or Amendments suggested in the progress of the Bill, and would not take very long to deal with.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that he had endeavoured in vain to understand the Lords' Amendments to this Bill, and by way of drawing the attention of the country to the manner in which its Business was being conducted, he should divide the House upon the Motion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 16: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 314.)
    The Clerk then proceeded to read the Amendments, when——
    MR. HEALYrose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether the Question should not be put after each Amendment, as it was impossible for the House to understand what they were agreeing to when the Amendments were put en bloc?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Amendments were being put in the usual manner, and if any hon. Member objected he had a perfect right to do so.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that if that wore the case he should on the next Amendment call out "No."
    The Clerk having read three other Amendments,
    MR. HEALYagain rose, and said that, as a matter of Order, he wished to know whether the Question ought not to have

    1711
    been put after each of those three Amendments, so that if any hon. Member wished to object to it he might have had an opportunity of doing so?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member objects to what is being done, he has only to rise in his place and give expression to his objection.
    Lords' Amendments as far as Amendment in page I 6, line 28, considered, and agreed to.
    It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, Further Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned till To-morrow.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 273.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. ONSLOWprotested against these measures being proceeded with after a quarter to 6 o'clock, after the promise of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington).
    LORD RICHARD GROSVENORsaid, the noble Marquess's promise extended to only three measures which would not be proceeded with after a quarter to 6 o'clock, and these had been disposed of.
    MR. ONSLOWobjected to the Bill being taken now.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (DAIRIES, &c.) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 280.]
  (Mr. Dodson.)
  PUBLIC HEALTH (DAIRIES, &c.) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 280.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. WARTON: I object.
    MR. HIBBERTappealed to the hon. and learned Member to withdraw his opposition, as the Bill was likely to be productive of much good.
    MR. WARTON: But I do object.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 132.]
  (Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 132.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, he hoped that the Bill would be discharged, as there was no possibility of passing it this Session.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that he, on the contrary, hoped that it would be kept on the Paper, and passed if possible.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the Bill was put down for to-morrow.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT BILL.— [BILL 287.]
  (The Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  NATIONAL DEBT BILL.— [BILL 287.]

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that this Bill had come back from the Lords with a merely technical Amendment; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would allow it to be considered.
    MR. O'KELLY: I object.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his objection and to allow the Bill to be proceeded with.
    MR. O'KELLY: I object, I object.
    Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 304.]
    House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Post Office (Money Orders) Acts Amendment * (219).
Second Reading—Epidemic and other Diseases Prevention * (213).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Municipal Corporations (Borough Constables) * (214).
Second Reading—Committee—Report—Third Reading—Revenue and Friendly Societies (215), and passed.
Committee—Report—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) * (198); Medals * (208); Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) * (205); Public Works Loans * (209).
Report—Bankruptcy (211); Labourers (Ireland) * (183).
Third Reading—National Debt * (212); Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) (189); Isle of Wight Highways * (191); Education (Scotland) * (199); Expiring Laws Continuance (197), and passed.

REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.—(No. 215.)
(The Lord Thurlow.)
REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.—(No. 215.)
  SECOND READING. COMMITTEE.

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had to ask their Lordships to dispense with Standing Order XXXV., it being desirable to take all the remaining stages of the Bill that day, in order that it might be sent back to the Commons, so that that House might have time, before the Prorogation, to consider some Amendments he should have to make in Committee. He might briefly say the Bill was an omnibus one, and

    1603
    contained a great variety of small, but urgent, matters relating to the Revenue.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Thurlow.)
    Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
    Standing Order XXXV. considered (according to order).
    Moved, "That the said Standing Order be dispensed with."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, a great number of matters were dealt with in the Bill, and the very least they could expect was that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Thurlow) should make a short speech in explanation of each clause. It was a case in which they seemed to be reverting to the ancient practice of putting all the Acts passed in a Session of Parliament into one Act. He did not know whose ingenious imagination had conceived this idea; but, if the principle of which they had an example here were only developed, they need not have so many Acts of Parliament as at present was the case.
    LORD THURLOWsaid, it was strictly in accordance with usage to combine a number of small matters of great importance in one Act. He had himself in previous years passed many similar Bills.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was sorry to hear this confession on the part of the noble Lord. They had apparently detected him for the first time. Every clause in the Bill was a new Act, and he only demurred to having Committee superseded. If there was any sort of Bill on which Committee was an important stage, it was a Bill in respect to which each clause practically was a new Act of Parliament on a separate subject.
    LORD THURLOWsaid, that, if the noble Marquess objected to the Bill passing its main stages that day, the result would be that the Bill would have to go on without amendment, and would go forward to the world as "The Revenue and Friendly Societies Bill," although the clause relating to Friendly Societies had been struck out.
    Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
    Preamble.
    On the Motion of The Lord THURLOW, the following Amendment made:—In paragraph 1, line 2, leave out ("and to reduce the interest payable on investments of friendly societies").
    Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    On the Motion of The Lord THURLOW, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 5, after ("revenue") leave out ("and friendly societies").
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    On the Motion of The Lord THURLOW, title of the Bill changed to "Revenue Bill."
    House resumed.
    Report of Amendments received.
    On the Motion of The Lord THURLOW, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
    Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.—(No. 189.)
(The Earl of Northbrook.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.—(No. 189.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Northbrook), whether it would not be possible to restore the Bill in one particular to the state in which it was when it was originally presented to the House of Commons? As amended, no candidate would be entitled to employ more than one agent, though the borough which he desired to represent was composed of groups of boroughs, each with a certain amount of independent life. He thought such candidates ought to be permitted to employ a separate agent for each separate portion of the borough. The Government were of opinion that that should be allowed when the Bill was introduced; but, upon the Motion of an independent Member, they had agreed to the present form of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in reply, said, that, in the House of Commons,

  1605
  those Members who represented such boroughs had expressed their wish to be placed on the same footing, in this respect, as other Members, and that wish was acceded to. They were the best judges of their own case, and he was, therefore, sorry that the alteration desired by the noble Marquess could not be made.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that, although the Bill would be a Continuance Bill, it might, as the noble Marquess proposed, be altered next year, and not stereotyped in its present form.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 211.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 211.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  Clause 6 (Conditions on which creditor may petition).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 12, leave out ("has"); and in line 13, before ("resided,") insert ("has ordinarily").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Proceedings and order on creditor's petition).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 23, after ("affidavit,") insert ("of the creditor or of some person on his behalf having knowledge of the facts"); in line 34, after ("debts,") insert ("or that for other sufficient cause no order ought to be made"); and after line 34, insert—
  "(4) When the act of bankruptcy relied on is non-compliance with a bankruptcy notice to pay, secure, or compound for a judgment debt, the court may, if it thinks fit, stay or dismiss the petition on the ground that an appeal is pending from the judgment."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 66 (Appointment by Board of Trade of official receivers of debtors' estates)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, who had on the Paper the following Amendment:—
  In page 36, line 25, leave out sub-section (1), and insert—"A proper person or persons shall
  1606
  be appointed for each district to act as official receiver or receivers of debtors' estates. Such persons shall be appointed, as regards the London Bankruptcy Court, by the judge of that court, and, as regards other districts, by the judge of the county court having bankruptcy jurisdiction within that district. One person only shall be appointed for each such district unless the Board of Trade shall otherwise direct, and the same person shall not he appointed for more than two districts. The official receivers shall act under the directions of, and may be removed by, the Board of Trade, but shall also he officers of the courts to which they are respectively attached,"
  said, that it appeared, from communications he had received, that the particular kind of patronage in the Bill, objectionable though it might be, was necessary for the working of the measure. He should, therefore, not submit the Amendment to their Lordships.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was glad that his noble Friend had not insisted on the Amendment. Although he (the Duke of Argyll) had objected to this patronage on first seeing the Bill, he had since made careful inquiry, and had come to the conclusion that the appointment of Official Receivers by the Board of Trade was an essential principle of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would also express his gratification at the course taken by the noble Marquess.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as some apprehensions seemed to have been entertained as to the possibility of an excessive use of the patronage the Bill conferred on the Board of Trade, he had communicated with that Department, and in order to meet that objection, he proposed to add the following Amendment, in page 36, at end of line 31:—
  "The official receivers who are to he appointed, and the districts with which they are to he associated, shall be fixed by the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Treasury. One person only shall be appointed to each district, unless the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Treasury, shall otherwise direct."
  The effect of the Amendment was that it associated the Treasury with the Board of Trade in determining the number of officers to be appointed.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 122 (Power for county court to make administration order instead of order for payment by instalments).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 57, line 12, to insert, after the word "value," the words "in the aggregate," said, the clause would exempt from seizure household goods, wearing apparel, and tools and implements of trade up to the value of £20; and the object of his Amendment was to remove ambiguity as to the meaning of that provision.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.—(No. 197.)
(The Lord Thurlow.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.—(No. 197.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  LORD DENMAN: I beg to move the insertion of a clause to empower widows and spinsters, who pay the same rates and taxes as voters do, to vote for Members of Parliament. I am induced to do so because, at my decease, my widow would not be able to vote for a Member of Parliament. In 1881 it was reported that the noble Lord, now Secretary of State for India, had said that I might bring in a Bill on this interesting subject; but I never heard his Lordship say so, though it must be correct, as it is reported in Hansard. But I venture to think that this clause would effect the object far better than the dependence on the carrying of a Reform Bill, or on the agitation of ladies in St. James's Hall. I find that they have exercised their privilege, both by ballot and openly, with much discretion—by ballot as to school boards, and openly in the election at Haddington (Scotland) of two Ministers, at different times, of the Established Church. I believe
  1608
  that, by passing this clause, the Government would not lose any votes at the next General Election. And the Ballot lasting for only one year, it would be seen, as to this class of new voters, if, during that time, their conduct had been wise or the contrary; and the Ballot is, certainly, a great protection to female voters.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 2, add the following Clause:—
  "Provided that the Act 35 & 36 Vict. c. 33, continued as aforesaid, shall be extended so as to admit widows and single women who have the same property qualification as the present electors for counties and boroughs to vote for the election of members of Parliament for counties and boroughs."—(The Lord Denman.)
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord; but he would point out that the Bill was simply one for continuing expiring laws, and that it was not customary to introduce into such a measure new legislation, particularly of so important a character as that which the noble Lord had suggested.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—SCHOOL BOARDS—POWER OF EXACTING HOME LESSONS FROM SCHOLARS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in asking the Lord President, Whether school boards have any legal right to exact home lessons, and to dispose of the time of children attending board schools out of school hours; and, if so, under what section of what Act of Parliament? said, that he regretted having to trouble his noble Friend again with the Question, after the satisfactory reply which he had given on a former occasion. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) was, however, compelled to do so, because the most important part of the reply of the Lord President on a former occasion had failed to reach the Reporters' Gallery, and, because, a few days later, the Vice President in "another place" had spoken in rather a different sense, and used words which would harden the hearts of those who were over-driving the children. Moreover, at Todmorden, the School Board

  1609
  had again refused admission to Mr. Shackleton's sons; whilst they appeared to shrink from committing themselves to a written refusal, for, on the 17th instant, they had not replied to a letter of Mr. Shackleton's of the 13th, although there had been a meeting of the Board on the 16th instant; and as the term of office of this Board expired on the 25th, they might wish to ignore the ease. On a former occasion, the Todmorden School Board sent away the reporters when discussing the matter. He would observe that the Education Office had made a singular mistake, and misled the Lord President into repeating it in this House—namely, that Mr. Shackleton had given no reasons for refusing to allow his sons to do home lessons. When that was alleged by the Education Department letter of January 19, 1882, signed by Mr. Palgrave, Mr. Shackleton wrote to the Todmorden local paper to show that this statement was entirely inaccurate, and The School Board Chronicle had reprinted the letter, and commented upon it, and supported Mr. Shackleton against both the School Board and the Education Department. Since he last addressed the Lord President on this subject, he had heard of complaints of overwork and home lessons from various parts of the country, and he had received remonstrances against the assertion of the Lord President that the New Code was less severe than the Old Code.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, the answer he had to give was, that he had no authority, as President of the Council, to decide the legal rights of the school boards. Any such question as the present could only come before him under the Code, and when it did so he should be very happy to give it his attention, and decide it; but he was bound to add, that he was not prepared to say it would be the duty of the Education Department to refuse the annual grant to a school board, simply because that board had declined to admit a child, the parents of which had refused, without showing reasonable grounds or excuse, to permit the child to go through the home lessons prescribed by the school board. He was not prepared to say that the Education Department would refuse the grant on any such ground as that.

PROVIDENT NOMINATIONS AND SMALL INTESTACIES BILL.
(The Lord Norton.)
PROVIDENT NOMINATIONS AND SMALL INTESTACIES BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' REASONS.
  Commons' reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to order).
  On the Motion of The Lord THURLOW (for The Lord NORTON), the said Amendment not insisted on.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL—(No. 216.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL—(No. 216.)

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' REASONS.
  Commons' reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' amendments, and Commons' amendments to Lords' amendments considered (according to order).
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that, before he asked their Lordships not to insist on their Amendments with which the Commons had disagreed, he should like to say a few words as to the view taken by Her Majesty's Government of the present position of the Bill. The Government had submitted the measure to Parliament in order to meet the reasonable requirements of the tenant farmers of this country, without, in their opinion, going beyond those reasonable requirements, and without prejudice to the rights and interests of the landlords. In the belief of the Government, and, as he (Lord Carlingford) believed, by almost universal admission, the measure was of a most moderate character when introduced into the other House. Their Lordships, however, had thought fit to make several changes in the Bill, all of them more or less restrictive of the benefits intended to be conferred upon the tenant farmers. Two of the Amendments made by their Lordships relating to the first two clauses of the Bill—the first being by far the most important—had been accepted by the other House on the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government. That Amendment was one to which many of their Lordships attached great importance. With regard to the remaining Amendments, upon which the other House had differed from their Lordships, he had this to say on the part of

  1611
  the Government—that they believed that every one of those Amendments was quite unnecessary for the protection of the landlord. They believed that the Bill as it stood, without those Amendments, would not in any way cause injustice to the landlord, or any serious inconvenience. On the other hand, the Government felt convinced that the introduction into the Bill of these charges might have a very prejudicial effect on the success of the measure—a success which he believed noble Lords on both sides of that House equally desired. These Amendments would have a bad effect, in some cases, in the interest of the landlords; and, certainly, in many cases, more or less, in the interest of the tenants, who would attach exaggerated importance to the changes made, and in whose eyes the measure was likely to be very seriously damaged by them. Any such effect would, in his opinion, be most disadvantageous to both parties. The Amendments, in fact, were likely to interfere with that reasonable settlement between landlord and tenant which it was hoped would have prevented the necessity of re-opening the question for many years to come. If their Lordships insisted on their Amendments, the impression would be produced that they were dealing with the measure in a jealous and grudging spirit, and that they desired to cut down and weaken all the provisions of the Bill which were favourable to the tenant—which to some extent, though not to so great an extent as the tenant farmers believed, would undoubtedly be the case. The first of these Amendments with which he would deal, and to which he considered the observations he had made would apply, was that which was moved by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) upon the 2nd clause, by which the following words were inserted:—
  "Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto."
  That Amendment was really of narrow scope, and dealt entirely with improvements already executed before the commencement of the Act. Now, the case stood thus. If any kind of agreement for compensation were now in existence with respect to an improvement already
  1612
  made, such an agreement was good under the earlier words of the clause. Again, if any valuable consideration of any kind had been given by a landlord on account of an improvement—any benefit given or allowed—that consideration would, under Clause 6, take the place of the compensation given under the Bill. The only agreement which under Clause 2, with relation to improvements already effected, would not be good, was an agreement absolutely excluding the tenant from any compensation. Such an Amendment was scarcely worthy of the noble Marquess. Under Clause 5, any existing agreement under an existing contract of tenancy which debarred the tenant from compensation, without any consideration being given, would still, under the Bill as it stood, and in spite of the Amendment of the noble Marquess remain null and void. He begged their Lordships, therefore, to consider what amount of benefit such a provision as this would confer upon the landlords of this country. If the Amendment were worthless, as he was convinced it was, why should they spoil by such an addition the very appearance of the Bill? Such jealous care in guarding the fancied interests of the landlords in regard to agreements which were in themselves, if they really existed, contrary to public policy, could do no good to their Lordships or to the landlords throughout the country, and could do nothing but prejudice the success and the hearty acceptance of this Bill.
  Page 2, line 11, after ("improvement,") insert—
  ("Provided that no compensation shall be claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto.")
  The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 2, line 11, for the following reason:—
  "Because it is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill which provides that in the case of existing tenancies, where the tenant has no right to compensation under the terms of his tenancy, he shall, nevertheless, be entitled to compensation under this Act, and there is no reason for making a distinction in the case where compensation is excluded by the terms of the contract from the case where it is excluded by implication of law, unless where the compensation is excluded for valuable consideration, which case is provided for by clause 6."
  Moved, "That this House do not insist on the amendment in page 2, line 11, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that with regard to the general arguments of the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President of the Council), he wished, in the first place, to observe that the House was placed in a position of considerable difficulty by the course which the Government had thought fit to adopt. With regard to the Bill, their Lordships had been willing to yield, to a large extent, a principle to which they certainly attached great importance. He referred to the principle of freedom of contract between landlord and tenant; as to which they were willing that in future it should be modified, and as to which he understood that the provisions relating to freedom of contract constituted the main feature of the Bill. That was a great concession on the part of those Members of their Lordships' House who had been brought up to believe in freedom of contract. But that was not all. They had also assented to the strange and almost monstrous principle that the tenant should be allowed, in spite of his landlord, and against his wish, to place drains where he pleased, and even where they would be positively injurious, and that the landlord should have no redress whatever against such undesirable drainage. These, for the sake of carrying a Bill to which he would admit that a certain number of tenant farmers appeared to attach importance, they had been willing to adopt, and these their Lordships had considered to be the main principles of the Bill. But, besides these main provisions, there were, here and there, scattered throughout the Bill, provisions of a much stronger character—provisions bearing the mark of that confiscatory policy with which they had all been made familiar in regard to another of the Three Countries. Their Lordships had objected to, and had been eager to divest the Bill of, these excrescences, and to allow the principles to which he had referred to pass, in the hope that they might produce for the tenant farmers the advantage which Her Majesty's Government anticipated. No doubt, in order to have effected these changes in a more efficient manner, it would have
  1614
  been much more satisfactory if they could have devoted more time and care to the examination of the Bill. But why had they not been able to devote more time and care to it? Why had the Bill come to them at so late a period of the Session that questions of great interest had practically to be decided "Aye" or "No" within two days of the Prorogation? Was that the fault of any accident in the other House? Was it simply the result of that exuberance of debate of which they had lately heard so much? No; that might account for the delay in regard to other Bills that had come to them late in the Session, but in regard to this particular measure the delay which had embarrassed them so much was due to the deliberate premeditation of the Government themselves. The state of the case was this. At the end of May two Bills had passed their second reading in the House of Commons—the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Bill. The former was a Bill primarily concerning the other House, and it was well known that it was not a Bill to which their Lordships would think it necessary to devote much attention. In regard to the other Bill, it was known that the subject was one with which their Lordships were familiar and in which they were likely to take a good deal of interest and deal with carefully. The Government had their choice which they would take first, and which they would send up to the House of Lords first; and not only had they their choice, but they had a distinct warning—the warning which he (the Marquess of Salisbury) had the honour to give the noble Earl opposite, the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) on the 8th of June—as to the danger of putting the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill first through Committee, and leaving the Agricultural Holdings Bill behind. But the Government refused to receive that warning. They insisted on taking the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill first, and left the Agricultural Holdings Bill on the shelf for five or six weeks. But did they hasten the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill by so doing? Did they bring it to an issue at an earlier date? Not a bit; because the moment they had passed it

  1615
  through Committee they pushed the Agricultural Holdings Bill through all its stages, and sent it up to their Lordships; so that the action of the Government had led to no benefit whatever, and the Agricultural Holdings Bill had been sent up six weeks later than it might have been if the Government had chosen to attend to the warnings addressed to them at the time. The result was so obvious, that it was impossible not to believe that the Government had some ulterior reason for what they had done; and now, if they were embarrassed and had to come to decisions with so little time for considering, the blame lay, not with their Lordships, but with the Government. With regard to the Amendment now under consideration, it was rather hard that he should be reproached with the fact that his Amendment did so little. If they proposed large Amendments, it was objected that they would interfere with the principle of the Bill. If they proposed small Amendments, they were told that it was not worth while insisting upon them. Whether their Amendments were small or large, the Government, for one reason or another, were sure to object to them. His objection to the Bill, as the House of Commons had sent it back to them, was that it violated a great principle. That violation of principle was not necessary to the success of the Bill. It stood altogether apart from the Bill; but, if they left it as it was, it would remain as a precedent to sanctify and support future inroads on the sanctity of private rights. This Amendment had been discussed out-of-doors as if it concerned future improvements under existing contracts. It did nothing of the kind. It referred only to past improvements under the existing agreements. The practical evil and injustice he apprehended might be illustrated by referring to two instances. There were very often put into leases specific provisions that certain courses of cultivation should be followed, which, according to the general custom of the country and district, involved some expenditure of the kind mentioned in the 3rd Part of the Schedule of the Bill. The leases were given on the faith that that amount and kind of expenditure should be incurred, and perhaps such expenditure had been incurred—the thing was past and gone, and the owner of the land
  1616
  imagined that his position was quite clear and that an agreement had been made. But, now, if this Bill passed, the tenant, having been already paid by the fact of his having received his lease on the faith of the undertaking to incur that expenditure, would acquire a claim against his landlord to which he had no right, and would have to be paid over again in the shape of compensation under the Bill. He would give another instance—that of the hay farmers in Middlesex. Their practice was universal, under agreement, of not taking the manure from the farm, but of buying it and laying it out on the farm; and that was done in accordance with a distinct agreement. And the manure might be placed upon the land two, three, or four years, according to the character of the soil and the peculiarities of the agreement; but now, under this Bill, the tenant would have a right to come for compensation for that improvement he had undertaken to make, and to be paid for doing that which, at the time the agreement was made, it was perfectly well understood that he should be bound to do. That contract of his was torn up by the Bill as it now stood, and the tenant would have a right to claim compensation. If he advocated the adoption of his Amendment simply on the ground of the injustice that would be caused by the clause as it stood, he would have a strong case. But he entirely demurred to the idea that ran through all the remarks of the noble Lord opposite, that this Bill was to be something in the nature of liberality to the tenants. They were there simply to do justice between the two classes, without any favour on one side or the other; and it was not to be assumed that all landlords were rich men, or that all tenants were poor men. They had no right, because there were a certain number of landlords in that House who were men of large fortunes, and who, probably, could submit to any inconvenience the Bill might subject them to, to play away the rights, the absolute rights, of a vast number of smaller landlords, who might by this Bill be overwhelmed. The old theory long entertained by Mr. Bright, and of which that right hon. Gentleman used to be so fond of preaching, that there were only 30,000 landlords in this country, must be now held to be exploded, for it was

  1617
  well known that there were hundreds of thousands of them, many of whom were poor men upon whom the Bill would press very heavily. The rights and interests of these poor landlords were as dear in the eyes of the law as the claims of the tenants. He asked their Lordships to view with suspicion this extreme anxiety on the part of the Government for a provision which, by their own admission, could have no very great effect. Was it not intended that there should be furnished in this Bill a precedent, a germ, which, he was afraid, might be dangerously developed hereafter, and found useful at some future occasion? Had they not heard that the question of leases in Ireland was likely to come up? And would it not be very useful to have on the Statute Book an instance of past agreements having been torn up by Parliament? For that reason, and on the grounds he had stated, he thought it desirable to insert some Amendment on the clause which would remove all doubts and ambiguity. He imagined the question of improvements in town property, too, was one quite as likely to occupy the public mind as any relating to property. If the noble Lord said that his Amendment, as it stood now, would not do enough, he would propose some variation of language—he would propose that the clause should run—
  "Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this section for any improvement where the agreement fixing the rent was made on the express or implied condition that such improvement should be executed by the tenant."
  He imagined that was elementary justice to which even Her Majesty's Government could not object. They would tell him that all that was provided for by the 6th clause; but, in his opinion, that 6th clause was one of the most ingenious specimens of Parliamentary drafting he had ever come across. The word "benefit" in that clause might be interpreted as he wished it; but it was quite possible that a Court of Law might say—"We cannot take the mere fact of a lease being granted as a benefit under this Act." Of course, Her Majesty's Government were entitled to their own interpretation of their own Act; but they (the Opposition) must be pardoned if they looked with some jealousy upon the language of that clause;
  1618
  and he would press upon them to accept an Amendment which would make clear the doctrine which they professed to value, which would give the Act the effect which they professed to think necessary, and which would not be exposed to any possible doubts or ambiguity in its interpretation before a Court of Law.
  Amendment moved, to leave out all the words after ("House,") and insert ("do amend their Amendment in page 2, line 11.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, for himself, he was very much disappointed to see the manner in which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) treated the spirit of the Bill. When Her Majesty's Government brought before Parliament a measure of this kind, a strong Bill containing provisions acceptable to many of their supporters—a measure which, adopting the language of the noble Marquess, was, in their opinion, a Bill seeking to do simple justice, without fear or favour, between landlord and tenant—it was very disappointing to hear the noble Marquess talk of confiscatory provisions. He was astonished to hear it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I simply stated that there were scattered about in the Bill confiscatory provisions.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would ask their Lordships to conceive the frame of mind of anyone who, looking at a Bill of this kind, thought there were in it confiscatory provisions. When a measure of the kind was viewed in a spirit of that sort, it was extremely difficult to imagine where the noble Lords who held those opinions could live, with whom they associated, and whether they had the slightest knowledge of the feeling which existed in this country among tenant farmers. He would not say that they seemed to have lived in a balloon, but that they seemed to have lived in some other sphere altogether. They could never have had any conversation with the tenant farmers of England on the subject. He thought this was a very serious matter. The relations of landlord and tenant, and the maintenance of harmony between the two classes, were matters of very great importance, and certainly not of little importance to those whom he addressed. When there

  1619
  existed a considerable feeling, which undoubtedly did exist—and it was a growing feeling—of dissatisfaction with the present law as regards the relations of landlords and tenants, and when an attempt was made by the Government to deal with the subject in a fair and just spirit, it was, in his opinion, extremely disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition in that House should talk of parts of the Bill as containing confiscatory provisions. He (the Earl of Kimberley) viewed, with very serious suspicion any Amendment which came from a noble Lord who entertained that opinion. That suspicion would be shared not merely by Members of the Government in that House, and by Members of the other House, but by a great many men throughout the country, whose good-will and good opinion they all valued, as in the interest of all concerned. It was their opinion that the relations between landlords and tenants would be very much improved by the Bill. The noble Marquess had, in his extreme anxiety not to assist in passing a Bill of the kind, endeavoured in every possible way to turn the Bill into a Party question, and to bring Party prejudice to bear against it. He even accused the Government of some Machiavellian design in bringing up the Bill late in the Session, and, assuming that he knew much better than they did themselves how to manage their Business, he complained that they had not accelerated its progress by a single day, and had postponed it to the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. But, in the first place, he (the Earl of Kimberley) claimed for the Government at least as good a knowledge of the manner in which they should conduct their own Business as the noble Marquess; and he could assure their Lordships, while he emphatically denied that any Member of the Government had conceived the notion of delaying the Bill, which the noble Marquess had attributed to them, that the measure had been introduced into that House at the earliest possible moment. The matter was the subject of discussion, and regret was felt by the Government that they could not at an earlier period send the Bill to their Lordships' House. With regard to the Amendment itself, he thought the noble Marquess, in harping so much as he had upon the
  1620
  danger of admitting a wrong principle, had altogether lost sight of the fact that the principle, whether right or wrong, was already, to a very great extent, admitted in the Bill. He drew a picture of some landlord who, conceiving he had discharged all his obligations, suddenly found himself called upon to pay a sum of money by way of compensation. As the Bill now stood, many landlords might find themselves in the position described by the noble Marquess, because, where there was no reference whatever made to compensation in the lease, the landlord would be liable to pay, unless, that was to say, there was some specific agreement upon the subject providing for the case. The principle, therefore, was already in the Bill, and claims might be made to a large extent, since all improvements not subject to the agreement between landlord and tenant would be the subject of compensation. If, however, there was a definite understanding, which could be produced and proved, that certain things were to be done in return for any consideration whatsoever, that case was provided for by the 6th clause; and the only conceivable case in which the proposed Amendment of the noble Marquess could apply, and which was not covered by the Bill, was a case in which the landlord had absoluely prohibited operations of agriculture necessary for the improvement of the farm, and where, therefore, the admission of such a provision would be distinctly in contravention of the principles of the Bill. He hoped their Lordships would not think it necessary to persevere with an Amendment which he really thought was unnecessary, and which would not have the effect of establishing the principle on which the noble Marquess laid so much stress, and which could not fail to prejudice the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could assure their Lordships that it had always been a matter of the greatest grief for him to find himself unable to support his noble Friend who sat behind him (the Marquess of Salisbury); but, having for three years presided over the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and having devoted a considerable portion of his life to the consideration of all matters connected with agriculture, he did not think he should be justified, or worthy of holding a seat

  1621
  in their Lordships' House, if he did not get up on the present occasion and state that he could not assent to the proposal of his noble Friend. It was perfectly true that, when the clause was previously considered, he thought there was a great deal of justice in the Amendment originally brought forward by his noble Friend; but since then he had had time to consider the matter further, and having now obtained a much wider and more comprehensive view of the subject, he had come to the conclusion that it would not be wise to insist on the Amendment. As to the minor details, he thought there was considerable force in the remarks of the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Kimberley), that to a very great extent, although not altogether to the full extent, the desire of his noble Friend in an Amendment which he proposed on the former occasion was covered by words which were now in the Bill. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) was not one of those who thought this a small measure, or a measure of no importance. He believed it to be a measure which was looked forward to with great anxieties—widely looked forward to with great anxiety and great interest by the vast majority of the tenant farmers of the country. He believed that if, in that House, they did anything in any way to jeopardize the passing of the Bill, they would be doing that which would be repugnant to the feelings of the whole of the tenant farmers of the country. [Cries of "No, no!"] Those were his own opinions, and he had as much right to hold his own opinions as any other noble Lord in the House, and he thought it would be an act of cowardice on his part if, holding these opinions, he shrank from expressing them to their Lordships. If noble Lords had read the very voluminous Papers which were the result of the Royal Commission, they would have seen that a great deal that was embodied in the Bill was greatly sought for by the tenantry of the country. Those noble Lords who had not read those Papers he must leave to their own cogitations, and he hoped that, after Parliament was up, they would devote some of; their leisure to a perusal of the evidence on which the Bill was based. He could not forget that one of the special recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission was to be found in the 1st
  1622
  clause of the Bill—that the tenant was entitled to be recouped the moneys which he had expended upon the soil, if, upon going out of the farm, he had not received back that money he had put into it, and which would be of value to the incoming tenant. He was unwilling further to trespass upon their Lordships' attention; but he was anxious to take an early opportunity of stating that it was not possible, with the views he now held, to support his noble Friend, because he thought there would be nothing so disastrous as for their Lordships to be guilty of any conduct which would jeopardize the passing of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that, perhaps, the House would allow him to explain, in a few words, the view which would govern his vote, and he desired to do so the more especially as he was the author of an Amendment on the Scotch Bill, which ran nearly on all fours with the Amendment of his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). They were now, he thought, in a similar position to that in which they were on the second reading of the Bill. They had to look not merely to the details, but to the general aspect of the measure, and to the result of their proceedings to-night. There were many observations in the speech of the noble Marquess with which he had a very large amount of sympathy. In particular, he thought that the Government committed a mistake in postponing the bringing of this Bill to their Lordships' House. He quite admitted that the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill was one of very great importance; but he thought it ought to have been more present to the minds of Her Majesty's Government that it dealt with a matter in which that House had comparatively little interest. In regard to the present Bill, however, he thought it was the duty of their Lordships to ask, after the alterations that had been made in that House, and after the Amendments to which the House of Commons had agreed, whether the Bill, as a whole, was not a fair settlement of a very difficult question. He was bound to say, looking at the subject from that point of view, that the arguments in favour of their not obstructing the Bill, and of their allowing it to pass with the Amendments which had

  1623
  been made, were incomparably greater than those in support of the particular Amendment under discussion. In regard to the Amendment for which he was responsible in the Scotch Bill, it really would refer to only a very few cases. He knew of certain cases in Scotland where agreements had been made between landlord and tenant to this effect—that certain improvements should be done by the landlord up to a certain sum, and that beyond that the improvements should be done by the landlord or the tenant, at the will of either party, for no compensation, unless by separate agreement, and beyond that the tenant was to accept the lease as valuable compensation for any extra improvements he might make. As he read the Bill, that was provided for by Clause 3. At all events, it was clearly the intention of the Government that it should be so considered, and he could not doubt for himself that any Judge would so decide it. They must remember that this was a matter which would not be decided by valuers, but was a question of law, and there would be an appeal to the Judges of the land. He placed implicit confidence in the Judges; he placed no confidence in Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners, who were not lawyers, nor supported by the authority of the law, and who were not giving decisions according to law, and were not protected from popular impulse and passion. But in regard to all the questions referred to the Judges of England, he had absolute confidence that justice and law would be administered rightly; and he had no doubt whatever that, if there was any existing contract by which the landlord and tenant had agreed that the tenant should accept the terms of the lease as valuable compensation for anything he did, that contract would not be overridden. He next invited attention to the clause relating to drainage. He hoped that the Members of the Government would not think that he was using language of irritation when he said that there never was a clause which came up from one House of Parliament to the other that was more slovenly drawn than that one was. He was bound to say that the Government had admitted its faults, and had indeed confessed that many of those faults were due to an Amendment which was introduced in the House of Commons, and that the
  1624
  clause was not at first constructed with a view to that Amendment. The Government had, however, agreed to a most important alteration of the clause—namely, that the landlord should be bound, not by the specification of the tenant, but that he might execute the work himself, as he chose, and might charge the tenant interest upon the cost. That made the whole difference. But when he came down to the House that night, he was much surprised to find that the words "in a lease or otherwise," which were accepted by the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, and which he thought the Government had conceded, were struck out by the House of Commons. It was impossible to conceive that those noble Lords would be guilty of any thing approaching to a breach of faith in that House. The moment he read the reasons given by the House of Commons, he went first of all to other Members of the Government and then to his noble Friend the President of the Council, and his noble Friend at once assured him that there had been a mistake—that the House of Commons had struck out the words to which they had agreed in the House of Lords, and that the words should be restored; so that, on that matter, the ground of his objection had been removed. For himself, he looked upon the clause with reference to drainage as one of the most important in principle which was in the Bill. He still objected to the limitation of interest; but the mere limiting of interest was a matter of comparatively small importance, and if the words he had alluded to were to be restored, it would remove a great objection. The Government had also agreed to the important Proviso moved by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) with regard to manureal improvements; and being satisfied with that, as well as with the alterations made on the drainage clause, he should vote to-night against insisting upon the Amendments on the Paper, solely on the ground that he thought it would be unwise for that House—unwise in reference to the agricultural interests of the country, and unwise in the interests of their own tenants—to run any serious risk of the loss of the Bill for the sake of any one of those Amendments. They must look all

  1625
  round—they must look to the position of affairs—and he said it would be a serious matter to lose the Bill on account of any of the Amendments which were still insisted upon by the Government.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he thought the reason given by the Commons for rejecting the Amendment was a fallacious one; and he was satisfied that it was drawn up by a lawyer, and not by a farmer, or a Representative of the tenant farmers. If the Amendment now proposed should be rejected, claims might, on occasion, be made in contradiction of agreements. The reason given by the Commons was wholly untenable; and, speaking in the interest of common fairness, and common honesty, unless they wore to say that a man might enter into an express agreement, and then deliberately violate it, their Lordships ought to insist on their Amendment. For himself, he could not understand why solemn agreements should not be carried out.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, they were placed in a position of considerable disadvantage, in having a discussion which was partly mixed up with general principles and the general position, and partly with the merits of a particular Amendment. He sympathized very much with the view taken by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the position in which they were placed, and as to the reasons which had brought them into that position; but he was unable to vote with him on the merits of the particular Amendment before the House. He agreed almost entirely with the remarks of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll). Was it not the fact that, in the Amendment, they were contending for a point which, in fact, was a very small one? In practice, he believed the clause would hardly come into operation. Therefore, he put it to their Lordships, whether they were not, for the sake of a bare principle, contending for the protection of those landlords who had not given what public policy required that they should give? Would they not appear to be standing exclusively on their own particular rights in regard to a case which would hardly ever be found to exist in practice? If they were to insist upon these Amendments, would they not be giving too much force to the idea that they were desiring things which
  1626
  would protect the rights of a minority of their own number, and that the minority which, in this matter, was least entitled to consideration? ["Oh, oh!"] He felt the unpopularity evinced on that side of the House at anyone expressing from it such views, and he might also say he never separated himself from those with whom he was proud to act without a great misgiving that he must be wrong; but he did think that the point involved was not worth the risk they would incur by insisting upon it, and he should vote, as regarded the Amendment—and his remarks applied to this Amendment only—that they did not insist upon it.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not wish to enter again upon the discussion which they had upon the second reading; but he desired to suggest to some noble Lords opposite, who might be in doubt as to what their course ought to be on this Amendment, that it would not be for their interest, either politically, or as landlords, to insist on this Amendment. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that very large concessions had been made by him and by his Friends when they accepted the violation of the principle of freedom of contract; but, on the other hand, certain Amendments had been accepted in "another place," and if they would consider the probabilities of the case, they would, he thought, see that it was exceedingly likely that, in that "other place," if their Lordships insisted upon the acceptance of the Amendment now proposed, the consequence of a persistence in the difference between the two Houses would be that the Bill would be lost. What would be the result of that? Surely it could not be the desire of noble Lords opposite to leave this question open to renewed agitation throughout the country—a question which had done more than any other to separate the landlords from the tenant farmers. It would surely not be to the interest, politically speaking, of those who posed before the country as the friends of the tenant farmers, to be placed in the invidious position of being their opponents. But their Lordships must consider, further, how the rejection of the measure would affect the interests of the landowning classes. If the Bill were rejected, and an appeal were made

  1627
  to the constituencies, they might be certain that a Parliament would be returned holding views on this question similar to those of the present Parliament. Nor was that all. Whatever might be their own personal feelings or wishes, they all knew that there was a great probability that before long the constitution of the House of Commons would be considerably modified, and that, in future, it would be returned by a much more popular constituency. He therefore asked their Lordships whether it was in the interest of the landowners, as a class, to leave a burning question of this kind—a question which there was every desire at present to settle in a fair and moderate temper, and which, unless dealt with soon, would become a very dangerous one—to be dealt with by a Parliament which would, in all probability, have far less sympathy with the landlords, and far more sympathy with the tenants, than the present House of Commons had? He did not now propose to discuss the question in detail, although he thought that some of the arguments of the noble Marquess were not applicable to the actual state of things. The noble Marquess said he was afraid to accept the principle of the clause as amended, because it might, and probably would, be used as a precedent in subsequent legislation, as had occurred in the case of the Irish Land Acts. His (the Earl of Derby's) reply to that was extremely simple. It was that Irish and English legislation upon this tenant right question had always proceeded upon entirely different grounds. If this Bill followed on the lines of the Irish Act, it would be of a very different character; and, as the Government had not in any way taken that measure as a precedent, it seemed rather a far-fetched assumption to say that the principle of such legislation would necessarily be applied to other cases. He did not think any one had described what was proposed to be given to the tenant farmers as a loan or a gift; what was to be given them was their right; the intention being only to place them in a position of equality with their landlords which it was assumed did not at present exist. Then the noble Marquess said that the principle of this Bill would be applied to tenants of town property. His (the Earl of Derby's), answer was that he was perfectly ready, if it could be shown
  1628
  that there was any injustice in the system under which property in towns was held, to take that question into consideration; but, in his opinion, there was no clear analogy between the mode of tenure of town property and agricultural land. Much town property was held on leases for 999 years; and even where the term was only 99 years, it could hardly be contended that the tenant had not enjoyed the benefit of his improvements. He did not think, therefore, that considerations founded on any such analogy ought to possess any weight with their Lordships. He hoped their Lordships would reject the proposed Amendment.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would support the Amendment, because he believed the cases were not covered sufficiently by the provisions contained in the classes or sections; similar statements having on many previous occasions been alleged, but subsequently found to be futile.
  EARL MANVERSsaid, he did not believe the tenant farmers wished for this Bill. He had recently heard the opinion expressed by tenant farmers that this was not the time for such a Bill, for they could always get farms when they wanted them, and landlords were always very glad to let them; that what they disliked principally about the Bill was its interference with freedom of contract, and that it was treating them like children to suppose they were incapable of making their own arrangements. Under these circumstances he should support the Amendment.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 48; Not-Contents 48.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Sydney, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Camperdown, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Granville, E.

  Abercromby, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Alcester, L.

  1629

  Bagot, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Belper, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Braye, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Reay, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Ashford, L.(V. Bury.)

  Bateman, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Beaumont, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bramwell, L. [Teller.]

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Denman, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Egerton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Harlech, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Feversham, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Manvers, E.

  Milltown, E.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Romney, E.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Ventry, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Westbury, L.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

  Melville, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The numbers being equal, according to the ancient Rule of the House, the Not-Contents have it, and the Question is therefore resolved in the negative. Before putting the next Question, that of the amended Amendment, I have to observe to your Lordships that, if the votes should also be equal upon the next Division, the same result will follow in an opposite direction.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not understand the reason of that statement.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be very glad to explain. Assuming that
  1630
  the same thing happens again, and that the numbers are equal, the ancient Rule of this House is "semper presumitur pronegante"—that is to say, that it passes in the negative. Consequently, as I am about to put the amended Motion, if the numbers should be equal, that Motion will be negatived.
  Previous to putting the Question,
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have inquired of the Clerk at the Table as to what would be the course of proceeding in the event—of course, only the possible event—of there being an equality of numbers on this Motion. If there should be an equality of numbers, of course the Not-Contents will have it, and then it will be my duty to put the Question—"That this House do insist on the Amendment."
  On Question, "That the words ('do amend their amendment, in page 2, line 11') be inserted in the original Motion?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 48: Majority 1.

  CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Ashford, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Beaumont, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bramwell, L. [Teller.]

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Denman, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Egerton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Denbigh, E

  Forbes, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Gerard, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Feversham, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Harrington, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Lytton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Milltown, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Romney, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Ventry, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Westbury, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Melville, V.

  Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Grafton, D.

  Richmond, D.

  1631

  Westminster, D.

  Chesham, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Chichester, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Derby, E.

  Fingall, L.(E. Fingall.)

  Granville, E.

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Morley, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Alcester, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Belper, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Thurlow, L.

  Braye, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and said amendment amended, accordingly.
  Page 2, line 40, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
  The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 2, line 40, for the following reason:
  "Because the landlord is free to enter into any terms upon which he can agree with the tenant, or may leave the tenant to carry out the drainage at his own expense; and it does not appear desirable to enable him to charge the tenant with a higher rate of interest than that provided in the Bill as passed by the Commons."
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the next Amendment he had to move that their Lordships should not insist upon was in Clause 4, which substituted 4 per cent for 3 per cent as the figure of the amount of interest which might be charged on the tenant for drainage work done by the landlord. The reason of the opposition of the Government to the proposal was, that the landlord might, under the clause as it now stood, elect to do the work himself, and he might do it in his own way, independently of the notice of the tenant. He was then to be at liberty to charge the tenant in one of two ways—either with a certain rate of interest, or with an annual sum, including principal and interest together; or he might leave the tenant to carry it out
  1632
  at his own expense. He would ask their Lordships to consider the matter from the tenant's point of view, and take a fair account of both sides of the question. The Government believed that the present state of things was a reason, at all events, for keeping the amount of interest in these cases at a very moderate figure, and that if they went beyond that and enabled the landlord to impose a heavier charge than that provided in the Bill, as passed by the Commons, the result would be that the tenant would say—"My farm shall remain undrained, and I will not submit to this charge;" and in many cases the land would not be drained at all. The very worst that could happen to a landlord, if he did not choose to undertake the work on the terms provided in the Bill, was that the tenant would do it himself. He was not prepared to admit that drainage done by the tenant must of necessity be badly done, and under an agreement there was no reason to suppose that he would not execute the work in a reasonable and sufficient manner; and, as he bad pointed out, if the charge were made too heavy, the Government were convinced it would defeat the very object of the clause.
  Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 2, line 40, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUEK OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOSsaid, it was he who originally proposed this Amendment; and, in doing so, he did not do it in any sense to excuse the landlord from bearing a fair portion of any charge incurred for the drainage of his land; but he moved it because it seemed to him necessary both for the advantage and convenience of the tenant and the landlord, and of the public at large. The theory that had been accepted years ago was that the cost of drainage should be repayable in from 20 to 25 years. But, judging from experience he had gathered by observation of drainage works, there was no doubt that, after 20 or 25 years, drainage work was practically wearing out. Therefore, it could hardly be justly contended that the tenant left the benefit of the drainage on the land when he left the farm, as well as repaid the capital to the landlord. A tenant who had paid interest for 10 or 12 years had repaid a portion of the capital, no doubt; but then

  1633
  a corresponding portion of the improvement had become worn out. He feared that if the Amendment was disallowed, the effect would be to prevent either farmers or landlords from borrowing money for drainage purposes.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that while supporting the view of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) that 4 per cent ought to be substituted for 3, he agreed in thinking that it was not worth pressing the Amendment, as, in 99 cases out of 100, an agreement would be come to between a landlord and tenant, as to what would be a reasonable price to pay as interest. He did not agree with the view of the noble Lord the President of the Council. His argument was the same as that adduced by the crofters before the Royal Commission, who said that as they had paid rent for 30 years, the lend was, therefore, theirs. He (the Duke of Argyll) thought the tenant had nothing to do with the repayment of capital; all he would have to do was to provide the interest for the money the landlord laid out.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would point out that no money could be borrowed in the market at less than 4 per cent on land generally, and the prospect of doing so would not be improved under the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Page 3, line 5, after ("agreement") insert ("in a lease or otherwise"),
  The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 3, line 5, for the following reason:—
  "Because these words are superfluous, as the word 'agreement' includes a lease."
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT, this Amendment insisted on.
  Page 4, line 16, leave out ("four") and insert ("seven").
  The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 4, line 16, for the following reason:—
  "Because four years is the period provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, and there appears to be no sufficient reason for extending the term."
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT, this Amendment not insisted on.
  Page 4, line 17, after ("tenancy") insert—
  1634
  ("In the ascertainment of the amount of compensation payable to the tenant in respect of manures there shall not he taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy Than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy, or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured.")
  The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 4, line 17, for the following reason:—
  "Because it is out of harmony with the scheme of the Bill, which provides that the compensation shall depend upon the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant, to measure such compensation by an artificial standard of outlay."
  Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 4, line 17, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUEK OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had to complain that the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President of the Council) had practically accepted the Amendment already, and that it should, therefore, have been accepted, and not rejected by the Commons.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he greatly regretted that there should be any misconception between himself and the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). He should be very sorry to go back upon anything on which he had pledged himself to the House; but he distinctly recollected that he never intended to pledge the Government to the Amendment. He had only said, or intended to say, that if the Amendment were to stand at all, it should stand with a certain alteration that he had suggested. He had certainly never meant to pledge the Government to the Amendment itself.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was somewhat surprised that any misunderstanding should have arisen in regard to what had been done. The Government had only assisted to put into the best possible form before it went, down to the other House, an adverse Amendment.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhoped their Lordships would insist on their Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he quite accepted the

  1635
  explanation given by his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, and would not insist on the Amendment.
  Motion agreed to.
  Page 5, line 32, after ("commissioners") insert—
  ("But if either party shall in writing object to such appointment, then the umpire, or any successor to him, shall he appointed by the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors.")
  The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 5, line 32, for the following reason:—
  "Because it is unnecessary and inconvenient to introduce a third authority for the appointment of an umpire."
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the next question related to the additional appeal provided for by an Amendment made in that House—namely, to the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors. The Commons' Reason for disagreeing with that Amendment was a very cogent one—namely, that it would be inconvenient and unnecessary to introduce a third authority for the appointment of an umpire. A private body like the Institute of Surveyors was not fitted to exercise such a function. He, therefore, moved that their Lordships should not insist on their Amendment.
  Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment, in page 5, line 32, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, in his opinion, it was not very creditable to the Government that they should persist in establishing an authority which was not unbiassed, for the purpose of determining those questions. It was not, however, a question upon which it was worth while making a decided stand.
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment made by the Commons to a certain Amendment made by the Lords agreed to.
  The next Amendment not insisted on.
  Amendment made by the Commons to a certain Amendment made by the Lords agreed to.
  Page 16, line 2, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years") and after ("distress") insert—
  ("Except in the case of arrears of rent in respect of a holding to which this Act applies existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which arrears shall he recoverable by distress up to the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five to the same extent as if this Act had not passed.")
  The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 16, line 2, for the following reason:—
  "Because it is undesirable that the power of distress should extend over more than one year."
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the next point was that of the landlord's right of distress, and the question lay between one year and two years. Their Lordships would not be surprised that the House of Commons had adhered to one year, that being the period recommended by the last, and certainly the most thorough, inquiry which had ever been made into that subject by any Committee or Commission. The very able Committee presided over by Mr. Goschen had unanimously recommended that distress should be limited to one year's rent. He would, therefore, move that their Lordships should not insist on their Amendment fixing it at two years.
  Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 16, line 2, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that, in his opinion, two years was in favour of the landlord, and one year in favour of the tenant.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Royal Agricultural Commission had recommended two years. The reduction of the time allowed to one year would be all against the small farmers in bad seasons, as it would not be possible to give them more time; and the present state of the law was in favour of their credit, since as long as the landlord had patience with them, the shopkeepers would give them credit.
  EARL FORTESCUEsuggested that two years should continue for a short time, say, three years; after which one year should be the limit. He always thought one year a better permanent limit; but the sudden change from four years to

  1637
  one year, just after a succession of very bad seasons, would press hardly upon many tenants, who, after a good season or two, if they were allowed a little longer time, would probably be able to go on satisfactorily in their farms.
  Motion agreed to.
  The next Amendment not insisted on.
  Page 18, line 38, after ("that") insert ("(not being a market garden) is less than two acres in extent or").
  The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 18, line 38, for the following reason:—
  "Because there appears to be no sufficient reason for excluding from the benefit of the Act tenants otherwise entitled to it, on account of the smallness of their holdings."
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in moving that the Amendment excluding from the operation of the Bill holdings of less than two acres should not be insisted on, said, there was a very strong feeling among the friends both of the tenants and labourers that these small holdings should not be excluded. If, in such a holding, the occupant should make improvements, he ought not to be debarred from receiving the small amount of compensation that could accrue to him under the Bill.
  Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 18, line 38, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that it was at his instance the Amendment had been adopted; and he hoped their Lordships would, therefore, insist on it, for it was absolutely necessary. To include these small holdings would be contrary to the principle of the Bill, and to the explanation given of it by his noble Friend the Lord President on the night of its introduction into that House. Moreover, to bring these small holdings within the Bill would destroy, in a great measure, the valuable system of allotments. These allotments, valuable as they were to small holders, were a kind of property by no means profitable to landlords, and very objectionable indeed to agents, on account of the trouble it gave them. The rent of a great many of these holdings did not exceed 10 s. a-year, and any measure
  1638
  which would have the effect of destroying them would militate against the interests of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had suggested that many of these holdings might be made weekly holdings and in that case they would not come within the Bill; but these poor tenants would infinitely more object to having their holdings continued on weekly tenancies, than rely on any advantage that might result from their being placed under the provisions of this Bill. The present system had operated extremely well, and from the landlord's point of view it could not be of any advantage to include these holdings in the Bill, for the great expense of valuation under the Bill would render these allotments not worth retaining, and would inevitably lead to their abolition. He attached the greatest importance to the allotment system in the interest of the poor; and it was for that reason that he hoped the Amendment would be insisted on.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) in thinking that if the Bill were retained in the form in which it had left the Commons the allotment system was doomed, for the landlord would be under the strongest motive to escape the law expenses which would be incurred under it. To the landlord, it would possibly be a gain to abolish the allotment system; but it would result in serious injury to the interest of the poor, and ho, therefore, also hoped their Lordships would insist on the Amendment.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he would suggest, by way of compromise, the acceptance of the proposal made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) the other night, that holdings of one acre only should be excepted from the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was prepared to accept the Amendment in the modified form proposed.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that, as he understood, if nut amended, the Bill would be made to apply to cottage gardens, which it was not intended to touch.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was assured that that would not be the case. He held that the fact of market gardens being specifically mentioned

  1639
  showed that the Bill was not intended to affect cottage gardens, and that nothing in the nature of gardens was to be included in it. He certainly had, as the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) had said, referred the other night to a limit of one acre; but he had not proposed it as a compromise. There was, undoubtedly, a stronger feeling than the Government had been aware of in the House of Commons and the country in favour of the retention of the two acres' limit—a feeling so strong that this Amendment, if insisted on, would defeat one of the most important objects of the Bill.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, the term "market garden" might be interpreted to exclude the cottage garden.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not think that there was any difficulty which was not sufficiently obviated in the Bill.
  THE DUEK OF ARGYLLsaid, he thought that it would be invidious to make a distinction between one kind of holding and another, and so to exclude small holders from the benefits of the Bill. It was not possible to predict the new motions of action on the part of a landlord which such a measure as that would create.
  THE DUEK OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOSsaid, he should be quite willing and glad to do all he could for the benefit of allotment holders; but he was not sure that the Bill would do them any good.
  THE DUEK OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that, in his opinion, it would be the reverse of a benefit, if not positively injurious, to the holders of these allotments, if they were brought under the provisions of the Bill. If there was one class of persons who required protection more than another, it was the labourers who held small allotments of land.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was sorry the Government could not accept his Amendment. In the course they were taking upon it, he thought they were proceeding upon a mistaken view of the interests of the poor; but he would not divide the House upon it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that there was not unanimity of opinion in the other House of Parliament as to the desirability of bringing allotments within the Bill; but some of those Members who were most desirous of
  1640
  seeing the allotment system extended had thought it desirable to do so.
  Motion agreed to.
  A Committee appointed to prepare a reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on one of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from the Committee of the reason to be offered to the Commons; read, and agreed to: And a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with an amendment and reason.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 217.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 217.)

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' REASONS.
  Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments and Commons Amendments considered (according to order).
  Page 2, line 3, after ("improvement") insert—
  ("Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto.")
  The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 2, line 3, for the following reason:—
  "Because it is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, which provides that in the case of existing tenancies, where the tenant has no right to compensation under the terms of his tenancy, he shall nevertheless he entitled to compensation under this Act, and there is no reason for making a distinction in the case where compensation is excluded by the terms of the contract from the case where it is excluded by implication of law unless where the compensation is excluded for valuable consideration, which case is provided for by clause six."
  Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 2, line 3, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he would move to amend the Proviso in the same sense as the amended Proviso moved in the preceding Bill by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury).
  Amendment moved, to leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("do amend their Amendment in page 2, line 3.")—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that, under protest, he would acquiesce in the Amendment being carried.
  On Question? agreed to.
  Amendment amended accordingly.
  The next Amendment not insisted on.
  Page 2, line 39, after ("Act") insert—
  ("Where in the case of a tenancy under a lease current at the passing of this Act there is in such lease, or in any relative writing made prior to the passing hereof, an express stipulation limiting the outlay on any improvement specified in the second part of the schedule hereto, the tenant shall have no claim to compensation under this Act for any such improvement in excess of the sum provided for in such stipulation."
  "The landlord and tenant may, if they think fit, dispense with any notice under this section, and come to an agreement between themselves in the same manner and of the same validity as if such notice had been given.")
  Commons Amendments to the above Amendment.
  Line 2, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing.")
  Lines 9 and 10, leave out ("in terms of the lease or otherwise.")
  First Amendment agreed to.
  Second Amendment disagreed to.
  Page 3, line 14, after ("Act") insert—
  ("The last preceding provision of this section relating to a particular agreement shall apply-in the case of a tenancy under a lease current at the commencement of this Act in respect of an improvement specified in the third part of the schedule hereto, specific compensation for which is not provided by any agreement in writing or custom.")
  The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 3, line 14.
  Amendment insisted on.
  The next two Amendments not insisted on.
  Certain Amendments made by the Commons to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to.
  Page 10, leave out Clause 29.
  The Commons disagree to the omission of Clause 29.
  "Because it is expedient that a power of be-quest of leases should be conferred. By the law of Scotland a lease is heritable, and descends to
  1642
  the heir-at-law, while the stocking descends as personalty to the executors, and much inconvenience and hardship have resulted to families in consequence of the separation of the rights. Further, the heir is frequently unskilled in agriculture, and unable to perform the tenant's part of the obligations in the lease."
  The Commons propose to amend the clause restored to the Bill as follows:—
  (Bequest of Lease.)
  "(29.) A tenant may by will, or other testamentary writing, bequeath his lease to any person (herein-after called 'the legatee'), subject to the following provisions:—

  (a.) The legatee shall intimate the testamentary bequest to the landlord or his known agent within twenty-one days after the death of the tenant, unless he is prevented by some unavoidable cause from making intimation within that time, and in that event he shall make intimation as soon as possible thereafter.

  (b.) Intimation to the landlord or his known agent by the legatee shall import acceptance of the lease by the legatee.

  (c.) Within one month after intimation has been made to the landlord or his known agent, he may intimate to the legatee that he objects to receive him as tenant under the lease;

  If the landlord or his known agent makes no such intimation within one month, the lease shall be binding on the landlord and the legatee respectively as landlord and tenant as from the date of the death of the deceased tenant.

  (d.) If the landlord or his known agent intimates that he objects to receive the legatee as tenant under the lease, the legatee may present a petition' to the sheriff, praying for decree declaring that he is tenant under the lease as from the date of the death of the deceased tenant, of which petition due notice shall be given to the landlord, who may enter appearance, and state his grounds of objection; and if any reasonable ground of objection is established to the satisfaction of the sheriff, he shall declare the bequest to be null and void; but otherwise he shall decern and declare in terms of the prayer of the petition.

  (e.) The decision of the sheriff under such petition as aforesaid shall be final.

  (f.) Pending any proceedings under this section, the legatee shall have possession of the holding, unless the sheriff shall otherwise direct on cause shown.

  (g.) The provisions of this section shall apply notwithstanding a clause or stipulation in any lease excluding assignees.

  (h.) If the legatee does not accept the bequest, or if the bequest is declared to be null and void as aforesaid, the lease shall descend to the heir of the tenant in the same manner as if the bequest had not been made."

  Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had originally moved the omission of the clause; but, as amended, he did not think it would be so objectionable.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he thought the objection to the clause was as strong as ever. The clause was not proposed by any Member of the Government, but was forced upon them. He protested especially against Sub-section (g), which enabled leases to be assigned; and in that permission was contained the danger that unfitted persons would be the assignees. The case of the heir-at-law was a different case, for everyone knew who the heir-at-law was, and could make arrangements accordingly. He most decidedly complained of being called upon, at that period of the Session, and in that hurried manner, to consider the Amendments which had been made to the original clause. He looked upon the clause as one of the worst in the Bill. It was a direct attack on the present arrangements, and he could see no reason for it. He would propose to omit the sub-section he had referred to.
  Amendment moved, to amend the said Amendment, by omitting sub-section (g).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that in Scotland this provision would be most heartily welcomed by the tenants as a great boon.
  Amendment to said Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made by the Commons, as amended, agreed to.
  The last amendment to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on.
  A Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to one of the Commons amendments to the Lords amendments and insisting on one of the amendments to which the Commons have disagreed: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from the Committee of the reasons to be offered to the Commons; read, and agreed to: And a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the amendments and reasons.

  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; road 1a; to be printed; and to he read 2a To-morrow.—(The Lord Thurlow.) (No. 219.)
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.