Sitting of 6 August 1885

MINUTES.
RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE—East India (Revenue Accounts).
PUBLIC BILL—Considered as amended—Criminal Law Amendment [257].

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—A RURAL LETTER CARRIER, CO. CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether Andrew Norris, rural letter carrier for the Shercock and Knappa District of county Cavan, absented himself from his duties on the 13th July; and, if so, did he have leave of absence from his postmaster?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): I am informed that on the 13th of July the letter carrier in question was absent on leave.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE "PENJDEH INCIDENT."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, before Parliament separates, Her Majesty's Government can, without injury to the public interests, give the House any information regarding the arbitration in respect of the collision near Penjdeh, and say whether the arbitration is going on, or whether it is postponed till the boundary is settled, or for any other reason; who is the arbitrator; and, whether the terms of reference have been settled?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I am not in a position to give the hon. Member any information on this subject, and it is not likely that I can before Parliament separates. Some delay has taken place in bringing together the facts necessary for drawing up the reference; and at the present time it would not be possible to carry the matter further.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLpresumed that the right hon. Gentleman had not departed from the policy of the late Government in regard to the proposal for arbitration. ["Order!"]

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—THE EXPEDITIONS TO SUAKIN.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state, in round numbers, what has been the cost to the Country in money of the various Military expeditions to Suakin, especially of the first and second expeditions of General Sir Gerald Graham; and, also, what total expenditure has been incurred on account of the Suakin-Berber Railway, dividing that expenditure between cost of permanent way; cost of equipment, including rolling stock; cost of other materials or plant; cost of superintendence and labour; payments to agents or contractors?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Some time must elapse before all the accounts, especially those relating to the Indian troops, are received at the War Office. At present,
  1268
  therefore, I am not in a position to make a statement of the cost incurred consequent on the Suakin Expeditions. For the same reason I cannot give the information desired by my hon. Friend in regard to the Suakin-Berber Railway.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) —THE BETHELL CHARITY TRUSTEES OF NEWARK AND MR R. ROBINSON,
  MR. WARTON (for Mr. COMPTON LAWRANCE)asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Richard Robinson, a tenant under the Bethell Charity Trustees of Newark, of a farm at Laughton, near Falkingham Lines, under a lease of 21 years from April, 1879, at £160 per annum; whether he is aware that, upon an application made to the Trustees for a reduction of rent, the matter was referred to the Charity Commissioners, and a valuer was sent over at the expense of Mr. Robinson, upon the understanding that he was to abide by the valuation; whether he is aware that the rentable value of the farm was estimated at £90 per annum, and that the valuer expressed a doubt whether a new tenant could be found to give more than £65 per annum for the remainder of the lease; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding such report, the Charity Commissioners have refused to adopt it; and, whether Mr. E. Robinson has any remedy?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Mr. Robinson, who is a tenant under lease of the Bethell Charity Trustees, applied for a reduction of rent at the rate of 25 per cent. The application having been referred to the Charity Commission, they required, in accordance with the usual practice, the Report of a surveyor upon the proposal, Mr. Robinson bearing the cost. But they gave no pledge as to the course they would adopt on receiving the Report. The surveyor, besides considering the matter referred to him, proceeded to express an opinion on the value of the farm. After receiving the Report the Commissioners acceded to Mr. Robinson's request for a reduction of rent, but for one year only, adding that they would consider future proposals as they arose. The dealings of the Commission have not been with

  1269
  Mr. Robinson, but with the Trustees of the Charity, as in all similar cases. Mr. Robinson's only remedy would appear to be that to which all tenants under lease may ordinarily have recourse in such cases.

  POST OFFICE—MAILS TO THE WESTERN ISLANDS.
  LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it has been decided to give additional grants for the purpose of defraying the cost of new arrangements for accelerating the Mails to the Western Islands; and, if so, whether the Treasury will authorise the Postmaster General to make such arrangements without delay?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): It has been decided to make a very considerable addition to the present cost of the Mail Service to the Southern Hebrides; and a letter goes this day from the Treasury to the Postmaster General, which should enable him to settle the matter at an early date.

  EGYPT—THE ALEXANDRIA INDEMNITY AWARDS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will be good enough to inform the House what steps he intends adopting for the immediate distribution of the Alexandria Indemnity Awards?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): The payment of the Indemnity Awards will be made in accordance with Article X. of the Convention of March 18 last, and Article IX. of the Khedivial Decree of the 27th ultimo. The Commissioners of the Debt, who are charged under the Convention and Decree with the payment of the Indemnities, have informed the Egyptian Government that they propose to proceed to Alexandria for the purpose of distributing the awards, and in order to be in direct communication with the Consuls of the different Powers, as soon as they are in possession of the necessary funds. It is proposed that the subjects of each Power be paid separately, an official of the Consulate being present. The Commissioners further propose to publish at Alexandria the date and place of payment.

  NAVY—THE EVOLUTIONARY SQUADRON.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be correct that, as a result of the recent manœuvres of the Evolutionary Squadron, three of the largest coastguard reserve ships have been condemned as unfit for further sea service; if so, for what employment he intends adapting them?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is not correct that as a result of the recent manœuvres of the Evolutionary Squadron three of the largest Coastguard reserve ships have been condemned as unfit for further sea service. It has. however, been arranged to pay off four of the ships which have hitherto performed the duties of Coastguard reserve ships—namely, the Lord Warden, Valiant, Repulse, and Defence, and their officers and crews will be turned over to more powerful iron-clads. The above-mentioned four ships will probably be employed to replace harbour ships, and will not be considered as efficient sea-going iron-clads.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) —REVISION COURTS, CO. CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that there is no place fixed for holding a Revision Court in county Cavan further north than Ballyconnell, which is twenty-four miles distant from some parts of the district; and, whether he will arrange for an additional Revision Court to accommodate the northern part of the county?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): This matter is under consideration, and I think I can promise the hon. Member that a Revision Court will be appointed at some convenient place in the Northern part of West Cavan, probably at Swanlinbar or Blacklion.

  LUNATICS (IRELAND)—ARMAGH LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the number of patients in Armagh Lunatic Asylum; how many of these are Catholic, how many Protestant, and how many Presbyterian; what is the number of governors who constitute the Board of the Armagh Asylum; how

  1271
  many of those are Catholic, how many Protestant, and how many Presbyterian; how many Catholic and how many Presbyterian clergymen are members of the Board; what are the present salaries of the Catholic, Protestant, and Presbyterian chaplains respectively; what were their respective salaries before April 1885; and, why were the salaries then changed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The number of patients in this Asylum is 264. Of these, 79 are Protestants, 39 Presbyterians, 138 Roman Catholics, and eight of other persuasions. The Board consists of 13 Protestants, four Presbyterians, three Roman Catholics, one member of the Society of Friends, and one Methodist. There are two Presbyterian clergymen Governors, and I believe the Roman Catholic Archbishop is also a Governor. Each of the chaplains receives a salary of £30. These salaries were not changed in April last, but a proposal to increase them is at present before the Government.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE FOYLE AND THE BANN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Have the Fishery Inspectors investigated the complaints made by the fishermen off the Rivers Foyle and Bann; have the Inspectors made any Report on the inquiries made in the spring of this year at Moville, and in the winter at Portrush; and, if so, has any decision been made thereon, or will any decision be made, so as to protect the poor fishermen in their lawful avocations from such depredations as the steamer causes by sailing among the fleet of fishing boats, and destroying their nets; whether, considering the inability of these people to pay for Law, he will direct the captains and owners of the steamer, and all the parties concerned, to be prosecuted for thus obstructing fishermen, and also to recover damages for the losses already sustained by the fishermen; and, will he give Copy of Inspectors' Report?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Inspectors have held two inquiries into this matter. Their Report and two volumes of evidence reached me yesterday. I have only had time to observe that some of
  1272
  the complaints of the fishermen were proved, and that many of them were found to be groundless; and also that the Inspectors are not unanimous in all their recommendations. The matter requires careful consideration, and I can only promise the hon. Member that it shall receive it.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) —PUBLICATION OF LISTS, CO. SLIGo.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the fact that the lists of voters, which should have been published, as by Law required, on the 22nd ult., had not been published in the Grange District (county Sligo), on the 1st inst., Whether it is the fact that Major Wynne, the Clerk of the Peace for county Sligo, was at the late assizes fined by Chief Justice Morris £20 for absence from Court when duty required him there, and £20 additional for every two hours during which his absence might continue; what was the total to which the fine amonnted; has it been levied; if not, for what reason; whether the delay in publishing the lists of voters has arisen from Major Wynne's neglect of his duties and absence from his office; and, if so, why he has been constantly absent from his office; whether he will be visited with the prescribed penalties; and, will the Government cause him to be informed that his retention of his office will depend upon his personal attention to his duties, and that such attention is indispensable during the period of preparation for the work of the Revision Court?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Clerk of the Peace telegraphed to the Under Secretary on the 21st of last March to say that the printer could not finish the lists by the 22nd, although they had been given to him in good time. We have asked for further explanations of this matter. I understand it is the fact that this Clerk of the Peace was fined as stated in the Question; but I am also informed that subsequently during the Assizes the learned Judge voluntarily remitted the fine.

  POST OFFICE—CONTRACTS—THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has arranged with

  1273
  the Midland Railway Company of Ireland for the service of mails at forty miles an hours between Dublin and the West of Ireland, as desired by the Memorial of Members of the House of Commons, presented to his Predecessor on the 15th of December last?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): In answer to a former Question of the hon. Member I stated that the payment of 1s. 6d. per mile asked by the Midland and Great Western Railway Company was too high for the Post Office to grant. I am now happy to say the Company have made a sensible abatement in their demand; and their new proposal for an improved service at the speed mentioned in the Question between Dublin and the West of Ireland, including Westport and Ballina, is now under the consideration of the Government.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) —REVISION COURTS, TYRONE AND DONEGAL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, for the convenience and at the wish of large bodies of claimants and voters in Tyrone, the Irish Government will arrange that Castlederg and Strabane be made additional Revision Courts for North Tyrone, and Pomeroy an additional Court for East Tyrone, and that, for the accommodation of the barony of Lower Strabane, left without a Court by the existing arrangement, Gortin be selected for the sitting of the Court instead of Sixmilecross; and, whether, in order to moderate the hardship of the arrangement by which Courts for South Donegal are to be held only at Donegal and Ballyshannon, imposing a journey of about fifty miles on voters and claimants in the mountainous districts of the Division, the Government will arrange that a Court shall be held in Killybegs or Carrick?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Strabane is already a Revision Court for North Tyrone, and Castlederg will be made one. Cookstown has been made the Court for East Tyrone. Pomeroy is within a few miles of Dungannon, with which it is connected by rail, and the district is itself too small for a separate Court. The question of substituting Gortin for Sixmilecross, and of making Killybegs
  1274
  an additional Court for South Donegal will be favourably considered.

  POST OFFICE-SUPERINTENDENTS OF SORTING OFFICES.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. DWYER GRAY), asked the noble Lord the Postmaster General, Whether it is the fact that the maximum salaries of Superintendents of Sorting and Telegraph Branches are similar in all English cities and towns where such officials are on the establishment, whilst the salaries of the Superintendents of the Sorting Offices in Edinburgh and Dublin are fixed at £200 per annum more than those of the Superintendents of the Telegraph Department at these offices, notwithstanding that the latter are responsible for the administration of their respective offices throughout the entire twenty-four hours, whilst the former are only responsible for their period of duty, which generally consists of five hours per day, and that the Telegraph Superintendents have much larger staffs of subordinates to control and supervise than those of the Sorting Branches; whether it is a fact that superintendence of the Sorting office in Dublin is performed by two officials with maximum salaries of £500 each per annum, whilst the superintending work of the Telegraph Department in that office must be performed by one man, whose maximum salary is only £300 per annum, and who, in addition to an ability to administer the ordinary routine of official work (the only essential requisite for superintending the Sorting Office) must have a large knowledge of electrical science, which knowledge can only be obtained by a long-continued course of private study; whether it is a fact that the sorting office "clerks" enjoy maximum salaries considerably in excess of the "clerks" of the Telegraph Department in both Edinburgh and Dublin, although the latter perform eight hours duty per week more than the former; and, whether he will investigate these matters with a view to having the two departments placed on a footing of equality in both Dublin and Edinburgh? His hon. Friend had asked him to say that the figures should be £150, instead of £200, and £450, instead of £500.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS):While admit-

  1275
  ting that the statements of the hon. Member relating to the rates of salary are correct, I should hardly be justified in taking up the time of the House with the full explanation which an answer to all the suggestions and inferences of the hon. Member would require. I may, however, say that the circumstances to which he refers shall receive attention.

  ARMY—THE 2ND EAST SURREY REGIMENT.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the 2nd East Surrey Regiment (late 70th), was quartered in India from 1871 until September 1884, and in that period took part in active service in Afghanistan; that it was ordered to Egypt for active service on leaving India in 1884, and has been there ever since; that it has now received orders for a further campaign on the Nile during this Autumn, although hopes have been held out to the men that they should return home immediately; whether, during this period of fourteen years, the Officers or the men have been allowed to return home on leave; and, when the regiment will return home?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): With regard to the past service of this battalion in India and Egypt the facts are as stated in the Question; but, as regards the future, the battalion certainly has not received orders for a further campaign on the Nile. During its absence from home officers and men have had the usual leave; but I may remark that men serving in India do not come home on furlough, and it should be added that though the battalion has been 14 years abroad the very large majority of the men have, under the system of short service, been out but a few years. As I stated on the 3rd instant, the battalion will be among the first to come home as soon as the garrison of Egypt can be reduced.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—SUPPLIES FOR THE TROOPS AT SUAKTN.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any steps can be taken to ensure a better supply of milk and vegetables to the regimental bazaars of the Sikh and Bengal Regiments now serving at Suakin?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No Report has been received to the effect that the Indian regimental bazaar arrangements are unsatisfactory; but the question is necessarily a local one, and the General Officer commanding at Suakin, who is an experienced Indian officer, has full authority to make any arrangements he may consider requisite.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND—EXCOMMUNICATION AT SAHAM TONEY.
  MR. PICTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that, as reported in The Thetford Times, and several London papers of later date, the Reverend Coker Adams, Rector of Saham Toney, did, on Sunday July 26th, pronounce in his parish church a sentence of excommunication against Mr. Joseph Payne, a parishioner, aged 82; whether the reason alleged by the Reverend Coker Adams for the sentence of excommunication was Mr. Payne's "persistent neglect of the Church's ordinances and refusal of her ministrations;" whether the Reverend Coker Adams was acting in this case by the instruction of any higher ecclesiastical authority; or, if not, whether he was acting ultra vires; and, if so, whether any notice will be taken of his illegal action; whether the sentence of excommunication carries with it any secular consequences, and whether every one who declines to attend his parish church is legally liable to have a sentence of excommunication publicly pronounced against him; and, whether the action of the Reverend Coker Adams has the approval of his bishop?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I can only say that I saw this announcement with the deepest surprise and regret. I know nothing of the facts; but I thought it right that the sentence should be sent to the Bishop, who, I have no doubt, will make inquiry into the matter.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—TELEGRAPH OFFICE CLERKS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, If it be a fact that in English and Scotch telegraph offices all clerks performing night duty are allowed three weeks holidays in the year, while over forty telegraph clerks in Belfast, some

  1277
  having 15 years' service, who perform exactly the same duty as those in English and Scotch offices, are allowed only two weeks; is it not acknowledged as a rule in the service that clerks who perform night work (which is reckoned unhealthy duty) should have compensating holidays, and that the clerks in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Leeds, New-castle-on-Tyne, Cork, Birmingham, Bristol, Hull, Leicester, Sheffield, &c. are on this account allowed three weeks holidays annually, while the night operators in Belfast are given but two weeks; and, if the facts be as stated, will he cause the grievances of the Belfast clerks to be removed, by ordering that the same allowances in this and other respects be given in Belfast as are given in offices where like work is performed?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that, in the matter of leave of absence, the telegraphists at Belfast are treated in exactly the same manner as those at other Offices. There is but one rule applicable to all.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—EXTRA POLICE, LIMERICK.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Limerick Corporation is still a heavy debtor to the Treasury in respect of charges for extra police; whether other Corporations have not recently refused to pay for extra police until the liability is equally and impartially enforced; and, what steps the Government proposes to take impartially to recover the money due to the Government?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): A charge extending over three years is due for extra police by the Limerick Corporation. No other Corporations have refused to pay for extra police. The matter is at present engaging the attention of the Lord Lieutenant.

  ARMY—QUARTERMASTERS AND RIDING MASTERS—PROMOTION.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will take into consideration, at an early date, the claims of the Army Quartermasters and
  1278
  Riding Masters for a reduction in the period (ten years) those Officers are now obliged to serve as Commissioned Officers before they can obtain the honorary and relative rank of Captain, taking into account their previous long service in the ranks, their age when Commissioned, which, with very few exceptions, debars them from any advantage under Article G of the Royal Warrant of 1884, and the fact that the average service of the Senior Lieutenants of Regiments, with whom they rank, is less than seven Years?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I would remind the hon. Member that considerable privileges were conceded in the way of rank to this class of officers so recently as 1881, and that their case was fully considered by my Predecessor, who decided that more could not be done for them. I am not prepared to depart from that decision. As regards Article fl of the Royal Warrant, promotion to the rank of Lieutenant would be a doubtful advantage to a Quartermaster unless he had attained that rank much earlier than is usually the case. I may remark that the average service of the senior Lieutenants is nearer nine years than seven, as stated in the Question.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE NORTHAMPTON VOLUNTEERS.
  LORD BURGHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he would permit the formation of a company of Volunteers at Oundle, in Northamptonshire, considering that eighty-eight men came forward and put down their names, £380 was collected, officers nominated, and the other requirements of the War Office complied with as far back as the winter of 1884?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, as this Question reflected upon him as the adviser of the late Secretary of State, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the establishment of the Northamptonshire Rifles was 1,308; that they were 214 short of their establishment; and that only 894 were present at inspection; and whether, under these circumstances, he would sanction the regiment having 13 companies, a most inconvenient number, the present number being 12?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he had

  1279
  not been favoured by the hon. Baronet with the information in his Question, and he was not able to reply in detail; but probably the answer he was about to give would be sufficient. The 1st Northamptonshire Rifle Volunteers, to which the proposed company at Oundle would belong, was already an unusually large corps; and strong reason would have to be shown for adding to it. The establishments for 1885–6 were fixed; but if it was still desired to raise this company for 1886–7, application should be made in September through the military authorities of the district.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. BOORDasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether he will state the number of hands employed at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and the number of Medical Officers appointed to the charge of them; whether it is true that patients frequently have to wait many hours at the Dispensary before they can be seen by the doctor; and, if he can say how many cases on an average each Medical Officer has to attend to daily?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. GUY DAWNAY): The number of hands employed in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, is at present 11,200. Three medical officers have charge of them, the third having been recently added. It is not the case that patients have to wait many hours before they can be seen. Now cases are attended to immediately; but chronic cases on the sick list have to take their turn. Their time of waiting rarely exceeds an hour. The daily cases to be attended to average 380, of which about 50 are seen by private practitioners, leaving 110 for each Army medical officer at the Arsenal.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS—THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—SIR ANDREW JUDD'S SCHOOL, TONBRIDGE.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the Charity Commissioners, after inquiry in 1869 about Sir Andrew Judd's School, suggested that a second grade or middle school should be established at the town of Tonbridge; whether, in consequence of that suggestion, the Skinners' Company offered (if the
  1280
  Commissioners would sanction the use of £10,000, part of Hunt and Attwell loan trust funds, for the purpose, which were not required for loans) a sum of £10,000 out of their own moneys; whether such two sums of £10,000, making a total of £20,000, were accepted on the above terms by the Commissioners, and made the capital of the now middle school for the town of Tonbridge; whether the word parish was substituted for town in the published scheme, and not objected to by the Company, for reasons stated in a letter sent by the Company to the Commissioners in December 1877, viz. because the Company thought that if the position of the school was not rigidly fixed in the scheme they would be able to make better terms in acquiring a site; whether it is not well known that the Skinners' Company have all along wished to benefit the town of Tonbridge by the establishment of the new middle school there; and also, that the inhabitants of Tonbridge, who wished to secure privileges (when the scheme for Sir Andrew Judd's School was under consideration), abstained from interfering because they were informed that the Skinners' Company had arranged with the Commissioners (in 1877) to found a new middle school at or near the town of Tonbridge; and, whether the Skinners' Company has been compelled by the Charity Commissioners, against its wish repeatedly expressed, to accept a site at Tonbridge Wells inferior to one offered by the inhabitants of Tonbridge, and approved by the Charity Commissioners as suitable?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Charity Commissioners were not concerned with the question of a scheme for Sir Andrew Judd's School until after the passing of the Endowed Schools Act, 1874. Their draft scheme of 1875 proposed to provide for the ultimate establishment of a middle school "in or near the town of Tonbridge." The offer of £20,000—in all—from the Skinners' Company was accepted by the Charity Commissioners on the terms of a draft scheme which was communicated to the Skinners' Company on the 19th July, 1877, when the Commissioners, referring to the words "in or near the parish of Tonbridge," stated as follows:—
  "On Clause of this scheme arises the important question where the new school is to be

  1281
  placed, whether at Tonbridge itself or at Tunbridge Wells, Southborough, or elsewhere. The Commissioners think the scheme ought before publication to be made less vague on this point than it is in the present draft; but they would be glad to have the benefit of the opinion of the Company."
  In reply, on the 21st December, 1877, the Company stated that—
  "They are strongly of opinion that it is desirable to adhere to the clause in the form proposed by the Commissioners for the following-reasons. They would, in all probability, be able to make better terms in the purchase of a site if its position is not rigidly fixed. They are not at present decided whether it would be desirable that the school should be at Tonbridge, at Tunbridge Wells, or elsewhere, and do not feel that they are likely to come to a conclusion without taking into account the relative eligibility of sites which may be offered, and other questions. … They, therefore, express an earnest hope that the position of the school may be left for further consideration, and for settlement under Clause 9 of the scheme when it comes into operation."
  In view of the foregoing statements on the part of the Skinners' Company the Commissioners are not able to accept the allegations contained in the fifth paragraph of the Question. Acting under the powers of the scheme, the Charity Commissioners declined to approve a site proposed by the Company at Ton-bridge, but have approved one since proposed at Tonbridge Wells. In arriving at this decision the Commissioners have acted upon the wider consideration of the requirements of the respective localities, and not upon the comparative merits of the several sites proposed.
  MR. CAUSTON: I hope I may be allowed to tell the House that last week, during the annual visit to Tonbridge of the Governors to the school, they disapproved of the site they were forced to take from the Charity Commissioners.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether, seeing that there was a great cause of grievance on the part of the inhabitants of Tonbridge, and that they had petitioned the House on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to delay the application of the endowment until an inquiry had been made?
  THE VICE PRESIDENTsaid, that as the Charity Commissioners had arrived at their decision after careful inquiry, and after hearing all the parties concerned, he could not undertake further to delay this scheme.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE RIVER THAMES—PURIFICATION OF SEWAGE.
  MR. BORLASEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can give the House any information relative to the success or otherwise of the experiments which have now for some considerable time been carried on at considerable cost at Crossness with a view to the purification of the sewage of the Thames?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said that he had no information to give on the subject; but the Question might be repeated by the hon. Member.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BOERS— ATTACK ON MR. J. DONALDSON.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNER, who had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If his attention has been called to the brutal treatment by the Boers of Mr. James Donaldson, agent of the Transvaal Syndicate, Limited, an English subject, at Farm California, who was sot upon by five Boers, viz. Mr. Viljorn and two sons, Messrs. U. E. Breitenback, and S. P. Schultze, and most brutally beaten, for attempting to enter a but belonging to the Company, of which he was in possession; if he will cause inquiries to be instituted, and reparation to be made; and, if he is aware that this is only one of many outrages that have been perpetrated by the Boers on British subjects in the Transvaal? said, he had received a communication that the matter would be inquired into, and therefore he should not put the Question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE CHOLERA.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, What steps he has taken to call the serious attention of the local authorities in the various seaports and towns of the Country to the terrible outbreak of cholera, not only in Spain but also in France; whether the local authorities as well as the Local Government Board are taking efficient means to prevent its introduction into this Country; and, whether any steps can be taken to improve

  1283
  the disgraceful state of Covent Garden Market?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The action of the Board may be shortly summarized. We have urged upon the several Local Authorities in England and Wales the importance of their taking such measures of precaution against cholera as the sanitary condition of their district may demand, and we have supplied them with a Memorandum by the Medical Officer of the Board on the subject. We have prohibited the importation of rags from Spain; and if there is any serious spread of cholera in France, an Order will also be issued as regards rags from that country. The Regulations in force last year during the prevalence of cholera in France and Italy, for dealing with oases of cholera which may reach our ports, are still in force. We have strengthened temporarily the staff of Medical Inspectors for the purpose of inquiring as to the sanitary condition of the ports and other districts which there is reason to suppose would be most likely to suffer from cholera in the event of its introduction to England; and I am advised that, on the whole, there is reason for satisfaction with the action in preparation for cholera by the various Sanitary Authorities on the coast. The Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District have obtained the services of a medical man, who has had large experience as a Medical Officer of Health in the Metropolis, with the view of his assisting them in maturing the arrangements as to a first line of defence, in the way of hospital provision, which would be necessary in London in the event of an outbreak of cholera. It must, however, be recollected that while I am anxious to do everything in my power to aid the Local Authorities in fulfilling their duties, the responsibility for providing against the advent of cholera and of dealing with it, should it reach our shores, rests, and must rest, with them.
  MR. BRODRICK: Might I ask my right hon. Friend, with reference to Covent Garden whether he will make a personal inspection of the market at the time when it is most offensive—namely, between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning.
  [No reply.]

  MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL—THE SUPPLEMENTARY LISTS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will issue instructions to the overseers respecting the preparation of the supplementary list of voters, as required by the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is not our intention to issue instructions to overseers respecting the preparation of the supplemental lists required by the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Bill. This Bill, which now awaits the Royal Assent, provides that the Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks shall forthwith, after the passing of the Act, issue precepts to the overseers informing them of their duties under it; and I understand that the Home Office will, as soon as the Bill has passed, communicate with the Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks on the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. BRODRICKasked, Whether the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill would be proceeded with to-morrow; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would aid him in obtaining the sense of the House on the Motion for going into Committee on the Police Enfranchisement Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he should be very glad if the sense of the House could be expressed upon the Police Enfranchisement Bill. The Government would endeavour to afford facilities in that direction if possible. The Committee on the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill would follow the Housing of the Working Classes (England) Bill, which stood for second reading after the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, Report. If those were disposed of, then the Committee on the Land Bill would stand first for tomorrow.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON: If the Criminal Law Amendment Bill is not taken to-night, will it be the first Order tomorrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course, what I said was

  1285
  under the impression that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill would be finished to-night.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON: Suppose it is not finished?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope there will be no difficulty.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he could give the House the names of the labour Representatives on the Royal Commission on the Depression in Trade, or, at least, the proportion they would bear to the Representatives of capital?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; I am not able to answer that Question. Perhaps, however, it may be convenient to the House that I should state that my noble Friend (the Earl of Iddesleigh), who has charge of the matter, will make a statement on Monday or Tuesday in "another place" on the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it would be a great convenience to the House if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state on what day he would take non-contentious matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I am not able to answer that Question.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTasked what course the Government intended to take in regard to the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill? It had already passed the House of Lords.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have not heard of the Bill before; and therefore I do not know anything of its prospects.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question. This Bill which my right hon. Friend has not heard of—and it is not in the least to be wondered at—is a Bill of very great importance; but my hon. Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) is perfectly right; the Bill is so long and complicated that it would be absolutely impossible to proceed with it this Session.

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

    COMMITTEE.
    EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS) considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL), in rising to move the following Resolution:—
    "That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1884 was £71,727,421, including £13,240,507 received from Productive Public Works; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England was £70,339,925, including £12,032,754 spent on Productive Public Works (Revenue Account); that there was an excess of Revenue over Expenditure in that year of £1,387,496; and that the Capital Expenditure on Productive Public Works in the same year was £3,992,029, including a Charge of £566,261 incurred in the redemption of previously existing liabilities."
    said: Sir Arthur Otway, it has been thought more convenient by the authorities of the House that we should this year revert to the practice which had always been maintained for many years up to 1870—namely, of making the Indian Financial Statement when the House is in Committee. That practice was departed from on account of the custom which grew up among hon. Members interested in Indian affairs, of putting down Motions relating to India, which deferred the Statement of the Minister sometimes to a very late hour. But, no Amendments having been put down on the present occasion owing to the forbearance of hon. Members, I have gone back to what is the more ancient, and, I think, the more Constitutional custom.
    In making the Statement which it is my duty to make, and which will be of some length, I appeal to the indulgence of the Committee, because, as the Committee well knows, the question of Indian finance is a very large one, a very complicated, and a very difficult one. To understand it thoroughly would require the assiduous attention of many years, and the Committee is aware that I have not had more than about six weeks, at

    1287
    the outside, in which to acquaint myself with the financial circumstances of the year, and that during those six weeks my attention has had to be given to other questions besides those of Indian finance. Therefore, on that ground, I would ask for the indulgence of the Committee. But, Sir, there is another ground on which even a Minister of large experience might make a special request of that character to-night. In ordinary times, the Secretary of State, so far as he confines his remarks to finance, merely re-echoes, and, more or less, repeats mechanically, the Statement which has been made in the previous month of March by the Finance Minister in India. But on the present occasion I am unable to take that course, and, in many respects, what I have to put before the Committee is practically a new and hitherto an untold story of Indian finance. I have to-day placed in the Vote Office, for the convenience of hon. Members, a Paper which will assist hon. Members in following the figures with which I have now to trouble the Committee.
    Sir Arthur Otway, the Financial Statement usually laid before the House of Commons embraces, as the Committee is aware, the figures for a period of three years. It generally deals with the closed Accounts of two years ago, with the Revised Estimates of the preceding year, and with the Budget Estimate of the current year. I propose to follow that practice in the remarks which I now make, and to refer to the closed Accounts of 1883–4, to the Revised Estimates for 1884–5, and to the Budget Estimate for 1885–6.
    On the closed Accounts of the year 1883–4 the formal Estimate which I submit to the Committee is moved. The Committee will find that the Accounts for 1883–4, which have now been finally closed, show a Revenue of £71,727,000, and an Expenditure of £70,340,000. In other words, they show a surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of £1,387,000.
    The Revised Estimates for 1884–5 show a Revenue of £69,992,000, and an Expenditure of £70,702,000; in other words, a deficit of £710,000, in place of the surplus of £319,000 which was estimated in the Budget of that year. The result, therefore, of the Revised Estimate for 1884–5 is worse than the Budget Estimate by £1,029,000,the
    1288
    Expenditure being greater by £461,000, and the Revenue less by £568,000. There can be no doubt that the chief cause of that falling-off has been the great depression in trade, which has affected India as well as the other countries of the world, and especially the low price of wheat and the diminished rice trade from British Burmah, which alone produced a falling off in the Customs Duties to the extent of £260,000. The general depression of trade, and the low price of wheat, also affected the railway receipts very materially; there had been a falling-off in that matter from the Budget Estimates of no less than £755,000. There was also a temporary falling-off in the Land Revenue of £342,000. On the other hand, the improved price of the Excise was better by £217,000; the irrigation receipts improved upon the Budget Estimate by £116,000; and other sources of revenue not anticipated in the Budget Estimate of the year produced £200,000. As to the Expenditure of the year, I may point out that the opium crop was, on the whole, disadvantageous as a matter of finance; the produce was abnormally large; and, therefore, the payments and the cost of manufacture exceeded the Budget Estimate by the very large sum of £593,000. The political charges of the year were increased by £167,000, mainly owing to the expenses of the Boundary Commission; the interest on Debt increased by £242,000, including £184,000 for discount on the £3,000,000 Loan at 3 per cent raised in London last year. I will ask the Committee to bear that figure in mind— £184,000 for discount on the Loan of £3,000,000 3 per cent Stock. On the other hand, the Army charges were reduced by £126,000; the charges for exchange were less by £285,000, and the working expenses of railways were £139,000 less.
    Now I come to the Budget of the current year as presented by the Government of India in March last. I put this before the Committee to make my Statement complete, though I do not think it will be of material value in this discussion. In March last Sir Auckland Colvin estimated the Revenue for 1885-6 at £72,090,000, and the Expenditure at £71,582,000. In other words, he anticipated a surplus of £508,000. He placed the Revenue higher than the

    1289
    Estimate for 1884–5 by £2,098,000. That is to say, going into details, he placed the Land Revenue at £788,000 higher, and the railways£929,000 higher. The opium receipts, owing to the large crop of the preceding year, he estimated at £176,000 higher than the year before. He also estimated that the improvement of the rice trade in British Burmah would increase the Customs receipts by £145,000; while the improved trade in salt, aided by an improvement in Stamps, Excise, provincial rates, and forest duties, would cause an increase of £304,000. The receipts under the head of irrigation were placed at £167,000 less. Turning to the expenditure, we find that it was £880,000 higher than the Estimate for 1884–5. That was, in some degree, owing to the working expenses and interest on railways having been placed at £598,000 higher than the previous year, besides £169,000 more than in the previous year being taken out of Revenue for the construction of railways, in addition to the money which might be borrowed for that purpose. There was also an increase in the estimated charge for Law and Justice, which was higher by £146,000 than the Estimate for 1884–5, owing to the extension of the Judicial Staff in several Provinces. Education was £81,000 in excess of the previous year; collection of Land Revenue higher by £98,000, and the charge for military works higher by £116,000, which is chiefly to be accounted for by the expenditure which became necessary for the defence of Aden and Bombay. There was also provision in the Budget for a charge for payment to the Commission for Reduction of Debt of £360,000 in excess of the previous year. The loss by exchange upon the loan of £3,000,000 was fixed by Sir Auckland Colvin at £321,000 higher, owing to the fact that the rupee was taken at the value of 1s. 7d., instead of 1s. 7¼d., the rate of exchange taken in the previous year. But, on the other hand, Sir Auckland Colvin's Estimate placed the interest on ordinary Debt, excluding the charge for public works, at £451,000 less than in the previous year, the opium charges at £458,000 loss, and the Army expenditure at £238,000 less than in the previous year. The Budget has, however, been completely knocked on the head, and smashed by peculiar circumstances
    1290
    —I allude to the advance of the Russian troops in Central Asia, and the failure of the Russian Government to carry out what we imagined were their engagements as to the sending of a Commission to meet our Boundary Commission for the purpose of delimitating the Frontier of Afghanistan. The advance of General Komaroff compelled oven the late Government to make considerable preparations for war. In this country there was a Vote of Credit of £11,000,000. In India the Viceroy and his Council, acting under the sanction of the Government at home, prepared two Army Corps, necessitating an expenditure on transport, rations, forage, and clothing of no less than £2,600,000. On that item I will merely remark that a very large amount of that sum—perhaps I may put it at almost one-half—together with a considerable loss of life, and an amount of hardship and suffering to man and beast which it is impossible to estimate, would have been saved if the Government of India had been in a position to avail itself of the Quetta Railway, which the late Government in 1880 ordered to be abandoned. It was also necessary to order from England ordnance at a cost of £450,000. There was also an extra subsidy to the Ameer of £250,000, and for the increased rapidity of construction, which became absolutely necessary, of the Scinde-Pishin line, storage of railway material, and construction of temporary line from Quetta to the head of the Bolan Pass, an expenditure of £1,180,000, of which £700,000 was, I regret to say, drawn from borrowed money intended for other works of great importance and Value, thus, however, reducing the additional charge on the year to £480,000. The total increase of expenditure which the late Government considered to be absolutely and vitally essential on account of military necessities, unforeseen and unprovided for in the Budget of March, thus amounted to £3,780,000. There is also other additional expenditure which Sir Auckland Colvin places in respect of opium charges, owing to the opium crop having proved unexpectedly as abnormally bountiful as last year, which throws an additional sum of £600,000 on the Revenue; the discount on the £3,000,000 loan recently raised in England the other day, amounted to £508,000, and there was also a charge

    1291
    of £75,000 in respect of the telegraph cable in the Persian Gulf. The total expenditure not provided for in Sir Auckland Colvin's Budget of last March thus reached the sum of £4,963,000.
    Before taking the Committee further into the figures of the Budget this year, I would be glad if they would compare the real financial condition of India, in the past three years. Following the precedent of previous years, in order to show the present condition and future prospects of Indian finance, I ask the Committee to review with me the closed Accounts of 1883–4; the Revised Estimates of 1884–5, and the Budget Estimate of 1885–6. The Committee will remember that I stated that according to the closed Accounts for 1883–4 there was a surplus of £1,387,000. This surplus was, however, more apparent than real. From this surplus, if the Committee wish to arrive at the real financial results of the year 1883–4, we must deduct £569,000, the amount of Land Revenue collected in 1883–4 under special circumstances in Burmah, Madras, and Bombay, which would ordinarily have been collected in arrear in 1884–5, and which would probably, and indeed actually, have fallen into the Accounts of that year. This reduced the proper or adjusted surplus for 1883–4 to £818,000. Turning to the Revised Estimates for 1884–5 we find that the estimated deficit was £710,000; but from this deficit we must deduct the Land Revenue of £569,000 collected in 1883–4, but which would naturally have fallen into the year 1884–5. This reduces the deficit to £141,000 for that year. But even that deficit is only apparent. There is a further allowance to be made in respect of Land Revenue postponed to 1885–6, owing to floods and drought, amounting to £344,000; so that, if we take that amount from the deficit of £141,000, the apparent deficit for 1884–5 is turned into a surplus of £203,000. But in the accounts for 1883–4, now being made up, as telegraphed home to us, there are improvements in the Revised Estimate to the credit of the Imperial account of £796,000, making the real and adjusted surplus for 1884–5 £999,000, or close upon £1,000,000. If we apply to the Budget of March last this method of ascertaining the real financial position of India, which, I think, is a fair one, we shall find from the Budget Esti-
    1292
    mate, as calculated by Sir Auckland Colvin, that the surplus was estimated at £508,000, from which the Land Revenue of £344,000, belonging to 1884–5, but to be collected in 1885–6, must be deducted, and that leaves the adjusted surplus for 1885–6 at £164,000. The surplus, no doubt, is rather a low one, when compared with 1883–4 and 1884–5; but the Committee will remember that the three years taken together show an average surplus of £660,000, and it must be remembered that it is the practice of Indian Finance Ministers to estimate their Revenue very low and very cautiously. It is not improbable that the Revised Estimate for 1885–6, apart from all abnormal expenditure, will show a real and adjusted surplus of £300,000 or £400,000. I have made this digression in order that the Committee may not suppose that the financial position of India is so fluctuating as the figures for the three years might lead a chance observer to imagine; for these, taken alone, show a surplus of £1,387,000 in 1883–4, a deficit of £710,000 in 1884–5, and a surplus of £508,000 in 1885–6. This might lead people to suppose that the Indian Revenue is extremely spasmodic and jerky, or that the Indian Finance Ministers are extremely careless and inaccurate in their calculations.
    I now have to ask the Committee to consider the Estimate of Expenditure for the current year. The Committee will remember that I stated that the deficit for the year unprovided for in Sir Auckland Colvin's Budget amounted to £4,963,000. I now wish to put the Committee in possession of the contemplated Ways and Means of the year, as they have been altered from the Budget Statement made by Sir Auckland Colvin in March. The Government of India, when they were brought face to face with this large extra expenditure, decided, and I think very wisely, that any attempt to impose fresh taxation in the course of the current year would be most undesirable; that it would throw all their accounts, and all their Revenue arrangements, into the utmost confusion. It was therefore determined to meet this extra and unprovided for expenditure in two ways—first, by economies in charge; and, secondly, by drawing on the balances. The Government of India, I am sure the Committee will recognize,

    1293
    have made admirable exertions in the way of reducing any expenditure which might, by any kind of argument whatever, be called unnecessary, and they have succeeded in effecting a saving in charge on the Revenue of the year of no less than £1,797,000. Of that sum, however, £700,000 is in reality capital expenditure, which would have been expended on railways and irrigation works in other parts of India, and would have been met with borrowed money, and also from, that considerable economy must be deducted to some extent £643,000, which is the effect of the economics made by the Provincial Governments, who are entitled under the present Provincial contracts to have any sum so saved placed to their credit, under the head of what is called "Provincial surpluses," and which sums the Government of India are supposed, at some future day, to be bound to make good. These two reductions of £700,000 drawn from railways and irrigation works, and £643,000 economized by the Provincial Governments, leave an actual saving on expenditure by the Imperial Government of £454,000. In addition to that, the Government have telegraphed that the estimated railway receipts were taken too low in the Budget by no loss a sum than £500,000. The drawings of the Secretary of State on India have been, on the demand of the Indian Government, reduced to such an extent that the loss by exchange, falling on the Revenues of India this year, will be lower than was calculated in March by £400,000; and those sums, taken together, make a total improvement of Revenue and Expenditure of £ 1,354,000. If the Committee will add that sum to the Budget surplus of £508,000, the amount of the charge unprovided for in Sir Auckland Colvin's Budget is reduced to £3,101,000.
    Of course, the question arises how this very considerable sum is to be met. I told the Committee, and they appeared to agree with me, that fresh taxation in the course of the current year was most undesirable, and would be most confusing. A loan in India to that amount was hardly possible, and, perhaps, equally undesirable. Both these expedients have, therefore, been put aside, and the Government of India determined to increase the loan needed for irrigation and railways—the contem-
    1294
    plated amount of which in the Budget had been estimated at £2,225,000—to £3,500,000 Stock, producing about £2,992,000 of money, giving an increased receipt to the resources of the year of £767,000. The balances in India on March 31, 1886, were estimated by the Budget hi March last to be £10,205,000. These balances would have been weakened by the increased expenditure to the extent of £3,430,000; but they will now be strengthened by the improvement of railway receipts to the amount of £500,000, by economies to the amount of £1,097,000, and by the reduction of the drawings of the Secretary of State to the amount of £2,000,000, leaving a net increase of balance over what was estimated in the Budget of March last of £167,000.
    I turn now to the Home Treasury. The balances in England were estimated by the Budget of March last as likely to be, on the 31st of March, 1886, £2,696,000. These balances will be reduced by the extra expenditure incurred in England to the amount of £1,025,000. They will be further reduced by the diminished drawings of the Secretary of State to the amount of £1,600,000, and these reductions would only have left to the Secretary of State a balance on the 31st of March, 1886, of £71,000. To this amount must be added an increase of the loan which I have spoken of to the amount of £767,000, and further receipts of capital from the Southern Mahratta Railway to the amount of £380,000, giving a balance on the 31st of March, 1886, as now estimated, of £1,218,000 instead of £2,696,000. The original unprovided charge of £3,101,000 has in reality been only partly provided for to the extent of £1,478,000 drawn from the balances in India; and although these will still leave a balance at home of £1,218,000, it is obvious that the balance is none too large. Indeed, it is rather too small to provide for the current expenditure of the year; and, therefore, not only is it more convenient, but I think more honest and accurate, to say that about £1,500,000 of the original deficit is really carried forward to next year, unprovided for either by temporary or permanent loans. I think the Committee will agree with me that this is a more accurate and fair view of the matter, when I state that the average balances in

    1295
    India on the 31st of March for the last 10 years amounted to £14,000,000, and in England the average is £2,500,000. The average in both countries during the 10 years is £16,500,000; this year in India the balance is £10,000,000; in England the balance is about £1,500,000—and taking the two countries together £11,500,000.
    The Committee is no doubt aware that the Government of India since 1881 has provided for, or rather has professed to provide for, £2,000,000 more than the estimated Expenditure of the year—that is to say, it has endeavoured to provide a surplus of £500,000 every year, and has also endeavoured to provide £1,500,000 for what is called the Famine Insurance Fund. The Committee is also aware that that £1,500,000—a provision which dates from 1881—is usually applied in three ways. It is usually applied first in direct famine relief; but the amount under this head since 1881 has been extremely small. It is also applied for the purpose of mating railways and irrigation works as protection against famine generally to the amount of £750,000, and the remaining £750,000 has been taken for the reduction of the ordinary Debt. This year Sir Auckland Colvin proposed, in his Budget, to allot for the purposes of the Famine Insurance Fund £33,000 under the head of direct famine relief. He proposed, also, to take £287,000 from the Fund for the protective irrigation works. It was also proposed to spend on protective railways, State railways, and on Frontier railways an amount equal to £1,398,000 of Revenue, and to this sum was allotted from the Famine Insurance Fund £500,000. The railways provided for under that head were two railways in the Madras Presidency—the Cuddapore-Nellore and Bellary-Kistna, and in Rajpootana the Rewari-Ferozepore; in Oude, the Luck-now-Sitapur line was to be constructed from Provincial funds. But, Sir, the £700,000 which the Government of India has, in its emergency, provided for their expenditure has obviously been withdrawn from some of these works, and also the £680,000 from the Famine Insurance Fund, which would have gone to the reduction of the Debt, is really left in balances to meet general expenditure; and, though to this extent the amount which will have to
    1296
    be borrowed next year will be undoubtedly reduced, it is, perhaps, more honest and straightforward and correct to say that, to all intents and purposes, the Famine Insurance Fund has been swallowed up by the peculiar demands of the year.
    I think the Committee will agree that this Financial Statement is not a very exhilarating anticipation, and also that it is rather "hard lines" upon the Minister coming into Office so recently to have to make his Financial Statement under circumstances which are certainly more or less depressing.
    The Statement which I have made shows an unprovided charge of £1,500,000, and the celebrated Famine Insurance Fund practically eaten up. But I am sorry to say that is not all. There is more which I shall have to tell the Committee. The whole condition of India, political and financial, has been suddenly changed, and the change has not been for the better. I say suddenly changed; but the change ought not to have been sudden; it ought to have been foreseen and provided for; but the change has been sudden, and for the suddenness of that change neither the Government of Lord Dufferin in India, nor the Government of Lord Salisbury at home, can in any way be held responsible. Then, Sir, not only for the purpose of clearing the present Government of all responsibility for this peculiar financial condition of affairs, but also for the purpose of enabling the Committee and the country to realize the real nature of the change which has come over India, I would ask the Committee to take a brief glance with me into the finances of the next year, 1886–7. Sir, in order that the Committee may understand what it really means in pounds, shillings, and pence, that India has ceased to be isolated from all contact with any European Power except ourselves, I may remind the Committee that last year a loan of £3,000,000 at 3 per cent was issued by the Indian Government in London at an average rate of 94, and this year a loan for the same amount, and at the same rate of interest, has been issued at an average rate of 85½. Well, I think the Committee will agree that a change of position, political and financial, which can cause Indian credit to fall in London by so much as 8 or 9 per cent in issue price is a change of

    1297
    great magnitude and of serious importance.
    Sir, I have told the Committee the amount of extra military charge imposed on the Revenue of the current year on account of the ill-success of the negotiations in reference to the Afghan Frontier, and I place that extra charge at about £1,500,000. If that were all, if it were an abnormal charge—a charge not likely to recur—the Finance Minister might deplore it, but he need not be anxious or over-concerned. But, unfortunately, a large part of it cannot be treated now as abnormal. I put aside the question of Frontier railways, for which, as the Committee is aware, under the East India Loan Bill a sum of £5,000,000 has been provided. I put aside for the moment the question of the fortification of the frontier, and the additional railways necessary for the connection of these fortifications and for their proper defence, the additional charge for which may be taken, roughly, at something like £3,000,000. The Committee will recollect that that sum will not include the armament of the fortifications; and here I may mention that, in connection with these fortifications, the Government of India have just sent home a very elaborate and considerable plan for carrying into effect the policy which has been resolved upon in India and at home, and which has been unanimously approved by all Parties for strengthening, as far as human ingenuity can do it, the North-Western Frontier of India.
    But what the Committee ought to look to now is the permanent increased military charge, which may amount to something like £2,000,000 a-year, and which can hardly be reduced below £1,500,000. Perhaps the Committee will be interested if I venture to go into details on this point. In the first place, Sir, the Indian Government have, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, provided for what I am astonished that the Government of Lord Ripon did not provide for before—the formation of a Reserve for the Indian Native Army. That will add, when the scheme is fully in operation, 250 long-service men to the strength of each regiment called out in times of emergency; and it will add to the strength of the Indian Army when called out for service in the field a total number of 26,700 men. This formation of a Native Reserve will cost
    1298
    the Revenues of India about 15 lakhs a-year. The second military measure which the times have rendered necessary is an increase of the Native Cavalry. It has been thought impossible to make any effectual Reserve of the Cavalry men, and it has therefore been thought necessary to keep your Cavalry arm up to its full strength—the strength which would be required should hostilities break out. Acting upon that opinion, the Government of India have, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, determined to increase the Bengal and Bombay Cavalry regiments from the strength of 550 sabres in three squadrons to the strength of 650 sabres in four squadrons, and to give one additional British officer to each. It has also been determined to create three new Cavalry regiments—two in Bengal and one in Bombay—of the increased new strength, and that will give a total increase of strength to the Indian Native Cavalry of 3,900, and the total additional cost to the Revenue of India will be 25 lakhs. It has also been determined to add to the five existing Goorkha regiments a separate battalion for each. The Durbar of Nepaul, with the utmost loyalty and generosity, has removed all restrictions which interfered with our recruiting for the Goorkha regiments, and we have determined to take advantage of the attitude—of the praiseworthy attitude—of the Nepaul Durbar, to increase the Goorkha regiments in the way I have mentioned. That will give us an increase of Infantry soldiers in that branch of 4,550 men, forming the finest fighting material to be found in the East, and possibly as fine as any that exists anywhere in the world. That will cost the Indian Government an additional outlay of 11 lakhs.
    Now, Sir, it has also been determined to arm the Native troops with the Martini-Henry rifle. Of course, that is an arrangement which cannot be carried out all at once. It can only be done gradually, and its rapidity must depend, in a great degree, upon whether or not a new rifle is provided for the British Army. If the British soldier is supplied with a new rifle, that would, of course, release for the Indian Army the Martini-Henry's now in the possession of our troops at home. But for this year there will be a certain number of Martini-Henry's—I think about 40,000—pro-

    1299
    vided for the Indian Army, which will cost the Indian Government £144,000. The total cost of re-arming the whole Army in this way I cannot now give.
    In addition to all this there will also come on the Indian Revenues heavy charges for torpedoes and gun-boats for harbour and coast defence. The first outlay for this—I am only giving a rough estimate—will be from £200,000 to £250,000, and in addition to that you will have to calculate on a charge for the maintenance of the crews and equipment. I think I shall not be far wrong if I place the total extra cost imposed upon the Revenues of India under this head at about £1,000,000 sterling, roughly speaking.
    Well, Sir, we must not conceal from ourselves, and no one of experience would deny, that this very important increase of the Native Army will probably necessitate an increase in the number of British troops in India, and, although that matter has not yet been decided upon, so far as the amount of the increase is concerned, by the Government of India, I think I may say that the principle has been decided upon; and the Committee will not go very far wrong if, taking all these additions together—and I doubt whether any Member of the Committee will question the necessity of taking them all together—the additions for fortifications, railways, and other miscellaneous items—and adding them all up, they may prepare themselves for an additional charge upon the Revenues of India of close upon £2,000,000 a-year, extending over an indefinite length of time. How we are to meet this charge it is not for me to say; but it is sufficient to say that it will tax to the utmost the skill and ingenuity of Lord Dufferin and his financial Advisers. The situation is full of difficulties. The extra available resources—financial resources—are narrow. Perhaps I may be allowed to indicate their nature, merely premising that there are objections to the use of nearly all, and very strong objections to the use of some. In the first place, we might attempt to meet the additional expenditure by loan; but that is a proceeding which should only be resorted to with great caution. In the second place, we might attempt to meet it by capitalizing a portion of the Famine Fund; but much the same thing may be said of that,
    1300
    and there would be considerable objections to that course. In the third place, the Government of India might resort to taxation; and under the head of taxation they have, I think, three courses open to them. They might recast, re-arrange, and extend the licence tax; and to that course I think there is no objection at all—on the contrary, there are reasons for performing that operation. Or they might re-impose the Income Tax; but to that there might be considerable objection. Or they might raise the Salt Tax; and to that course, I imagine, there would be enormous objection. The Committee will remember that no indirect taxation of great importance is any longer available. Anything in the direction of Customs' taxation of any financial value has been swept away, and there are insuperable objections to its re-imposition so long as you keep on in this country your present fiscal arrangements. Then there is a fourth means of getting money for the Government of India. I do not imagine, however, that the sum gained would be very large, and there might be an immense objection to its adoption. I mean the abrogation or revision of what are called "Provincial contracts." I do not think it is, at present, my duty to give any opinion on these four methods of getting money; but there is a method of getting money on which I would express a very strong opinion, and I hope the Committee will agree with me upon it, because it is of the utmost importance that Indian opinion in England should exert pressure upon English opinion in India. That method is, that due regard should be paid to economy. It seems almost a truism to say so in this country; but it is not a truism with respect to Indian finance. The expenditure under the Government of Lord Ripon has increased by no less a sum than £1,200,000 on Civil buildings and roads, thus bringing that charge up to something like £3,800,000; and that, surely, in times of emergency, might be made to bear a very considerable reduction. Then, I would ask, has not the time arrived when the expenditure from Revenue on railways and irrigation might be considerably reduced? In 1883–4 the Government of India spent £619,000 out of Revenue on these works; in 1884–5 they spent £1,498,000;

    1301
    and last year they spent £1,685,000, giving an average expenditure out of Revenue on railways and irrigation for the last three years of £1,270,000. It does seem to me that if you are to have an expenditure which is absolutely necessary and vital to the interests of India and its security, and if that expenditure is increased to the extent which I have named, and if you find that a very large expenditure is going on upon Civil buildings and roads, and irrigation and railways, out of Revenue, the inference is obvious and irresistible that, if you have to choose between extra taxation on the one hand, which must press hardly upon populations which cannot be wealthy, and economies on the other hand, and a large cutting down of your Revenue expenditure upon public works, you are bound to choose the latter course, and you have no right to resort to the former until you have obtained from your enforced economies all the money which can reasonably and safely be realized from them in order to be expended upon such public works.
    Sir, I do not dwell upon all these matters in order, in any way, to alarm the Committee or the country. There is nothing whatever, to my mind—and I speak the opinions of others of great authority—there is nothing whatever of a nature calculated to cause alarm as regards the financial condition of India. It is a condition of difficulty and, perhaps, of anxiety, but not of alarm. My reasons for placing all this before the Committee are widely different. My first reason is to fix the responsibility for the present state of things on the right shoulders; and, secondly, to interest public opinion, and bring home to the minds of the electors the real nature and character of the care and anxiety which must be borne by the Indian Viceroy. I wish to lay down, in the first place, that the greatest and, perhaps, the most unpardonable crime of which a Governor General of India can be guilty, is that he should not look ahead, and should not make provision for the future. The Government of England cannot, from its very nature, look very far head. Its policy is always policy rather from month to month and from week to week—sometimes from day to day. It is always more or less a policy from hand to mouth, and the rea-
    1302
    son is that your Government here depends on a Parliamentary majority, which is violently assailed and swayed by an enlightened, but, at the same time, a capricious public opinion. Sir, the Government of England has to think, in framing its policy, of the state of Europe, of our Colonies, of Ireland, of the state of Parties in England, of the elections, and last, but not least, of the state of Business in the House of Commons. It has to think of all these subjects besides India, and all these questions have to take their turn, and have all, more or less, their chance of modifying and colouring the policy of the Government. The result is that, although in England we possess an unrivalled Constitution and unexampled freedom, yet we have purchased that freedom at the price of little stability and little continuity in our Government, at the price of hardly any forethought as regards economy in our conduct of affairs. Of course the Committee will understand that these remarks of mine are intended to be perfectly general, and if there is any exception to be made to them it would be in the case of Her Majesty's present Government. But—and this is what I am leading to—the Government of India is exempt from all these disadvantages. It is a Government in its nature purely irresponsible and despotic; but perhaps it is a despotism of the best kind, because it is not hereditary. We do our best in this country to supply India from time to time with a statesman who shall exercise the tremendous powers of Government, and who shall, as well as being courageous, at the same time be wise and experienced, and moral and humane. In India it is not as it is in England. In India you have no public opinion to speak of—you have no power of the Press. You have hardly any trammels upon the Government of any sort or kind; and it is for that reason I say that, if the Governor General of India, in forming and framing his own policy, does not look ahead and provide for the future, he not only commits a blunder, but he is guilty of a crime. I am content to apply this general statement to the Government of Lord Ripon, and I will tell the Committee why I do so, and how I have arrived at that unfortunate conviction. Lord Ripon went out to India

    1303
    full of knowledge of the state of affairs in Europe. He knew all the events which had occurred, of the Russo-Turkish War which led to the Treaty of San Stefano, and to the Congress at Berlin—he knew that all these events had necessitated great preparations by Russia for war in India. He also had great knowledge—he must have had great knowledge—of the gradual, but sure, extension of the Russian Empire in that direction. Now, Sir, I do not say that there was any necessity why Lord Ripon should have been nervous, or fussy, or excited, or quarrelsome, or predatory. Nothing of the sort. But I want to ask whether the commonest prudence and most ordinary common sense would not have dictated that all these great historical facts should have been borne in mind, should have influenced his whole scheme of government, and had an important bearing on his financial arrangements? Well, Sir, what was the fact? I say nothing of the abandonment of Candahar, or of the "scientific Frontier." I say not much about the discontinuance and destruction of the Quetta Railway. I come rather to the acts of Lord Ripon's Government which affected the finance of those years, and which are seriously affecting the finance of this year. Sir, Lord Ripon had prosperous times to deal with. He had to deal with an increasing Revenue. The sky overhead, to an ordinary and careless observer, seemed very blue. Danger apparently had passed away, so far as foreign affairs were concerned, and so far as they had any bearing whatever on Indian finances, and Lord Ripon and his counsellors laid themselves down and slept. All indirect taxation of any value was remitted, Customs Duties were almost totally abolished, the Salt Duty was lowered very largely—admirable arrangements, Sir, in themselves, but defective, somewhat, in this—that no provision was made, and no forethought was taken, for the future. Sir, in 1882–3 the Native Army of India was reduced by five Cavalry regiments and 10 Infantry regiments. The British Army, under the care of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), and in conjunction with the Viceroy, Lord Ripon, was allowed to fall by 10,000 men below its proper strength; and to bring it up to its full strength, which is now very nearly reached, has cost the Indian Government something
    1304
    like £100,000. No Frontier railways were commenced—I do not know that they were even planned—no Frontier roads were made, no preparations of any sort or kind were set on foot for the defence of that long and difficult Frontier, which surely in prosperous times a wise man would have provided for, in the event of a rainy day, and the provision being required. But no, Sir—in all these matters Lord Ripon slept, lulled by the langour of the land of the lotus. Yet there was much which ought to have aroused him. In 1882 the Russian Government themselves, with the utmost possible frankness and candour, called your attention to their proceedings in Central Asia, and invited you, at that time, to delimit the Frontier of Afghanistan, the territory of your Afghan Ally, and they only received a dull and sullen reply as from a man under the influence of a narcotic. You have had constant warnings, and it is curious to observe, in certain letters from the Ameer to Lord Dufferin, and in the accounts of his interview with him at Rawul Pindi, how constantly you come across the old familiar observation—"I told you so." Well, Sir, all the time Lord Ripon was there the cloud grew bigger, the distant darkness came nearer and grew blacker, and the great military Power loomed larger and more distinct upon your Borders. Lord Ripon and his counsellors slumbered and slept, never dreaming that any foreign danger could by any possibility come nigh those Dominions which had been entrusted to their watchful care, taking no thought for the morrow, heedless or ignorant of the future, which was shaping itself with the utmost clearness under their eyes. Then, Sir, there came a sharp and loud awakening. The Russian hosts absorbed the territory of Merv, and rapidly filled up the vacuum to the South which you had so incautiously and blindly left, and Lord Ripon and his counsellors were found, like the foolish virgins, with no oil in their lamps. Then followed the fruitless Frontier negotiations, and Lord Ripon came home, and Lord Dufferin went out, not one hour too soon for the safety of India, and for the tranquillity of our Indian Empire. Next we see the lonely and unsupported British Commissioner endeavouring to stop the advance of the Russian troops—troops flushed with success, and animated by the

    1305
    highest hopes of glory and of booty. Then came the incident of Penjdeh, and, following that, the 'Vote of Credit of £11,000,000. Next came the hasty and hurried recommencement of the Quetta Railway, which had been too foolishly abandoned. Then came the announcement of the Frontier railways and roads, which had been too fatally postponed. And then came your additional military expenditure in India of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000; and the result of it all is now before the Committee, in the deficit on the Indian Accounts for the year of £1,500,000 sterling, and in the permanent extra military charge on the Revenue of India of no less than £2,000,000 sterling. Now, Sir, the good times are gone. The available financial resources have got very narrow, and those that you had in Lord Ripon's time have been wantonly thrown away. No economy of any sort or kind was practised by Lord Ripon's Government. The expenditure on Civil buildings, as I have already said, was allowed to be increased by over £1,000,000 a-year. Your Famine Insurance Fund, of which you made so much, has been proved to be in time of trial illusory. I look back on that Vice-royalty, and I declare that, although I endeavoured to contemplate the action of the late Government of India without any Party passion at all, I am unable to find in it one redeeming feature. I see the great and noble and necessary policy of admitting the Natives to a large and gradually increasing share in the Government of India, so clumsily, so stupidly handled that it has been thrown back possibly for a generation. I see recklessness and carelessness in the management of home and foreign affairs; and as Secretary of State, having to place these results before the House of Commons in the practical matter-of-fact form of figures and facts, I disown and repudiate, on behalf of the present Government, responsibility of any sort or kind for that policy, and I hold up that Vice-royalty and the Government which was responsible for it, and the Government which sanctioned it, and the Government which adopted it and introduced it, to the censure and the condemnation of the British and Indian peoples.
    Sir, I have thought it right, in justice to the present Government, and in the interest of India, to place the situation before the Committee in a somewhat
    1306
    dark and gloomy light; but I have done so in order that the enormous change which has come over the condition of the Government of India maybe realized. But the Committee and the public would altogether misconstrue and misinterpret my remarks, and also misinterpret the situation, if they imagined that it was in any way of a desperate character, or that there was anything in it which could not be dealt with by the tact, skill, and experience of Lord Dufferin, or that Indian finance, at the present moment, was not perfectly capable of adapting itself to the circumstances, and enduring even heavier charges than those I have indicated to the Committee as necessary.
    I shall, therefore, be glad to show the Committee, by facts and figures, that the Indian Revenue is elastic and growing, and that it would be the greatest possible mistake to suppose that there is not in reality a very large margin of reserve on which the Indian Government, in time of difficulty, might come. It is of the last importance that Indian credit should stand as high as it deserves to stand, and that it ought not to be regarded as in the least degree shaken by anything which may have occurred lately. It is for that reason that I will ask the Committee to look at the statistics of Indian finance as exemplified by a period of 10 years. I will take the decade which has just elapsed—1874–5 to 1884–5—and I will compare the figures of 1874–5 with the figures of 1884–5. That is an interesting period, for during that time two Governments have held Office in England, and three Viceroys held Office in India. In 1874 the total net Revenue from the 11 principal sources, including Land, Opium, Salt, Stamps, Excise, and Customs, was £40,392,000. In 1884 the total net Revenue from the same sources was £42,293,000, showing an increase of Revenue of nearly £2,000,000 in 10 years. I will take, Sir, the principal heads of that Revenue, the heads which are generally assumed to show the financial position of the taxpayers—Salt, Stamps, and Excise. I find that in 1874 the Salt Tax yielded to the Government of India £5,736,000, and that, although since that time the duty on salt has been remitted to the extent of 28 per cent, the Salt Tax in 1884 yielded £5,862,000, showing an increase of Revenue in 10 years of

    1307
    £126,000, in spite of the remission of taxation. I find that in 1874 Stamps yielded £2,597,000; and in 1884 £3,407,000—an increase of £810,000, of which only £120,000 was increased taxation. The Excise in 1874 yielded to the Government of India £2,251,000, and in 1884 £3,887,000, showing an increase of £1,636,000, of which only £56,000 was increased taxation. Customs in 1874 brought in £2,422,000, and in 1884 only £861,000; but this decrease is most satisfactorily accounted for by the remission of the Customs Duties in 1883, by Sir Evelyn Baring, to the amount of £1,929,000. In a word, while you find an increase of Revenue in the 10 years amounting to £2,000,000, you find that in that period there has been a net remission of taxation, after allowing for the increase of Provincial rates and assessed taxes, amounting to £2,424,000. Well, now, if to this you add your profits or your charges incurred by productive public works, you will arrive at a still more satisfactory result. In 1874 the productive public works were a charge upon the Revenue of India to the extent of £1,436,000; but in 1884 they brought in a net profit of £566,000, showing an improved position under this head, in 10 years, to the extent of £2,002,000. The interest on ordinary Debt and obligations in 1874 was £4,289,000; but in 1884 it had fallen to £3,704,000, showing a decrease of charge, by way of interest, of £585,000; or, in other words, a reduction of capital Debt to the amount of £14,000,000. Further, in these 10 years you have had to meet an increased charge for Civil Government to the extent of £2,000,000, as compared with 1874; an increased charge for non-productive public works of £783,000, as compared with 1874; an increased charge for Army expenditure of £718,000, as compared with 1874; and an increased loss by exchange of no less than £2,467,000, because the loss by exchange in 1874 was only £786,000, while in 1884 it reached the tremendous figure of £3,253,000. In the 10 years the expenditure on famine relief was £10,854,000; and in the same period India has had to meet charges for the Afghan War amounting to £11,840,000. The net general expenditure in these 10 years, under the nine principal heads of Interest, Post
    1308
    Office, Civil Departments, Miscellaneous Charges, Famine Relief, Non-productive Public Works, Army, Exchange, and Provincial Contracts, has increased from £37,739,000 in 1874to £42,343,000 in 1884—an increase of £4,604,000; yet during all that time your India Revenue has been steadily growing—so elastic and so rebounding, under all these increasing and fresh liabilities, that the Indian Government has been able to make a net reduction of taxation to the extent of nearly £2,500,000, and still finds itself, under ordinary circumstances, apart from abnormal charges, able to show a clear actual surplus of Revenue over Expenditure.
    Whether it was wise in 1883–4 to make that large remission of taxation is another question. I have already said that I think, if the foreign policy of the late Government had been more prudent and more far-sighted, that large remission of taxation would not have been made; or, at any rate, it would have been made more gradually and more carefully. Whether it was wise to allow your Civil Expenditure and Revenue Expenditure on public works to grow so rapidly and so largely, while you, at the same time, remitted taxation so liberally, is another matter on which I venture to detain the Committee for a few moments. I have given these figures in order that the public at home may see for themselves that the Indian financial resources still possess an immense amount of vitality, and that there is no reason at all why Indian credit should not stand as high as, or perhaps even higher than, it has ever done since the connection between Great Britain and India began.
    Sir, if the financial situation of India may be fairly considered as being of an enduring character, to whom ought that credit to be attributed? I have said a word about the Viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, and I will now say a word about another Viceroyalty which has had very scant justice done to it. I allude to the Viceroyalty of Lord Lytton. The closing years of Lord Lytton's Viceroyalty were darkened by the Afghan War, and that most untoward event excited in this country the fiercest Party passions, and all that was good and sound and wise in the Administration of Lord Lytton was for the time lost sight of; but, Sir, this is an undoubted fact, and a fact which

    1309
    ought now to be brought to light, that, if you have now in India economical, healthy, and decentralized finance, it is entirely the work of Lord Lytton—[Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: Oh, oh!]—who, I assert, with all due deference to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, carried into effect Lord Mayo's policy of giving the Provincial Governments that control over, and that interest in, their own financial prosperity which is essential to frugal administration. If you have complete Free Trade in India, again I say it is the work of Lord Lytton, who, differing from and resisting and overruling his Council, carried out the policy of Lord Salisbury, which was greatly opposed by Lord Northbrook, and, by abolishing the duties on certain classes of coarser cotton goods, enabled Sir Evelyn Baring, in 1883, to free the remaining cotton imports from duty. If you have in India at the present moment the Salt Tax equalized and reduced, so that it does not press heavily on the masses of the people, that, again, is entirely the work of Lord Lytton, who, with immense patience and immense labour, succeeded in abolishing 2,500 miles of Inland Customs line through the heart of India, and in concluding Salt Treaties with no less than 36 Native States. All these preliminary and difficult operations made it very easy indeed for Sir Evelyn Baring, in 1883, to lower the Salt Tax in India. Sir, I say these are deeds which are a good mark in favour of any Administration. They were obscured, even denied and lost sight of, by what was, perhaps, one of the most wild storms of Party passion that ever swept across and devastated Indian politics at the time of the outbreak of the Afghan War. But now that that storm has passed away those are deeds that can be brought to light and demonstrated, because they were deeds which were difficult in their conception, which were large in their operation, and which were permanent in their beneficial effects; and they were deeds which merit, and which will, I am sure, receive at the proper time the recognition and commendation of an enlightened and instructed and impartial public.
    Sir, I pass from all these matters, which I thought it was essential I should dwell upon, but which I admit are, to some large extent, matters of controversy, and I proceed rapidly to subjects
    1310
    of more general interest and agreement. It has been usual for the Secretary of State, in his Annual Statement in the House of Commons, to glance at the condition and progress of India in other branches than those purely financial. Time, however, prevents me. I think I have almost exceeded the limit of indulgence of the Committee, and I am, moreover, not particularly anxious to lead the Committee into a string of other questions now, because I am so anxious that its attention should be concentrated on the peculiar circumstances of the year, and on the transformation of the political and financial position and prospects affected in India by the close proximity to her Borders of a great European Power which is sustained and defended by an adventurous and advancing army.
    But perhaps the Committee will allow me to draw their attention rapidly to four circumstances. In the first place, I would ask attention to the new opium arrangement with China. On this subject Papers will be at once presented to Parliament, if they have not already been presented; and I will only say it is estimated that, under this arrangement, China will gain an addition to her Revenue of over £1,000,000 a-year, and that India may lose about £250,000 a-year. But the arrangement has, or ought to have, at any rate, the most excellent effect of bringing into active operation much of the Chefoo Convention which hitherto has been a dead letter; and it has, or ought to have, the effect of being a settlement perfectly agreeable and advantageous to the powerful and enlightened Government of China, of grievances and causes of complaint which have for many years been a source of great difficulty and anxiety. I am quite willing to concede whatever merit is due in this matter arising from the determination of these long negotiations to Lord Granville and Lord Kimberley, who had charge of them.
    The second subject on which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee, but, as it is rather late, I will pass it by, is that of the principles of the re-settlement of land by the Government, which have undergone very considerable modifications, modifications effected by long correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India, but which modifications are,

    1311
    undoubtedly, in the interest of the cultivators of the country.
    Sir, the third subject on which I desire to say a few words is that of the conservation of the Indian forests. On that point I may say that, since 1858, 48,000 square miles of forests have been preserved under systematic conservation, and to those 48,000 square miles have been added another 30,000 square miles of village or district forests, which are, as it were, protected by Government. In 1859 the net Revenue to the Government of India from forests was £150,000, and in 1883 it was £370,000. No doubt, in some parts the forest laws have been necessarily very stringent, and have produced complaints from the people, and have inflicted hardship. I have ascertained that these complaints and this hardship are principally in the Presidency of Bombay; but I am happy to say His Excellency, Lord Reay, has with great propriety and wisdom appointed a Commission to investigate that hardship, and, if possible, to disclose a remedy. But the Committee will understand that it is a question of very considerable difficulty how you are, on the one hand, to obtain the most desirable object of preserving and renewing your forests, without, on the other hand, entailing hardship on the people by depriving them of privileges of which they have had valuable and long enjoyment.
    The fourth subject to which I will briefly direct attention is that of Indian railways. There is now opened to traffic a total length of 12,000 miles, of which 1,218 have been added in 1884–5. Although 1884–5 was undoubtedly an extremely dull year for trade, and although, as evidence of that dulness, the trade fell off to the extent of 500,000 tons, still the net receipts show a payment of interest on capital to the extent of £5 1s. 9d. per cent, as compared with £5 13 s. 6d. per cent in 1883–4. I am sure the Committee will think that is a satisfactory and encouraging circumstance.
    Well, Sir, the Committee will be delighted to know I have very nearly brought my remarks to a close; but there is one other matter in which I take the greatest possible interest, and to which I will for a moment refer. Her Majesty's Government have decided that, if they are in Office next year, or if by some unforeseen circumstance they are in Opposition next year, they will either
    1312
    propose themselves, or support, a Motion for an inquiry into the system of government in India. Twenty-seven years have now elapsed since the Government of India was taken over by the Crown, and inquiries into special subjects during that time have been made, such as Indian finance and Indian railways; but there has been no general inquiry into the operation of the various Acts establishing the present system and machinery of government in India; and it is into the system and the machinery of the Government of India in all its parts that inquiry, as far as the present Government are concerned, will be strictly and closely made. Sir, there are many reasons in favour of such an inquiry. There is, in the first place, the general value of Parliamentary inquiries. Nothing is ever made worse, but everything may probably be made better than it is, by a thorough reviewing and overhauling by Parliament. In the second place, the reason why I support the idea of holding an inquiry is that the arrangement under which the old East India Company ruled India provided for a Parliamentary review of their system every 20 years. Every 20 years they had to come to Parliament for a renewal of their Charter, and every review of their system was attended with most valuable results to the Empire generally. There is a third reason which I think should invite Parliament to that inquiry, and that is one which I have alluded to already in the course of my remarks—namely, the altered circumstances under which the Government of India will have to be carried on in the future. In the fourth place, you have, by the system of education you have carried on for many years in India, by your free Press, by the influence of Western civilization, produced a large body of most intelligent Native opinion, which, perhaps, has not yet, for some cause or other, been allowed to exercise that amount of influence upon the Government of India which may at the present time be regarded as reasonable, as healthy, and as safe. I know of my own personal knowledge many Natives of different classes, different religions, and different races, of great intelligence, and of the most undoubted loyalty, who are strongly of opinion that they have perceived defects in our machinery, by no means, up to the present

    1313
    moment, of a serious nature, but defects which, fair inquiry and careful consideration would probably remedy and remove. Whether the views of those gentlemen be right or wrong I do not say; but I hold it to be in the highest sense politic and advisable that Parliament should hear and consider their opinions, as well as the opinions of experienced Anglo-Indian authorities. I think that such action by the Imperial Parliament will go far to bridge over that gap which still, to some extent, I regret to say, exists between the rule of the European and the sympathy of the Hindoo; and it will be a forcible indication to the Native mind that their interests, their prosperity, and their security are closely and carefully watched over by their British and their Irish fellow-subjects at home. [Laughter.] I cannot see anything in what I have said to laugh at. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy seems to think it a subject of ridicule that Irishmen should take an interest in India. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman, for his information, is that, if there has been, as undoubtedly there has been, a great improvement in the management of the Indian gaols, and if more humane methods have been introduced, it is entirely owing to the repetition of Questions continually put by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). That is only one instance; but I could cite others; and I own I am surprised that it should be a matter of ridicule that I referred to our Irish fellow-subjects.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I hope I may be allowed to explain. It was the newness of the phrase which excited my amusement.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): Well, the word British only applies to England and Scotland. It does not include the Irish at present, and therefore I designedly used it. I cannot, myself, detect any appreciable danger—if, indeed, there could be any danger—which can arise from such an inquiry. If there be any such danger, I am convinced it will be far outweighed and overborne by the advantages of many kinds which ought to result from an inquiry wisely and cautiously conducted. On this particular subject I will say no more at present, except that the exact nature of the Reference, the scope of the inquiry, and
    1314
    the constitution of the Committee, will, during the Recess, receive the closest and most anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and of myself, assisted by my Council.
    I am extremely grateful to the Committee for having allowed me to take up their time at such great length; and, in conclusion, before moving the formal Resolution, I will express a hope—an earnest hope—which I trust the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy may share, that the new Parliament which is to be elected by the new constituencies may manifest a more eager and a more sustained interest in Indian affairs than has hitherto been manifested by Parliament. This Parliament, Sir Arthur Otway, has done little or nothing for India. Beyond a dole of £5,000,000, and a Committee on Railways, India has remained outside the scope of the attention of this Parliament, except, perhaps, when it has been necessary to give a mechanical approval to a course of policy which events have proved to be so disastrous. It would really appear as if Members of Parliament of the present generation consider Indian affairs to be either beneath their attention or above their comprehension; and India is, apparently, left to pursue its destiny alone, and some might even think uncared for, as far as Parliament is concerned. That was not always the case. In the last century, when our Indian Empire was forming, the greatest men—Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox—did not disdain to apply their minds, and led their respective Parties into a most careful examination and exposition of the most difficult and complicated Indian questions, and with great advantage to the Empire. I do not think that at the present time, when everything round is changing so fast, and when nothing seems secure or firm, or free from assault and danger, as far as India is concerned, I do not think that we shall act unwisely if we revert to the more patriotic practice of earlier days. I would ask those who have been so kind as to listen to me, and those who possibly may not have agreed in many remarks I have made, at any rate to agree in this—to join with me in what I would call an appeal, or even almost a command, to those who will be our Successors, in the hope that some faint echo of that appeal may possibly linger around these walls

    1315
    and influence the new Parliament so shortly to meet here—to shake themselves free from the materialism, the lassitude, the carelessness, and the apathy, which have too long characterized the attitude of Parliament towards the Dependency of India. I would appeal to them to watch with the most sedulous attention, to develop with the most anxious care, to guard with the most united and undying resolution, the land and the people of Hindostan—that most truly bright and precious gem in the Crown of the Queen—the possession of which, more than that of all your Colonial Dominions, has raised in power, in resource, in wealth, and in authority, this small Island of ours far above the level of the majority of nations and of States, and has placed it on an equality with,—perhaps even in a position of superiority over—every other Empire of ancient or of modern times. The noble Lord concluded by formally moving the Resolution.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1884 was £71,727,421, including £13,240,507received from Productive Public Works; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England was £70,339,925, including £12,032,764 spent on Productive Public Works (Revenue Account); that there was an excess of Revenue over Expenditure in that year of £1,387,496; and that the Capital Expenditure on Productive Public Works in the same year was £3,992,029, including a Charge of £566,261 incurred in the redemption of previously existing liabilities."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. J. K. CROSS: I am sure, Sir Arthur Otway, that, after you have read the Resolution which we have met together to consider, it will not be necessary for me to draw down the Committee from the extraordinary altitude in which the noble Lord has soared to the lower level of the finances of the Indian Empire, which is the subject the Committee have to consider. I can only say that it would have been more courteous if the noble Lord had given some intimation of the kind of attack he was about to make on the policy of the Marquess of Ripon; because, if the noble Lord had done so, some Members of the Opposition might have been prepared to follow him through some of the luminous Eastern mists into which
    1316
    he has taken the Committee. On this occasion I must venture earnestly to protest against the new kind of action the noble Lord has brought to bear upon the Annual Statement of Indian Finance which we have had in times gone by. This is the first occasion within my recollection, as I believe it is the first within the recollection of any Member of the Committee, when, under cover of a Financial Statement, a wild partizan attack has been made upon the government of a late Viceroy, and that, too, when neither he nor anybody else knew anything at all about the attack which was about to be made, when nobody had a chance of looking into the questions that were to be submitted to the Committee, and no opportunity was afforded for examining them, as they ought to be examined, so that hon. Members on this side of the House might be prepared to make such answer as might be called for. The charges which the noble Lord brings against the administration of the Marquess of Ripon are that he was totally careless about defence, and that he was altogether wrong in the method he adopted for the administration of the affairs of India, and especially in regard to the way in which he approached the very grave question of the treatment of matters affecting the Natives; and, as regards Russia, it is said that we ought to have foreseen, several years before the events, things which have just taken place. Well, but if we are to go a long way into the past, let me ask why did not the former Conservative Government foresee the action with which Russia threatened us in 1878–9? Why did not they, long before the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari at Cabul, begin to construct the Northern Frontier Railways, and complete the communication between Quetta and the Indus, when our troops were interned, 270 miles away, without any means of communication, except by waterless desert and trackless mountain? The noble Lord might have some reason to say that then we did, to some extent, neglect our duties in not criticizing the action or inaction of the Government. But it was not until after the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari, in 1879, that it ever occurred to the Conservative Government that it was desirable to improve our means of communication to the North, and extend it

    1317
    from the Valley of the Indus to Quetta; and it therefore ill-becomes the noble Lord to make an attack like this, and especially without Notice. It is quite unnecessary to go further into the matter than to make an earnest protest against it, and to say that, if such attacks are to be made in future under cover of an Indian Revenue Statement, it must lead to a change in the line of action between the two Parties in this House on Indian subjects. The late Government, when they came into power in 1880, might have gone far back and have alluded to the deficiencies in the Indian finances caused by the Afghan War, which the noble Lord appears now to glory in, but of which, at the time, the whole country was heartily ashamed, and of which we are now reaping some of the consequences. The noble Lord spoke of the financial arrangements under the Marquess of Ripon. As far as I am concerned, I have had the honour of making two Financial Statements, and I will lay before the Committee the anticipations which were formed of a surplus of Indian Revenue, and the way in which those anticipations have been realized. In 1882 I anticipated a surplus of £224,000; the surplus realized was £707,000. In 1883 the estimated surplus was £368,000; but there was actually realized £1,387,000, as it appears in the Accounts. In 1884–5 the surplus, according to the Statement of the noble Lord, would be nearly £900,000, or, if reduced by the £340,000 which, as the noble Lord rightly says, ought to be credited to the previous year, it would be something near £600,000. Thus, in these three years 1882–3, 1883–4, and 1884–5, a surplus was realized of £2,600,000, against an anticipated surplus of £700,000. And this is the finance of the Marquess of Ripon's Government, which the noble Lord positively comes down here and stamps upon so fiercely. It is not necessary for me to follow the noble Lord into the careful calculation he has made with regard to the finance of the last two years. I have nothing to say against the line the noble Lord has taken in making that Statement of Revenue and Expenditure, which I am bound to say he has very fairly put before the Committee. But with regard to what is to be done in the future, I am not, however, sure that I can follow
    1318
    the noble Lord so clearly. The noble Lord seems to think it impossible to obtain anything like a considerable increase from taxation in India. He has pointed out that the Salt Tax is now producing much more than it did under the Government of the Earl of North-brook; but that at the same time the rate of the tax has been reduced by 28 per cent. The noble Lord seemed to bemoan the reduction of the Salt Tax with one breath and to approve of it with another. I did not, at first, gather from the noble Lord's speech whether he intended to propose any increase of that tax. At the end, however, of the noble Lord's Statement he said nothing could be further from his intention than to increase the tax, and he hoped that no such proposition would be made.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I said that there were immense objections to it.
    MR. J. K. CROSS: I agree with the noble Lord that there are considerable objections to it; but as the tax was reduced by the amount of 28 per cent only four years ago, and as the noble Lord seems to wish that we should go back to the financial arrangements of four years ago, it was the logical outcome of his argument to say that it might be desirable to increase the Salt Tax. As a matter of fact, there are very few taxes in India which can be increased. The Land Revenue is a fixture. The receipts which are derived from other taxes amount to 18 crores of rupees a-year; and if we deduct the Provincial rates, for the Provincial rates are not really Imperial taxation at all, the result is that there are only about 14¾ crores of rupees on which financial ingenuity can be exercised. I am quite willing to admit that that is a very small amount. The noble Lord says there ought to be a considerable reduction in Civil buildings, roads, bridges, railways, and similar items. Let us note for a moment what is the expenditure which comes under the head of Civil buildings, roads, bridges, and other services. I am quite willing to allow that it is possible, if the expenditure on means of communication is to be checked, and all building is to stop, to reduce expenditure by no less than £1,500,000. But in that case no more Post Offices and no more Revenue buildings must be built, and no more

    1319
    money spent on buildings for residences for Governors, Lieutenant Governors, Secretariats, and other official bodies. But still officials must be provided with tolerably comfortable offices and houses. It is in the last few years when the Revenue exceeded the Expenditure, and there were good, handsome surpluses, that the Government of India have considered it possible to increase the expenditure on buildings of this nature. Then there has been considerable expenditure on gaols, which the noble Lord approves. My noble Friend who three years ago was Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) has recognized the good service rendered in respect of Indian gaols by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). But if you are going on with expenditure of that nature you will not meet the noble Lord's wishes. Then the question arises—are we to reduce the expenditure on the making and repair of roads, the repair of public buildings, and on the building and, repair of bridges? All of these things have to come under the consideration of the Government of India; and when the Government of India find that they cannot spend the amount of money which has been customary during the last two or three years on these works, no doubt it will be their duty, and I should also hope their wish, to reduce the expenditure in this direction as much as they possibly can. The noble Lord also spoke of a reduction of expenditure on railways out of Revenue. During the last six years there has been considerable expenditure on railways and irrigation works, amounting to no less than £9,000,000. He spoke of the enormous expenditure on Exchange, and seems to think that it is a very great evil. The loss caused by Exchange is one which may very well exercise the noble Lord's patience. It is a very serious evil indeed, and it would be very well if the noble Lord would go carefully into the consideration of the question. Of course, he has not yet been long at the India Office; but I would venture to suggest to him that if during the Recess he will take into consideration the whole of the circumstances which bear upon the question of Exchange he may be able to place before the House of Commons some proposition which may, perhaps, save us from having to contemplate so enormous a loss on the Exchange as
    1320
    that which threatens to come upon us if the expenditure of India in this country continues at its present rate, and if the interest on the loans which have to be issued in this country has to be remitted from India. This item of expenditure is governed to a great extent by the flow of capital from England to India, and from India to England. It is affected also by low prices. Another item in the consideration of the matter is the amount of the annual outgoings from India; and the third item is the price of silver. Before I left Office I endeavoured to obtain as much information as I could on the subject, and I hope that this information will be placed before the House in the form of a Return, showing, among other things, the flow of bullion from England to India, and from India to England. It is an important consideration to take into account, whether the merchants are at the present time increasing their investments in India or withdrawing capital from there. There is one thing which I very much desire the noble Lord to remember, and it is that every £1,000,000 sterling borrowed in England costs the Government of India no less a sum than £35,000 annually. That sum comes home in produce in payment of the interest that is due. No coin passes; and, therefore, it is incumbent on the Indian Government to see that, whenever £1,000,000 is borrowed for public works, India is made thereby the richer to the extent of atleast £35,000 a-year. If not, you must suffer considerable financial loss; and, consequently, it is absolutely necessary, in borrowing money in England for the development of the resources of India, to take care that you do not borrow unless you are certain that a full and proper result will be achieved. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord told us what the arrangements are that have been made with the new Railway Company—the Indian Midland. I invite him, if he has an opportunity of speaking again, to make a statement in reference to the arrangements which have been made with that Company. The noble Lord spoke of a Commission of Inquiry to examine into the system of Government in India. I do not think that he indicated whether the constitution of the Indian Council would be one of the subjects of inquiry.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The inquiry will embrace the whole of the constitution of the Government of India.
    MR. J. K. CROSS: I cannot offer any objection to such a proposal. Everyone would be much interested in such an inquiry; and I have no doubt that it would result in great good. I trust that it will also include an inquiry into the status and position of the local Armies in India. That is an inquiry which I should like to see carried out as fully as possible. There was a Commission of Inquiry a short time ago at Simla, and it reported in favour of considerable changes, which changes were considered in this country; but it was decided that it was not desirable at the time to go into them. It was decided, in fact, that no considerable change should then be made. I am myself of opinion that when the state of our Indian Army comes to be inquired into thoroughly, it will be found that some branches are not so efficient as we could wish, and on that ground I welcome the statement of the noble Lord that the inquiry will be general.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHUHCHILL): It will include the Army.
    MR. J. K. CROSS: I hope it will include an inquiry into the status and position of the three local Armies of India. The noble Lord has intimated that considerable expense was incurred by us in not going on with the Frontier Railway as rapidly as we might have done. He tells us that among the alterations made since the Budget is one which involves an expenditure of £1,180,000 for increased rapidity of construction of the Scinde-Pishin Line, storage of railway material, and construction of temporary line to the head of the Bolan Pass. I think that the noble Lord, only a few days ago, in reply to a Question, said that a considerable amount of material was now being stored at Quetta for the purpose, under certain conditions, of continuing the railway to Candahar. I hope it will not be necessary to lay down that line, although it may, to a certain extent, have been sanctioned during the tenure of Office of the late Government; but if we strengthen our position at Quetta—if we make communications direct to Quetta, and complete the line of Fron-
    1322
    tier communication which I ventured to describe to the House on the 23rd of March last, and strengthen ourselves along the whole of the Indus Valley line of defence—it appears to me that that is the best way in which we can meet any possible advance that may be made against us. This is the true line of defence for the Government of India against any complications which may arise. Our line of Frontier defence will then extend from Peshawur to Kurrachee, with a covering line from the Indus to Quetta; and if that line of defence were made impregnable, it appears to me that it would be a better line than any of those proposed by the former Conservative Government. Although the noble Lord has spoken with regret of the abandonment of the scientific Frontier by the late Government when they took Office, I may say that it is not correct to say that it was abandoned by us, but that it was practically demolished when Sir Louis Cavagnari was murdered at Cabul. I do not know whether it is necessary to go further into the statements which have been made by the noble Lord. In the efforts which he wishes to see made for economy I entirely and heartily concur. With the protests he has made against the policy of the Marquess of Ripon in regard to the reduction of taxation I cannot in the least agree, because, considering the surpluses of which he has spoken, I am certain that no Governor General having those surpluses in hand would have thought of putting them by for the purpose of providing a fund for meeting any future military measures. In India we are, as the noble Lord has observed, in a very grave and serious position, although it is hard to say whether the noble Lord regards it as very serious or very dangerous. From the beginning of his speech it might have been thought clear that the noble Lord was impressed with the difficulties of the position; but towards the end of the exceedingly bitter Party attack which he made upon the late Government he seemed to veer completely round, and to give in his adhesion to the present financial state of India as being perfectly sound and solid. No doubt, we have grave responsibilities with regard to India. The Dependency is one which, under any circumstances, must tax the energies and ability of any statesman at the helm of

    1323
    the State. In that country, upon the remnants of a civilization old and strange and well-nigh passed away, but not forgotten, we are striving to plant the customs and culture of the West. In that country new thoughts are entering the minds of men who for ages have only sought how they might earn their bread from day to day. These men as yet are dumb. They have no representation here; but everybody can see that in a future, not remote, they must and will be heard. On this point the noble Lord has spoken very eloquently; and I can only say that I hope his anticipations may be realized. I thank the Committee for having listened to these few and imperfect remarks. In conclusion, I wish again to enter my protest against the extraordinary method the noble Lord has taken of bringing forward, under cover of an Indian Financial Statement, a bitter partizan attack upon his Predecessors in the Indian Government. I will only express a hope that in the future we may revert to a policy which would be better for England and hotter for India.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Sir Arthur Otway, when you and I listened to the gloomy description by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India of the state of the finance of India, our thoughts unavoidably turned to the years 1859 and 1860, when the bankruptcy of India was fully expected owing to the vast expenditure caused by the Mutiny of the Bengal Army and to the loss of Revenue from the disturbed state of the country. But India recovered from its then financial embarrassments after incurring a Debt by the Mutiny of about £35,000,000. In 1862 the Accounts showed a surplus of Income over Expenditure. Since then the surpluses and deficiencies of the ordinary Accounts may be said to have balanced each other; and I hope that with careful control over the outgoings we may look forward to a future surplus, instead of to the large deficiency prognosticated by the noble Lord. But, in spite of the anxious and desponding forebodings we have heard to-night, I was delighted to hear that the noble Lord spoke in hopeful terms of the possibility of carrying on the Government without the necessity of resorting to increased taxation. I was delighted to hear the assurance, for if my hon. Friend the Member for Ork-
    1324
    ney (Mr. Laing) was in his place, he would be able to toll the Committee of the strong feeling entertained by Lord Canning against adding to the burdens of the people of India. To both my hon. Friend (Mr. Laing) and myself Lord Canning repeatedly asserted that he would prefer risking danger from having a small but less costly Army, than face the great danger which would be general throughout India from heavy taxation. To this view I give my adherence. I believe that our rule is in greater danger from financial causes than from internal or external disturbances. Amongst the several openings for additional sources of income, the noble Lord spoke of the Salt Tax; this was on the idea that within the last few years this tax had been so lightened as to lower the price of salt to the people of India by 28 per cent; and though from the noble Lord's words I understood him to imply that this Salt Tax would not be raised, yet I feel called upon to urge not only to abstain from raising the price of an article consumed by the poorest classes, but, if possible, to try and still further reduce the present rate of two rupees a maund of 82 pounds weight, or 54 rupees a ton. I submit this claim the more confidently, because the assumed reduction in price of 28 per cent is applicable only to Bengal; there the price was lowered, but the cost was largely increased in Madras and Bombay. There, the gross income derived from salt is stated at £2,755,348; whilst in the rest of India the amount is only £3,422,433—that is, the population of the two Presidencies being47,000,000, whilst that of the rest of India is 152,000,000, shows a great inequality in the incidence of this tax, and against the people of Madras and Bombay. But it is not alone the Salt Tax which bears heavily on the people of Madras and Bombay; but generally all the eight important heads of Revenue yield more ratably from the two divisions than from the seven other divisions of India. The tabular statement in the Finance Accounts of 1862–3 show that in ratio to 1,000 of the population the two divisions yield £284, and to every 1,000 square miles £51,096, whereas in the seven other divisions the ratio is £161 to 1,000 population, and of only £40,348 to 1,000 square miles. I may also add that dear salt is more heavily felt in

    1325
    Madras and Bombay, because of the people's food needing this article more than in other parts of India. I would, then, earnestly remind the noble Lord that besides this excessive ratio of general taxation the people of the two Presidencies are deserving of liberal treatment, because at one period of our rule this Salt Tax did not exist in Madras and Bombay; and it was only put on because Bengal, then a lightly taxed part of India, had borne it. In the present state of the finances, I cannot expect my years of advocacy of free salt to be now accepted. But even in this dark era of finance I continue to urge that exemption. I believe that a sacrifice of the £6,500,000 which the Salt Tax yields would be a measure both politically and financially sound. The people might then justly say that they eat the salt of the great Government free of price and in abundance. The consumption of salt which would result from people and cattle using it in abundance would create a vast traffic throughout India; there is no other article which would be so generally transported as salt. Indeed, the great sources from whence salt would be obtained—I mean Bombay, Madras, Bengal, Samberlake in Central India, and the salt mines of the Punjab, are all centres from which salt would be sent to all the nooks and corners of India. I urge cheapness, by freedom from taxation, because salt would be sent in vast quantities beyond our Frontiers. Then the savage and wild tribes would be conciliated to our rule; intercourse and with it trade would expand, so that peace within and friendly feelings abroad would be created. In this recommendation I may add that I specially refer to Afghanistan and to the Russian Frontier, where the salt lakes previously supplying the Afghans with salt are now monopolized by Russia; and by this possession a serious pressure may be expected to be applied by Russia on the neighbouring people of Afghans and Turcomans. I must add that there is no measure more useful for a powerful influence on Russian aggression than that of counteracting their desire for trade. The history of Russian military progress is that of progress in trade, only the trade precedes the advance of the troops. It is the traders who spur on the advance of soldiers, and I must allow that the Russians are most persevering. In 1812,
    1326
    when occupying Shanghai, the artillerymen found good Russian blue cloth in the shops for a military jacket; and when I opened Shanghai for trade in 1843, the Russian cloth was then on sale, but necessarily withdrawn when our cheaper cloths came in competition. I earnestly urge that our salt and our railway charges be lessened, so as to counteract Russian trade. I am not quite satisfied with the way the noble Lord spoke of the reduction of the Sea Customs Duties. By mentioning the net amount now credited to the Income, the loss by the abolition of these duties is made to appear very large; whereas, by curtailing the gross receipts now and formerly, the difference is not so great. The discrepancy is caused by the charges for collecting the Sea Customs not being levied in ratio with the duties taken off. This is a defect which ought to have been remedied by the Secretary of State and his Council. But I may plead in favour of the wise measure of nearly making India a free port that, consequent on the removal of duties from nearly all articles of trade, the bulk of trade and its value have greatly extended, and are yearly extending, so that India is now better able to meet the annually increasing payments at home. From this view there is good cause for congratulation, and with well-deserved praise to the Marquess of Ripon and Sir Evelyn Baring, who carried into full effect the measures which were commenced by Lord Lytton and Sir John Strachey. The part of the noble Lord's speech in which I am naturally deeply interested is in regard to the roads, railways, and fortifications for the defence of our Frontier. With regard to the lines of communication, I am in favour of their being multiplied to all reasonable extent, and so laid out as to lead along the Afghan Frontier, with branches to the mouths of the Passes. I believe these Passes to be many in number, and as yet all are not known. The nature of the defensive works I am anxious about. At present the idea is conveyed from India that large forts needing the occupation of bodies of troops are intended. Besides distrusting the soundness of plans for such extensive works, I challenge the policy of standing on the defensive. I draw a distinction between great fortified places and small redoubts. The latter should be many in number to

    1327
    be held by small bodies of troops, and of such a size as to store ammunition and other stores for the current use of the troops immediately dependent on the depots. I wish, however, to raise my voice against locking up large bodies of troops in big forts. I beg of the noble Lord to recall to his mind the progress of troops in Asia. The many nations—Greeks, Romans, Russians—have seldom stood on the defensive. History tells us that when the advance ceased the downfall began. Our military history of India, as well as that of Russia, teaches that the best means of defence are offensive movements. I may mention our attack on Delhi during the Mutiny as a remarkable instance of the advantage of offensive warfare. The bold measure of attacking Delhi with wholly insufficient means, as compared with the force inside Delhi, was our safety. It gave time for more troops to assemble before Delhi, so that, whilst inspiriting the people of the Punjab and dispiriting the mutineers inside Delhi, we were able by this daring attack to break the neck of the Mutiny before reinforcements arrived from home. I do not raise objections to the proposal of the noble Lord for the formation of an intrenched camp in the Pishin Valley, provided the place is healthy. I hold this opinion as being in some respect conditional on the works being such as a small body of troops could defend, and thus set free the mass of the Army for offensive operations. Our camps in India have hitherto become great cantonments, into which large numbers of Natives have flocked, no doubt with benefit to ourselves; but this advantage has been injurious by lessening the mobility of the force in camp. I advocate the extension of our camp as close to the frontier of Candahar as may be possible. It is very desirable to be able to move on Herat with promptness: and with the improvements now in progress at that fortress I have no doubt—from what Eldred Pottinger, who successfully defended Herat for 10 months did against a Russian attack—but that the troops of the Ameer could easily hold the fort till our Army reached it in succour. The most important part of the speech of the noble Lord, in a military point of view, was that relating to the Army. The improvements proposed are a Reserve, an increase of one squadron
    1328
    to each of the regiments of Native Cavalry of Bengal and Bombay, and to raise three additional regiments in Bengal and Bombay; also to raise five additional battalions of Goorkhas. The noble Lord also referred to the necessity of adding to our European Force, and complained of this portion of our Army having been kept incomplete to the extent of 10,000, and that £100,000 had been paid by India to induce the European soldiers entitled to discharge to volunteer to continue to serve in India. As regards this payment, I protest against India being charged. The bargain with the Home Government is to keep the Indian garrison complete and effective. This guarantee has repeatedly been broken. This failure is not special to one Party, but to all the Governments of England. The European troops in India have repeatedly fallen below their fixed strength, and at the present time there are 2,000 European Infantry wanting to complete. India made a great mistake when it confided to the War Office and Exchequer of England the sole duty of keeping up the Force required for the Indian garrison. It would be a prudent precaution to resume from the War Office the charge of the depôts and troops needed to be kept at home for the maintenance of the garrison. India could then add, at a small cost, such additional strength as may provide for the efficiency of the Forces required for the defence of India. As regards additional European troops, I advise, in preference, an improvement in the present Establishment. The Artillery batteries should be raised to eight guns, the same as those of Russia; the nine Cavalry regiments can easily be formed into three squadrons, each of 150 effective troopers; and the 50 battalions of Infantry into six companies each, with 125 effective privates in a company. The squadrons, batteries, and companies would then be much more effective in officers, non-commissioned officers, corporals, and lance corporals. Past experience has shown that in warfare in Asia the completeness of companies and squadrons is of vital importance. In the event of an increase of European troops, I suggest that independent bodies of Infantry and Cavalry should be formed. I mean that separate companies of Infantry and squadrons of Cavalry, each of 150 effective privates, be formed, with sufficient officers and

    1329
    other ranks, to enable them to act independently. Regiments of Cavalry and battalions of Infantry, by their organization are ill-adapted for detachment duty. I well remember Lord Clyde's last words to me in 1860, when I parted with him on his return home; he specially desired me to remind Lord Canning of the importance of discipline by calling in the then many detached European companies, to give them headquarters, and thereby maintain efficiency. With regard to the Native troops being increased, I much regret the omission of the Madras Army. But if Sir Frederick Roberts has failed, I cannot expect my words to have influence in correcting this unfairness. I do not gainsay the numerical increase of the Goorkhas; but I would have wished to have heard of the existing battalions being improved. I believe in the necessity for more European officers; on them must rest the efficiency of the Native troops in action. The late failure of the 17th Poorbeahs at Suakin may be attributed to deficiency of European officers. So also in other instances; but by making this increase the organization of the Native corps would be so improved as that their duties in India should be diminished and their training greatly bettered. There is one change which I trust will be made, and that is a considerable addition to the pay of the ranks of the Native troops. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) stated last year that for 100 years the pay of the Native Army had not been changed. But though in the main correct, he might have said that the pay of some ranks had within the 100 years been lessened; and if the noble Lord will refer to the Accounts of 1786 in the Library of the House he will find that the rates of pay of the Native ranks of the Bengal Army were in several instances much higher than the current rate. I do not for the first time express this opinion, because after the Mutiny I entertained and made known the like opinion to Lord Canning. I did not do so in writing, because I felt that it would be advisable not to give hopes which might not be realized. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing), then Finance Minister, approved of the increase. Some improvements were made after I left India, but not sufficient in my opinion. Since then greater need exists for this improvement, con-
    1330
    sidering the additions made during the past 25 years to the pay of the European soldier. I may add that the great increase of trade has cut off from the Army many classes who made war a profession. I would also wish to see greater encouragement given to induce European officers to acquire the Frontier languages as well as those of India, the knowledge that several hundred officers had a speaking and perhaps a writing acquaintance with the Turcoman and Afghan languages would have a beneficial effect on the Russian Government. An acquaintance with the topography as well as the geography of the Frontier of Afghanistan and Russia must show that if necessary our officers could in case of need be as aggressive as the Russians have been and will be. I do not hesitate to state that the only influence that can be successfully applied to keep the Russians within bounds is a knowledge of our power to act offensively. The Germans know well that it is their great Army on the Russian Frontier which deters Russian officers from disturbing the Frontier between the two countries. I have followed with attention the financial details of the noble Lord; and though I cannot agree to the extreme views of our Expenditure. I yet consider the statement sufficiently alarming to justify anxiety, and to need all the possible economies mentioned by the noble Lord. I particularize the Civil Expenditure as worthy of control. I have repeatedly pointed out the extravagance, yearly on the increase, in this branch. From all that has been said, I understand that our preparations will require an expenditure of capital of about £10,000,000 for roads, railways, redoubts, small arms, guns, and stores; but, these once laid in, then the sum of £2,000,000 for the Army will maintain our troops in a state of great efficiency. Now, whilst warning the noble Lord against extravagant outlay on stores, I think I am justified in saying that the proposed outlay is not so large as to frighten us—at all events, as the noble Lord is young, I am confident that he will not become faint of heart.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had proved that he was a Rupert of Debate, and he would have shown himself a great power in regard to financial matters if he had confined him-

    1331
    self to a Financial Statement, and to the eloquent appeal he had made on behalf of India for the sympathetic interest of Englishmen in Indian affairs. If the noble Lord had confined himself to the observations he had made upon those points, he (Sir George Campbell) would have had nothing but praise and coincidence of opinion to express. But he must say it did seem to him to be a pity that the noble Lord should have employed his genius with such brilliancy, and, he might almost say, with such effect, in a bad cause. It was much to be regretted that the noble Lord had attacked the Marquess of Ripon as he had done. The comparison he had drawn between Lord Lytton and the Marquess of Ripon was a very unhappy one, for whatever the faults of the Marquess of Ripon were—and every man had his faults—and although he might have been imprudent in parting too hastily with the resources of the country, whatever fault might be found with him for the sacrifice he had made of the finances of India, and in not making adequate provision for the protection of the North-West Frontier, the Marquess of Ripon was by no means a sleepy man. If he had been sleepy in regard to the North-West Frontier, and in some other respects, his policy was infinitely preferable to that of Lord Lytton, who had involved them in an expensive war that cost £20,000,000, and had probably brought about their present complications with Russia. Those complications were due, in a great measure, to their attacks upon Afghanistan, and to the hatred which had been engendered against them among the Afghan tribes in consequence. He thought that Lord Lytton had been most unfortunate and unwise in bringing about that Campaign. He would always maintain the opinion that that war was wrong and unjustifiable. Therefore, if the noble Lord objected to the policy of the Marquess of Ripon in connection with the North-West Frontier, that could hardly be regarded as an unmitigated evil, and the Marquess of Ripon had undoubtedly turned Lord Lytton's constant deficits into surpluses; he had materially developed the resources of India, and had succeeded in securing the goodwill of the people of that country. He (Sir George Campbell) maintained that it was much better to pursue a policy of that kind in em-
    1332
    ploying the finances of India, than in guarding against dangers which had not yet arrived. There was another point in which the Secretary of State seamed to contradict himself. He had taunted the Marquess of Ripon with having rashly abandoned the resources of the country, whereas he claimed credit to Lord Lytton for having so dealt with the Customs Duties of India that the first of Lord Lytton's Successors was compelled to abandon them altogether. He could not understand how it was that the noble Lord looked upon a policy of that kind as a matter in which Lord Lytton deserved praise, while, at the same time, he censured the Marquess of Ripon for getting rid of the Customs Revenue of India. He (Sir George Campbell) was inclined to think that the policy of the Marquess of Ripon, even in regard to the North-West Frontier, was far preferable to the King Stork policy of his Predecessor. He was afraid that some day or other Party polities in this country would exercise a dangerous influence in India. The noble Lord wound up his speech by expressing confidence in the resources of India; but the noble Lord's statement in regard to Indian finance was an extremely gloomy one. He had told the Committee that there was not only a largo deficit at the present time, but that they must expect to have deficits for the future. He was afraid that the noble Lord was right in that assertion; and although he did not blame the noble Lord, who had only been six weeks in Office, for not grappling with this great and difficult problem, it was certainly contrary to all sound financial principles to make no provision for the present deficit, but merely to carry it forward to next year. No doubt the noble Lord had not yet had time to consider the matter fully; but he hoped that when he had had time to apply his mind to the subject he would come to the conclusion, next year, that it was not right to hand over a deficit from one year to another without any attempt to provide for it. He was glad to hear the noble Lord express a strong opinion that there should be a Parliamentary inquiry into the affairs of India. He (Sir George Campbell) certainly thought there ought to be a full and thorough inquiry, and he endorsed the arguments of the noble Lord in favour of inquiry. His only

    1333
    doubt was whether it should be a strictly Parliamentary inquiry, or whether it should not be an inquiry by Royal Commission on which they might be able to appoint some of the best and strongest men in the country. He (Sir George Campbell) strongly deprecated any policy which would involve the conversion of the difficulties of India into Party questions; and he certainly thought that if the Secretary of State in future was to follow the example of the noble Lord and make such a bitter attack upon former Viceroys very serious difficulties and dangers might result. He was sorry that he had incited the indignation of the noble Lord, because he had happened to laugh when the noble Lord used the somewhat novel phrase of "Britain and Ireland." He wished to say at once that he had no intention of deriding the influence of Irishmen in Indian affairs. On the contrary, he agreed with the noble Lord in thinking that India had derived very great benefit from the services of Irishmen; he would be most ungrateful if he were not to admit that India owed very much to Irishmen. He himself, in the work he had been able to do in India, owed very much to the assistance he had received from Irishmen; and it had often struck him that there was something connected with the tenure of land in Ireland which made Irishmen peculiarly useful in India. There had been no Viceroy in whoso labours he had had greater sympathy, and who had administered the Government of India to greater advantage to the country, than the Earl of Mayo, under whom he had served a good many years ago. He believed that the Vice-royalty of the Earl of Mayo in India was one of the best Administrations that bad ever existed in that country. The Earl of Mayo was an Irishman, and at that moment there was a very large proportion of Irishmen in the Indian Service. Many of the great reforms which had been carried out in the Province of Bengal had been mainly due to Irishmen, and they were at that moment assisting the present Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in a most excellent and admirable manner. He hoped that after those remarks the noble Lord would acquit him of ingratitude towards Irishmen for their services in India. He thoroughly acknowledged the justice of what the noble Lord had said, that if
    1334
    there was to be a Parliamentary inquiry into the machinery of Government in India and the administration of affairs in that country, note must be taken of the opinion of the educated Native men to whom the noble Lord had referred. They were persons whose opinions ought to be fully understood, and who were entitled to be listened to. Indeed, too great weight could not be attached to the representation of the views of the Native population of India. He trusted that all classes of the people of India would be represented in the coming inquiry, and that they would be fully and fairly heard. As regarded the immediate question of Indian finance, he confessed that he had always been something of a pessimist, and he had often expressed doubts as to the propriety of the fair-weather policy which had been pursued. He was of opinion that they had not sufficiently provided for a time of great difficulty and disturbance. A time of disturbance had now arrived, and he could not say that he had been altogether unprepared for the gloomy view which the noble Lord took of Indian affairs. He had always thought that too much had been made of the Russian scare; but a period of difficulty had now come upon them, and already the country had been put to an enormous expense in that direction. It was better for the country to be called upon to spend money now rather than to have spent it prematurely some years ago. The position of Afghanistan was a very large and difficult question, and he would not attempt to discuss it at the present moment. He would only say that, as a matter of history, it was a hazardous policy to attempt to set up Afghanistan as a Kingdom. There would always be a great danger in having a country like that between our territory and that of a powerful European nation; with one side turned towards us, and the other towards Russia. In this matter England, he said, had shown that she was sensitive, and Russia had taken advantage of it. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India that it was desirable that they should now strengthen their Indian Frontier; but he hoped the noble Lord would bear in mind the warnings of Indian military officers on that subject, and he also hoped that the experience which Members of the present Government had had with

    1335
    respect to Afghanistan would counsel them to free the country as much as possible from the difficulties which would result from having to do with that nest of hornets. He agreed with the noble Lord that the Indian Army must be permanently strengthened. He had always said that the Indian Army was very small for the vast Dominion, population, and interests which it had to protect and control; and now that their Indian Empire was almost in contact with that of Russia he said it was absolutely indispensable that the Indian Army should be increased. He would not, however, detain the Committee on that question, with which he did not feel himself fully competent to deal. But he did say that it was a right move to establish a Native Army Reserve in India. He had always found and urged that the old Native soldiers and pensioners were very trustworthy and reliable men, and he believed that they would be their best aid in time of difficulty in the country, and constitute a source of strength there; and, therefore, as far as he could judge, the proposal seemed to be a wise and proper one so far as the Infantry were concerned. With regard to the Cavalry, he was not quite so sure—indeed, he had always thought that the Cavalry in India were a very expensive and not very valuable force. He was rather inclined to think that the proper thing to be done was to mobilize the Infantry and keep up a force so equipped that they would be easily movable in time of need. But then there was the question of money. An increase of men meant, of course, an increased expenditure, and he agreed with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Sir George Balfour) who had just spoken in saying that the pay of the Native soldiers was insufficient. There could be no doubt that a very large additional expenditure of money would be necessary, and the question was, how was that expenditure to be provided for. The noble Lord had laid great stress on reduction and economy. No one more than himself desired to see that there should be both reduction and economy; but it was always to be remembered that however they reduced expenditure on the one side there were always fresh demands to meet the growing expenses on the other. But the noble Lord had
    1336
    spoken of a reduction on account of Public Works paid for out of Revenue. He did not agree with the noble Lord in the views he had expressed with regard to that subject, which was one concerning which he had, in his opinion, made an entirely false comparison, between the administration of Lord Lytton and the administration of the Marquess of Ripon. What Lord Lytton had done was to stop during the Afghan War all the useful public works that were going forward in India. They knew that that could only be the source of temporary reduction, and Lord Lytton had stopped those great works in the most unfortunate way; because, in order to carry them out, large establishments had been created and maintained; and Lord Lytton, by stopping them suddenly, had those large establishments thrown upon his hands. When the reduction took place an enormous increase of expenditure was incurred for pensions and gratuities and other matters inseparable from operations of the kind; and in the end, when after two or three years the India Government was obliged to carry on the public works, the establishment had to be again increased at an additional cost. Therefore, it seemed to him that to stop the carrying out of public works was a thoughtless, uneconomical, and wrong manner of proceeding. It seemed to him that in the carrying out of large public works they ought, so to speak, to cut the coat according to the cloth, and that if they desired to carry them on at all they should do so at a uniform rate with a uniform establishment, and not indulge in a policy of see-saw— that was to say, a policy of reducing them at one time and increasing them at another, as was the case under the administration of Lord Lytton before that of the Marquess of Ripon began. Roads, bridges, irrigation works, and works of that kind were things that if they were started to-day must be carried on to-morrow; and, therefore, he did not agree with the policy indicated by the noble Lord. He was also of opinion that the policy of cutting down the Provincial Budgets was a most disastrous policy, because by so doing he believed they could not have efficiency and justice to those Departments. When he was in Bengal he, being inclined to economy and prudence, had saved a good deal of money against a rainy day; but when

    1337
    the famine came the whole of the savings were swept away. What was the result? His Successor spent every farthing of Revenue, and there was nothing saved at all. He agreed in thinking that the statement of the noble Lord, and the statement of Sir Auckland Colvin, Finance Minister, were very gloomy indeed, notwithstanding the hopeful expressions with which the noble Lord had concluded his speech. He had read the statement of Sir Auckland Colvin, and he found that, while it alluded to the reduction of Revenue, it did not make any reference to increased taxation. But he thought they would be obliged to resort to that. But he (Sir George Campbell) said that if the Licence Tax was extended, they would have, honestly, to make it an Income Tax, because that was a tax which would hit the rich as well as the poor, even if they did not go the length of having a graduated Income Tax, under which the rich out of their possessions should pay more than the poor in their poverty. He had often commented on the policy which abolished the Import Duties on Manchester goods; and as long as the Rice Duty remained as it was, he, for one, would not have sacrificed those duties. With regard to the Salt Tax, he considered that it was impossible to increase that; he said it was a delusion to speak of that tax as having been very much reduced. The Salt Tax, as a whole, had not been reduced, but equalized, and was very heavy still. If they compared the Revenue from that source with what it was a few years ago, it would be seen that, while in one part of India it had been largely increased, in another part it had been correspondingly diminished. The noble Lord, in making a comparison of the present Revenue of India with what it was 10 years ago, had spoken of the elasticity of the Indian Revenue. He (Sir George Campbell) had heard a good deal about that before; but when he came to the figures that had been laid before them that day, he could not help remarking that the whole increase of £2,000,000 found to have arisen in 10 years was due to the increase in Public Works alone. The net increase on those works was £2,000,000.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The amount charged as increase of Revenue on Pub-
    1338
    lic Works is £566,000. The two must be taken together.
    SIR GEOEGE CAMPBELL: Exactly; and the result was that there was no increase of Revenue at all, except from this source. Now, with regard to the Accounts. The noble Lord's speech had been devoted to high finance and politics; but he must ask the Committee to come down a little and consider the Accounts. He wished to express the opinion that he had expressed many times before, that the Accounts were presented to the House in far too complicated a form. It was almost impossible for Members of Parliament, save those who took an active interest in Indian affairs, to understand them. In these Accounts everything was stated in gross; items were included under the head of Revenue which were not Revenue at all, but sources of Expenditure, and they also mixed up Imperial with Provincial finance in a manner which had led to a great deal of confusion. He would illustrate his remarks by referring to one item—namely, the Public Works. There was the statement that under that head there was an estimated surplus of £566,000; but when they came to look into the matter they found that the whole surplus disappeared and became a deficit, because there was the loss on Exchange, which for 1884–5 was £1,873,000, and for 1885–6 £1,900,000. Those things were stated in the Accounts in a manner so misleading as to suggest a surplus, while a deficit really existed. He did not say that there was a real loss, but they must not run away with the belief that there was a surplus in hard cash. Then there was the subject of railways, to which the noble Lord had devoted a short portion of his speech. He (Sir George Campbell) had always been in favour of a liberal extension of railways in India; he thought that where there were no proper roads, and where road-making was expensive, the railways might with great advantage be extended considerably. But he looked with alarm on the present programme with regard to railways put forward by the Indian Works Department. The gentleman who was responsible for that had set his teeth on the construction of certain railways in India; and great care was, in his opinion, necessary in order to insure that his scheme should not be sanctioned en bloc. He found, by the

    1339
    Finance Minister's Statement, that he expected to spend in 1885–6 upwards of £8,000,000 on railways upon State responsibility, apart from those railways which were constructed by private enter-prize. That seemed to him to be a very large sum; it greatly exceeded the amount which the Committee of the House of Commons contemplated would be so expended, and he thought that the proposal must be regarded with concern by all. He admitted that the policy of the Earl of Dalhousie, who mapped out an extensive scheme of State Guaranteed Railways, had been in the main a success. The State had paid very dearly for it, however; but, although the railways had probably cost double what they might have cost, he considered they were worth the money spent upon them. But now that they had gained so much experience in those matters, and had an enormous establishment capable of making railways, with men experienced in their construction, he doubted very much that it was the true policy to employ those guaranteed contractors in the work. The Government ought especially to have control over the railway rates. He was one of those who thought that the rates charged by the Railway Companies in India were not nearly cheap enough. He contended that they would not do justice to the trade and resources of India until they had a system under which they could reduce the railway charges to a minimum. His experience was that railways must always be to a great extent monopolies; and if they were to have the present system and not trust to private enterprize—if the Government were to guarantee interest and debt, it would be much better that they should have complete control, so that there might not be undue competition on one side, and monopoly on the other. He was not certain that they had gained the desired object by submitting themselves to the conditions which the promoters of certain guaranteed lines had imposed on them. They might be very good and able men; but when a promoter was disposing of other people's money he was not always as careful as he ought to be. He did not like promoters to handle Government money, and, as he had said, he preferred that the system should be laid down by the Government. There was between Cal-
    1340
    cutta and Madras a part of India still unexplored, and which was to that day in the possession of the Aborigines. He thought it would be right for the State—cautiously, of course—to develop a railway in that district, but not too fast. He hoped that would not be lost sight of by the noble Lord. It was only the other day that he put a Question in the House with reference to another line of railway; but the only answer he received was that the noble Lord traversed all the facts and circumstances—there was no reply to his Question. He asked whether, in view of the depressed condition of Indian trade, and in view of the great difficulties of Indian finance, the Government were going to guarantee lines which would compete with the Government lines already established? He thought the new line would come into direct opposition with the East India Railway on the one side, and with other railways on the other side. It would interfere with their through traffic, and seriously injure the other lines. He did not know whether the noble Lord had applied his acute mind to the subject of railways in America; but if he had he would see that the through lines had of late years been cutting each other's throats in consequence of this competition for traffic—he referred to the lines running from the coast to the centre of the country. No doubt the public got the benefit, but it certainly seemed to be a suicidal policy so far as the railways themselves were concerned. He hoped that state of things would not be repeated in India, and that the noble Lord would take care that he did not yield too much to the promoters of those lines. As those railways were a very important subject, he thought it right to say as much as this with regard to them; but there were a lot of other matters of importance in connection with Indian finance, the details of which he would not attempt to go into. He would only say this—that if the noble Lord were in Office another year, and he hoped that he would not be in Office unless he joined the Radicals, and he had some hopes of that, he trusted he would apply his genius to the subject of Indian finance. If he did, no doubt great benefit would result; but he also felt that the task was one of enormous difficulty. It appeared to him that the noble Lord in his speech that night had made out the

    1341
    difficulties and dangers of Indian finance a good deal more strikingly than he had made out the bright side of the case. If he were in Office next year, it would not do for him to tide over his difficulties by balances and loans; but he would find it necessary to have to resort in some shape or other to increased taxation or to Revenue to meet the deficit which would exist. At any rate, he (Sir George Campbell) felt that this question was a very difficult and gloomy one, and he hoped that whoever was in Office he would attempt to grapple with the question.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he desired to say a few words with reference to the new Frontier railways designed in India. Hon. Members had recently had a map of the approved new Frontier lines placed in their hands by the Government; and he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, or his Representative at the present moment in the House, to two lines, and matters connected with them which he considered of vital importance. There were two distinct lines, one running South from Rawul Pindi and Kohat to Dehra Ismael Khan on the Indus, and the other running North from Mooltan to near the Indus nearly opposite Dehra Ismael Khan. There was no connection between those lines. They ran parallel with their Frontier, and, therefore, were probably the most difficult lines to defend. It was absolutely necessary, where a line of railway ran parallel with a Frontier, that the access to both extremes should be perfectly easy, because if the line was cut by an enemy at the North, and access to the South was rendered impossible by reason of a river intervening, the line, instead of being useful, was absolutely a danger. A bridge, therefore, over the Indus, connecting the line at Dehra Ismael Khan with the line opposite, was absolutely necessary. He also, having carefully studied the question, wished to call particular attention to another railway proposed by the Government—namely, the Quetta Railway, through the Pishin Yalley. That line, begun in 1879 and 1880 by the Government of the late Earl of Beacons-field, was stopped when the late Government came into power. In October, 1883, they, however, had given orders that it should be commenced again, and
    1342
    the coolness with which they looked upon the line in 1880 turned to red heat in January, 1884. In such hot haste did they recommence the line that at one time from 15,000 to 20,000 men were employed upon it, and during the whole of 1884 something like 17,000 men were employed upon it, and now they were told by the noble Lord that the line could not be completed till 1886. The noble Lord had made that statement the other day in answer to a Question addressed to him. If an ordinary amount of attention had been paid to it, and an ordinary amount of strength had been put upon it during those years, it would have been completed by this; but he (Captain Aylmer) was now informed by those who were constructing it that there was no possibility of its being completed so soon in consequence of the unhealthiness of the working men being unable to do anything on the lower end in the summer, or anything on the upper and in the winter. Turning from that, however, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider one point—namely, that, instead of stopping at Shibo as it was proposed to do at present, they should go 20 miles further to the top of the Kojak Range. The distance, as he said, was only about 20 miles; but it was a difficult piece of railway work, and if it were left until war actually broke out it would be almost impossible to construct it. But from the top of the Kojak Pass to Candahar would be a very simple piece of work—the gradient was an easy one. He would strongly recommend that to Her Majesty's Government. There was a more important point still to be dealt with The line from Quetta came down to the Indus to join the Mooltan line; but it did not join it, because a bridge was required. That bridge had been contemplated, and plans had been prepared. It had been designed. The engineer whose work it was seemed to have been desirous of having in it the greatest span of any bridge in the world. The piers had all been laid, and, at the present moment, they were unable to find a contractor who would undertake the making of the bridge. The necessity for that bridge was very great. During the grain season, when produce was coming down from the North-West Provinces, at the present moment, owing to the want of continu-

    1343
    ous railway communication, it had to be taken across the Indus in barges and then placed again on the railway for transit to Kurrachee, and this could only be accomplished by using the electric light. He would urge upon the Government the desirability of attempting to modify the model of the bridge, as no contractor would undertake its construction in its present form. Now he came to even a more important; point than either of those two which he had already touched upon—namely, the necessity of at once building a bridge over the Indus from Sukkur to Rohree. Without it the Lahore and Delhi railways would be entirely cut off from the railways on the Afghan side of the Indus. Without that bridge there could be no possible connection in any way, by railway or otherwise, between the Bombay or Madras Presidencies and the railways on the Afghanistan side. Any Army operating on the Frontier would, simply be protecting one-half of India, leaving the other half in the cold; and it would be evident that the difficulties of transhipment and carrying it from one side of the river to the other would be very great. Finally, when the Sukkur and Rohree Bridge was completed it would be necessary to make from the Indian end of the bridge a line to Ahmatebad on the Rajpootana Railway, as without it the Bombay and Madras Army would be entirely cut off from operating in Afghanistan. With that railway a Bombay or Madras Army would be equally serviceable on the Frontier as a Bengal Army. He only wished to call attention to those matters, and he was sure that, having done so, the noble Lord would bear them in mind.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Although the appearance of the Committee is not very encouraging for the purpose—that is, to induce one to make many lengthened observations—I am unwilling that the debate should close without entering somewhat a protest against the unusual course that has been adopted by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India in making his Statement on Indian Finance. The noble Lord, in the course of his speech, the ability of which I fully recognize, took the opportunity of interpolating some remarks which I am of opinion ought not to have found a place in a Financial Statement, and which were rather such
    1344
    as should have been made in a speech supporting a Vote of Censure on the late Viceroy and the late Administration of India. I think it is an extremely inconvenient and an extremely unfortunate course that observations of that sort, and an attack such as was made by the noble Lord, should have been introduced into an Indian Financial Statement. It has been the endeavour hitherto of those who are responsible for the Government of India in this House to avoid, on this occasion, at all events as much as possible, the introduction of controversial and Party politics. The occasion has been one upon which we have all endeavoured to elucidate, as far as possible, the facts of Indian finance; and it has been an occasion upon which various more or less valuable suggestions have been made by those who have had experience in Indian affairs, and the debate on the Indian Financial Statement has not generally shown any tendency whatever to degenerate into Party controversy. Well, Sir, I should think it very unfortunate if the practice were permanently departed from; and I think it would be very unfortunate indeed if the attention of the Committee were to be hereafter diverted from the facts and considerations bearing upon Indian finance to topics which, however interesting, are not, in my opinion, greatly calculated to conduce to the elucidation of this subject. But if topics of this sort are to be introduced, I think the Committee will understand that it would only be fair that they should be introduced after some fair warning and some fair notice given to those who are concerned in their discussion. When a Vote of Censure is proposed upon the conduct of any branch of the Administration—when a Government is attacked in respect of any part of its policy, that Government has at hand all the resources of official information; it has all the resources of its Offices behind it, and it is always more or less prepared to reply to any attack that can be made upon it. No Vote of Censure, according to my recollection, is ever proposed, and no attack is ever made upon a Government Department without previous Notice being given in this House, and to those against whom the attack is directed, in order to afford them an opportunity of preparing a defence to that attack. Well, Sir, that

    1345
    course has not been followed upon this occasion. Neither in public nor in private has the noble Lord thought fit to give the slightest intimation, as far as I am aware, either to the Marquess of Ripon, or to the late Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley), or the late Under Secretary (Mr. J. K. Cross), or to myself, who have been partially responsible for Indian administration, of his intention to arraign on this unusual occasion a great part of the policy of the Indian Government during the last five years. That seems to me to be a course of which I and my Friends have a right to complain. I do not, however, complain of it very much on personal grounds, because the Marquess of Ripon and the Earl of Kimberley, and other officials whose conduct has been attacked to-night, will have other opportunities, if they think it necessary to take advantage of them, which they can create for themselves to vindicate their reputation, and to reply in detail to the criticisms that have been passed upon them which I protest against. The reason why I think it necessary to protest against the course taken this evening concerns the public interest. I think that if attacks of this kind are to be made on such occasions as this it will be an inconvenient and unfortunate deviation from the ordinary practice. It would be far more consistent with the public interest that these attacks should be made after such Notice as would enable a reply to be given at the same time as the attack, so that the House and the country might judge without delay between those who attack and those who are placed on the defensive. I certainly do not intend to attempt to enter into a full vindication of that part of the policy of the Marquess of Ripon which has been arraigned by the noble Lord to-night. I have not the materials by me which would enable me to do so, and I have not had the opportunity of consulting recently with either the Marquess of Ripon or the Earl of Kimberley on these subjects; and I do not desire to enter upon what at the very best would be but a partial reply to the noble Lord. There are, however, one or two topics which the noble Lord has touched upon with regard to which it might be well that I should make one or two brief observations. The noble Lord entirely disapproved, as we were
    1346
    already aware that he did, the policy of the late Government in withdrawing from Candahar and in not completing the railway. Well, Sir, as to that, it might be sufficient for me to say that whatever may be the merits of our policy in that respect, we are not alone responsible for that. The subject was fully brought before the attention of Parliament, and, after a long debate, Parliament approved our conduct and made itself responsible for our policy.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): That policy was not before the House.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: All the facts were known to Parliament at the time of the withdrawal from Candahar. But I do not rest my case entirely upon the sanction given to our policy by Parliament. I believe now, as fully as I did at the time of the debate, that the policy followed by us was the right one, and I feel the strongest conviction that we should not be in the slightest degree in a better position to defend ourselves against any aggressive steps on the part of Russia towards India if that policy had not been followed. The noble Lord said that we are likely to be called upon to make in the present and succeeding years very great exertions, and to be involved in considerable pecuniary sacrifices. That is extremely probable and likely. I do not in the least deny it; but the fact that we are likely to have to make such exertions does not in the least prove that we should have been in a better position to make these exertions or incur these pecuniary sacrifices if we had spent two or three previous years in wasting money upon useless and unprofitable enterprizes. We believe that the continued occupation of Candahar would not only not have strengthened our position against any aggression on the part of Russia, but would have actually weakened our means of defence against such aggression. Whatever value may be attached to our alliance with Afghanistan—and I quite admit we could not base the safety of India entirely on the friendship of the Afghans—we held in 1881, and we hold still, that the love of the Afghans of independence, and the resistance which they are sure to offer to any attack from Russia upon that independence, are amongst the most important factors at our disposal for resisting any aggressive

    1347
    Russian designs against India, and we believe now, as we believed in 1881, that the possession and retention of Candahar, the annexation of Candahar, the paring away from the Afghan territory of one of the richest parts of it, would have inevitably and unalterably and permanently alienated all chance of the friendship of the Afghans from us. It was not within our power to undo all the mischief which had been done by the Governments of Lord Lytton and Viscount Cranbrook. It was not in our power to undo all the consequences of the war which, in our opinion, was unnecessarily waged by the Government of Lord Lytton on the people of Afghanistan. We are not in the slightest degree surprised to find even now the Afghan people, to a certain extent, suspicious, unfriendly, and jealous, and not disinclined to believe that we may harbour intentions towards them quite as hostile as any which the Russian Government may itself harbour. But that is not the consequence of the policy we have pursued. It is the consequence of the war that was waged by Lord Lytton—a policy which the noble Lord has thought fit to praise to-night. We did what we could to undo the effects of that unfortunate policy, and we believe the most important part of our action was retiring from Candahar to prove to the Afghans that we had no aggressive intentions against them. The noble Lord says that for five years we have seen Russia advancing in the direction of India, and that the Indian Government has taken no notice of that advance. He says that during this time the Marquess of Ripon and the Indian Government have been wrapped in slumber. Whatever may have been the defects of the policy of the Marquess of Ripon and his advisers, does the noble Lord or the Committee think that we should be in a better position to resist Russian aggression if we had wasted the resources of India and of this country during the last four years in a series of unprofitable wars with Afghanistan? And what guarantee will the noble Lord give us that if this policy of retaining possession of Candahar had been adopted we should not have been engaged in these wars? The noble Lord says it was a mistake to retire from Candahar.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I particularly
    1348
    said I would not on this occasion raise any question as to the policy of the abandonment of Candahar.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The noble Lord said he would not raise the question; but I heard the observations he made, and, in my opinion, they did raise the question of the mistake which he held had been committed in our retirement from Candahar. I say that that policy was right. We did not in the first instance retire from Candahar; we found ourselves committed to some extent to certain engagements which had been made by our Predecessors. We did not retire from these engagements until the circumstances had changed. But the retention of a Force in the neighbourhood of Candahar by the late Government led to a renewal of conflicts between the Afghans and the British Forces—between Ayoob Khan and ourselves. It is impossible for the noble Lord or his Friends to deny that if the policy we adopted in 1881 in withdrawing from Candahar had not been adopted we might have found ourselves engaged in a succession of these wars and in a succession of hostilities with the Afghan people. Well, Sir, therefore we consider that the policy we adopted in that respect is one which certainly would not diminish our power of self-defence against Russian aggression, but, on the contrary, would greatly increase it. The noble Lord has said that the suspension of railway communication with Quetta was bad policy. Now, the temporary suspension of that railway—for, as my hon. Friend (Mr. J. K. Cross) the other day showed, the railway was, all but a small portion of it, again taken up—was a part of the same policy and was dictated by those considerations which induced us to abandon Candahar; and, notwithstanding the contradiction of the noble Lord just now, we say that that was a policy which was before the House when the whole question was debated. We felt at that time, rightly or wrongly, that the announcement that the Indian Government had determined permanently to retain the district of Pishin would have an effect on the mind and temper of the Afghan people similar to the retention of Candahar—of the same character, though not, perhaps, so pronounced. We believed, from the best information obtainable at the time, that the Pishin district formed a part of Af-

    1349
    ghanistan, and we believed that the retention or permanent occupation of that district would be considered by the Afghan people as a plain sign and indication of our intention to make further aggression on Afghan territory, and to establish a footing in Afghanistan which could be further advanced if occasion served. Therefore, while not insisting peremptorily on withdrawal, as in the case of Candahar, we intimated to the Indian Government that in our opinion it would not be desirable to announce any intention of framing their policy upon the permanent retention of the district of Pishin. But a large discretion was given to the Indian Government as to the time when the withdrawal from Pishin should take place. The Indian Government urged reasons why that withdrawal should not be a hasty or precipitate one. No pressure was placed on the Indian Government, and the retirement from Pishin was postponed; but it was found in practice that the occupation of that district was quietly acquiesced in by the Afghan people and the Afghan Ruler. The Home Government did not put any pressure on the Indian Government to retire, and so the occupation has practically continued to the present time. As long as there was any doubt whether the district of Pishin should be permanently retained or not it would have been unwise to have proceeded with the railway. The completion of the railway was suspended pending the decision whether the district was to be permanently occupied or not; but no final decision as to the abandonment of that railway was ever announced, and it was open to the Indian Government, whenever it thought fit, to renew the proposal for the construction of that railway. When the time arrived that it was thought necessary for the safety of India that the railway should be further extended, that proposal was made by the Indian Government; no opposition was given to it by the Government at home, and the extension of the Pishin Railway was undertaken. But it does not appear to me to be at all clear, if the railway had been pushed on earlier, that it would not have been taken by the Afghans as an indication of aggressive intentions on our part, and would not have led to a renewal of those mischiefs and misfortunes which had been caused by the attack on Afghanistan,
    1350
    and which had only been partly removed by our retirement from Candahar. Then the noble Lord says that, notwithstanding the continued advance of the Russians, and the dangers that were threatening India during the whole of his administration, the Marquess of Ripon reduced the Native Army. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he read the Report of the important Commission on the Indian Army, of which Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir John Strachey, and others of high authority were prominent members? I believe, though I have not had an opportunity of referring to the Report of that Commission during this discussion, that that Commission, at the instance of Sir Frederick Roberts, proposed a much larger diminution of the Indian Army than was adopted by the Indian Government or sanctioned at home. And when the noble Lord makes the reduction of the Indian Army a subject of charge against the Marquess of Ripon, I would ask him whether he has obtained the authority of any Indian military expert for the assumption that the efficiency of the Indian Army has been impaired by this reduction? On the contrary, I believe it is held that the reductions have been made in the less efficient and less warlike portions of the Native Army, and that the efficiency of the more valuable and more fighting portions of that Army has been increased by the measures taken by the Marquess of Ripon's Government. And I should like to suggest for the consideration of the noble Lord that, while he is increasing the strength of the Native Cavalry and the Ghoorka regiments, and taking other measures which I do not desire to call in question, and when he is considering the additional expense thrown on the Indian resources by these measures, I would like to suggest to him that it is desirable again to recur to the recommendations of that Commission, and see whether a portion of the additional expense that will be incurred by these measures might not be met by some reductions of the less efficient and less valuable portions of the Native Army. Then the noble Lord says that the Marquess of Ripon and the Government at home allowed a deficiency of 10,000 men to exist in the British garrisons in India. The noble Lord must be perfectly aware that the existence of that deficiency was

    1351
    no part of the Marquess of Ripon's policy. The Marquess of Ripon and the Indian Government constantly remonstrated against it. The deficiency was caused, as every military Member of the House is aware, by the changes which took place in the administration of the Army at home, and by a miscalculation made as to the establishment necessary to provide proper reliefs for the Army in India. The very first thing I did when I assumed the administration of the War Office, finding that there was a very considerable deficiency in the Army in India, was to take measures, in concert with the Government of India, for repairing that deficiency—measures which have been to a considerable extent successful, and which it may be reasonably hoped will in a short time fill up the deficiency. Therefore, I say, it is extremely unfair to charge the Marquess of Ripon with a deliberate failure of his duties in regard to the deficiency in the British garrison, which it must be admitted for a time occurred. Now, the noble Lord has also attacked the financial policy of the Marquess of Ripon. He has said that, notwithstanding the threatening symptoms to which he adverted, the Marquess of Ripon's Government did not sufficiently insist upon economy, and that it made unwise remissions of taxation. The noble Lord will not be able to find any want of attention to economy so far as the Indian Government could effect it. What I suppose the noble Lord refers to is that on the return of peace and prosperity and increase of Revenue the arrangements which were made with the Provincial Governments were reverted to, and, in some cases, the original agreements with the Provincial Governments were revised upon more liberal terms. In fact, the policy that had been instituted by the Earl of Mayo, and which received the complete approval of Lord Lytton and Sir John Strachey, was reverted to, and a considerable sum was placed by the Government of India at the disposal of the Local Governments for the improvement of their administration and the development of the resources of the Provinces. Sir, I believe that that was a wise measure. I believe that a niggardly policy in India will never be a prosperous or permanently economical policy. I believe that what we have to rely upon, to a great
    1352
    extent, for the future finances of India, is the development of the resources of the Local Administrations, and that if the Local Administrations were too much starved in the expenditure of the funds they consider necessary for the development of the Provinces, it would be in vain to hope for an elastic or an increasing Revenue. Well, then, Sir, as to the remission of taxation, the noble Lord says that we reduced to an unwise extent the Customs Duty. That subject was one that was fully discussed in this House, and the policy was deliberately adopted by the Indian Government after full consideration. I believe that no wiser policy could have been adopted. It was a policy that Sir John Strachey, under Lord Lytton, had advocated. If there is anything satisfactory in Indian finance it is the gradual reduction which has taken place during a very considerable number of years in the charge which falls upon the Indian Revenue in respect of the interest of capital expended on public works. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) is perfectly well acquainted with the burdens upon Indian finances. But what has produced this great change, this great reduction of the burdens upon India? It has been the increased receipts from Indian railways, owing to the development of the resources of the country—owing to the increase of industry and trade in India. I maintain that it was a wise policy when the Government found itself in possession of a disposable surplus to relieve still further the strings of Indian industry, and to do that which must inevitably have the effect of increasing the trade of India, and thereby of increasing that Revenue which is derived from the receipts from railways constructed by the Government. That was the foundation of the policy of 1882–3. I believe that it was a wise policy; and I should like to know whether the noble Lord and his Colleagues think that policy, which was always advocated by the Marquess of Salisbury and Lord Lytton and by Sir John Strachey, ought not to have been adopted when the Government of India found itself in possession of means to adopt it; or whether he considers that we ought to have continued, during a period of prosperity, to resort to the old methods of taxation—methods which had been condemned by every Indian

    1353
    financier of eminence? The noble Lord also introduced into his speech a subject which I cannot conceive had any relation to the Indian financial question. The noble Lord said that the policy of giving to Natives of India a larger share in the administration, and a more effective control of their own affairs, was a wise and intelligent policy; but he objected, to the policy pursued by the Marquess of Ripon, because he said it was a stupid policy. It is quite impossible to argue against adjectives such as those employed by the noble Lord. The question was brought forward and discussed in the House, and I believe that the policy of the Marquess of Ripon, and the mode in which it was adopted, has received the assent of the House, and of the vast majority of the people outside this House. Will the noble Lord undertake to say that any considerable advance in the direction of carrying out that which he himself described as a wise and intelligent policy without raising a very strong and determined opposition from a very large section of Europeans in India—
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): Will the noble Marquess permit me to say that, with regard to the adjectives he has referred to, I only used words identical with what is the universal opinion among Natives and Europeans in India.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That is a very wide and very sweeping statement. I do not deny that there was a very strong and bitter and a very unwise and unscrupulous resistance from a large proportion of the Europeans, both official and non-official, in India, and I do not deny that there may have been a certain number of Native Indians with whom the noble Lord was thrown, in contact, moving in Anglo-Indian society, who shared very much their impressions and opinions. But, in my opinion, if the noble Lord had inquired further as to the manner in which the Marquess of Ripon's policy had been received by the vast mass of the people he would have arrived at a different conclusion. I believe there are many men of large Indian experience who have been struck by the enthusiasm by which the policy of the Marquess of Ripon was received by large masses of Indian people. The demonstrations which have been made in his honour at
    1354
    the conclusion of his Viceroyalty were considered, I believe, to be the most remarkable demonstrations of Indian public opinion which have been known within our recollection. I doubt very much the assertion of the noble Lord, and contend that there is no large body of public opinion which considers that the measures taken were injudicious in themselves, or were carried out in an injudicious manner. Now, I have not attempted, nor do I intend, to make any complete reply to the attack which has been made by the noble Lord this evening. The tactics pursued by the noble Lord on this occasion have made any complete reply impossible. If it should be thought necessary, however, by those whose conduct has been impugned, an opportunity will, no doubt, be found on some future occasion. That which I principally desire to do upon the present occasion is to enter my protest—first, against the introduction of matter which I have described into the Indian Financial Statement; and, secondly, against the course pursued by the noble Lord in not giving either publicly, or, at all events, privately, to those whose business it would have been to defend their Indian Administration, an opportunity of replying to statements which they could not have expected would have been brought forward.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The noble Marquess, in the speech which he has just delivered, and in which the admissions were at least as remarkable as the contradictions, has scolded my noble Friend very severely for the course he has thought fit to pursue on this occasion. And the reason is this—that in making his Indian Financial Statement he has attacked the late Government for its Indian finance, and the Marquess of Ripon as their Executive officer. Well, Sir, I am one of those who have always felt that it is exceeding desirable that whenever possible Indian affairs should be kept out of Party controversy. But I should like to ask when right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever spared Lord Lytton or his policy?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to that? I should like to say that we have had plenty of opportunity of attacking Lord Lytton's Government; but I carefully abstained

    1355
    in the first statement I made, when the late Government came into Office, from entering into any controversial subjects.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I quite agree with the noble Marquess; he did not on the occasion he refers to make any attack on Lord Lytton, and I can well understand why he did not. It was because there were plenty of us present who were perfectly ready to defend Lord Lytton if any such statement had been made; and I can say with perfect confidence, and in the hearing of the Members of this House, that there was no occasion possible, with the exception of that to which the noble Marquess has referred, when right hon. Gentlemen did not think fit to drag Lord Lytton into a controversy, and to attack him upon everything he had done, whether in his financial administration or in any other part of his government. But I think I may go a good deal further, and I may point out that there is a precedent for the course taken to-night—a precedent of a very remarkable character. I remember very well, if the noble Marquess does not, the debate which we had upon the English Budget in 1883. I remember very well how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of coming down to make the Statement which we ordinarily expect, instead of simply telling us the financial position of this country and the changes he proposed to introduce, devoted half-an-hour of the time of the House to a most elaborate attack upon the financial administration of the preceding Government. I do not think that he gave any Notice that he intended to make that attack. There never was a more bitter and personal attack than that which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer then made, and I cannot for the life of me understand why, for him to make such an attack upon his political opponents was justifiable, and it is so wicked for a Conservative Secretary of State for India to venture to say anything with regard to the financial proposals of his Predecessors. But I might go still further than that, and point out to the Committee that the circumstances were wholly different. My noble Friend has had to take the charge of the financial affairs of India at a time of unparalleled difficulty. He has had left to him a deficit for which he and the Government are not responsible; and, much more, he
    1356
    has had handed over to him a charge which will, he says, remain a charge upon the finances of India for many years to come, possibly for ever. Under these circumstances, it is not at all surprising that he should endeavour to look back and examine the cause of this charge, and endeavour to point out to the House why this accumulation of financial difficulties has arisen, and what had been done by his Predecessors to produce it. My noble Friend put it into one sentence. He said that in spite of every warning the Marquess of Ripon made no provision for meeting that which everybody knew must happen in the process of time. That is the charge. And what answer has been given to-night? We have not heard any answer given either by the noble Marquess or by the hon. Gentleman the late Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross). They have mentioned no preparations that the Marquess of Ripon made in India for the condition that was undoubtedly coming upon us. They have told us of no preparation that he initiated; they have suggested no policy that he deliberately adopted in the view of what was certain to come. The late Under Secretary, feeling the difficulty of making any statement of that character, resorted to a tu quoque. He said—"Well, after all, what did you do?" I might point out that there was an essential difference between the position when we were in Office before and the position of the late Government. I might point out that when we were in Office the advancing Forces of Russia were at that time a long way from the Indian Frontier; but during the last five years they have been creeping on step by step, until now the Russian Frontier is conterminous with that of Afghanistan. Everybody knew that that was coming upon us. Everybody warned you. The Ameer—the person principally concerned—told you over and over again that it was the certain consequence of the Russian advance. And any statesman who was responsible for the safety of India ought, undoubtedly, in the view of the advance that everybody knew was taking place, to have adopted some far-seeing policy based upon a determination to meet the difficulties which were likely to occur, at any rate, within the next few years. We may say for ourselves that we fore-

    1357
    saw it. We told the House over and over again during the time of the Government of Lord Beaconsfield what was coming upon us. Well, what did we do? We occupied Quetta amid attacks from the Liberal Party, which I have no doubt are well in the recollection of the Members of this House. We organized the system of Frontier railways, which we believed to be essential to the protection of India. When the noble Marquess speaks of useless and unprofitable enterprizes, I wonder whether he means to refer to that Frontier railway. He told us it was not in the power of the late Government to undo all that Lord Lytton had done. But they did all they could. They abandoned the system of Frontier railways; they allowed a savage tribe to pull up all that they had done of this railway beyond Sibi; they allowed the whole subject to sleep until the force of public opinion, after an interval of three or four years, compelled action to be taken. The noble Marquess speaks of Candahar. It is a remarkable story. I do not know whether the Committee fully realizes how remarkable it is. When the late Government came into Office one of the first steps they took was to order the abandonment of every position we then held on the old Indian Frontier. They began by gradually yielding to the pressure of their advisers. Whatever we may say of the Marquess of Ripon, this, at least, we may say to his credit. He resolutely opposed the policy the late Government adopted. He was altogether opposed to their policy of abandonment. It was entirely due to the pressure put upon the late Government by the Marquess of Ripon and his advisers, that the Government consented to a step they had resolutely opposed, and they said that although they had abandoned Candahar they must hold Pishin. They kept that as quiet as they could. There were many Radical supporters behind them who were opposed to the holding of Pishin, and were anxious that they should retire from a great many other points. ["No, no!"] Well, there were; there can be no doubt of it. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) kept asking the Government when they were going to retire from all their positions. Fortunately for this country they abandoned that policy, and they continued to occupy Pishin. But that unfortunate railway was sus-
    1358
    pended—as the noble Marquess said tonight, temporarily suspended—and was not again proceeded with until last year, when the pressure put upon the Government made it obvious that the public opinion of this country and of India would compel them to continue the work. Then it has been said that the noble Marques the late Viceroy of India (the Marquess of Ripon) might, at least, if he did not desire to take any other step for the protection of the Indian Frontier, have husbanded the resources of India. He might have endeavoured to practice some economy. The noble Marquess has spoken to-night, in somewhat contemptuous terms, of that demand, and he has referred to what was done with the Native Army. My complaint is this, that, although a Royal Commission on this railway in India had reported that there were many important steps that might be taken for increasing the efficiency of the Army in India and reducing the cost, the only step the late Government thought fit to take was to reduce the Native Army, while every other proposal of that Commission was absolutely rejected. I should like to remind the Committee that I have endeavoured in season and out of season to preach economy in India. Ever since it fell to my lot in 1879 to make a speech announcing the economies which Lord Lytton's Government thought it necessary to effect in India to meet the difficulties then existing, I have been thoroughly convinced not only of the necessity, but also of the possibility, of the reduction of Expenditure in India. In 1883 it was my good fortune to carry a Resolution pledging the House to a reduction of Expenditure in India. The House generally was favourable to the Resolution; but the noble Marquess and hon. Members opposite were hostile to it, and they endeavoured to cut it down and minimize it as much as possible. I regret even at this moment that the late Under Secretary of State for India did not on that occasion during the course of his remarks say a word in support of what I had said I believed to be essential—namely, that the Expenditure must be overhauled. Of course, the late Government were justified in their extraordinary Military Expenditure in preparation for war on our frontier; but I complain that they have not kept down the ordinary Civil Expenditure. I

    1359
    fully admit the services, in the cause of economy, of Lord North brook, who took every possible step to keep down Civil Expenditure in India, and his efforts were thoroughly seconded by Lord Lytton and Sir John Strachey; but I complain that ever since Lord Ripon went to India every item of Civil Expenditure has steadily and enormously increased. Might I detain the Committee a few minutes while I put before them a few figures, and I will show the Committee that year after year the Civil expenses have grown to an extent which is most serious for the welfare of India. I will compare the net Expenditure of India in certain items in 1880–1 with what it is now. General Administration has risen by £35,000, Law and Justice by £280,000, Police by £260,000, Education by £260,000, Ecclesiastical Establishments by £12,000, Medical Establishments by £90,000, Political Establishments by £120,000, and the Scientific and other minor Departments by £90,000. I do not think that in the case of any single one of these items the increase can be justified. It appeared to me that the hon. Gentleman the late Under Secretary made a naive confession just now, for he remarked that owing to certain circumstances on the Frontier of India, the Government thought they might spend rather more money than they did before. Well, Sir, all I can say is it was not the intention of Parliament they should do so. Parliament had voted that early steps should be taken to reduce Expenditure in India; and yet, in spite of the Resolution of this House, they thought they might spend rather more than they did before. I am inclined to think that my noble Friend is justified in the appeal he has made to the new Parliament to deal with Indian finance; and certainly, if I have the honour of a seat in it, I will advocate that the ordinary Expenditure of India shall have the careful attention of the House. I think my noble Friend could not have rendered a greater service to this House than in pointing out the necessity for this reduction, and in endeavouring to impress upon us the great change in the position of India. For my part, I do not desire to say a word which would aggravate or accentuate the difficulties which have existed between this country and Russia; but this, at least, I think may be said without offence and with
    1360
    absolute truth—that the contact of the two countries in Central Asia has revolutionized the finances of India, and altered the whole position we occupy in that country; and we may congratulate ourselves that at this time of crisis we have in the Viceroy an adviser so far-sighted, so courageous, and so prudent as my noble Friend (Lord Dufferin) who now occupies that position.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to make a few remarks upon a point which had been approached that night—namely, the Frontier defences of India. He was afraid that the noble Lord had seemed to encourage the policy of going forward and meeting Russia. He was sorry to hear his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) speak of the necessity of their occupying Herat for the defence of India.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had said nothing of the kind; he had never spoken of the occupation of Herat.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he was glad that he had misunderstood his hon. and gallant Friend. He wished to disabuse the minds of hon. Members of that idea. He had been recently looking at the history of Afghanistan, and found that 50 years ago, in the time of Sir John Malcolm, one of the ablest of Indian Administrators, the Kingdom of Afghanistan did not include Herat; the whole country about Herat belonged at that time to Persia, and the Frontier of Afghanistan was somewhere to the East of Herat. Therefore, to talk of Herat as belonging to Afghanistan and necessary for the defence of India was a great mistake. He should like to get some information from the noble Lord as to the expenditure incurred for the railway in the Pishin Valley, and whether that railway was to be made with a military object—for the formation of a great camp, because if it was to be made with that object, Her Majesty's Government might be sure that it would be taken as a menace to Russia. He pointed out that Russia was waiting till we advanced before she advanced herself. She considered that she had just as much right to advance towards the South as we had towards the North outside our own natural Frontier. It had been pointed out by the Government of Russia, as far back, he believed, as the year 1879, that

    1361
    they objected to our advance into Afghanistan, unless they also advanced in a corresponding manner to the South; and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider the advice that had been given them by nearly all the great Indian statesmen who had studied the subject of the defence of India for the last 20 or 30 years, that our proper Frontier was the Suleiman range. That, he said, was our proper Frontier, and the more we depended on it the better, because in proportion as we advanced outside that range our military position was weakened. The noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for War had just now said that their retention of Candahar under the former Conservative Government was a source of weakness, and not a source of strength, and that, therefore, the less they had to do with Candahar, or any part of the Afghanistan territory, the better. ["No, no!"] He (Sir Alexander Gordon) repeated that it was a source of weakness, and he would add, at the same time, that the late Government had shown great courage in abandoning it, in spite of the ridicule of the Conservative Party, for the best military Frontier. There was one more point he wished to refer to before concluding. The noble Lord had referred to arming the Native troops with the Martini-Henry rifle. He thought that such a policy would be a very bad one, because, if an arm discarded in the English Army were given to Native troops, the proceeding would stamp them at once with inferiority as being unfit to use the same weapon as that used by the English troops. [An hon. MEMBER: It is a good arm.] An hon. Member said it was a good arm. That was true; but it had been discarded in the English Army. The English and Native troops were always brigaded together, and if, when the enemy were advancing, they knew that the English regiments had a better weapon to defend themselves with than they were armed with, they could not but feel that they were in a position of disadvantage in the attack. When he was in India the question as to arming the Native troops was raised, and he then gave the opinion that they ought to be armed in the same way as the British troops. He hoped the noble Lord would consider this matter, and not allow the Native troops to have the discarded arms of the European troops.
    1362
    He wished to make one remark about the Frontier of India. It had been pointed out that other countries in Europe had their Frontiers conterminous with the Russian; and he was unable to see why, in Asia, Russia and England should not be conterminous, as Russia and Germany and Russia and Austria were in Europe. It seemed to him that Russia and England must come together in Asia; and he thought that the policy that did not recognize the fact that two civilized countries could be conterminous in one part of the world as well as another was one that would lead them into a great deal of expense and into a great deal of difficulty. He hoped the noble Lord would take into consideration the remarks which he had felt it his duty to make.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, he had a few remarks to make upon three points connected with the Budget now before the Committee; and he could promise hon. Members that he should be very brief in making them. But, before coming to those points, he wished to be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India upon the debate which had taken place. He rejoiced that it had not been again 1he case that it had taken place in an empty House, and, as was too often the case, at a time when it could not be fully reported in the Press. He was glad, also, that the debate had been of a very interesting character,; and, perhaps, he might be allowed to thank the noble Lord for the explicit statement on Indian affairs which was made in the Papers laid on the Table of the House—a statement which, he believed, everyone could understand, and which brought before the Committee the whole subject in a very plain and intelligible manner. He had no doubt whatever that what appeared in the newspapers would give the people of England and India a better understanding of the Indian Budget than had been sometimes the case. As he had said, he wished to refer to three points in connection with the Budget. In the first place, the noble Lord had referred to the Salt Tax in India. It had been reduced, he believed, in one part of India by 28 per cent; but he must say that the extreme severity with which the officials of the Revenue Department prevented anything like a breach of the law in obtaining salt had

    1363
    done away with a great part of the advantage to the Natives. He knew that in Madras hundreds of people were taken to the Police Courts, and had to defend themselves for having put a little earth into their water, so that they might be able to drink a little brine. He believed that the noble Lord would earn the thanks of everyone who loved India if he would continue to endeavour to reduce the Salt Tax, in the hope that by so reducing it the trade would be increased, and prove, as had often been proved before, that reduction of duty was not necessarily reduction of income. He believed that the extension of trade which had occurred before would occur again if the noble Lord would venture still further to reduce the duty on salt. Men in England could not understand that salt which was bought for two annas should have a tax of 30 annas upon it. The Salt Tax seemed to be a most unsuitable way of raising Revenue. Then, with regard to the subject of opium. He had taken great interest in the question of the opium trade in China. He had deplored the state of things which had existed since the Chinese War, and he rejoiced that the Chefoo Convention was to be carried out; that China was allowed to see that she was now put upon equal terms with other nations. We had allowed her Ambassadors to draft the terms on which opium should be introduced into China; and, although he thought we should lose more than the amount which the noble Lord stated would be lost on opium, yet he thought we should gain in friendliness with the Chinese, and in the consciences of the English people, who would not feel always condemned when they were taunted by other nations with taking part in an injurious trade which they had forced on the people of China against the will of the Government. He had some reason to believe that the trade in opium with China would diminish. He would not regret it if it did so, and if its place could be taken by other sources of Revenue; hon. Members on that side, at any rate, would rejoice when it disappeared altogether. The trade in opium in China was more developed than it used to be from their own native sources; and he thought the noble Lord might consider that the income from opium would not increase, and that the trade with China
    1364
    would pass away from India and be taken up by Native growers. There was another subject which had been alluded to in former years by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and others, and which was looked upon by Indians, and especially referred to by the Indian Press, as a great injustice—that was to say, the prolonged absence of the Court from Calcutta at the Hills. A vast number of officials spent a large portion of their time year after year away from the seat of Government. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham, on many previous occasions, had addressed the House on that subject, and the views he had expressed were fully borne out by English feeling, and also by the newspapers in India. He believed that anyone who could check the growing departure for the Hills, not only of Government officials, but of persons from the Telegraph and Railway Departments, would do a great service to India, by keeping down a source of expenditure and removing discontent from the minds of the Natives. He commended that point, therefore, to the consideration of the noble Lord. He must say that, while he congratulate the noble Lord on the debate that had taken place, he joined with those who had spoken before him in deploring his remarks upon the Marquess of Ripon's administration. He hoped that would be the last time that the debate on the Indian Budget would be made the occasion for Party attack. Indian Natives by thousands had expressed their deep respect and regard for that Nobleman; and he not only expressed his own feeling, but that of others, in saying that the Marquess of Ripon's rule in India had secured them more than any other from the danger, if there was such danger, of invasion from Russia—an invasion which might possibly have secured the sympathy of the people of India had they been under a less popular and less beloved Governnor. He believed that the Marquess of Ripon made their government more beloved in India than any of his Predecessors had done, and he hoped that the aim of his rule would be followed by his Successors.
    SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had spoken of the pro-

    1365
    bable necessity of increasing the number of European troops in India. For his own part, he believed the number of European troops in India was fully sufficient for ordinary service. But a war with Russia would render it necessary to increase their Forces in India, and it was desirable that the Secretary of State should have those troops exclusively under the command of the Indian Government. If that increase were made, he hoped it would be treated as a Reserve and kept at home, because a British soldier in India cost at least half as much again as he would cost in England, while at the same time he deteriorated in health and vigour by reason of the climate. On the other hand, he increased in health and strength every year he remained in England; and therefore he thought that everyone who wished to see the Indian Establishment maintained at a less cost would desire that this reserve of men should be kept in England. He was aware that in years gone by it took five or six months to send troops to India round the Capo of Good Hope; but those conditions were totally changed, and troops could be shipped now and landed at the furthest Frontier of India in 30 days, and that was an additional reason for keeping them as long as possible at home and not sending them to a hot climate. As he had said, he believed their Force in India was amply sufficient for ordinary purposes; but he had a strong conviction that they did not make all the use they ought of their Native troops. They offered them no military prizes. His own idea was that all officers under those in supreme command should be Natives. There should be a British Officer in supreme command, and he would give him three assistant officers not in command of wings, but as Assistant Commandants. One of these would probably be at home, recruiting his health, thus leaving three officers with the regiment. All under the rank of Commandant or Assistant Commandant should be Natives. He believed it would be found that, under that system, they would have a class of Native officers who would lead the troops in the best manner possible. Moreover, they would be able to maintain the Army at much less cost than at present, and that would enable them to pay their Native soldiers well. Thus,
    1366
    there were two points to which he desired to draw the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India—namely, the question as to whether the Reserve of the European Army in India should not be be kept at home; and, secondly, whether they ought not to offer the prizes of military ambition to Native gentlemen, and thereby attract to the standard a class of officers ready to lay down their lives in defence of the Empire.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER (Lord MAYOR)said, he had, in the first place, to thank the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India for the statesmanlike speech with which he had introduced the Indian Budget. He should not go into any matters of controversy, though he agreed with all the noble Lord had said, but simply allude to one point introduced by the noble Lord at the conclusion of his speech. The noble Lord said that it was his intention during the next Session of Parliament to move for a Committee on Indian Affairs. Whatever might be the opinion of the present occupants of the Benches opposite, he was sure that that statement would be hailed with the greatest satisfaction. Some years ago he had the satisfaction of seconding a Motion to that effect made in the House of Commons by his honoured Friend the late Mr. Fawcett. The Motion was not accepted by the Government of the day in its entirety; but they gave a Committee in a modified form—they gave him a Committee on the Finances of India, which he believed now bore his name. Mr. Fawcett brought forward the argument, which he was glad to hear repeated by the noble Lord, that under the old Constitution of India, when, at the end of every 20 years, the Charter of the East India Company came to be renewed, a Committee, composed of the most eminent Members of the House of Commons, was appointed to consider the whole question of the administration of India, and everything connected with it. He was very glad that the noble Lord was determined to revive that practice, and he thought the course he had taken with regard to it on that occasion would be attended with the very greatest advantage to the people of India generally. He thought also that it would be very advantageous that the Committee should be appointed at the commencement of

    1367
    the new Parliament. They must bear in mind that the Committee would be composed of some of the most eminent Members of the House, and that it would be almost impossible that they could go fully into this great subject, and reach the end of their investigations, in less than two or three Sessions. He had, together with at least one hon. Gentleman at that moment present, been a Member of Mr. Fawcett's Committee; and he would remind hon. Members that that Committee came to a premature end owing to the dissolution of Parliament. It was therefore obviously important that the Committee should sit at the commencement of the next Session. He trusted the noble Lord would bear that in mind in relation to the step he intended to take; and with regard to which he would say, whether or not the noble Lord continued in the Office which he now adorned, that he believed it would be impossible for anyone to resist the appeal he would make for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the system of government in India. He should like for a moment to refer to the important subject alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hants (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram). That hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke with great authority on military subjects, and all must feel with him that the question as to the Army in India was one which most vitally affected the interests of the Native population in India. One of the things foreseen in connection with the future of India was that, if they were to avoid the difficulties to which the noble Lord had alluded, it would be necessary to strengthen the Native Army and also the European Army of India. Then there were some important questions bearing on the subject which they were more immediately considering that evening—the Revenues of India. Those Revenues very much depended on three sources. First, there was the Land Revenue, and it seemed to him to be so high already that it could not possibly be raised. He should be glad, if the noble Lord, at a future time, found himself in a position to make some reduction in that respect. Nest, there was the Opium Revenue, with regard to which he hoped the noble Lord's attention would be directed to the opinions urged upon the Government of India by Sir
    1368
    William Muir, and which would be found in a Minute written when he was Governor of the North-West Provinces. He had not heard that Sir William Muir had at all changed his view, and consequently he might in this matter appeal to the authority of that very eminent and distinguished man—a man who had not only been a Governor of the North-West Provinces, but a Finance Minister of India, and also for many years a Member of the Indian Council in this country. He hoped the noble Lord would give his earnest consideration to the question. Of course, he know the noble Lord had to be very careful how he treated the finances of India; but he was satisfied that a proposal to get the Revenue derived from opium through some other means would meet with very great favour in this country. There was a strong feeling that by turning themselves into the manufacturers of opium they were placing themselves on a footing with the distillers of alcoholic drinks in this country, and were thereby incurring great responsibility and even culpability. Again, he had a real objection to the Salt Tax, because by it a very heavy impost was placed upon the very poorest of the people. He should be glad if the Government could see their way, if not to repeal the tax entirely, to reduce it considerably. The noble Lord had referred to the Income Tax. He (Sir Robert Fowler) regretted the course which had been adopted in regard to the Income Tax, because it seemed to him that levying a tax upon the incomes of the people was a much more legitimate way of raising Revenue than levying a tax upon such a great necessary of life as salt. He thanked the Committee for permitting him to make these observations, and he thanked the noble Lord for the suggestion—which he hoped the noble Lord would be able to carry out in the next Parliament—that an inquiry should be held into the whole system, of government in India. There was one other part of the speech of the noble Lord to which he listened with great satisfaction. The noble Lord referred to the fact that this Parliament was near its close, and he said, in very forcible and eloquent language, that this Parliament had done nothing for the people of India. He (Sir Robert Fowler) supposed that a truer statement was never

    1369
    made in the House of Commons. Whatever views hon. Members or people outside the House might entertain of the present Parliament, it was impossible for anyone to dispute that this Parliament had grossly neglected the interests of the people of India. He joined the noble Lord in most earnestly hoping that the Parliament which would assemble next February would have a much greater desire to do its duty by the people of India than the Parliament which, was about to separate had had. He agreed with the late Professor Fawcett that every Member of the House of Commons ought to feel that there was no responsibility which weighed heavier upon him as a Member of Parliament than the responsibility he owed to the people of India.
    SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was very much struck by the large amount of information upon Indian matters which the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been able to obtain during the short time he had held his present position. Much had been said that night by the noble Lord on the subject of the Army of India, and he (Sir Harry Verney) would take the liberty to make a suggestion which, if the noble Lord thought well, he might adopt. They did not admit officers to their European Army unless they were well informed in two European languages. Now, they had a great Eastern Empire, and, therefore, their officers ought to have some acquaintance with Oriental languages. He thought it was of the utmost importance that the noble Lord should make it a matter of examination that officers in India should be well acquainted with at least some one Oriental language. It was well known that they could not govern any people properly unless they were able to speak their language. He had no hesitation in saying that had many of their officers spoken Arabic they would have got on better in Egypt and the Soudan. It ought to be a strictly observed rule that no officer should be appointed to an important position in the Indian Staff Corps, or elsewhere, unless he could speak, colloquially, at least, two languages or dialects. To be able to do so ought to give an officer advantage in obtaining an office. If the noble Lord would make it a sine quâ non that officers in India should be acquainted with Hindustani and some other Oriental
    1370
    language, he would confer great benefit on the Army and also upon the Natives of India. Moreover, he thought the noble Lord should make it a point to bring to this country some of the best of their Indian soldiers. A few years ago so some of the Indian soldiers who fought gallantly with us elsewhere were brought here, and the experience they gained here was certainly beneficial to them, and calculated to promote our interests in India. It would be wise for the noble Lord to bring over here some of the best men of the Indian Army, send them to Aldershot, and if they proved efficient soldiers obtain for them commissions in their English Army. He very much regretted that on this the first occasion on which the noble Lord had introduced the Indian Budget he had thought it right to make an attack upon the Marquess of Ripon's administration in India. No Viceroy ever did so much for the well-being of India as the Marquess of Ripon, and no Viceroy ever proved so popular with the people of India as that Nobleman. All classes of their Indian fellow-subjects were more attached to them now than they ever were before; and that fact was entirely owing to the Marquess of Ripon having on every occasion done all he could to promote the welfare of the people he was sent out to govern. The Marquess of Ripon made it a rule that whatever could be made by the Natives of India should be made by them; that, in fact, they should have every advantage. English firms who had formerly supplied these things, parties interested in India and in England, also shipowners interested in their carriage, all cried out against Lord Ripon, for he ruled India for the Natives, not for the English; and the consequence was that the Native races were deeply attached to him, and gave him every proof of affection that it was in their power to give. He (Sir Harry Verney) wished the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India every success in the task he had set himself.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney), whom they all knew had taken a great interest in Indian affairs for a very long time, had pointed out to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India the propriety of only appointing and promoting officers in India who had passed through a particular examination. That was exactly the case at

    1371
    the present time. No one could join the Indian Staff Corps unless he had passed certain examinations. There were many officers in India now who had passed the standard in Persian, Arabic, Hindustani, and other Oriental languages, and it was to those men they should have to look in the future. No officer could hope to obtain any advancement in the Indian Army unless he had passed one of those examinations. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) had referred to the question of the Government of India going to the Hills. He (Mr. Onslow) was one of those who maintained that it was quite right and proper that the Government should go to the Hills in the hot weather. It was all very well formerly for the Government to remain in the plains, when the work of the Viceroy and his Council was comparatively light; but, considering the enormous amount of work which was now entailed on the Viceroy and his Council, it appeared to him (Mr. Onslow) that the Government could not possibly keep their health, or do their work, if they were to remain in the plains during the whole of the year. He was in India when the subject was much discussed; he was for many years connected with the Government of India, and he had been for some years at Simla. The originator of the idea of removing the Government to the Hills in the hot season was Lord Lawrence. As they all knew, Lord Lawrence had been most of his life in the plains of India; but during his Viceroyalty he found the work of government so hard that it was almost impossible to conduct it at Calcutta, and he suggested a migration to Simla. He (Mr. Onslow) was not aware of any miscarriage of government by the removal to Simla in the hot months of the year. He knew that some of the Native papers, and indeed many of the English papers in India, deprecated the idea very much; but his opinion was that the opposition against the Government going to the Hills had been got up chiefly by those connected with the trade of Calcutta and Madras. He held a very strong impression indeed that the government of India could not be conducted now-a-days in a fair and proper way if all the Members of the Government were to remain in the plains. Hon. Members ought not to allow themselves to be deluded by the idea that there was any harm to the
    1372
    Government of India, or to the people of India, by the Viceroy and his Council going up to the Hills. He was perfectly satisfied that the Viceroys could not work anything like as hard as they were required to if they remained in the plains during the whole of the summer months, and he did not know one single instance of any dereliction of duty by the supreme Government on account of this annual migration. His hon. Friend the Lord Mayor (Sir Robert Fowler) had told the Committee that he disapproved of the imposition of the Salt Duty. Primâ facie they all deprecated the tax; it was a tax upon the poorest class of the people. But Indian finance was very different to English finance. They could not impart the principles of English finance into Indian finance. In India the money must be raised; and the question was which was the best way to raise it. He thought that, after all, the Salt Duty was felt very little indeed by the people of India. Of course, hon. Gentlemen who had high notions of philanthrophy might say it was a very wrong tax. But if they were to do away with the Salt and Opium Revenue, and to mitigate the Land Tax, as had been suggested, he asked Gentlemen of common sense how would it be possible to get the money to carry on the government of the country? The hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler) preferred an Income Tax to the Salt Tax. He (Mr. Onslow) had had some experience of the Income Tax in India, and it appeared to him it was utterly impossible to have an Income Tax there similar to that in this country, and for the very reason that they could not trust the Indian officials to collect it. When there was an Income Tax in India the Natives, it was well known, tried to assess persons above or below the proper amount; indeed, it was quite clear that in India an Income Tax was a failure. He was amongst those who did not look very hopefully upon the finance of India. A Committee of the House of Commons suggested last year that there should be an increase in the amount paid for the annual construction of railways in India. That was all very good, in times of peace; but, so far as India was concerned, the present were not peace times. Russia had advanced to an enormous extent, and it was necessary to protect the frontier. The ques-

    1373
    tion was how money should be expended in order that the country might be protected. Everyone was agreed that every Id. that was available ought to be spent in perfecting the defences of the country. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had pointed out the necessity of increasing the Army—Native and European. What did that mean? It meant an enormous addition to taxation in India; and how was that addition to be met? Hon. Members might say—"Oh, practice economy." It was all very well to say that. Over and over again he had heard it said—"Let us have economy." He had seen many despatches in which economy was advocated. He had seen Viceroy after Viceroy trying to do all he possibly could to impress upon those with whom he was associated the desirability of practising economy. That was all very right and proper; but, after all, how much could they save by economy? They had now to increase the Native Army and the European Army by some thousands of men; they had to spend an enormous sum of money on fortifications and other defences; and the cost of doing those things would be some millions. Do what they could in India by way of economy, they could only save a few thousands of pounds. It was impossible to meet this increased expenditure by economy in other directions. The Expenditure of India must go on increasing year by year, and it was for the Viceroy to consider how the Expenditure was to be met. He (Mr. Onslow) hoped the noble Lord would not go on year after year, if he continued to hold his present Office—and, judging from the ability with which he had made the Financial Statement, they must all wish he would—borrowing money to meet the Expenditure of India. It was a most vicious system of finance and ought no longer to be practised. Whatever Expenditure it was necessary to incur in India for the ordinary government of the country, India ought to find the Ways and Means. He had had some experience in the House, and as hon. Gentlemen knew, he took a deep interest in everything connected with India. Never, he hoped, would he say one word in a Party way regarding the management of Indian finance, or regarding India generally. Whatever his views might be of the late Vice-
    1374
    royalty of India, he did not want to say publicly one word against the Marquess of Ripon. But he wished to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite what they had said about Lord Lytton. What deprecation was not levelled at Lord Lytton for the way in which he conducted the government of India? Bearing in mind the course hon. Gentlemen took in regard to Lord Lytton, he was surprised they should say, à propos of some strong remarks that had been made about the Marquess of Ripon, that this was the first time in which Party spirit had entered into their discussion respecting the conduct of the Viceroy of India. [Sir HENRY JAMES: On the Indian Budget.] He did not see that it mattered whether it was on the Budget or on any other matter connected with the policy of the government of India. He asserted that no words were too strong for hon. Gentlemen opposite to use against Lord Lytton's Viceroyalty; therefore it was rather hard for them to come forward now and say this was the first time strong words had been used in the House of Commons concerning an Indian Viceroyalty. Well, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had alluded to a Committee he hoped to appoint next year to inquire into the system of government in India. He (Mr. Onslow) believed that an inquiry would be very useful indeed; at the present time it was greatly required. It must be borne in mind that the Act for the better government of India was passed in 1858, somewhat in a panic. The days of 1858 were, he hoped, past and gone, and that they would not hear again of an Indian Mutiny. That Act was passed under many adverse circumstances, and it appeared to him that it now required revision. It might be a matter of doubt whether the Act should be revised, and whether the whole system of government in India should be inquired into by a Committee or by a Royal Commission. For his part, he thought the inquiry ought to be made by a Royal Commission empowered to take evidence in India. At the same time, he was quite convinced that an inquiry by a strong Committee of the House would be extremely useful. He trusted that, whatever was done, hon. Members of the future would not cease to take the deepest interest in the affairs of India, because, unless the House of

    1375
    Commons did take an interest in India, and thoroughly sifted for themselves everything connected with the government of that country, he was afraid that that government might devolve upon a few, and all Parliamentary control lapse. In his opinion, it would be a very bad day for India if such a state of things came to pass.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that considering the late hour (11.0), and the fact that the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had by his extraordinary speech taken away from the House the opportunity of quietly and peaceably debating Indian subjects, he should make his remarks very brief. He, like many others, came down to the House to listen to, and possibly to join in, a discussion on Indian affairs and Indian financial questions. He admired, as others must have done, the ability with which the noble Lord described the financial position of India; but he deplored more than he could express the turn—and he desired as a private Member of the House to protest as strongly as he could against it—which the noble Lord gave to his speech, converting the Indian Financial Statement of the year into a Party election speech. In the peroration of his speech the noble Lord called Heaven to witness that he hoped that in the new Parliament more attention would be given in that House to the affairs of India. If the noble Lord's was the sort of attention the affairs of India were to get the less attention they got the better. Amongst the comments upon the noble Lord's accession to Office he observed an extract from a Native Indian newspaper, in which some of the noble Lord's characteristics were described. The Indian Echo wrote of the noble Lord—
    "His bellicosity is notorious, he is an out and out fire-eater, and he does not believe in peace."
    He (Mr. Buchanan) thought that the extraordinary speech they had that night heard from the noble Lord fully justified the sentiments which that Native newspaper expressed. The noble Lord had, no doubt, displayed considerable energy in everything he undertook, and it would have been well if he had devoted his energy in his Office to securing reforms for the better administration of India. He thought that,
    1376
    by his conduct to-night, the noble Lord belied the force of his own words in his speech at the Tower Hamlets, when he stated that the Government of India ought never to be made a Party question in that House. It was quite impossible, after the speech the noble Lord had delivered, for Indian subjects to remain other than Party questions so long as the noble Lord remained in his present Office. What had the noble Lord clone? Why, he had taken advantage of an opportunity which presented itself to him as Secretary of State to make an unprovoked, an unwarranted, and an uncalled-for attack upon the Marquess of Ripon and the late Government. He had, in fact, turned his Ministerial Statement on the finances of India into an election address. What was it the noble Lord accused the Marquess of Ripon of doing? He (Mr. Buchanan) had taken down the noble Lord's very words. In a kind of parody of the poet Swinburne, the noble Lord had stated that the Marquess of Ripon had been "lulled by the langour of the lotus land," and that no economy had ever been practised by him during all the years of his administration. Well, an answer to that charge had already been made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken before him (Mr. Buchanan) from the Liberal Benches. But if he wanted to give a further answer to the charge, they had it here in the statement the noble Lord had circulated and the speech he himself had made that night. He gave them in this statement, and he had declared to them that night, that the average surplus during the last three years had been £660,000, and that the Marquess of Ripon's Government had expended on the Famine Insurance Fund the sum of £1,500,000 during the last three years. The Marquess of Ripon, then, had spent £1,500,000 on Famine Insurance, and, besides, had had an aver age annual surplus of £660,000. That was the test of the Marquess of Ripon's economy; whereas they might take as a test of the extravagance of the noble Lord's Government, that he was going to swallow up that surplus, to suspend payments to the Famine Insurance Fund, and going to add millions to the burdens of India. The noble Lord had charged the Marquess of Ripon with having spent the money on productive works, instead of on

    1377
    frontier railways and other projects for military defence; but he (Mr. Buchanan) would put it to the Committee whether it was not more for the permanent welfare of India and its inhabitants to spend money in developing the country, on roads and public works, which would tend to the ultimate prosperity and wealth of the country, rather than to waste it on useless military works and railways for military purposes. Then the noble Lord had accused the noble Marquess of having lowered the Salt Duty and reduced the Native Army. Well, the answer to that had been suggested by the noble Lord himself, because, alter having accused the Marquess of Ripon of having lowered the Halt Duty, he had, in a subsequent part of the same speech, thanked him for having done the same thing; and he (Mr. Buchanan) was bound to say that it was to the credit of the Marquess of Ripon, and it would be to the credit of the noble Lord himself, if during his administration he could do anything to reduce the taxation which pressed so heavily on the poorest classes in India. Then the noble Lord had attacked the Marquess of Ripon for admitting the Natives to a certain degree of political power, and had found fault with him for having advanced education and freed the Press; and it had been a matter of great astonishment to him (Mr. Buchanan) when he had heard the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) justifying the noble Lord's accusation against the Marquess of Ripon. It was an astonishing thing that the right hon. Gentleman—himself a Minister of Education in that House—should think it a matter of reproach to the Marquess of Ripon that he had, during his Viceroyalty, largely increased the expenditure on education in India. He (Mr. Buchanan) knew, of course, that the noble Lord had no liking for the development of a free Press in India. He knew he had no liking for the growth of political influence among the Natives of India, because he had himself denounced those two kinds of development of recent years in India as two of the greatest dangers to their Empire.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The hon. Gentleman is entirely incorrect. I disclaim ever having made any statement to justify that observation.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I have the noble Lord's speech with me.
    An Hon. Member: Read it.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It would be out of Order to read it; the speech was delivered on the 4th of May of the present year. It was a speech in which the noble Lord gave the results of his Indian tour. He said that, though it might be premature in him to express any opinion as to the results of his Indian experiences, still there were four things that he thought it was necessary and right that he should bring before his audience as dangers to the stability of our rule; and of those four things two were the discontent in the Indian Army of a most serious kind and the grievances, some of which he said were well founded, between the Indian Princes and the Calcutta Government.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): What are you quoting from?
    MR. BUCHANAN: From The Times newspaper of the 5th of May. The noble Lord said that there was discontent of the most serious kind in the Indian Army.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will not be in Order in quoting a speech made this Session.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that he should pass the Report to which he referred over to the noble Lord, if he desired to look at it. At any rate, the noble Lord had given those four points as, in his opinion, salient features of the condition of things in India, the consideration of which had been forced upon him during his tour in that country. The four points were—discontent in the Native Army; grievances which were found to exist between Native Princes and the Calcutta Government; the great development and free comments of the Native Press; and the growth of political intelligence among the Natives. The noble Lord had summed up by saying that those four elements were among the dangers to which our rule was exposed in India. He (Mr. Buchanan) thought he could refresh the memory of some Members of the Committee, without quoting the noble Lord's speech, simply by informing them that it was the speech in which the noble Lord denounced the probable conclusion of peace by the late Government with Russia as "terrible news." ["No, no!"] Yes; the noble Lord had

    1379
    denounced the action of the late Government in that respect in these words, and he had denounced it, too, in the same speech as "a base and cowardly surrender." Well, if he (Mr. Buchanan) might be allowed for once to stoop to use the language of the noble Lord he should say that his speech that night was a base and cowardly attack upon the Marquess of Ripon.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to use language of that kind.
    MR. BUCHANAN: If in quoting the language of the noble Lord I find myself using un-Parliamentary phrases I withdraw.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman repeats such language I shall insist upon his resuming his seat.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he withdrew the expression. He would only quote one other statement of the noble Lord, and that he was entitled to quote, as the noble Lord had made it that night. He had summed up his attack upon the Marquess of Ripon by saying that he disowned and repudiated the policy of the late Viceroy. Those were the identical words the noble Lord used the other night in regard to Earl Spencer—he had disowned and repudiated his policy. So they found that one of the leading principles of Conservative policy at that moment was ingratitude in disowning public servants who had discharged their public duty faithfully according to the commissions which had been given to them. The noble Lord in the course of his speech—and he (Mr. Buchanan) hardly thought it worth while to detain the Committee, however, by going into it at that hour—had gone on to propose, at the end of his speech, that they should have a Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the Government of India. But the noble Lord forebore to tell them what the scope of that inquiry was to be. He should like to ask the noble Lord whether part of the scope of that inquiry was to be an examination into, and arraignment of, the Marquess of Ripon's Native policy. He was sure the noble Lord did not wish to examine into that; but if he did, he would put it to him that as he himself had been in India since that policy was begun he must know very well that, in the first place, it had been successful, and that, in the second place, it had won the enthusiastic approval
    1380
    of all the people of India. ["No, no!"] Yes; he maintained that that was the case, and, in the third place, it was the only just and prudent policy which this country could pursue. And more than that, if the noble Lord attempted, or wished to attempt, by this Commission or Committee which he was going to appoint, to arraign the policy of the Marquess of Ripon towards the Natives, he would be really arraigning the policy of the Queen's Proclamation of 1859, on which all the liberties of Her Majesty's Native subjects depended. He had felt extremely astonished when he had heard the noble Lord say that he had the full consent of his Colleagues in the appointment of this Committee or Commission. He had felt particularly astonished to hear that he had the assent of the right hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). That right hon. Gentleman was Undersecretary for India at the time when a Motion was brought forward towards the close of the last Parliament on this subject by the late Mr. Faweett, in the spring of 1879. The Motion was opposed by the Government then, and all hon. Members on the Front Ministerial Bench had voted against it, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) included; and therefore it appeared that the noble Lord had succeeded in turning over all his Colleagues to his own view on this subject to such an extent that they were now prepared to adopt a policy which a few years ago they condemned. The noble Lord had stated—and so far as he (Mr. Buchanan) remembered he had stated it in public before—that the justification for inaugurating a Committee of Inquiry into the affairs of India was that the Indian was a despotic Government, and that it would be better to have the free air of an inquiry in the House of Commons upon it. The Government of India no doubt was a despotism but it was a despotism defined and restricted by law, and he thought that a control over the affairs of the Natives such as they exercised in India was not likely to be beneficially modified and improved by inquiries from time to time by Parliament or some political authority. He thought they should rather take care that their despotism and their Government in India was strictly guarded in its execution by definite, well-considered, and prudent laws, and that

    1381
    they also ought to take care that those who were charged with the administration of that system were carefully chosen and selected, and had to look for the success of their career to the prosperity and welfare of the people committed to their charge. Of course, they all knew perfectly well that complaints had often been made against the Government of India; the noble Lord had in other places told them something about those complaints. The noble Lord had told them that the Government of India was an enormous legislative machine; that it had too great rigidity, and a want of sympathy with the people of India; and in a great measure, undoubtedly, that was the case. But it seemed to him that if they were to endeavour in any way to remedy that state of things—he did not say they could wholly do so, because he believed that some rigidity and want of sympathy was indispensable to anything like the government they now exorcised over India—but if they were to attempt to remedy it, he believed it would be much better for them to do it by careful legislation for India, and by careful administration there than by setting up in the House of Commons Committees or Commissions to inquire in to a great variety of subjects. There was just one word more he should like to say upon this subject. There was, no doubt, a tendency in a Government such as that of India, composed, as Lord Lytton had estimated it, of 1,000,000 officials—there was, no doubt, a tendency among so many officials of lower grade to exercise petty tyranny over those who were subjected to them, and no doubt it was difficult to have perfect articulation to the extremities of such an elaborate machine. But he did not see how a House of Commons' Committee or a Commission could remedy a grievance of that kind. If the Committee was, as he suspected it would be, a Committee of the House of Commons, it would have to sit in this country, and in such an event it would be useless for the purpose the noble Lord appointed it. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord proposed sending out a Commission, it seemed to him that that work would be practically interminable. There was one direction in which he should have thought that the noble Lord might have exercised his energies before proceeding to ap-
    1382
    point another Commission. He should have thought the noble Lord might have devoted his attention to the work of seeing that the recommendations of Committees and Commissions already appointed were carried out. For instance, there had been a Committee which had sat on Indian finance for a number of years, there had boon a Committee on Public Works, there had been a Commission such as that the noble Lord had wanted to institute—namely, a Famine Commission, which had inquired into the social and economical condition of India. The recommendations of the Finance Committee had not been carried out, and far from all of those of the Famine Commission had been carried out. And then there had been another of those Commissions, the recommendations of which were now lying still-born in the India Office—namely, the Simla Army Commission, which had been alluded to that night. The noble Lord had spoken of economy in regard to the Indian Army; but he (Mr. Buchanan) would point out that the Simla Army Commission did not merely recommend the reduction of the Forces of India, but several reforms which would tend to economy and efficiency. Those recommendations, however, had never been carried out. He could have enlarged further upon those points had it not been for the cause he had already referred to, and just before sitting down he would repeat once more his deep regret at what had taken place that night, and his belief that very disastrous consequences would ensue from the present conduct of Indian affairs in that House.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL), in reply, said, he hoped that when the defence of the Marquess of Ripon's policy in India, which they had that night been given to understand would shortly be forthcoming, was attempted, it would be undertaken in a more coherent and more impressive manner than that which had been exhibited by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. A greater farrago of inaccurate assertion, inaccurate quotations, and inaccurate representations of other people's opinions than that in the hon. Member's speech, it had never been his misfortune to hear; and, for his part, he entirely declined to take up the time of the House of Commons, at that late hour of the

    1383
    evening, in attempting what he knew beforehand would be the utterly impossible task of making the hon. Gentleman understand the real opinions which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had expressed, and the facts concerning Indian affairs which he had placed before the Committee. Turning from the observations of the hon. Member to the remarks of other hon. Members who, differing from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, had confined their remarks to the question before the Committee, he would express to them his sincere acknowledgments for the manner in which they had received the Statement he had been allowed to make. He could assure them, whether as regarded their criticisms of those parts of his Statement with which they disagreed, or their suggestions of what they would wish to see carried out in India or embodied in Indian policy, that they should have his most earnest attention. He could assure those hon. Members that he received their criticisms and suggestions in a most respectful manner. Before allowing the debate to come to a close, he would wish to make one remark in answer to the observations which had fallen from the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington). The noble Marquess had charged him with having adopted an unusual course in making a Party attack upon the late viceroy of India on the Indian Budget. That was, to some extent, a misrepresentation of the course he had pursued. No doubt, he had adopted an unusual course in criticizing as he had done the policy of the late Government; but the Committee must remember that he had to deal with unusual times. It was absolutely necessary, in dealing with unusual times, that he should to some extent depart from the usual course which had been adopted on former occasions; and nothing could show that more clearly than the speech which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down. It was absolutely necessary that he should show the Committee and the public who were the authors of the heavy expenditure and the heavy deficit he had referred to, and which they had to meet. He thought it was most fortunate that he had been able to do that, because they had had an admirable specimen of the line adopted by Radical Members in the accusation made
    1384
    against him by the hon. Member for Edinburgh of being responsible for a deficit of £15,000,000 in the Indian Revenue, and for adding to the Indian Army an additional expenditure of £2,000,000 a year. It was in order to free the present Government from such charges that he knew would be recklessly and widely made that he had deliberately adopted the course he did. He once warned the Party opposite that the doctrine of legacy might be used with fatal effects against themselves. Nothing was hurled over and over again more virulently against the Tory Party than the charge that all the difficulties and perplexities that the late Government had had to encounter, and which compassed them about, were a legacy from their Predecessors. As far as the present Government was concerned with regard to India, he had been determined that on this question it should be impossible for hon. Members to say that the present financial imbroglio was not a legacy from the late Tories to the Liberals, for, as a matter of fact, it was exactly the reverse. There was only one other point in the speech of the noble Marquess on which he would attempt to make any remark. The noble Marquess had complained that he had given him no notice of the remarks that he intended to make. He was not aware that when a Minister was going to make his Statement—his annual Statement—in the House of Commons, it was in accordance with precedents that he should give his opponents, or anybody else, notice of the exact line of observation he intended to pursue. He had never heard of such a course being adopted. The noble Marquess must know the circumstances of Indian finance, and he must have known, before he left Office, that those circumstances were of so peculiar a kind that they would attract the most direct, and probably severe criticism possible—the severe criticism of anyone who commented upon them from an opponent's point of view. The noble Marquess said he was not prepared for such an attack. The noble Marquess had only shown in his conduct of the debate that night the extraordinary amount of unpreparedness which was one of the main features of the policy of the late Government. He could not understand how anyone, knowing the character of the finances of India for the year, could suppose it would be

    1385
    possible for him to explain that financial position to the House of Commons without going on to explain what he considered to be the cause of that financial position. On examination he did not think that the noble Marquess would persist in his charge against him of having been guilty of a breach of House of Commons' decorum in taking the course he had done. He did not think the charge that he had acted unusually and indecorously would, on examination, be found a serious charge. With regard to the financial policy of the Marquess of Ripon he did not wish to enter into it again, but would only say that, if it were so successful and so admirable a policy, how was it it happened that in 1884–5 the Revised Estimates showed a deficit of £710,000? How was it that since the days of the Earl of Mayo no single year's account showed a deficit of Indian finance except deficits attributable either to war or famine, while the Marquess of Ripon, after being Viceroy of India for four years, during which time there was no war and no famine to deal with, enjoyed the proud distinction of being the first Viceroy who had produced a most remarkable deficit which he was totally unable to attribute to any other cause except his own financial policy? He would leave that point to be dealt with by the Marquess of Ripon and his friends when they made their defence. At that hour of the night, and knowing that there was much important Business to occupy the attention of the House, he would not trouble the Committee further, but would thank them, generally, for the manner in which they had allowed him to make his Statement, and for the generous way in which they had commented upon it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1884 was £71,727,421, including £13,240,507 received from Productive Public Works; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England was £70,339,925, including £12,032,754 spent on Productive Public Works (Revenue Account); that there was an excess of Revenue over Expenditure in that year of £1,387,490; and that the Capital Expenditure on Productive Public Works in the same year was £3,992,029, including a Charge of £566,261 incurred in the redemption of previously existing liabilities.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [Bill 257.]
  (Secretary Sir S. R. Assheton Cross.)
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [Bill 257.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Unlawful detention with intent to have carnal knowledge.)
    "Any person who detains any woman or girl against her will—

    (1) In or upon any premises with intent that she may be unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether any particular man or generally, or

    (2) In any brothel,

    shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.
    "Where a woman or girl is in or upon any premises, or in any brothel, a person shall be deemed to detain such woman or girl in or upon such premises or in such brothel if with intent to compel or induce her to remain in or upon such premises or in such brothel, such person withholds from such woman or girl any wearing apparel or other property belonging to her, or where wearing apparel has been lent or otherwise supplied to such woman or girl by or by the direction of such person, threatens such woman or girl with legal proceedings if she takes away with her the wearing apparel so lent or supplied.
    "Legal proceedings shall not be taken against any such woman or girl for taking away or being found in possession of any such wearing apparel as was necessary to enable her to leave such premises or brothel."
    New Clause brought up, and read the first and second time."
    MR. WARTONbegged to move an Amendment to the clause to insert after the word "premises," in line 9, the words "for the purpose of having any unlawful carnal connection." He pointed out that as the clause was drawn it was possible that a private master or mistress might be brought within its scope. Nothing could be wider than the words "any premises." He was quite sure that, however rigorously and harshly a master or mistress might behave in regard to a servant, they would not wish to bring them in guilty as they would the keepers of brothels.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 9, after the word "premises," to insert the words "for the purpose of having any unlawful carnal connection."—(Mr. Warlon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)thought, with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that some other words might be introduced here. As the clause was now drawn, it might be taken to mean other premises than a brothel. He thought it was better that the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member should be put in.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked whether this matter was not controlled by the 1st sub-section of the clause, which said—
    "Any person who detains any woman or girl against her will in or upon any premises with intent that she may be unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether any particular man or generally."
    MR. WARTON: No.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he preferred the simpler plan of adding the words "as aforesaid."
    MR. STANSFELDthought that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General on reflection would not be able to accept these words.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) said was quite right; but the whole clause was such nonsense that the more nonsensical it was made the better. The Government did not seem to know at all what they were going to do with the Bill.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir B. ASSHETON CROSS): I beg your pardon.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that if the hon. and learned Member would agree to accept these words—
    "Any person who detains any woman or girl against her will for the purposes herein mentioned," &c.
    he thought he might accept them.
    MR. WARTONwas not prepared to withdraw his own Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Member to accept his words.
    SIR FARRER HERSCHELLpointed out that the Amendment would defeat its own end, for in the second part of the paragraph they would simply be re-enacting the first paragraph of the
    1388
    clause. He thought the being in or upon the promises was to be primâ facie evidence.
    MR. WARTON: I must insist upon my Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 59: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 273.)
    On Motion of Mr. WARTON, the following Amendment made:—Line 9, after "or," insert "is."
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved, in line 15, after "such person," to insert "such person." The reason he desired the Amendment was because there was such a very large interval between the expression and the definition of "such person."
    Amendment proposed, in line 15, after "such person," to insert "such person."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That 'such person' be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): It is so absolutely immaterial.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved, in line 18, to insert the word "No" at the beginning of the paragraph. His object was to strike out the word "not" later on, so as to make the paragraph read "no legal proceedings shall be taken," &c., instead of "legal proceedings shall not be taken."
    Amendment proposed, in line 18, place "No" at the beginning of the line.—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'No' be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)had no objection to the Amendment; but he preferred the words "shall not."
    MR. WARTONdid not quite understand. He desired to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed before he gave up his position?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he agreed to the sense of the Amendment, but not to the actual words.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was right, as the

    1389
    clause would be bad grammar otherwise.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsuggested that it really was desirable to put a little common sense in an Act of Parliament.
    Amendment agreed to.
    On Motion of Mr. WARTON, the following Amendment made:—Line 18, leave out "not."
    MR. STAVELEY HILLproposed an Amendment, in line 19, to leave out the word "such" in order to insert the word "necessary," so that the words should run, "being found in possession of any necessary wearing apparel," instead of "such wearing apparel as was necessary to enable her to leave such premises or brothel." The clause, as it stood, seemed to him to be an amplification of words without giving any meaning.
    Amendment proposed, in line 19, by leaving out the word "such," and inserting the word "necessary,"— (Mr. Siaveley Hill,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)desired to point out to the hon. and learned Member that the words in line 20 which he proposed to leave out were intended to prevent the girl taking away anything which was not absolutely necessary. If they said "necessary wearing apparel" it would leave the girl a discretion to take away whatever she might think was necessary.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDpointed out that with the Amendment which had been added the clause in line 9 recited—
    "Where any woman or girl is in or upon any premises for the purpose of having any unlawful carnal connection."
    There might be many cases in which the girl was not there for the actual purpose, although efforts were being made to induce her to have carnal connection.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, they had gone through the clause now. It was, there-
    1390
    fore, too late to make any further Amendment on the clause.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDdid not propose to make any alteration in those words; but he wanted to call the attention of the Attorney General to the matter, and to ask him whether he would not make some addition to the clause at the end?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was impossible to make any Amendment now. The Question was whether the clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, he had given Notice of the following new clause:—
    (Evidence of girl against whom the offence is committed shall be admissible in evidence.)
    "When a girl, in respect of an offence against whom a charge is brought under this Clause, is, in the opinion of the court justices or magistrates, too young to understand the nature of an oath, such girl shall be competent to give evidence without oath: Provided, That no person shall be liable to be convicted of the offence unless the testimony of such girl, implicating the accused, shall be corroborated by some other material evidence in support thereof. And the court may, for the same purpose, allow a similar statement made by her before the committing justice or magistrate, and taken down in writing at the time, to be used for the same purpose at the trial.
    The House would see that the clause was divided into two parts, the later part being contained in the last three lines, which allowed a statement made by the girl before the committing justice or magistrate to be used as evidence at the trial. With regard to the major portion of the clause, he found that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had a similar proposal to make later on; and therefore he was agreeable to withdraw the first part in favour of that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He would then ask to add the last three lines of his clause to the end of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the proper course would be for the hon. Member to withdraw his clause, and then to bring up his words as an Amendment to the later clause.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHthen asked leave to withdraw his clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLbegged to move the following clause:—
    "Upon the conviction of any prisoner under sub-section one of section five, the judge shall inquire of the jury whether they find that the act of which the prisoner has been convicted was done with the consent of the girl, and, if the jury shall and that she did so consent, the judge shall order her to be sent to a reformatory school for a period not exceeding two years."
    He ventured to call the attention of the late Home (Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) to this matter in reference to what he had said the other night. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that it would be a very unfortunate thing indeed if they proceeded to fill their gaols with boys and with men against whom there could be no real offence charged. Now, let them consider what they were doing. What they were doing was this. When a lad of 15 or 16 was having connection with a girl under 15, with full consent, in any place where they might be found by a policeman, he might be dragged off to gaol at once. He would put it to the House was it, or was it not, a wrong thing that was being-done by the persons guilty of that at which the Bill was aimed; and was it, or was it not, intended that they should be punished? What was the punishment for? Was it because an offence was committed, or merely because the girl was under the age of 16 at the time it was committed? What was the real state of the case? In this country a girl was supposed to have reached the age of puberty when she was between 12 and 13. There was no period in a girl's life, especially where she had not been properly brought up, or cared for by her parents and guardians, at which she was more likely to be led astray than when between the ages of 15 and 16 years. He thought that in that statement he should carry the concurrence of any person who had studied the question. Well, that being so, what was it the House was doing? They were saying, as the Bill stood at present, that where a girl was in this condition, and induced a boy or a young man to commit an offence, the boy was to be punished and the girl was to go scot free, not only with regard to punishment for her share in the offence, but in regard, also, to any education she might obtain in a reformatory to which she might be sent for the pur-
    1392
    pose of improving her mind and teaching her better habits. Now, he asked the House, was that fair? Let them consider the question for a moment. Let them take the case of two children—a boy and girl, both under the age of 16. Those two young persons might be found by a policeman committing an offence under this Bill, and in the result the boy was to be the only party punished. He did not know whether the boy would be flogged or not; but he would be imprisoned, and, under certain circumstances, he would be liable also to undergo a flogging. It might happen that a few yards further on the policeman might come upon two persons—a man and a woman, of the age of 25, committing the same offence. The question naturally arose, was that wrong on the part of the two who were under 16 which was right in the case of those of 25; and was it intended to reverse the principle of the law, and say they would punish the younger offenders and excuse the elder ones? If that were so, on what principle was the boy to be punished and the girl to be allowed to go scot free? He submitted that the House ought to adopt the words he had inserted in his clause; and, if it would allow him, he would read them, as they were very brief. They were as follows:—
    "Upon the conviction of any prisoner under sub-section one of section five, the Judge shall inquire of the jury whether they find that the act of which the prisoner has been convicted was done with the consent of the girl, and, if the jury shall find that she did so consent, the Judge thall order her to be sent to a reformatory school for a period not exceeding two years."
    What, he asked, would be the result of adopting this clause? They would find that cases would not be so likely to be trumped up, and where a girl under the age of 16 had tempted a boy to the commission of an offence she would not bring a charge against him. They would not have such cases as had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); but due caution would be exercised. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) entreated the House, if they would do justice between the two sexes and prevent charges under this Bill being used as a means of extortion by policemen and girls against boys in a better or worse position, not to omit to punish the girl as well as the

    1393
    boy; but, where a charge of this sort was made, to allow the Judge, when he thought he could fairly do so, to put it to the jury whether the girl was a consenting party, and if the jury found that she was, then to give the Judge the power to afford her the opportunity of a proper mode of reformation by sending her to a reformatory for a period of two years.
    New Clause (Girl to be sent to reformatory if act was committed with her consent,)—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I fully appreciate the motives that have induced my hon. and learned Friend to bring forward this clause, as there is no one in this House who has a stronger desire than myself to prevent anything in regard to legislation of this kind that would, afford the slightest facilities for extortion. At the same time, I cannot consent to the insertion of this clause. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved it this question—What crime has the girl committed? because we could not confine a girl in a reformatory, as he proposes, for a period of two years, unless she has committed some crime. A reformatory school is essentially a criminal institution, and you could not send a girl to such a place unless you can show that she is a criminal.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he did not wish to follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary at any length; but he would reply to it very briefly. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that the girl could not be considered guilty of any offence. Now, he (Mr. Hopwood) asserted that she had committed an offence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I said "crime."
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would adopt the word mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and would say that the girl had committed a crime. The Bill made the act done a crime on the part of the man, and it was quite clear that he could not commit the crime without the girl. The girl was held to be bound to know the law, and, therefore,
    1394
    the act being a crime on the part of the man, she was accessory to that crime. He would make bold to say that they might have some very nice questions raised on this point with regard to the girl's being an accomplice, whose evidence could not be received without considerable suspicion; and he only hoped the House would find that they had landed themselves in some of these complications by attempting to make that a crime which Nature never meant to be so interpreted. He could not say that the clause, as it stood, was altogether what he should have made it if he had had the drawing of it, because he saw some difficulty in the way in which it might operate. There were many hon. Gentlemen near him who felt that the law should be made the same for both sexes. What they contended was this—that cases, as his learned Friends would admit, constantly occurred in which girls under 16 were a hundred times more culpable than the youths whom, in reality, they seduced—cases where the girls were more advanced and matured, both in body and mind; and yet, as the Bill stood, the act done was to be a crime on the part of the boy, and none at all on the part of the girl. That appeared to him so utterly preposterous that he could not understand how the House could possibly legislate in such a direction. He put it to those who were responsible for the measure, how could they defend so monstrous a proposition? If the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved this clause went to a division he (Mr. Hopwood) should vote for it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought there was a very simple answer to the argument of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill). The assumption of the Bill was that a girl under 16 could never be a consenting party; that a girl of that age would be in exactly the same position as a girl under 13 was placed in by the existing law. Therefore, the arguments employed by his hon. Friends who supported the clause applied equally to the state of things under the present law. Whether it was right or wrong to raise the age to 16 was a question that had already been determined by the House. As the Bill now stood, the age of consent had been raised from 13 to 16, and the assumption was that a

    1395
    girl was not to be considered capable of I giving consent until she was 10. His right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) and his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) would seem to place those under 16 on an equality, in this respect, with those above that age.
    MR. GREGORYdid not think the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would have made some of the observations he had addressed to the House on this subject if he had had the experience which had fallen to his (Mr. Gregory's) lot in regard to the description of crime with which it was proposed to deal. In numerous cases that were brought to his knowledge the girls were the daughters of very respectable persona, and had been sent to service at a very early age, whereby they were often exposed to all sorts of temptations, such, for instance, as they were subjected to in public-houses or lodging houses. Those girls required every protection, and he did not think it would be right, in cases where they might have yielded to temptation, to send them to reformatories, and thus to stigmatize them as criminals before the world. He certainly protested against any such proposal.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he rose to protest against the interpretation put by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) on the position taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) and himself. They believed in the equality of men and women; but they had never believed in the equality of children with them. The existing law was, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, for the protection of female children below the age at which they had hitherto been supposed capable of giving consent; and they knew that under the age given in this Bill they were not capable of giving consent. Therefore, they were not on an equality with men and women.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTthought it would be desirable to alter the framing of the clause under discussion by substituting for the words "reformatory school" the words "industrial school," and that, instead of the matter being left to the jury, it should be left at the discretion of the Judge to take the action required. He did not think it could be maintained
    1396
    that a girl brought herself under the category of those for whom reformatory schools were designed—namely, those who had been convicted of crime—even when she was a consenting party; but there could be no doubt that she took part in an act of great indecency, and might very properly be made the inmate of an industrial school. He, therefore, suggested that his hon. and learned Friend should amend the clause in the manner proposed.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he should be happy to adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot).
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthought his hon. and learned Friend did well to accept the Amendment just proposed.
    MR. WARTONconcurred very much with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), as it was quite clear that the Bill was drawn on the assumption that a girl under 16 was incapable of giving consent; and, that being so, he put it to the House why should that fact not be expressed in the clause? In Chapter 45 of the Act 3 & 4 Vict., it was expressly stated that consent was no defence where the girl was under the age of 13; and if were not so stated here it might be held that the girl could consent. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that a great many girls under the age of 16 knew quite as much as the boys, and often a great deal more.
    MR. PICTONthought the clause would introduce a very dangerous principle into their law, as it would constitute about the only case in which a person might be committed to a period of confinement without being first tried. The clause would enable the Judge, on the conviction of any prisoner charged with an offence against a girl under the age of 15, to inquire of the jury whether they found that the act was done with the consent of the girl; and without the girl having been called upon to plead, but on a mere side issue like this as to the impression in the minds of the jury, the girl might be deprived of her liberty for two years. He thought that to adopt this clause would be to introduce a very bad and a very dangerous precedent. The object

    1397
    of this part of the Bill was to treat young girls as not having the right to consent; and he hoped the House would not come to a contrary conclusion by raising the assumption of consent.
    MR. W. S. ALLENsaid, the effect of adopting the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill) would be to render that part of the Bill absolutely nugatory, because parents would never come forward to prosecute where they saw there was a chance of having their own children punished. He could hardly imagine any clause that would work more cruelly or unjustly.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to move a clause he had put upon the Paper——
    MR. WARTONrose to Order, He wished to ask whether the clause about to be moved by the hon. Member for Northampton, and which dealt with a totally different class of offence to that against which the Bill was directed, was within the scope of the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: At this stage of the Bill anything can be introduced into it by leave of the House.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his Amendment was as follows:—After Clause 9, to insert the following clause:—
    "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year with or without hard labour."
    That was his Amendment, and the meaning of it was that at present any person on whom an assault of the kind here dealt with was committed must be under the age of 13, and the object with which he had brought forward this clause was to make the law applicable to any person, whether under the age of 13 or over that age. He did not think it necessary to discuss the proposal at any length, as he understood Her Majesty's Government were willing to accept it. He, therefore, left it for the House and the Government to deal with as might be thought best.
    New Clause (Outrages on public decency,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he did not wish to say anything against the clause; but he would point out that under the law as it stood at the present moment the kind of offence indicated could not be an offence in the case of any person above the age of 13, and in the case of any person under the age of 13 there could be no consent.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the clause proposed to restrict the punishment for the offence dealt with to one year's imprisonment, with or without hard labour. He would move to amend the clause by omitting the word "one," in the last line of the clause, and substituting the word "two."
    MR. LABOUCHEEEhad no objection to the Amendment.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not know how the next clause, put down in his name, as to the cessation of parental authority, had got upon the Paper. He supposed it was by some accident; but as he did not intend to move it, he would, with the permission of the House, move the clause following it—namely—
    "In cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the seduction or prostitution of a girl under the age of sixteen has been encouraged, facilitated, or favoured by her father, mother, guardian, master, or mistress, it shall be in the power of the Court to divest such father, mother, guardian, master, or mistress, of all authority over her, and to appoint any person or persons willing to take charge of such girl to be her guardian until she has attained the ago of twenty-one, or any age below this as the Court may direct."
    He would explain the object of this clause as briefly as he could. Let the House suppose the case of a girl of, say, 13 years of age, whom someone had been prosecuted for outraging, and that, in the course of the proceedings, it had been shown that the parents had favoured and facilitated the seduction or prostitution of the girl, it seemed to him a most monstrous thing that that girl should be sent back to the care and custody of her parents. When the Bill was in Committee he had brought forward a clause somewhat to the effect of the present proposal; but it contained the provision that the girl should be sent to a reformatory, and, no doubt, there were certain objections to that course—objections which had been urged just now to the clause proposed

    1399
    by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill). It would be seen that by the present clause it was proposed that the Court should be allowed—
    "To appoint any person or persons willing to take charge of such girl to be her guardian."
    That provision would allow the Court to send the girl to one of the homes which were being kept up for purposes of charity, if such home were willing to receive her. He had received a letter from Miss Webb, the Lady Superintendent of the Chatham Lock Hospital, in which that lady said she wished to state a fact in regard to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport's (Mr. Hopwood's) opposition to the proposal that the custody of any girl under 16 being placed in any other hands than those of her parents. A few years ago a girl under 16 and her mother were in Miss Webb's hospital at the same time. The mother was discharged first, and the girl asked Miss Webb to put her in a home unknown to her mother. This was done, and the mother went to Miss Webb and abused her, and afterwards applied to the magistrates in order that she might recover the child for purposes of prostitution. The mother took the girl out of the house, and she was soon on the streets again, and was now keeping one of the worst brothels in Chatham.
    New Clause (Custody of girls under sixteen,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he was sorry he was unable to approve of the insertion of the clause as it appeared on the Paper. He must remind the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that it was open to the objection pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in the discussion that had taken place on another clause, inasmuch as it dealt with the position of the parents, and would override the obligation of the father and mother, which was a matter with which the Bill did not deal, and was not intended to deal. He could not think it would be a wise thing to attempt to deal with this question in the manner proposed by the clause.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, there was a good deal to be said in favour of this
    1400
    clause which, in the event of it being shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the parents or persons having control of the girl were, for the reasons stated, morally unfit to have such control any longer, enabled the Court to divest them of such control and to appoint as guardian any other person or persons willing to take charge of her. Well, he thought that was not an unreasonable proposal, because there were, many persons and many institutions which, under the unfortunate circumstances described in the clause, would be willing to provide for a girl at the period of life named. It was simply to give those persons or institutions the power of guardianship over the child—to give them that legal authority which, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had pointed out, they would not have if the Amendment were not adopted. On the whole, he was inclined to support the clause.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he thought there was a great deal of difficulty in the way of accepting the clause as it stood. No procedure, no forms were provided. The jurisdiction of the Court was not defined. He hardly thought that either the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) or the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had considered that point. It would appear that somebody had to get up and ask the Judge to let them have the body of the child; but there was no means provided which would allow the Court to form its mind in the matter. What was it that the hon. Member proposed to put on the Court to deal with? He had formulated no procedure for the Court to be guided by, and he (Mr. Hopwood) said therefore that the clause was a mere brutum fulmen, and that they would be stultifying themselves if they inserted in the Bill these benevolent but crudely expressed intentions.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was very much in favour of this clause, although he could not see exactly how it would work. It was true enough, as his hon. Friend said, that the persons referred to in the clause ought not to be guardians of the child under the circumstances. No one doubted that; but it would require a great deal of consideration before the clause could be properly elaborated. Suppose the Court deprived the parents of the guardianship, and

    1401
    suppose it was given to a person whom they would assume to be an excellent person—what if that person died in the following week? That was an important consideration. Then, again, suppose that, the new guardian being appointed, the child were to run away, the now guardian would have no power to compel the child to go back again, and the parents, he presumed, would return to their obligation to support the child.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the parents, at all events, would be liable for the support of the child under the existing law; if children were taken into the workhouse the parents were liable for their keep. But if this clause became law, and if the parents were as bad as they were supposed, they might not be unwilling to facilitate evil practices, when they knew that they could get rid of their responsibility.
    MR. M'LARENpointed out that this difficulty would vanish if there were power given to anyone to take out a summons to make the child a ward of Court.
    MR. ELTONsaid, he should support the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He wished to point out that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had in the course of his observations departed from the obvious meaning of the clause by reading it as if the Court might declare a fit person to take charge of the child; whereas the clause distinctly stated that it was for the purpose of enabling the Court to appoint a guardian. That was perfectly legal language. The matter turned on the old question, "what was a guardian and what was not?" With regard to the question as to what was to become of the child if the guardian appointed by the Court were to die—why, then the Court could appoint another. [Sir HENRY JAMES: NO.] He thought the Court could do so. Finally, as to the feeding the child. Of course, the parents' obligation to do that would remain, whether there was a guardian appointed or not. For those reasons he should vote for the clause.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he hoped the House would agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He believed that the only
    1402
    chance of rescuing girls in the position described was to take them away from their natural guardians who had violated their trust. He hoped his hon. Friend would divide the House on his Motion, in which case he should feel it his duty to support him.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he was always alarmed when the occupants of the two Front Benches united in saying that a clause which was sound in principle was unworkable in practice. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government for the time being, when a clause was accepted in principle, to find out means by which it could be made to work. A case had been referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to which the proposed clause would very properly apply. But he (Mr. Rogers) remembered a case more fitting than that. It was a case of a man convicted of a criminal assault on his two children. Although the man had a severe sentence passed upon him his parental rights survived, and the Guardians of the Poor had to get the consent of this very man—this abominable villain—to send the two children out of the country. Application was made to the Local Government Board on behalf of the children of this wretch; and the Local Government Board informed the Guardians that they—the Guardians—could not find the means for allowing the children to emigrate. But the Guardians, he might say, broke the law, and he thought rightly. They sent the children away. He wanted to know what was to be the remedy in cases of abomination like that? It was a far stronger case than that which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton. His experience was that parental rights should cease when they were neglected or violated in the manner described in the clause. This was a single case, and the hon. Member for Northampton had touched on one of a similar character. It was perfectly well known that there were a number of wretches in the country who would commit outrages on their own children, and then insist on their parental rights.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Northampton would press the clause on the House. Unfortunately, there existed a number of dissipated parents who sent their

    1403
    children into the streets, and encouraged them, to become prostitutes. In the interests of children this clause was, in his opinion, one that ought to be accepted, in order that they should not be left under the control of such parents—human beings only in name.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought it would meet the desire of the House if some such clause as that proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton could be accepted. With that object, he believed, if they put their hands to the work, they would be able to frame a clause that would probably receive the approval of the House. He therefore suggested that one way of dealing with the objections raised to the clause would be to insert these words—
    "And the High Court of Chancery shall have power from time to time to rescind or vary such order or appoint any other person or persons as guardians."
    It was, he thought, advisable that those words should be introduced. He supposed the case of a good father and bad mother; if the father died, the question would arise whether the child should go back to the mother.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, it appeared to him that the clause was right in principle, and that it might be worked on the lines of the present law, which allowed any girl who was an inmate of a brothel, and under 14 years of age, to be sent to an industrial school. There was, in his opinion, no moral difference between keeping a girl in a brothel and a parent making a profit by putting his child in the way of vice; and therefore he thought that the machinery of the industrial schools might be very properly used in this case, although he could quite understand the feeling of some hon. Members in not wishing to bring the industrial schools under the provisions of the proposed clause. It could, however, be done with safety, subject to certain restrictions. There was, of course, a distinction to be drawn in the case of a girl whose father or mother were not fit to be entrusted with her guardianship. He thought that this suggestion would meet one of the difficulties that had been referred to in the course of this discussion, because when a child was sent to an industrial school an order could be made for the maintenance of the child, and therefore the parents
    1404
    would not get rid of their obligation to contribute to its support. It would, however, be necessary to provide that the parents' right of custody should cease in the case of children sent to industrial schools, because it was a well-known fact that parents who were very worthless came to the doors of the schools in order to get possession of children the moment they reached the age of 16, and return them to the paths of vice. He thought that the machinery of the industrial schools would be the best that could be used in respect of the custody of the children in question.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought hon. Members were by degrees coming to something like an agreement on this subject. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had, however, used singularly infelicitous words in speaking of "seduction and prostitution." He thought it would be more correct if the clause ran—
    "In cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the abduction of the girl under the age of sixteen has been encouraged, facilitated, or favoured by the father, mother, guardian, &c."
    but then, again, the word prostitution was used improperly. It seemed to him that the cases contemplated by the 4th and 5th clauses of the Bill were not cases of seduction or prostitution; and he ventured to suggest most respectfully that it would be better to alter some other clause of the Bill, and say "when on trial under the 4th and 5th sections of the Act." That would get rid of the incongruity of words.
    MR. DAVENPORTsaid, it appeared to him that the difficulty with regard to the question of guardians had been disposed of by the discussion which had taken place. Although he agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) that the provisions of the Industrial Schools Act should be applied under this clause as far as empowering the Court to compel the parents to contribute to the maintenance of a child under the care of a guardian, he protested against those children being sent to industrial schools. He thought they might be sent to reformatories, but not to these schools; and he said that in the interest of the children in the schools, some of whom were thieves, but who, for the most part, had not committed any offence against

    1405
    the law, but simply broken away from the control of the parents. He thought it would work most injuriously to them to introduce a number of girls of the character possessed by those dealt with in the clause. If the clause of the hon. Member for Northampton were read a second time, he hoped the Amendment suggested by the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would be introduced; and he would also amend the clause by giving power to the Court to make an order on the parents for the payment of such sums and on such conditions as the Court might think fit.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, to leave out the words "In cases where," and insert the words "Where on the trial of any person for an offence under this Act."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsuggested that instead of the words "seduction and prostitution" the word "defilement" should be substituted.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the alteration would be unnecessary, because they had agreed to insert the words—"Where on the trial of any person for an offence under this Act."
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 3, after the word "guardian," to insert the words "by any person having the lawful charge or authority over such girl."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought that "father and mother" ought certainly to stand in. Whether it was necessary to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) it was for the House to consider; but, certainly, he did not think it would be right to leave out father or mother or guardian.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLthought it would be sufficient if they said "father, mother, guardian, master, or mistress." He did not think "step-father or stepmother" was at all necessary.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would explain the way in which this clause had been drafted. He had had some doubts on the matter, and he had taken
    1406
    it to one legal gentleman who drew it up. Then he had taken it to another legal gentleman, who had said, "Oh, he's a fool," and had drawn up another clause. If he had taken it to 20 other legal gentlemen he had no doubt he would have had 20 different opinions.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. DAVENPORTthen proposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words—
    "And the Court may make an order upon the parent for the payment towards the expense of the maintenance of the girl of such sum, and under such conditions, as to the Court may seem right,"
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member must give the power under the Industrial Schools Act. They must have some machinery.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would like to know who the money was to be paid to?
    MR. DAVENPORTsaid, that was to be left within the discretion of the Court.
    MR. ONSLOWthought it would be hardly enough to say "the parent," for the child might not have a parent. It should run "parent, guardian, master, or mistress."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas afraid that was a fatal objection, as it would be impossible to enforce the penalty against anyone but the father or the mother.
    MR. BRYCEpointed out that this was an order that might be made behind the back of the father; and, therefore, they must put in some provision to enable him to apply to have such an order rescinded.
    MR. DAVENPORTsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY JAMESproposed to add, at the end of the clause, these words—
    "And the Court shall have the power from time to time to rescind or vary such order by the appointment of such guardian or in other respect."
    He had not much faith in clauses drawn up in this hurried manner; but he had done his best to meet the views of the House.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he would not divide the House on the clause; but he would repeat what his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) had said. It was not a practicable clause, and it was a mistake to insert it in the Bill.
    Clause, as amended, added.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLbegged to move the following new clause:—
    "Every person selling, circulating, or distributing, or writing, printing, or publishing, with a view to such sale, circulation, or distribution, any matter or thing calculated or tending to debauch, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a period of not more than two years, and to be fined a sum not exceeding two hundred pounds, and all such writing, prints, or publications shall be seized and destroyed."
    The offence which this clause aimed at should, in his opinion, be punishable with two years' imprisonment and the imposition of a fine not exceeding £200. Such a Clause as that was necessary at this time, which during the tenure of Office by the present Home Secretary had become the Augustan era of obscene literature. Just recently a newspaper, failing in its circulation, and having a very great difficulty to maintain its own in the world, thought by a very sensational report to regain its circulation——
    MR. BRYCEasked whether the remarks the hon. and learned Gentleman was making were relevant to the issue he was putting before the House?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that as far as the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone his remarks were certainly relevant.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, this journal had invented for that purpose new fables and stories which, they might depend upon it, as every day went by, would be shown to be entirely false and groundless, by which there had been brought about a state of things which, he would venture to suggest, had done more than anything with, respect to that which it had been said it was intended to prevent, towards debauching the minds of young people. It was no secret that not only in the streets, but in the most private room of almost every household in the country, this filthy literature had
    1408
    permeated without any attempt to control its circulation. "Non olet," said the smug proprietor of this journal, as he shovelled tens of thousands of pounds into his pocket. "Non olet" he repeated, as he galvanized into life this wretched journal that was falling to pieces, and, by means of its circulation, produced an amount of prurient inquiry among those who otherwise would never have touched this matter at all, and who, but for this journal, never would have known it in any shape or way. Well, what was the state of things that existed? He said if this journal could not be punished it ought to be punished. If there was a state of things brought about tending to corrupt the mind, as stories of this kind must tend to by exciting the curiosity of young people, was there no law to prevent it? While they were now placing on the Statute Book a measure to purify the bodies of young people it was necessary, at the same time, that they should endeavour to purify their minds. He had hoped the law was such as to cause the journal in question to be prosecuted. He remembered a case of a very similar nature, where a book bearing the title The Confessional Unmasked, and published by a Protestant Body, professed to expose the errors of the Church of Rome. On its title page it stated that the practices described within would convert our Eden into a Sodom. The book was seized, its circulation was prohibited, and a prosecution was instituted, a course which should have been followed in the case of the journal in question. He would have thought that the fact of that publication having been prosecuted with success would have been enough to have induced the Law Officers of the Crown to consider that it would have been possible to have prosecuted in this case. He would read part of the Judgment of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, who tried the case which he had mentioned. His Lordship said—
    "It is said that the respondent's purpose was not to deprave the public mind. Be it so; but then the question presents itself in this simple form. May you commit an offence against the laws in order thereby you may effect some ulterior object which you have in view, which may be an honest and even a laudable object? My answer is emphatically—'No!' It seems to me, to adopt the affirmation of that view would be to uphold something which, in my view of what is right and wrong, would be most reprehensible. This book, we are told, is cir-

    1409
    culated at the corners of streets and in all directions; and, of course, it falls into the hands of all classes—young and old—and the minds of those hitherto pure are exposed to the danger of contamination and pollution from the impurity it contains. I think the old sound and honest maxim, that you shall not do evil that good may come of it, is applicable in law as well as in morals."
    Well, now, he could not but think that it was a great pity that a step was not taken to stop the circulation of this paper, which had done an infinity of mischief. He knew these publications took place when there was practically no permanent Law Officer in the Government. The person who now occupied the Lord Chancellor's Office was in a condition of transit from one Office to another, and the present Attorney General had scarcely assumed Office. But, he said, the Home Secretary, with his knowledge of the evil that would come of it, ought to have stopped the circulation of this filthy paper. But the Home Secretary did not do so. He was bound, therefore, to assume that he did not believe the law was sufficient for the purpose; and, therefore, what he had to do was to furnish in this clause the power of dealing with such matters in the future. He believed that under Lord Campbell's Act he could only seize and destroy the journal and not punish the offender. Now, what he intended by this clause was that the offender should be punished. The Pall Mall Gazette, as a friend had pointed out to him, had, in one of its latest numbers, moralized in this manner—"Let us not too suddenly do away with prostitution, because by that means you would be taking away bread from those poor girls, and you would have to supply their means of living from Imperial funds." That was the view taken by a journal professing to be shocked at immorality. He could only suppose the Home Secretary had not prosecuted this journal because he thought the law was not sufficient. Under these circumstances, he entreated the House to pass this clause. He had seen a letter from a father of a family in Germany, who told him that this disgusting literature was largely circulated there, and among those who believed that the revelations truly represented the general state of things in England, and naming distinguished statesmen who were commonly said to be guilty
    1410
    of these crimes; and it was alleged that this was the reason that The Pall Mall Gazette had not been prosecuted. Then, he said, let them improve the law; let them see what was done in other countries. He found that in America they inflicted a fine of from £20 to £100, English money, with from one to five years' imprisonment, for selling obscene publications. Well, if that was the law in America, let it be the law in England also. Where there was printing, or publishing, orselling, or distributing any matter or thing calculated to debauch, let it be a misdemeanour. He was sure the House would not think he was too severe in suggesting that a person convicted of such a crime should be liable to imprisonment for two years, and to a fine of £200, and that the publication should be seized and destroyed. When a man, under the pretence of public duty, did this kind of thing in order to put tens of thousands of pounds into his pocket, and when he did it out of the pockets of poor people who were tempted to believe such stuff, and to the detriment of the pure-mindedness of the young, he thought it was high time to interfere and to punish him as he deserved, and if the "cat" were added it would be an improvement.
    New Clause (Sale of matter tending to debauch a misdemeanour,)—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that after the somewhat impassioned speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down it was necessary for him to say a few words. The hon. and learned Gentleman had read the Law Officers of the Crown a lecture on the law; but he could assure him it was altogether unnecessary in this case, as they were perfectly well acquainted with the law on this subject, and with the only authority the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted. He took the responsibility of advising the Home Secretary in this matter. The whole case was most carefully considered by the Law Officers of the Crown and by still higher authorities, and the opinion they formed was formed upon the merits of the case, and

    1411
    with a perfect acquaintance with the law, and they came to the conclusion that it would not be a wise or prudent thing to prosecute The Pall Mall Gazette newspaper, and, as the Home Secretary had stated a few nights ago, they never deviated from that opinion. A prosecution of this sort had to be very carefully handled, as it very frequently aggravated the mischief. While he did not justify the tone and language of that paper, he contended that in such a case as this no one who was responsible would consider it a desirable thing to prosecute. Such prosecutions took a very long time, and did more to spread the mischief than anything else. [A laugh] His hon. Friend might laugh; but he contended that there were circumstances in this case which would not render it desirable to prosecute. The law as it stood was quite strong enough, and did not require amendment; but he would like to call the attention of the House to what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. What did he propose? That anyone—
    "Circulating anything calculated or tending to debauch, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a period of not more than two years, and to be fined a sum not exceeding two hundred pounds, and all such writing, prints, or publications shall be seized and destroyed.
    Well, for his part, he did not think that there was anything did more harm to the minds of young people than French novels. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose that the sale of French novels should be a misdemeanour? ["Oh, oh!"] Well, all he could say was that he considered that these cheap French novels were as calculated to debauch the minds of young people as anything else. He said that no amendment of the law was required; and certainly this was not the time to deal with such a matter, or with any other matter unless it was such a matter as was dealt with generally by the Bill, and, in any case, the Amendment would not be an amendment of the law, nor would it meet the case of the placing before the public matters that were obscene.
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he had no objection to this clause; but he took leave to enter his very strongest protest against the personal attacks which had been made upon the editor of a particular journal. He held no
    1412
    brief for that newspaper. He had frequently had to differ from it on political matters; but from a personal knowledge of the editor, whom he supposed to be the person aimed at, and who after all was responsible for this exposure, he felt bound to record his protest against the statement that he was actuated by any catch-penny motives, or by the mere desire of promoting the circulation of his paper. His primary idea was to carry out a great and much-needed moral reform which he saw was necessary, and it was a work which it was impossible to conduct without a certain departure from journalistic rule and style of language usually adopted in newspaper literature. For his own part, he believed that departure, though it might cause some evil, had been productive of an amount of good far in excess of the evil. As to the question of profit, he believed if the hon. and learned Member would examine the statement thoroughly he would see that, considering the great expense incurred, there could not have been the profit he imagined. As to the policy of the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette, he ventured to say that his policy had been abundantly justified by its result in that House. He believed most firmly that the measure was at one time in imminent peril; and when it was talked out by hon. Gentlemen opposite with ill-concealed satisfaction, the fact being gloated over by certain newspapers the next day as a proper dismissal of a mawkish measure, its chances of passing at the fag-end of the Session were infinitely small. He believed the enterprize of the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette had been the chief means by which the result arrived at that night had been obtained.
    MR. M'COANsaid, he was sorry the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) who brought forward the clause had weakened its strength by pointing the moral of it at The Pall Mall Gazette. It was evident there was a great difference of opinion as to the action and motives of that paper, and as to the moral results of its recent "revelations;" but he thought he might have found justification enough for his clause in the class of obscene literature which had been thriving and circulating in London for many months before The Pall Mall Gazette had entered upon its crusade. He was sorry to hear from

    1413
    the Attorney General that the law as it stood was sufficient to deal with the circulation and dissemination of such literature, because, if that were so, the late Government had incurred a grave responsibility in not putting it down, and that responsibility now devolved upon the present Home Secretary for permitting the circulation of the vile trash they daily met with in most of their great London thoroughfares. Everyone who saw the vile publications which were placed under the eyes of young men and boys who walked down the Strand must have been struck by the impunity with which they were allowed to be circulated. And yet the Attorney General told them the present law was sufficient to put a stop to it. The hon. and learned Member who had moved the clause did not allude to that—his motive, apparently, being a personal one against The Pall Mall Gazette. He hoped the House would feel that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to take action, not against The Pall Mall Gazette, but against these atrocious publications which were sold openly in the streets.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he cordially supported the clause of his hon. and learned Friend. He was no lawyer, and, therefore, did not understand whether it was drawn up in legal phraseology or not. He had felt some surprise at hearing from the Attorney General, when he addressed the House that night, that the existing law was sufficient to put down immoral publications. That might be so; but he believed that the duty of prosecuting devolved upon no particular individual. As the law stood now, anyone could prosecute a newspaper proprietor or publisher for printing and circulating any obscene and vile literature; but surely, when Her Majesty's Government knew that these publications, and others worse even, were being sold broadcast in the streets, it appeared to him the duty devolved on the Government of putting a stop to them. But it was not only this vile letterpress which had been shocking and horrifying the country recently. That was bad enough; but hon. Gentlemen who walked the streets saw this Pall, Mall Gazette literature reprinted and illustrated with filthy woodcuts. He would venture to say that in no country in the world had such indecency been seen as had distinguished the streets of London during
    1414
    the past few weeks. Moreover, he would inform the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that not only was it in London that this vile literature was sold, but that in many places of ordinary legitimate pleasure it was now purchasable by every country boy or girl who wished to possess it. He would ask the Home Secretary how long this sort of thing was to be allowed to go on? It was all very well to say that he or any other gentleman could prosecute; but who would take the trouble—who would go to the expense to do it? The duty must devolve upon the Government. His friends had told him that The Pall Mall Gazette had declared that the whole cost of the prosecution of this investigation only cost £300. It was absurd to say that this journal had put itself to any great expense. The Pall Mall Gazette, in the course of this wretched business, had had the countenance of gentlemen who ought to have known better. The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) was one of those gentlemen who ought to have known better—he was one who ought not to have lent his countenance to the circulation of this paper by sitting on its Committee in concert with others. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) had said that great mischief had ensued from this publication, and he (Mr. Onslow) was quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right. The obscene articles in The Pall Mall Gazette had contained exactly that information which many young girls wanted to know. The very things they wished to know were in it, so that these papers, when they got into their possession, would be handed from one child to another. How much longer was this thing to be allowed to go on? How long were they to have the streets of this City sullied with the filth and indecency of The Pall Mall Gazette and Town Talk;—the streets of a City said to be in the highest state of civilization of any in the world? If it were the fact that this clause, if carried, would prove unworkable, he would press on the House the necessity of having some new clause framed to carry out the object in view. It was all nonsense to say that good would result from these publications—it was all nonsense

    1415
    to say that this indecency had been published from a good motive. [Sir ROBERT FOWLER (Lord Mayor): No, no!] The Lord Mayor behind him had peculiar views on many subjects. His (Mr. Onslow's) opinion was that this thing had not been done from a good motive, but that it had been done for pecuniary reasons, and that the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette was not the only person to blame. Other gentlemen who were anxious for a certain notoriety had embarked in it, and were equally to blame. One gentleman, who was spoken of as a very religious person, had a great deal to account for. He was endeavouring to make a great deal of money——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is wandering from the subject before the House, which is whether the law ought or ought not to be altered by the adoption of this new clause.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, it had been contended that the circulation of the literature of which he had been speaking would do more good than harm; but he did not believe it. His opinion, which he held most strongly, was this—that if there were some clause such as the hon. and learned Gentleman desired put in the Bill, they would do more to prevent prostitution than they were likely to do by all the rest of the Bill. Do not let girls of 13 or 14 know more than they heard or saw in their own homes—do not allow their minds to be polluted by this vile literature. He held this opinion most strongly, and, if the clause were not put in here, he hoped it would be put in in the House of Lords.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was getting very late, and he did not think they would be able to succeed in determining whether these publications had done more harm than good, or more good than harm, however long the debate was continued. The question was whether this clause should be put in the Bill. For his own part, he did not think it was wanted. He believed the law as it existed was amply sufficient. Some observations had been made as to whether or not the Government should undertake prosecutions of this kind; but he believed that a Government Press prosecution was about the most likely to fail of any in the world. If a prosecution was to be undertaken, it was better that anyone
    1416
    should undertake it than the Government. He himself had been, at one time, pressed to undertake such a prosecution—a prosecution which was undertaken in the end against The Freethinker. From his experience in connection with that case, he was sure that prosecutions of that kind undertaken by a Government were most likely to fail; therefore, he did not think the new clause was wanted.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, that after the reference which had been made to him by the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Onslow), he felt bound to say a word or two. It was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to denounce these special articles in The Pall Mall Gazette; but he had no doubt about it that the result of these articles had been to pass this Bill. The Bill had come down from the House of Lords. It was brought into this House on a Morning Sitting, and talked out; and he apprehended that if The Pall Mall Gazette had not drawn attention to the matter, there the Bill would have stood. There was then a change of Government, and the force of public opinion pressed the subject on the attention of the House. Therefore, whatever might be said about The Pall Mall Gazette, though he agreed with some of the observations of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), he could not but feel glad that public attention had been drawn to the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the Government had taken this Bill in hand because of the publication of the articles in The Pall Mall Gazette, and had been determined to pass it into law. There had been quite sufficient evidence taken to satisfy the House of Lords and this House that something of the kind was wanted. When he had been asked about The Pall Mall Gazette, he had stated that the wiser course by far would have been, if the information was in the hands of The Pall Mall Gazette, to have brought it to the notice of the Secretary of State, so that he might have brought it before the House. It would then have had no effect on the people who heard it—it would not have had the effect of demoralizing the public. No one could regret more than he did that the publication had taken place. As to the non-prosecution of the journal in question, he did not wish to shirk responsi-

    1417
    bility in the matter. He had stated openly in the House that the best legal advice had been taken—not from the Law Officers alone, but from the Lord Chancellor. [Sir HENRY JAMES: He is a Law Officer.] Technically, but not practically. Acting on their advice, the Government had come to the conclusion that it would not be wise to prosecute in this case. From that determination they had never swerved. There were reasons, which he did not think he was bound to go into, why such a prosecution could not be undertaken. In the first place, there was no reasonable certainty of a conviction; then it might have involved waiting a long time, and have necessitated a long trial.
    An hon. MEMBER: How could it have done harm?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): What would hon. Members have said to a long trial, going over 10 days or a fortnight, and all the details being published in the papers, and hawked about the streets, without anyone being able to prevent it? Thus, the increased publicity which the trial would have given to the obnoxious matter had also to be taken into consideration.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, it had been decided, in the case of Brennan and Steele, that the republication of indecent matter repeated in Court was in itself a misdemeanour.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that in this case, at any rate, there would have been no right to punish anyone for this republication. So far as the proposed clause was concerned he did not think it would do any good, because he believed the existing law was strong enough to put down objectionable publications. If the hon. and learned Gentleman went to a division, he should have to vote against him.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he should like to say a very few words on this subject. He very much agreed with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) in what he said about the publication of this paper. There were two ways of treating the subject dealt with by The Pall Mall Gazette—one was the language of the Old Testament, and the other was the language of M. Zola; and he left the House to determine in which method it
    1418
    was desirable to touch upon such a subject, or in which matter the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette had treated it. The question might arise whether it was not at times necessary to violate public modesty in the interests of public, morality—whether it was not necessary to speak out plainly in order to make the Government act rigorously. How far it was the fact that in those matters, if the existing law had been put into operation, the greater part of the difficulty before them would have been met, he would leave those whose duty it was to put the law into motion to determine. It was clear that a great deal of injury had been done to the public morals latterly; but he felt convinced that if they did not act as they were trying to act now a great deal more harm would be done. He was convinced, from his experience of London, that there had never been a single feeling in it more profoundly startled than its moral sense had been by the recent exposure of vice. The exposure had to be made. He did not object to The Pall Mall Gazette making it, although he had not read that paper for a long time, regarding it as an odious journal, in consequence of its habit of going in for vulgar and sensational articles. He bad not read a word of it lately, and he wished a great many other people bad not. If there was not a proper administration of the law as it at present stood, all he could say was that the Government were responsible for the detestable task of inviting the attention of the atrocities which went on in the Metropolis being undertaken by a public journal. There was another hateful paper called Town Talk, edited by someone who, if he rightly remembered, had been convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for some previous indecency. He regretted that those concerned in the publication of this paper had not been taken in hand and punished. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was discreet in his dealing with these matters. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would adopt what he thought the best means to put down that which he believed to be atrocious and criminal vice. He (Mr. Rogers) believed, however, that the existing law, although the administrators of it had failed to put it into operation, was quite sufficient to

    1419
    repress this sort of thing, and he should be very sorry to see express legislation passed for the purpose of prosecuting this or that journal. He should not have said what he had if he had not intended to add that though The Pall Mall Gazette might have thought it its duty to take the course it had taken, it had done it in the worst possible manner. It had spoken of the vices of England in the most prurient language. It was a disgrace to the English Press, and, whatever indirect benefits might arise from it, he did not think any honest man could sit in the House whilst these matters were being discussed without denouncing the paper.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow)—who, he was sorry to see, had left the House—had spoken harshly of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) and others in league with him, for their conduct on the Committee which investigated The Pall Mall Gazette charges, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had stated that the whole story was false and frivolous. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman had sat here when the Bill was last before the House, and must have heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol say that, so far from these accusations being false and groundless, the state of things was much worse than had been described. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that thousands of pounds had been put into the pockets of the proprietors of The Pall Mall Gazette. Well, he (Mr. M'Arthur) was not there to defend the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette. He had not the pleasure of knowing him; but from what he had heard of him, and from what he bad heard in connection with this case, he believed, notwithstanding all that had been said to the contrary, that that gentleman had acted from the purest motives and with the highest object, and that what he had done had had a great deal to do with the successful progress of the Bill. It was perfectly true, as the Home Secretary had pointed out, that this Bill had been prepared two or three years; but he was convinced that if it had not been for The Pall Mall Gazette, another year, at least, would have been allowed to elapse without its being passed. He had no doubt that considerable injury had been done by The Pall
    1420
    Mall Gazette by the publication of these articles; but he believed that the arousing of the people of the country to these abominations and terrible crimes would more than counterbalance any amount of evil that had been done.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that after the complete repudiation they had heard of the course taken by The Pall Mall Gazette, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, He begged to propose the following new Clause:—
    "(1.) Every man who, in any thoroughfare or public place within the limits of the Metropolitan Police District, habitually or persistently solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall be deemed to commit an offence under section fifty-four of the Act of the Session of the second and third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter forty-seven, intituled 'An Act for further improving the Police in and near the Metropolis.'
    "(2.) Every man who, in any street within any town or district wherein section twenty-eight of 'The Town Police Clauses Act, 1847,' is in force, habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall be deemed to commit an offence under the same section."
    This clause was one which he thought was rendered absolutely necessary by the intolerable practice of insulting girls which had grown in this Metropolis to frightful dimensions. There were few subjects which excited the people out-of-doors more than the manner in which these girls were dealt with. With the permission of the House he would call attention to a few remarks which were made on this subject in the House of Lords last year by the Earl of Shaftesbury. It would put the whole case before the House as clearly and in much better language than he could, and would enable them to come to a right judgment on the subject; moreover, it was very brief. The noble Earl said—
    "Hundreds—indeed, thousands—of women and girls were employed in the factories, workshops, and great houses of business far away from their homes. They returned home at all times of the night—some very late Their Lordships should recollect that the many relaxations of the Workshops Act, granted by successive Secretaries of State, had greatly increased the mischief. Those employed at restaurants and railway refreshment rooms necessarily so. Their Lordships should hear the statements of these

    1421
    girls; they were beset on issuing from their places of work by vile and designing men, singly or collectively, who were on the watch for them, and who were there for no other purpose than to work their destruction. Many employers stated the same, and added that they gave protection as far as they could. These defenceless girls were fairly safe as long as they could keep together; but when obliged to separate, they were exposed to the most serious annoyance. But now women were to be subjected to far more fearful trouble. The law defining solicitation was to be altered, and the offence was to be determined by the judgment of the police constable. If a woman were seen speaking to a man, or being spoken to by a man, a constable could at once arrest the woman. Thus, a poor, innocent girl—timid, ignorant, defenceless—might be brought into a Court of Justice and ruined for life. Men were perfectly safe and enjoyed absolute impunity. The offenders were numerous, and were found in all parts of London, and many of them were well known to the Agencies with which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was connected. He had it on the authority of officers of the London City Mission that they were known and designated as 'night walkers,' and, frequently, missionaries and others had interfered to save the girls from brutal assaults. His proposition was very simple and very just; it was no more than to place the men on an equality with the women, and to say that any man soliciting habitually or persistently should be subject to the same penalties as these wretched women."—(3 Hansard, [288] 410–11.)
    Those words, he (Mr. S. Smith.) thought, placed before the House very fully the nature of his clause and the necessity for it. So far as he understood the law, at present there was nothing to prevent a man from insisting on walking home night after night with a young, innocent girl—insisting on talking to her all the way even in an insulting manner, and unless he made an attack on her it was impossible for her to have legal protection. Oases had come before his notice of most cruel hardship in this way, and He felt it was an absolute necessity that the House should deal with the question, and that men should be placed on the same footing as women in regard to these dastardly offences. He should not now do more than move the clause.
    New Clause (Habitual solicitation,)—(Mr. Samuel Smith,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, there was a
    1422
    great deal to be said for the view the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool had taken; but the House would remember that when they were in Committee on this matter it was agreed on all sides that the "Street Clauses," as they were called, were not to be entered upon in this Bill. That was the clear understanding, and when Clause 9 was struck out by both sides of the House without a division—by common consent—it was understood that they should not enter on the Street Clauses at all. If they were now to proceed with them, he should look on it as a distinct breach of the understanding entered into with those hon. Gentlemen who were not now in the House that they should not deal with the matter. He had had communication by letter with the Earl of Shaftesbury on this matter, and the noble Earl, no doubt, feeling convinced that it would imperil the Bill to deal with these clauses at this period of the Session, had given him his full sanction to withdraw them. The clause would open up the whole subject-matter that the Committee refused to enter upon, therefore he opposed the Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was absent from the House when Clause 9 was dropped, and if he had been in the House he should have had something to say with regard to the dropping of it. It was disgraceful to witness the state of the streets, and he was extremely sorry that something could not have been done by Clause 9 to have remedied the existing state of things. However, it was only a small part of the Bill, and anything that would tend to jeopardize the measure as a whole, he, for one, was not prepared to support. Therefore, he was reluctantly compelled to acquiesce in it.
    MR. BROADHURSTwished to know whether the present law was not sufficiently strong to deal with the question? He remembered a case a short time ago in which the police arrested a man, and he was sent to prison for two months for annoying some young women. There was another case also of a County Justice who had been bound over in very heavy penalties to keep the peace towards a lad}7. It would be well if the Law Officers of the Crown could give

    1423
    the House some information on this point.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. CALLANbegged to move the following Clause:—
    "Any failure on the part of an official of State, or a superior officer of police, to act upon a complaint with reference to keeping of a disorderly house, or any offence against this Act, made to him by any of his subordinates, shall be a misdemeanor, and that, if any officer of police is censured by his superiors for making a charge or report against any house of being a 'disorderly house' within the meaning of this Act, directed against the keeping of brothels, the said officer so censured shall, on demand being made by him, be entitled to a public inquiry into the truth of his charge or report for which he may have been censured."
    On the previous day he had intended to call the attention of the House to the misconduct of—thank God!—the late Home Secretary, in regard to such offences as it was intended should be dealt with in this Bill. When the facts of the case became known there would be a feeling of thanksgiving throughout England that he was no longer in his late position. What was this case of Mrs. Jeffreys? She was charged with keeping a brothel by an Inspector named Minahan—with keeping a brothel for the aristocracy; but that was to some extent a mistake, because, from the evidence adduced, he was able to say that it was largely supported by what he might call the wealthy Members of the Radical Party. He contended that the foreign traffic in young girls went on while the Home Office was under the management of the late Home Secretary, and the facts were fully reported in a paper called The Sentinel. He complained that Inspector Minahan had been dismissed from the Police for reporting the character of the houses Mrs. Jeffreys kept, and that cast the greatest reflection upon the Home Office, because they knew the Home Office was responsible for the conduct of the police. He had risen that night merely to bring forward the manner in which this Inspector Minahan had been treated by the Home Office, and he would point out that the case of Minahan and the Home Office and the case of Mrs. Jeffreys were mixed up in a most extraordinary manner. Minahan was substantially dismissed for proceeding in the Jeffries case. He found that in the month of May the hon. Member for Hackney
    1424
    (Mr. J. Stuart) asked the then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) whether it would be right to lay upon the Table of that House the shorthand notes of the case, and whether he would allow an inquiry by that House into the matter, and also into the case of Minahan? The then Home Secretary said that he would lay the depositions on the Table, but he had not done so. Then the right hon. Gentleman had said that this was the matter which he wished to call the attention of the House to—that the case of Minahan had been brought before him a year ago, and he was satisfied with the Superintendent's Report. But he would point out that these were the very parties who were interested in the Minahan case; they were the very people who, if Minahan was right, they were wrong. Minahan had stated that he was practically dismissed for reporting that Mrs. Jeffreys' houses were kept as brothels for the aristocracy, and had demanded an inquiry. Now, he (Mr. Callan) reiterated that charge. He charged the police with having connived at—and having connived at with the late Home Secretary—hushing up the case of Mrs. Jeffreys. Now, that was a specific charge, and if an inquiry were granted he would be prepared to sustain it. It was a shame that the Home Office had not taken up the case. On the 3rd of August he had asked the Home Secretary a Question as to the way in which the case had been dealt with by Mr. Edlin, and he might say that the Home Secretary avoided that Question. In his reply on that occasion the Home Secretary said that he (Mr. Callan) had stated that the case was disgracefully conducted. He had said nothing of the sort. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that the case was conducted by the Chelsea Vestry. Well, that was a matter which he would refer to in a few moments. Now, what was the Jeffreys case and what was the conduct of the magistrates, what was the conduct of the police, and what was the conduct of this immaculate Chelsea Vestry. In October, 1884, informations were sworn to and laid before Mr. Partridge, at the Westminster Police Court, charging this woman Jeffreys with the same offence now charged, and made by the same parties who had eventual]v prosecuted. After 24 hours' considera-

    1425
    tion Mr. Partridge refused to issue a warrant for her arrest. "Leave the information with me" said this immaculate magistrate. The Vestry—this immaculate Vestry—for which the Home Secretary entertained such a high respect that he brought them forward in that House as an answer in regard to the case of poor Mr. Minahan, did not take the matter up. Neither did the police take it up, nor did the Home Office; nor did the Home Office instruct the Public Prosecutor to take it up. He might ask did this information reach the vigilant and acute Home Secretary? If it did not reach him, then the police failed in their duty; but if, on the other hand, it did reach him, then he said that he had deliberately failed in his duty and had been a discredit to the Office over which he had unfortunately presided. ["Divide! divide!"] It was no use to call "Divide!" He did not wish to be interrupted, because if he was he might say something unpleasant personally. Well, the woman was prosecuted, and the evidence—but he would not refer to the nature of the evidence. It was sufficient to say that she pleaded guilty under the advice of an able counsel, and a more disgraceful scene than was enacted at the time of her pleading guilty he must say he had never read. She was tried at the Middlesex Sessions before Mr. Edlin, the Assistant Judge. Mrs. Jeffreys, who was elegantly dressed, conferred with Mr. Montagu Williams, and the latter then came forward and made a statement. He might say that Mr. Williams had done his duty very well to this woman.
    MR. ONSLOWrose to Order. Was not the hon. Member becoming too discursive?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had allowed the hon. Member to go on, but it I appeared to him that under cover of moving a new clause he was re-trying a case which had already boon settled by a. Court of Law. He might raise the case as an illustration of his argument; but to discuss it at great length in the manner he was doing, was going beyond the limits of debate and would be entirely out of Order.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would compress his remarks into the very smallest compass out of deference to what had fallen from the Chair, and from his own
    1426
    inclination. He had merely quoted these matters to show the necessity for having someone responsible to that House and the country in such cases as this. Mr. Williams passed on to a variety of matters which he (Mr. Callan) would not go into. The sentence passed on that occasion drew the attention of the public to the matter, and it was a matter of comment at the time that many of Mrs. Jeffrey's clients were of the highest order. He would not name the clients, although he could do so, having the names in his possession. It was not considered prudent by the authorities to allow the case to go so far. He quoted the words of The Echo as emphasizing in the strongest way his own feelings in the matter. That paper said that the authorities made no complaint; that so far as the Home Secretary and the police authorities were concerned Mrs. Jeffreys might have continued to carry on this horrible trade as she had done for 27 years, and that at the preliminary examination it was shown that the Inspector who reported this house to his superiors was told to hold his tongue.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have now to ask the hon. Gentleman to concentrate his remarks upon the new clause. His course is quite unusual, and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to refer to cases which have already been decided.
    MR. CALLANsaid, He contended that the law could be put in force, and that the way in which it should be done depended on the police and the Local Authorities. Mrs. Jeffrey's case had been brought before the Local Authorities by Mr. Rowlands, a member of the Vestry, but without effect.
    MR. SPEAKER: I shall be very sorry to ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat on the ground of irrelevance; but if the hon. Gentleman does not move the clause or speak with reference to it, I must ask the House to support me in enforcing the ordinary Rule of Debate.
    MR. CALLANsaid, in that case he would refer to the answer given the other day by the late Home Secretary to a Question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman—he gave as his answer that he had inquired with regard to the case, and found that on inquiry the charges were proved to be baseless. That was why he (Mr. Callan) wanted the second

    1427
    part of his clause accepted which provided "that if any officer of police were censured by his superiors for making a charge or report against any house of being a 'disorderly house' within the meaning of the Act, the officer so censured should on demand being made by him be entitled to public inquiry into the truth of the charge or report for which he may have been censured." The late Home Secretary had stated that the charge he was referring to was a baseless charge. He would produce the evidence on which that charge was made.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that he is now entering into debate on a series of answers given in this House on a previous occasion which have nothing whatever to do with the Question before the House. If the hon. Member wishes to move the clause standing in his name he is at perfect liberty to do so; but I must warn the hon. Member that if I have to interpose again it will be to request him to resume his seat on the ground of irrelevance.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he charged the Home Office with having a full knowledge of the facts. There was evidence that since the trial Mrs. Jeffries had continued to carry on these infamous practices. He said that if the Home Secretary did not take action when he had his attention drawn to such cases as these he ought to be held guilty of a misdemeanour. He had evidence that during the progress of the trial officials connected with the Home Office visited Mrs. Jeffreys' establishment, he supposed, for the purpose of reporting on the case, and he wanted to know whether there was at the Home Office any record of their Report? He repeated that he charged that for years the late Home Secretary and the Home Office knew that these houses had been carried on. Mr. Minahan had been dismissed for making a charge that was said to be baseless. But the police had themselves reported on the improper character of these houses; and before the late Home Secretary said that the charge was without foundation he should at least have examined the records in the Police Office. There was a Report which had been suppressed; and he said that the suppression of Reports of the kind ought to be made a misdemeanour, and that if the Home Office received it and did not act upon it their conduct was so
    1428
    improper that the official of the Department who was responsible should be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour. In the month of April——
    MR. SPEAKER: I have allowed the hon. Member the fullest latitude in his remarks, and I must now ask him to resume his seat on the ground of irrelevance and tedious repetition.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that from its title the Bill would seem to range over the whole Criminal haw. But as that was not the purport of the Bill, he would suggest that the words "Criminal Law Amendment" be struck out, and the words "Women and Girls Protection Act" substituted.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words "Criminal Law Amendment," and insert the words "Women and Girls Protection,"—(Mr. Warton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the point was worthy of consideration; but he would propose that they should negative the Amendment, and the Government would state what they proposed to do in the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Further Proceeding on Consideration of Bill, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) [ADVANCES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise Advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any sum or sums of money not exceeding £5,000,000 in the whole, to enable the Land Commission in Ireland to make Advances for the purchase of estates, in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of the present Session, for providing greater facilities for the sale of land to accupying tenants in Ireland.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; East India Army Pensions Deficiency * (239).
Second Reading—Public Works Loans * (234); Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) (235).
Committee—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (170).
Committee—Report—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) * (231).
Third Reading—Poor Law Unions' Officers (Ireland) (214–237); River Thames (No. 2) (218–238), debate adjourned; Evidence by Commission * (228); Telegraph Acts Amendment * (230); Expiring Laws Continuance (229), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 2) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 51]: Submarine Telegraph Cables [48 & 49 Vict. c. 49]; Medical Relief Disqualification Removal [48 & 49 Vict. c. 46]; Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 47]; Public Health (Members and Officers) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 53]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 50]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners (No. 2) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 55]; Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 56]; Pluralities [48 & 49 Vict. c. 54]; Lunacy Acts Amendment [48 & 49 Vict. c. 52]; Revising Barristers [48 & 49 Vict. c. 57]; Earldom of Mar Restitution [48 & 49 Vict. c. 48]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) [48 & 49 Vict. c. cxxvii].

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 170.)
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 170.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD ELPHINSTONE, in rising to move an Amendment, to the effect that the smaller towns which the Dublin Corporation Waterworks supplied should receive a supply of 25 gallons per head of the population per day, instead of 20 gallons as at present, said, that, before doing so, he wished to explain why he, as Chairman of the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, should ask their Lordships to accept an Amendment which that Committee threw out. The facts were these. The Dublin Corporation Waterworks supplied several smaller towns situated between that City and the sources of the supply. The smaller towns were supplied under separate and Local Acts, all of which were similar in character. They enacted that each centre of population should be supplied with 20 gallons of water per head per day; and that if any additional quantity were supplied a rate should be levied on the rateable value of the several towns. Some of these towns were favourite watering places. All of them were becoming, year by year, places of greater

  1253
  resort, and their population was annually increasing. The Dublin Corporation stated they had difficulty in ascertaining the extent to which the population increased, and what additional quantity of water was required, and this Provisional Orders Bill was intended to obviate that difficulty. It was shown to the Committee that while the supply to the smaller towns was limited to 20 gallons per head daily, the consumption of water by the population of Dublin was 38 gallons. It was true that the smaller towns might obtain additional water; but all in excess of the 20 gallons was charged for as assessed water. There was no question as to the amount of water available, for the supply was greater than the demand. At any rate, for the greater portion of the year the water ran to waste to the extent of 2,000,000 gallons daily. It was also shown to the Committee that there was every reason to hope that the Corporation debt would be paid off early in the next century, and when the witness who used the expression was questioned about it, he said the debt would be cleared off within 20 or 25 years. The Committee sat for five hours one day, and seven hours the next day. They listened to every argument advanced by counsel and against the Bill. Very few Committees had paid more attention to a Bill than was paid to this. The Committee decided unanimously to pass the Bill as it stood, and to insert a clause to provide that the supply of water to the smaller towns should be 25 gallons per head per day, instead of 20 gallons, as heretofore. It was only fair to say that one noble Lord, a Member of the Committee, had demurred; but he had not objected to the granting of the excess water. He was prepared to grant 25 gallons in lieu of 20 gallons; but he foresaw certain difficulties in giving effect to the Resolution of the Committee. However, the noble Lord had not pressed his objection, and the Committee came to the conclusion stated unanimously. The effect of that decision would have been that Dublin would have obtained what it asked for—that was to say, they would have been able to estimate the population of the small towns; whilst the position of the small towns would have been improved, as they would get what they desired—a larger allowance of water. The Committee
  1254
  felt that it was a compromise—indeed, they had every reason to believe it was a compromise—which might be, and they thought would have been, gladly accepted by all parties. It injured no one. There was no want of water, and, as he had said, within a measurable distance of time there was every reason to hope that the Corporation debt would be paid off. The Committee, therefore, instructed counsel to draw up a clause giving effect to these decisions. After the clause was drawn up, not one could be prepared which seemed to meet the wishes of the opposing parties. Three-quarters of an hour was spent in a vain endeavour to draw up a clause, and the Committee then had to clear the Committee Boom. The noble Lord (Lord Carlingford), who was now abroad, but who had been a Member of the Committee, had suggested that the proposed clause should not be inserted, and after some consultation the Committee divided, with the result that the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) and himself (Lord Elphinstone) were left in a minority of two to three. The Bill was therefore left in the same position in which it had come before the Committee. Since then he had received a communication from the noble Lord (Lord Truro), saying he was quite prepared to restore the clause as the Committee originally proposed it; and he had also received a similar assent from another noble Lord who was a Member of the Committee. Under those circumstances, he came before the House backed by the originally unanimous decision of the Committee, and by the fact that four noble Lords had expressed their wish that the clause might be restored. The noble Lord to whom he had referred as having any doubt in the matter had not been unfavourable to the increased grant of water, and therefore he (Lord Elphinstone) had the honour to move the following clause of which he had given Notice, and which he hoped their Lordships would accept.
  Moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause:—
  "For the purposes of the eighth section of the Dublin Corporation Waterworks and Fire Brigade Provisional Order, 1874, and of the Orders hereby confirmed, the statutable or contract allowance of water to the townships mentioned in that section shall be deemed to be twenty-five gallons per head per day, instead of twenty gallons per head per day, as provided

  1255
  by the Acts in that section mentioned relating to those townships respectively, and the said Orders and Acts shall be read and have effect accordingly."—[The Lord Elphinslone.)
  Question proposed, "That the said Clause be there inserted."
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he was informed that the Local Government Board could not agree to the Amendment which his noble Friend (Lord Elphinstone) had just now moved. He (the Marquess of Waterford) had been astonished to hear the statement the noble Lord had made, because the noble Lord had led their Lordships to understand that the Committee bad unanimously placed in the Bill a clause giving 25 gallons a-day per head to the townships. But exactly the reverse was the case. The Committees had thrown out the clause—they would not adopt it. It was so stated on the Minutes. They had now, according to the noble Lord, thought better of that action; but certainly the Bill had been reported to their Lordships without Amendment. There was no Amendment of the sort appearing in the Bill; and, in addition to that, in the Minutes passed by the Committee there was a remark by the noble Chairman (Lord Elphinstone) himself, in which he said that some of the Committee bad been anxious to put the five gallons extra per head per day for the townships in the Bill, but that, as it was contested, they could not do so. There were several objections in the way, and, therefore, they could not carry it out. The proposal now renewed had been several times inquired into. It had been, in the first place, very carefully considered by the Irish Local Government Board, who had heard an immense amount of evidence upon it. It was then fought in the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, which decided in favour of the Corporation, allowing the Provisional Order to stand. The matter then went up to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and upon that occasion the Lord Chancellor, he (the Marquess of Water-ford) was informed, spoke very strongly upon it in favour of the Provisional Order. That Order was a most ample one and a most fair one, and be asked their Lordships not to accept the Amendment. In the original Act the water supply was limited in all the towns that had been referred to to 20 gallons per head per day; and it was arranged that
  1256
  any increased quantity should depend upon the increase of the population. It was found difficult to estimate the population; and the Corporation went to the Local Government Board to get a Provisional Order which should help them on this point. The arrangement come to was that they should take the Census of 1881, and add for each subsequent year one-tenth of the increase that took place between the years 1871 and 1881. If now the House accepted the Amendment, they would upset every Local Act which these townships had obtained. They entered into a bargain to pay 4d. in the pound for a supply of 20 gallons of water in the day. And, now, when the Corporation asked that the population should be defined, the townships put in a claim of five gallons per head per day more. There were nine townships, of which four only opposed this Provisional Order—Kingstown, Bray, Blackrock, and Clontarf. In Dublin, the water rate was 1s. 3d. in the pound. In the townships, for 20 gallons a-day, it was 4d.; and now the townships wished to continue to pay 4d., but to receive 25 gallons. That would be to repeal the Local Acts, without any notice whatever having been given of such an intention. The passing of the Amendment would occasion the Dublin Corporation enormous expenditure in order to enlarge their works. The noble Lord had pointed out that the population was increasing in the towns. He was sure their Lordships would be pleased to hear it; but that fact was all in favour of the townships, and was no reason why they should have more water per head for the present price. They could have as much more as they liked on the assessment of 2½d. per 1,000 gallons. He hoped their Lordships would not accept this Amendment, which had been sprung upon the Corporation at the last moment.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, there could be no doubt that this question was one of considerable importance. He had not had much experience of Committees in this House; but he had been a Member of the Committee which had sat to consider the question. They had come unanimously to a certain decision—namely, that the supply of water should be increased to 25 gallons per bead, and that that should be a condition on which the Provisional Order

  1257
  should be passed. That having been the decision of the Committee, it became a question as to how that decision should be embodied. Some Members of the Committee thought it would not be practicable for them to draw it up themselves; and, inasmuch as the counsel were not able to agree to it, the room was cleared for the purpose of consulting as to what form the Provision should take. One Member of the Committee (Lord Carlingford) thought it would be impossible to draw it up without clashing with existing legislation, and divided the Committee on the point; but he (the Duke of Marlborough) submitted that the real decision of the Committee was come to when the Chairman announced to counsel on both sides the decision to allow the increased quantity of water to the townships. The matter, he held, was decided by that decision, and the conclusion arrived at ultimately was not in form. Whether or not that view would meet the approval of their Lordships, he would not presume to say. The case of the townships, he asserted, was one of considerable hardship, the Provisional Order of 1874, as it stood, being an unworkable Order. The word "population," there defined, was no criterion as to how population should be adjudged, and it was therefore necessary for the Corporation to get a new Provisional Order in which the word "population" was properly defined. In the present Order, therefore, that matter was clearly defined on the principle of the Census, which, by the decision of the Law Courts in Dublin, was not accepted as the criterion of population when the suit came on between the Kingstown and Dublin Corporations. He ventured to think that when the Dublin Corporation came to Parliament and asked for an enabling Order, that was the only opportunity those growing minor townships had of getting better terms from this large and growing Corporation; and he therefore also thought it right that they should endeavour to acquire for themselves advantages which they could not hope to obtain under other circumstances. It was not the same thing as if they were dealing with a private Water Company, which required an Order for its protection in the enjoyment of its rights. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford)
  1258
  had said that the Local Government Board (Ireland) did not approve the Amendment; but that would not prevent their Lordships from accepting it. The proposal would not affect the Private Acts of the smaller towns. The Amendment only provided that, where those Acts spoke of 20 gallons, henceforth 25 gallons should be understood. Then it was said the Corporation would have to go to great expense for new works; but it was clearly shown in Committee that the water was running to waste, and that there was no difficulty in increasing the supply. On all those grounds, he thought the case of the minor towns was very strong. The Committee having once come to a decision, that decision should be upheld, for the after proceedings of the Committee were quite irregular. Tie therefore supported the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, the question raised in this ease, in regard to procedure, was exactly the reverse of that raised, the other day in regard to the Tramways Bill. In this case, as he understood, the Committee was desirous of increasing the supply of water if they could; but they found that they could not do so, because of existing bonds and previous Acts of Parliament. If their Lordships now passed the clause, it would be equivalent to saying that the Committee was wrong, and that the additional supply should be given in spite of bargains and previous legislation. One of the chief causes of the difficulties that arose in connection with the construction of Acts of Parliament was due to clauses being introduced in this way without sufficient consideration of the effect that they might have on existing Acts of Parliament. If the Committee had abstained from doing what they desired to do because of the difficulty of dealing with the matter in this Bill, their Lordships would do well to reject the Amendment. At all events, he trusted they would not agree to the clause without inquiring into its effect.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack was under a misapprehension as to the decision of the Committee. They decided that a certain clause should be inserted as the condition on which they granted the Order.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to, for the matter was one of the first importance as a sanitary question. Twenty years ago the Corporation of Dublin obtained power to appropriate the waters of the Vartry River. That power was given to them as Trustees, and they were bound to supply the township with 20 gallons per head per day. That was now recognized as a clearly insufficient supply, for the average supply of most of the London Water Companies averaged from 23 to 30 gallons per head per day. The Committee had reported that 30 gallons had been asked for simply as a compromise. Nothing was proposed to be taken from the Dublin Corporation. They did not require half the water, and the consequence was that a large quantity was daily allowed to run to waste. The Corporation, however, stood on its rights, and said it would give nothing beyond the 20 gallons. The Committee took the view that the townships were entitled to an additional supply, and they recommended that a clause to that effect should be added to the Bill. It was a mistake to suppose that there had, in this case, been any inquiry made by the Local Government Board (Ireland), or that there had been any Report. If it went to the Local Government Board, they would report in favour of 30 gallons instead of 25. If they passed the clause they would not be violating any contract, but would only be substituting right for wrong. Instead of allowing 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 gallons of water to run to waste daily, they would be giving a portion of it to the townships. He hoped their Lordships would pass the clause.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, if this were a proposal to give the outlying townships an additional supply of water on condition that they gave a fair price for it, no one could object to it. With every disposition to give them help in obtaining what they sought, what he objected to was the contention that a Bill of this kind, which had nothing to do with the supply of water, but only the ascertaining of the population, should be considered a fair opportunity to compel the Dublin Corporation to give them better terms than those already agreed upon as regarded the supply of water. That was to say, they took
  1260
  advantage of the Bill to ask for 25 gallons per head per day at the present price of 20 gallons. As he had said, he was most anxious to assist the townships to obtain sufficient water; but having listened with the very greatest attention to the arguments that had been brought forward, he had come to the conclusion that the proposal was a very unreasonable one.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 19; Not-Contents 20: Majority 1.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Amendment made.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 214.) THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  On Motion, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the Bill had been introduced under the impression that it afforded distinct advantages to medical officers connected with Unions. It seemed, however, that the medical officers had taken alarm, and were afraid that some of their rights were going to be taken away. The Council of the Irish Medical Society had communicated with him, and pressed him to introduce an Amendment to remove that impression. He warned them that the effect might be to endanger the Bill; but as they thought the matter important, and were willing to run the risk, he now proposed the insertion of a clause for that purpose.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 237.)

RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 218.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, if the measure passed in its present shape, it would ruin some of the most beautiful residences on the beautiful Thames. Although he had promised not to interfere any further with the progress of the Bill, he had just received such a piteous letter from an old friend, that he felt bound to lay it before their Lordships, and take their opinion upon the Bill. The gentleman to whom he referred, and who signed himself "Your Afflicted Old Friend," begged him to implore the House not to pass the Bill, which, by permitting the mooring of house-boats for so long a period as 48 hours in one spot, would absolutely ruin his "pretty waterside place," and destroy all the pleasure to be derived from his lawn which fronted the river. If a river was navigable, people had the incidental rights which attached to that navigation; and he quite agreed that, if a vessel sprang a leak, or wanted to hoist a sail, those on board would have a right to remain anywhere in the river while they were doing what was necessary for them to enjoy the right of navigation which the law gave them; but that was all the right they had. It was said that, if they moored opposite a gentleman's house or pleasure ground, the riparian proprietor had no remedy. He maintained, on the contrary, that the riparian proprietor had two remedies. He might unmoor the vessel and turn it adrift, just the same as anyone had a right to turn a carriage out of his garden; or he might bring an action at Common Law for damages against the owner. Consequently, there was no necessity for the Bill. The Bill would legalize the mooring of these boats for a period of 48 hours, and he very much deprecated the rights of riparian owners being thus sacrificed. It would give a right which no gentleman or decent person would exercise. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships not to allow the Bill to pass, as, in his judgment, it was absolutely indefensible.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the appeal made by so great an authority as the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) was so striking an appeal, that it produced in his mind considerable doubt as to whether the Bill ought to be proceeded with. He had not voted against the Bill, because he
  1262
  had hitherto believed that a large majority of the riparian proprietors wished it to pass in its present form; but he confessed that what the noble and learned Lord had said, and what he had recently heard, led him to doubt very much whether that was the case. The noble and learned Lord had earnestly appealed to their Lordships upon the legality of the measure, and he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would suggest whether it would not be better to leave the structure of the Bill as it now appeared, and to insert a Proviso to the effect that nothing in the Bill should be so construed as to deprive the riparian owners of any legal rights which they might now possess. That might be done by the omission of certain words. Whether in that form, or any other, the Bill was passed eventually, the language of the noble and learned Lord made him think it would be far better to pause for a day or two before finally disposing of the measure, in order that his arguments might be fully considered.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that, however sound the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) might be as a matter of law on a certain state of facts, the facts on which he founded that view were certainly wrong. In the Select Committee upon this subject the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne), when in the other House, knowing the real facts, came to an entirely different conclusion from that arrived at by the noble and learned Lord in ignorance of those facts. To pass a law that boats should not remain at all opposite to the residences of riparian owners would be to deprive Londoners of one of their most agreeable sources of recreation, without securing to the riparian owners any corresponding benefit. He thought their Lordships ought to pay some attention to the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee of which Lord Ashbourne and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach were active Members. Those recommendations were embodied in the present Bill. There was so great a difficulty in taking advantage of the existing law, that he had not heard of any riparian owner who had attempted to put it in force. The riparian owners had sent representatives who had laid their case before the Committee. If the law were effec-

  1263
  tive in the direction suggested by the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Bramwell), it would cause serious inconvenience to hundreds and thousands of persons who now spent a week or a month on the river in a house boat. Indeed, he had heard the Bill objected to on the ground that it interfered too much with the rights of the public. The main purpose of the Bill was the regulation of the traffic, and, in order to carry out the object, it proposed to increase the powers now possessed by the Thames Conservancy. Another object of the Bill was to prevent shooting on the river. At this time of the year crowds of people went upon the river with guns and pistols for the purpose of destroying the wild fowl, and frequently the young swans. Such a practice was most dangerous. The other provisions of the measure were intended to enable the police and the magistrates to act with promptitude and with efficiency. Thus, every boat would be required to have a number or badge marked upon it, by which it could be identified and, in case of necessity, stopped at the locks. He trusted that the noble and learned Lord would not intervene at that moment for the purpose of preventing the passing of a measure which had been framed for the mutual interests of the public and of the riparian owners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he would point out that the Bill created new rights, and deprived riparian owners of rights they undoubtedly already possessed. He fully concurred in the view expressed by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) as to the legal aspect of the question. He had originally been assured that all the riparian owners were in favour of the Bill; but now he understood that there were many against it. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Mount-Temple) had spoken somewhat lightly of the legal opinion of the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Bramwell); but all he (the Lord Chancellor) could say was that there was no lawyer in this country who would not assume that opinion to be accurate until the contrary was shown. Therefore, the opinion of the noble and learned Lord was not to be cast aside in the manner the noble Lord proposed. The noble Lord who had moved the third
  1264
  reading of the Bill appeared to altogether mistake the question at issue. Their Lordships were dealing, not with the hundreds and thousands of people who amused themselves on the river, but with the comparatively limited number of persons who thought fit to loiter opposite the houses of riparian owners for, perhaps, three months at a time. Nobody could pretend that this was done in the exercise of the ordinary rights of navigation on the river. In these circumstances, he begged to move that the debate be adjourned until Monday next, in order to give those noble Lords who were opposed to the measure an opportunity of attending and stating their objections to it.
  Moved, "That the Debate be adjourned to Monday next."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Debate further adjourned to Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended on Report. (No. 238.)

LABOURERS (IRELAND (No. 2) BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 235.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would explain its provisions to-morrow, on moving that their Lordships go into Committee upon it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he did not at all object to the second reading of the Bill—in fact, he hoped it would be road a second time; but he was of opinion that it would require a good deal of attention in Committee. However much some might object to State interference, he did not believe that even his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) would deny that it was essential that agricultural labourers in Ireland should receive assistance from the State by being provided with dwellings. He (the Earl of Courtown) was aware that in England it was considered to be the duty of landlords to provide dwellings for labourers; but he would remind their Lordships that the Land Act had thrown considerable difficulties in the way of

  1265
  Irish landlords doing so. He was well aware that in some localities in that country the law had been abused by Boards of Guardians for purposes of political vengeance; but he was glad to be able to say, from his own experience, that it had been productive of at least indirect good. He thought it of importance that public attention should be continually fixed on the housing of labourers. In some cases, on the attention of landlords being called to the want of cottages, they had undertaken to erect them; in other cases, where farmers had cabins on their lands which had been declared uninhabitable, they had improved them. The principal defects in the present law which were sought to be remedied by the Bill had relation to its cost. Thus, instead of Boards of Guardians being obliged to purchase land, they could take it an lease; and, instead of an extensive appeal to Parliament, a cheaper appeal was given to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. He believed that good would be done to the labouring classes by the improvement of the law; and, therefore, he hoped the Bill would be passed.
  LORD VENTRYsaid, he agreed with most of what had been said by the noble Earl who had just sat down. He desired to see this new legislation work smoothly, and with that object he proposed to give Notice of Amendments which he would move in Committee designed to prevent unnecessary friction in the working of the measure. He desired as much as anyone to see Irish labourers supplied with better cottages; but their experience of the Act of 1883 might tell them what the effect of this measure would probably be if passed in its present shape. At the same time, he thought the Bill would do a great deal of good if properly amended.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he only rose to point out to their Lordships that they were now asked to follow an unusual course of procedure in asking their Lordships to confirm the principle of an important Bill of 23 clauses without having had one word of explanation of its objects from his noble Friend who was in charge of it (the Marquess of Water-ford).
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  (NO. 229.) THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  On Motion, "That the Bill do pass?"
  LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved to introduce a clause for the purpose of conferring the franchise upon women.
  Amendment moved,
  After Clause 2, add the following Clause:— "Provided that the Act 35 & 36 Vict. c. 33, continued as aforesaid, shall be hereby extended so as to admit all women not legally disqualified who have the same 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.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that they were engaged at present on an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and how could they, in connection with such a measure, enter upon new legislation? What the noble Lord proposed was new legislation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.