Sitting of 9 August 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) [No. 343].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Divisional Magistrates (Ireland)* (374).
Second Reading—Imperial Defence* [346]; Solicitors* [347]; Local Bankruptcy (Ireland)* [344].
Second Reading—Committee—Report—Third Reading—Marriages Validation [370], and passed.
Report of Select Committee—Lloyd's (Signal Stations) [No. 344].
Committee—Report—National Defence* [235]; Municipal Funds (Ireland)* [371].
Committee—Report—Third Reacting—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [354]; Public Works Loans* [355]; Expiring Laws Continuance* [353]; Hawkers* [360], and passed.
Third Reading—Oaths [7–319], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  SECURITY AGAINST FIRE (METROPOLIS)—INQUIRY BY COMMITTEE.
  MR. AIRDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will cause a special inquiry to be made by an independent Committee to consider whether the Metropolis can be placed in a state of greater security against the contingencies of fire and its frequently fatal consequences?
  MR. BAUMANNasked, Whether the Government had considered the Report of the Select Committee which was appointed in 1876 to inquire into this subject; and whether they were prepared to take steps to carry out any of the recommendations contained in the Committee's Report?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Government are fully alive to the importance of this matter, and would have no objection to a special inquiry; but, considering the time of the year, and the fact that the Fire Brigade is about to be transferred to another authority within a few months, it does not seem expedient to appoint a Committee now.

POST OFFICE—PRICES OF POST CARDS.
MR. R. POWERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, during the recess, he will take into his serious consideration the great desirability of arranging for the sale of post cards at post offices, if not at the face value of the stamps, as is done on the Continent, at all events at a price per dozen equal to that at which the same articles are now supplied by stationers—namely, 7d. instead of 8d.?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): A few days ago I stated, in the answer which I made to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson), that the sale of post cards at their face value entail a loss of Revenue of upwards of

73
£77,000; and there is, I fear, no prospect of any reduction of the present price so long as the existing contract remains in force.
MR. R. POWERasked, whether the contract would be renewed?
MR. RAIKESsaid, it would not.

NEW SOUTH WALES—THE CHINESE IMMIGRATION—SPEECH OF SIR HARRY PARKES.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can say whether a pamphlet purporting to contain the speech of Sir Harry Parkes, Premier of New South Wales, in moving the Second Reading of the Chinese Restriction Bill, and a preface by that gentleman, is genuine; whether he has noticed that Sir Harry Parkes used the following words in his speech, and set them forth again in his preface:—
"Neither for Her Majesty's ships of war, nor for Her Majesty's Representative on the spot, nor for the Secretary of State for the Colonies, do we intend to turn aside from our purpose, which is to terminate the landing of Chinese on these shores for ever, except under the restrictions imposed by the Bill, which will amount, and are intended to amount, to practical prohibition;"
also, that Sir Harry Parkes distinctly avowed that—
"The Government had been acting illegally in refusing to allow the Chinese to land;"
whether the Bill so proposed was passed, and contained an indemnity for the illegal acts committed by the New South Wales Government; whether the Act so passed has been assented to by the Governor, acting for Her Majesty, not being reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure; and, whether the Secretary of State satisfied himself that the refusal to allow the Chinese to land in New South Wales and the provisions of the Bill are in accordance with Her Majesty's Treaties with the Emperor of China, and with our amicable relations with that Power, before he allowed the Governor to give the Queen's Assent to the Act?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the pamphlet referred to by the hon. Member; and
74
he has seen the two statements quoted, which are explained in the preface. The Bill has passed, and is understood to contain a clause preserving to any person who feels aggrieved the right of redress for losses in Courts of Law, but indemnifying the Members of the Ministry personally. The Bill has been assented to, but without prejudice to Her Majesty's power of disallowance should its provisions be found inadmissible. The Act has not yet been received; but its provisions will be carefully considered. I may add that laws imposing restrictions on Chinese immigration have been in force for many years in the Australian Colonies.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that he would call attention to the subject on the second reading of the Imperial Defence Bill.

PERSIA—TRADING COMPANIES—PROCLAMATION OF THE SHAH.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Proclamation of the Shah of Persia issued in May last, encouraging the formation of Companies and promising them protection, Whether that promise was put forth in any degree at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Representative; and, whether the formal communication of the Proclamation to Foreign Powers will give them any claim to interfere on behalf of Companies or capitalists who may choose to embark in speculations in Persia?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran was aware beforehand of the intentions of the Shah to issue the Proclamation, and encouraged it. Her Majesty's Government have themselves repeatedly urged the Shah to throw open the Karun River to steam navigation, and to encourage the construction of railways and carriage roads from the Persian Gulf. The formal communication of the Proclamation to the Foreign Representatives constitutes, in effect, an assurance on the part of His Majesty to which a Foreign Government might appeal; but that the right of interference on behalf of British subjects who may embark in commercial or in-

75
dustrial enterprizes in Persia is founded on Article IX. of the Treaty of 1857, insuring most-favoured nation treatment to British subjects and their trade, and, consequently, extended to them the provisions of the Treaty of Commerce between Russia and Persia, signed at Turkmantchai in 1828.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that on an early opportunity he should call attention to the subject.

AFRICA (CENTRAL)—THE SLAVE TRADE.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Secretary of State will cause to be prepared and presented to Parliament, after the coming Recess, a précis, showing in brief the information obtained by the Foreign Office as to the extent and character of the Slave Trade now carried on in the interior of Africa; also as to the number of slaves exported, the parts of the coast from which they are exported, the countries to which they are exported, and the way in which they are dealt with in those countries; the persons by whom, and the means by which, the traffic is carried on; and the degree to which repressive measures are effectually used or fail of effect?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Foreign Office already give all the information possessed by them on the subject in the Annual Report on the Slave Trade, which is presented to Parliament; the further details asked for by the hon. Member are plainly impossible to furnish, and any such statistics could only be founded on speculation.

POST OFFICE—THE CHANNEL TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Postmaster General, If he can now say that the monopoly of a private Telegraph Company across the Channel to the Continent will not be renewed on its expiry?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the monopoly will not be renewed.

RIOTS AND DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)—PLUMBER AND CONNELL, EMERGENCY MEN.
MR. J. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of two Emergency men, named Plumber and Connell, who, being in charge of a farm at Killeenagalline, County Tipperary, whilst returning on Wednesday the 1st instant, from Emly, in a state of drunkenness, fired several shots from revolvers, when two young girls had a narrow escape from the bullets; whether, having been arrested by the police, they were brought before the magistrates at Tipperary Petty Sessions, and fined £1 and 7s. 6d. respectively for being drunk only; whether Constable Falvey swore the revolver found on Plumber had the appearance of being discharged; and, whether the authorities are investigating the case of firing, and intend taking any action against these men for the grave offence?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Constabulary Authorities report that the caretakers referred to are not connected either with the Emergency Committee or the Property Defence Association. Plumber was fined £1 for being drunk while in possession of a loaded revolver, and Connell 5s. for being drunk only, his revolver not being loaded when he was arrested. It does not appear that the two girls had a narrow escape from being shot. One of them said Connell pointed his revolver at her, but made no attempt to discharge it; nor did he say anything to her. Her companion said she did not see Connell do anything. The constable's evidence related to Connell's (not Plumber's) revolver; and it appears that a man states that he saw him discharge it into a field where there was no person.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the authorities will inquire how these men are able to fire revolvers in the open air without being prosecuted?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not got the exact terms of the charge before me. There will probably be an investigation into the matter of the licence.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: That is not what I asked. Will the authorities take any steps to investigate the matter?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have stated all I know in reply to the Question.

NATIONAL DEFENCE—POSSIBILITY OF INVASION—LANDING IN SUFFOLK.
MR. QUILTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the beach in the vicinity of Shinglestreet, in Hollesley Bay, Suffolk, is peculiarly well adapted for the landing of a hostile expedition, having deep water alongside and being undefended except by Martello towers; and if he will take the necessary steps to establish a telegraph office in the immediate neighbourhood, the nearest available one at present being Woodbridge, 10 miles distant?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The locality referred to is fully recognized as a possible landing place; and in the scheme for the defence of the country provision is made for its being duly watched. In time of emergency communication will be established with the nearest military centre.

WAR OFFICE—THE MOTTO OF THE WELSH REGIMENT.
MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that no meaning attaches to the words "Gwell augau neu chwilydd," the motto given in the official Army List as that of the Welsh Regiment, there being no such word as "augau" in the Welsh language; whether it is correct that the expression "Gwell angeu neu chwilydd" (Better death or shame), appears on the caps of the men in the regiment, and is a source of annoyance to them as well as their friends; and, whether he will cause to be substituted in both cases the old Welsh motto "Gwell angeu na chywilydd" (Better death than disgrace), the one clearly intended?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In April last the officer commanding called attention to an alleged inaccuracy in the motto of the Welsh Regiment, and the matter was referred to a very competent authority for decision. Orders
78
have now been given that the necessary correction shall be made.

THE INQUEST AT MITCHELSTOWN ON THE LATE MR. MANDEVILLE—DR. RIDLEY AND DR. BARR.
DR. TANNER(for Dr. FITZGERALD)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which passed between the late Dr. Ridley and Dr. Barr's mother-in-law bearing upon the subject of the treatment of the late Mr. Mandeville in Tullamore Prison?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): If any such correspondence exists (of which I have no knowledge), and if it should be produced at the inquest, it will, of course, be included in the Report of the proceedings which will be presented to the House.
DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this correspondence has not been alluded to at the inquest?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If so, I presume it is in the power of any of the parties concerned to have it produced. If it is produced in evidence it will be laid before the House.
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Will the right hon. Gentleman ask Dr. Barr how his mother-in-law comes into the question?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have informed the House I have no knowledge of this correspondence at all.
MR. ANDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the shorthand writer's notes on the inquest on Dr. Ridley and lay them on the Table?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had promised to lay them on the Table, and had alluded to his promise several times in the House.

LUNACY—THE DINSDALE PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUM—ACTION FOR LIBEL.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a report of a trial at Leeds on Friday last, before Mr. Justice Cave, in which Dr. Eastwood, the

79
proprietor of the Dinsdale Private Lunatic Asylum, an establishment kept for private gain, claimed £2,000 damages from The Northern Echo, which published an extract from another paper reflecting on Dr. Eastwood's treatment of his patients; whether is is the fact that he has already recovered damages from two other papers for the same libel, and when apologized to in the fullest manner by The Northern Echo intimated through his solicitor that he—
"Could not think of being satisfied without a monetary compensation;"
whether he is aware that the charges consisted mainly of the bad quality of the food; that Dr. Eastwood employed the patients to work on his farm of 120 acres on the plea of giving them exercise; that there is in the asylum
"A strong dark room set apart for solitary confinement when patients become refractory and unmanageable;"
that the writer saw "many acts of violence to the patients;" and heard "awful screams" from time to time; whether, considering the very painful nature of the charges, the Lunacy Commissioners have of their own accord inquired into the truth or falsehood of these grave charges; and, if not, will he call upon them to do so; and, whether the Government will next Session re-introduce the Lunacy Amendment Bill, and put a clause into it providing for the total abolition of private lunatic asylums kept for personal profit?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Lunacy Commissioners that they have no knowledge of the actions for libel brought by Dr. Eastwood beyond that contained in the newspapers. The asylum is visited twice a-year by two Commissioners; four times a-year by the Visiting Justices and Medical Visitor appointed by Quarter Sessions, and twice by the Medical Visitor alone. Defects have, from time to time, been detected and pointed out; but no such grave abuses as those specified in the libel. As far as the Commissioners are aware the allegations are unfounded; and having regard to the result of the litigation they do not consider any inquiry on their part to be necessary. It will be observed that no
80
attempt was made to justify the libel. The Government hope to be able to re-introduce the Lunacy Bill next Session; but cannot undertake to insert such a clanse as is suggested.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—CHARLES SMITH.
MR. ANSTRUTHERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to the case of Charles Smith, an old man, of weak intellect and infirm health, who was turned out of his dwelling-house in the parish of Monimail, in Fife, in May, 1887, and who was then, and still is, refused any parish relief except within the workhouse; whether the said Charles Smith has since lived in a cave in the earth without fire or protection for five months; whether he has been prevented by the Board of Supervision from bringing his case before the ordinary Courts; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to limit the authority of the Board of Supervision to prohibit inquiry in such cases by the ordinary tribunals?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The man in question, though of weak intellect, is not a suitable person for confinement as a lunatic, and is able to take care of himself. He is a nuisance to the neighbourhood, being very abusive with his tongue. The case was fully considered and not thought suitable for ordinary outdoor relief. The Board of Supervision has no power to prohibit inquiry; but it has a responsibility to decide whether the relief offered is adequate, which in this case it undoubtedly is.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—PUPIL TEACHERS IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that of the 155 pupil teachers examined in July, 1887, only 33 were appointed teachers in National schools in Ireland during the year 1887; and, whether Rule 151 of the Board of National Education excludes pupil teachers from appointment as teachers in National schools; and, if so, whether he will suggest to the Commissioners the advis-

81
ability of altering this Rule in favour of pupil teachers?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that of the 155 pupil teachers examined in July, 1887, a large proportion were only in the first year of their course and the remainder in the second, the whole course lasting two years. They also state that Rule 151 does not exclude from appointment as teachers pupil teachers who have satisfactorily finished their course, because such pupil teachers then come under the category of classified teachers.

RIOTS AND DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)—UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, DUNDALK—MR. GEORGE PHILLIPS.
MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that in the case of Mr. George Phillips, summoned for unlawful assembly at Dundalk on the occasion of Mr. Dillon's appeal there on June 20 last, at the hearing of the case on July 27, Police-sergeant M'Barren having proved that defendant made use of the following expressions, "to——with Balfour" and "the police are blackguards," and Mr. Adams, counsel for the defendant, having argued that
"Evidence must be given of some circumstance of actual force or violence, or at least of such apparent tendency thereto as are calculated to strike terror into the public,"
and no such evidence having been given, Captain Preston, the Resident Magistrate, held that the language above quoted brought the meeting within the following definition of an unlawful assembly—namely—
"Persons assembled to sow sedition and to bring into contempt the Constitution;"
and, whether, considering the extreme difficulty of connecting the phrases used by the accused with "sedition" or with "contempt of the Constitution," he will instruct Crown Prosecutors in future not to pursue such cases unless there is evidence of at least some kind of tendency to violence?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Constabulary authorities report that while the sergeant's evidence incidentally showed that the expressions referred to
82
were made use of by some of the members of the crowd, it was proved by him and several witnesses that the expressions, demeanour, and actions of the mob, of which Phillips was the ringleader, was such as to put law-abiding persons in fear and dread, and to bring the administration of the law into contempt. I do not see any ground for instructions of the nature referred to in the concluding portion of the Question.

RIOTS AND DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)—VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION AT DUNDALK.
MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that summonses have been issued at Dundalk against Michael Joseph Carroll, Henry Cooper, and Joseph Michael Johnston—
"For wrongfully, and without legal authority, using violence and intimidation to and towards Robert Emerson, Esquire, Solicitor, in consequence of his having done an act that he had a legal right to do—namely, having acted as agent and solicitor for and on behalf of the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Massereene;"
whether this violence and intimidation consisted of anything else than "booing" at Mr. Emerson at the Dundalk Railway Station on June 20 last, after the hearing of the appeal of Mr. John Dillon, M.P., unaccompanied by any acts of violence or threatened violence; whether he can explain why these summonses were not issued till more than a month after the event complained of; and, whether be will intimate to the Crown Prosecutor to withdraw the charge?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Constabulary authorities report that the men named have been summoned for intimidation towards the gentleman referred to. One of them, however, absconded, and has not up to the present been traced. The intimidation consisted not merely of booing, but of inciting a hostile and excited crowd to attack the gentleman, who was a stranger to the place. No unavoidable delay has, I understand, taken place in instituting the proceedings, summonses having been issued in the first instance for June 29, when these cases with others were adjourned. The fresh summonses were issued about July 21.

EDUCATION ACTS—THE DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS, MANCHESTER.
COLONEL SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What provision is being made for the instruction in religion of the Roman Catholic children in the Day Industrial School now being built in Manchester by the school board of that city; has the consent of the Home Office been given for the erection of a separate department, and for the provision of separate teachers for these children; if so, under what provisions of the Education Acts, or of the Industrial Schools Acts, or the Orders of the Privy Council have these arrangements been made; how can such actions be reconciled with the fundamental principle of the Education Acts that no denominational formulary is to be taught in an elementary school under a school board; and, if separate provisions can be made for the instruction of Roman Catholic children in their religion, are other Religious Bodies entitled to similar provision?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Home Office Regulations will require that due provision be made for the religious instruction of the Roman Catholic children attending the day industrial school now being built in Manchester. These arrangements will be under the Order in Council made on March 20, 1877, concerning day industrial schools. A separate department will not be required; the question of separate teachers will rest with the school board. No attempt will be made to detach children from the denomination to which they belong. Other Religious Bodies are entitled to similar provisions—that is, at the option of the parents, provision can be made, with the approval of the Board, for children to attend religious instruction or services conducted by ministers of their respective creeds.

PUBLIC HEALTH—OUTBREAK OF SMALL-POX AT MANCHESTER.
MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the outbreak of small-pox in St. Joseph's Certified Industrial School, Manchester; whether it is a fact that three sisters, five attendants, and
84
58 children have been attacked by small-pox, and have been removed from the school to the Monsall Hospital for Infectious Diseases; whether the outbreak has been traced to a child named Conley, committed to this school from York on July 6 last, while suffering from small-pox; whether the child Conley is 12 years of age, and is certified to have been vaccinated; and, whether he can inform the House what are the Regulations at St. Joseph's Industrial School as to the vaccination of the sisters, attendants, and children placed in the school; what are the numbers of the vaccinated and unvaccinated respectively among the 66 small-pox patients removed from the school to the hospital; what is the number of the pupils who have not been attacked by small-pox; and whether any of the pupils who have escaped are unvaccinated? In asking this question, I wish also to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can state if there have been any fresh cases of small-pox at the school; and also, seeing that the child who is alleged to have brought small-pox to the school was certified by a medical man at York to be at that time free from cutaneous disorder, whether the right hon. Gentleman or the Home Secretary can take steps to make him responsible.
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): It is quite impossible for me to answer the Question which the hon. Gentleman has just addressed to me without Notice. The Local Government Board are going to inquire into the whole of the circumstances of the case. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other Question, I have to say that the Mayor of Manchester has furnished me with information as to the outbreak of small-pox in St. Joseph's Certified Industrial School, Manchester. It is the case that three sisters, five attendants, and 58 children have been attacked by small-pox, or by symptoms suspected as being premonitory of small-pox. All the cases, including some who have no eruption, have been removed from the school to the Monsall Hospital. The Lady Superintendent of the school states that the Rule is that every girl is vaccinated before she enters the school, and that a certificate of having had cow-pox or small-pox is sent with her. It is also the Rule that every sister is vaccinated before entering on her duties. No certificates are required with the

85
attendants. Dr. Oldham, of Monsall Hospital, has reported as regards the vaccination of 67 of the number removed to the hospital. Of this number he returns seven as not vaccinated and 60 as vaccinated. On August 5 he informed the Board that seven of the cases were in unvaccinated persons, of whom one had died; that nine cases of various degrees of severity were in vaccinated persons; and that the remaining 51 (vaccinated) cases—that is to say, four-fifths of the entire number—have either not had small-pox, as in some few instances, or else have suffered from nothing more than subjective symptoms followed by the appearance of from one to 12 spots. Two re-vaccinated persons, and only two, were sent to Monsall Hospital; but neither of these had any small-pox eruption. The facts of the outbreak, especially as to its origin, are in many respects obscure. The disease is supposed to have been introduced by a girl admitted on July 6; but this girl was certified on July 3 to be free from cutaneous disorder, and does not appear to have been kept in bed after her admission, or, indeed, to have been regarded as in any way out of health. The number of children who have not been attacked by small-pox is 88. These are certified to have been vaccinated. The Board have directed a fuller inquiry by one of their Medical Inspectors.
MR. CHANNINGasked, whether from the numbers at school it did not appear that very nearly 40 per cent of the pupils at the school referred to have taken small-pox from the introduction of this case?
MR. RITCHIE: No doubt the case has had a very serious effect; but I am not quite sure of the proportion of pupils that have been affected.
MR. COBBsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether the child that introduced the disease had been vaccinated or not.
MR. RITCHIE: I have given the hon. Member all the information I have. As I have already stated, we are going to make a full inquiry.
MR. PICTONasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire how far the Rule requiring vaccination previous to admission had been carried out?
MR. RITCHIE: Every circumstance in connection with this outbreak, which
86
is of a very lamentable character, will be inquired into.
MR. CHANNINGasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention had been called to the Report of the Sanitary Committee of the Manchester Town Council, in which it was stated that—
The child, when admitted on July 6, admits to having had at the time some spots on her arms and legs, and on Friday, July 27, when examined, the scales from recent small-pox were still found to be on arms and legs."
MR. RITCHIE: No; I have not seen that statement.

RIVER THAMES—THE LANDING PLACE AT DATCHET.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is proposed to let a piece of land on the banks of the Thames at Datchet on terms which will enable the tenant to fix any rate of charges for landing, or to prohibit any persons from landing; whether the piece of land has hitherto been used as the only public landing place at Datchet, the adjoining piece of land being used by the parish for landing ballast; and, whether he will consider the advisability of letting this small piece of land to the Local Authorities at a peppercorn rent, so that it may be in future used by the public as a free landing place?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The piece of land in question, which is to be let by tender, is not used at present as a public landing-place; and therefore no stipulation has been made in the conditions of tender as to a maximum landing fee. Under the Land Revenue Acts the Commissioner of Woods has no power to let the land an suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

INDIA—MEDICAL INSTRUCTION AND EXAMINATION.
DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the course of special instruction and ultimate examination, which is preposed "to be given better and at less expense" in India, will be afforded in each or in a selected Presidency; (2) what existing hospital or hospitals in India will be selected; (3) what will be the estimated cost of providing such selected teaching centre or centres with a

87
teaching staff, teaching plant, hygienic laboratory, and museum, &c., such as has been supplied at Netley; (4) whether, at present, India pays only her share of the cost of the Army Medical School, according to the number of men under tuition, the War Office being charged with the remainder; (5) whether the advice of Sir Joseph Fayrer, physician to the Council of India, has been asked on the proposed change; (6) whether future entrance examinations for the service in question will be conducted by the same staff and in the same place as heretofore; (7) whether the intended hypothetical economy will entail an immediate and continued increase of expenditure, and whether any corresponding advantage will be attained; and, (8) whether such expenditure is proposed to be imposed on the already overburdened taxpayers of India?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Questions (except 4 and 5) relate to matters upon which, as I informed the House on July 26, no decision has yet been arrived at. The answers to 4 and 5 are in the affirmative.

COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—PAY AND FINES OF CLERKS.
MR. J. O'CONNOR(for Mr. CRILLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that clerks employed in the office of the Commissioners of National Education, in Dublin, are fined at the rate of 6d. for every five minutes they are late in attendance in the morning; whether these same clerks are frequently called upon to give considerable attendance, in addition to the ordinary office hours, without additional pay; and, whether such a Regulation exists in any other Government Department, so far as he knows?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the office hours are from 10 A.M. until 4 P.M. No clerk is fined whose attendance is not later than 10.15. Any clerk absent after 10.15 o'clock is fined 6d. for every five minutes up to 11 o'clock, unless he can give the Secretary a satisfactory reason for his absence, in which case he is excused. Absence
88
later than 11 o'clock is specially considered. Whenever the pressure of business renders such a course unavoidable, extra attendance is required without additional pay; but, in consideration of it, a half holiday on Saturday is given to all clerks who are not in arrear with their work, and when much extra attendance is given by an individual his annual leave may be extended. I am not aware whether such a Regulation exists in any other Government Department.

SIR PATRICK KEENAN, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
MR. CLANCY(for Mr. CRILLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the hours which Sir Patrick Keenan is expected to devote to the work of the National Education Office, Dublin, run from 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon to about 6 o'clock in the evening; whether the meetings of the Privy Council usually take place between those hours; and, whether Sir Patrick Keenan's attendance at those meetings consequently interferes with the proper discharge of his duty as Resident Commissioner of National Education?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sir Patrick Keenan gives whatever time is necessary for the discharge of the duties of Resident Commissioner of National Education; and I have already stated, in answer to another Question, that his being a Privy Councillor has in no way interfered with the discharge of his official duties.

INDIA—THE IRRAWADDY FLOTILLA COMPANY.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will communicate to the House the tenour of the telegram recently received, showing the payments made by the Government of India to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company for hire of flats and for demurrage, the cost of such flats if built, and the cause of the demurrage?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Government of India has telegraphed that—

89
"No flats are under hire at present. Last trooping season four flats hired at about Rs. 5,000 each per mensem. Flats can be built at Calcutta Rs. 30,000 each. Demurrage paid for half-year ended December 31 last, about Rs. 22,000; for half-year ended June 30 last, Rs. 7,800."

THE MENAI BRIDGE—THE TOLLS.
MR. J. BRYN ROBERTSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that the present lessee of the tolls of the Menai Bridge levies tolls upon private carriages on each journey, and not once a day as was always the case until the last few weeks; and, whether this practice of the lessee is legal; and, if not, will he enforce its discontinuance?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: We have had one complaint of this kind some six weeks ago, and we then informed the complainant that—
"The Board had granted a lease of the tolls to Mr. James Percy, and had no control over their collection."
We have, however, called the lessee's attention to Section 77 of the Act 4 Geo. IV., c. 74, under which the tolls are collected. That section provides that—
"No more than one toll shall be demanded or taken from any person or persons for passing and re-passing on the same day and with the same horse, beast, cattle, and carriage."
If the lessee collects tolls in violation of this provision, it is open to the person or persons wrongly charged to take proceedings against him. The matter is not one in which this Board can intervene further than they have already done.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN.
DR. TANNERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is a fact that the necessary fittings, such as tables, stools, racks, and cupboards, required in connection with the extension of the drawing school of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, have not yet been supplied, although orders were sent to the Board of Works for them more than two years ago; and, whether immediate attention will be paid to the demand?
THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, he would take what steps he
90
could to have the fittings referred to supplied by the Board of Works as soon as possible.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—KILLARNEY DISTRICT ASYLUM.
MR. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who appointed the Clerk of Works to the additional building, Killarney District Lunatic Asylum, and if said appointment has been sanctioned by the Board of Works or by the Lord Lieutenant; whether the person appointed is already acting in the capacity of engineer to that institution; what training has he received to qualify him for either of those positions, and on whose recommendation have the appointments been made; and, whether these two appointments can be held by the same person so as to faithfully discharge the duties appertaining to the offices?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The Clerk of Works for new buildings at Killarney Lunatic Asylum was nominated by the Board of Governors, and the appointment was approved by the Board of Control. The sanction of the Lord Lieutenant for such an appointment is not necessary. The person so appointed is the engineer in charge of the steam machinery at the asylum. His appointment was recommended by the architect for the new building, who has full knowledge of the qualifications of this engineer, and the duties to be performed by him as Clerk of Works. There is no reason why both duties should not be satisfactorily performed by the same person, and the arrangement is an economical one.

INDIA (BOMBAY)—THE DOCK.
ADMIRAL FIELDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have at last settled the controversy with the Government of India respecting the construction of the promised dock at Bombay for first-class iron-clads; and, if so, when the proposed dock will be commenced, and the probable date of its completion, and at what cost, as recommended by various Commanders-in-Chief for many years past on the Indian Station?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, the Government were of opinion that the dock should be constructed, and orders had been given for the preparation of the necessary plans.

BANKRUPTCY—FAILURE OF MESSRS. GREENWAY, WARWICK—ISSUE OF BANK NOTES.
MR. COBBasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that Messrs. Greenway, the bankers of Warwick and Leamington, possessed by law the right of issuing notes to the extent of £30,504; and that a large number of persons who held their notes when the bank stopped payment will incur a heavy loss; whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, from which it appears that the whole capital of the bank in 1862 was only £898, and that the bankrupts had been carrying on business for many years after they knew that they were insolvent, and using the monies of their depositors for purposes of personal expenditure and speculation; and, whether, having regard to these statements and to the fact that last week another private bank with the right of issuing notes stopped payment, he will consider the desirability of amending the law next Session, with a view of instituting an official and efficient audit of the accounts of all banks having the monopoly of issuing notes, so as to protect the public against similar losses in the future.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): My attention has been called to the failures of two banks issuing notes. I am not prepared to deny the desirableness of considering the position of banks sharing in the monopoly of issuing notes; but I doubt whether that consideration will take the direction of instituting an official audit of the accounts of such banks.

PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND)—WARDER OULAHAN.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the case of Warder Oulahan has, in accordance with the promise of the late Parliamentary Under Secretary, been re-con-
92
sidered by the Prisons Board; and, if so, will he state the decision arrived at?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The general Prisons Board report that the warder referred to has not as yet made any application to be promoted to the position of head warder.

LAW OF COPYRIGHT—LEGISLATION.
MR. SUMMERSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in accordance with their recognition in the autumn of 1886 of the necessity for legislation in the matter, Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill next Session to consolidate and amend the Law of Copyright?
THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he would consider the subject. He would, however, not be so rash as to promise to bring in a Bill.

COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION ACT, 1887, CLAUSE 80—CERTIFICATE OF RICHARD WIGLEY.
MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has favourably considered the application of Richard Wigley, of Aberdare, for a certificate of service under Clause 80 of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act of last year?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTEIEWS): Yes, Sir; I have decided to grant a certificate to this applicant.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—RAILWAY FROM DELAGOA BAY.
MR. KIMBERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as stated in a telegram from Amsterdam in Monday's Times, that—
"Owing to the friendly intervention of the Transvaal Government, the British Government had declared that it would never seek to obtain paramount influence over the railway from Delagoa Bay to the Transvaal Frontier in any way,"
and that—
"A like understanding had been given by the Cape and Natal Governments?"
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: What took place was this. The High Commissioner has declared to the President of the South African Republic that Her Majesty's Government have no intention to buy or acquire the Portugese Delagoa Bay Railway, nor the controlling power in the Company to which it belongs. The President has stated, on the other hand, that the South African Republic has no intention to impose duties on imports by Colonial routes other than those imposed by the Delagoa route. The Secretary of State has no knowledge of "anything like understanding" said to have been given by the Cape and Natal Governments; but it is believed that those Governments have no intention of taking any action to buy or obtain control over the railway.

PUBLIC HEALTH—POLLUTION OF THE REGENT'S CANAL.
MR. PICTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the pollution of the Regent's Canal by the sewage from the Zoological Gardens; whether the Canal is, by section 20 of "The Rivers Pollution Act, 1876," a "stream" within the purview of that Act; whether complaints have reached him that the sewage so discharged is slowly conducted through a succession of locks into the Thames at Limehouse; whether he is aware that repeated applications have been made in vain to the St. Pancras Vestry to obtain an abatement of the nuisance; and, whether, failing the action of the Local Authorities, he will take means to enforce the law?
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): No complaint has been made to the Local Government Board that the Regent's Canal is polluted by the sewage from the Zoological Gardens, or that the sewage, as discharged, is conducted through a series of locks into the Thames at Limehouse. The term "stream" in the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, includes canals; and I presume, therefore, that the Regent's Canal would be held to be a stream within the purview of that Act. I understand from the Medical Officer of Health for the parish of St. Pancras that no complaints have been received this year from any source of a nuisance caused by the Canal. The medical offi-
94
cer states that he has repeatedly examined the effluent water from the Zoological Gardens, and has always found it brighter and clearer than the water of the Canal. The Local Government Board are not empowered to take proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act in respect of pollutions caused by sewage; but such proceedings may be instituted by any person aggrieved by the commission of the offence.

PRISONS (IRELAND)—THE REV. J. M'FADDEN.
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a private inquiry affecting the Rev. J. M'Fadden was recently held in Derry Gaol; whether Father M'Fadden was allowed to be present at it, or made acquainted with the fact that the subject matter was being investigated; whether the reverend gentleman has since been deprived of facilities for writing letters; and, what was the substance of the complaint, what was the nature of the evidence, and what was the substance of the Report made?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The General Prisons Board reports that the inquiry recently held in Derry Gaol was to ascertain whether any officer of the prison was in any way responsible for a letter having been passed out of the prison, and which the Rev. J. M'Fadden had previously admitted was sent out by him surreptitiously. He was not present at the inquiry, inasmuch as he was not personally concerned in the result. The deprivation of the facilities previously accorded him was not the result of this inquiry, but of an independent inquiry by the Visiting Committee, before whom, it was stated, he declined to appear.
MR. SEXTON: Was not Father M'Fadden's offence merely the writing of a letter declaring to be false the charge of the Chief Secretary that he had boasted that tenants able to pay their rents had not paid them; and for this offence was he not prohibited from writing letters, and forced to exercise in the disgusting hole which I described to the House the other evening, and was

95
not the window of the cell blocked up so that not a breath of fresh air should get in?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I have no information on these points. The offence was not in the contents of the letter, but in getting it passed out of the prison surreptitiously.
MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the punishment is not greater than the offence warranted?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be perfectly ready to inquire if the hon. Gentleman will put another Question on the Paper. The information which I have relates only to the Question of which Notice was given, and that I have answered fully.

POST OFFICE—INCREASED FACILITIES FOR GREAT HOLLAND.
MR. ROUNDasked the Postmaster General, If he will grant further postal facilities to the residents in Great Holland, so that its increased population may be able to obtain stamps and money orders in their own parish?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I regret that I am not prepared to sanction further postal facilities to the residents of Great Holland, inasmuch as the cost of maintaining the post as it stands is already in excess of the revenue derived from the correspondence. I will consider the practicability of granting to some suitable person in the village a licence for the sale of stamps.

BORNEO—THE TREATY OF 1824.
MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have passed at any time between Her Majesty's Government and the Dutch Government with reference to the affairs of Borneo, and the different scope assigned in the two countries to the Treaty of 1824?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): If the hon. Member will refer to the Papers laid on the occasion of the grant of a Charter to the British North Borneo Company, he will find in "Netherlands, No. 1, 1882," the Correspondence with the Dutch Go-
96
vernment with reference to the affairs of Borneo.

INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX—SCHEDULES A AND B—ALLOTMENTS TO COTTAGERS.
MR. STANLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Income Tax is rightly charged on Schedule B, as well as Schedule A, to landowners for land let as allotments to cottagers?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): It is not the practice to charge Income Tax under Schedule B on land let in allotments to cottagers; and if in any case the tax has by inadvertence been left in charge on such land, it will at once be discharged upon particulars of the case being given.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTMASTERSHIP OF DUNGLOE, CO. DONEGAL—MAURICE BOYLE.
MR. MAC NEILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether Maurice Boyle, a publican, is an applicant for the Postmastership of Dungloe, County Donegal, which is now vacant; whether he has received a protest against the appointment of the said Maurice Boyle, signed by 400 householders resident in Dungloe Post Office District; and, whether, pending the investigation of the matters alleged in this protest, he will postpone the temporary or final appointment of Maurice Boyle to the Postmastership?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No appointment has yet been made to the vacant Postmastership of Dungloe, nor is it my intention to make one until after the fullest inquiry as to the qualifications of the candidates. I am not aware that any protest against the appointment of Maurice Boyle has been received, unless the hon. Member refers to a Memorial in favour of another person in which the appointment of Boyle is deprecated.
MR. MAC NEILLasked, whether certain very grave allegations were made against Boyle in that Memorial?
MR. RAIKESsaid, certain allegations had been made against Boyle, and he should inquire into them before making any appointment.

RIOTS AND DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)—INCIDENT NEAR ENNIS.
MR. CAREW(for Mr. JORDAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the statement is true that Colonel Turner, Mr. Cecil Roche, and another, when about six miles from Ennis, met a car loaded by men returning from the fair of Clonroad, who shouted derisively, and that thereupon Colonel Turner and friends drew their revolvers and followed in pursuit; that Colonel Turner ordered a horseman, who was also returning from the fair, to go back or he would shoot him, frequently using the words, "I'll shoot you," and keeping the revolver presented at his head; that, after an unsuccessful attempt to overtake the car, Colonel Turner, Mr. Roche, &c., kept their revolvers presented at the individuals on another car whilst passing them; and, if he will inquire into this transaction, and, if true, will he take steps to prevent such action on the part of the magistrates in the future?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The account I have received of the incident differs wholly from that given in the Question; but if the hon. Gentleman will supply me with the names of the men to whom he refers, I will endeavour to have the whole transaction sifted to the bottom.
MR. MAC NEILL: Is not Colonel Turner, as a Divisional Magistrate, authorized to require the attendance of Mr. Roche at evictions?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am at a loss to understand how that arises out of the Question on the Paper; but I believe the general arrangement of the duties of the Resident Magistrates is left to the Divisional Magistrate.
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Could not Colonel Turner say whether he presented a revolver at any man, then, if he did not know his name?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That implies that Colonel Turner may have presented a revolver at a man who threatened him; but I do not gather that that is the allegation in the Question on the Paper.

POST OFFICE—BILLS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)—EXTENSION OF TIME.
MR. CHANCEasked the Postmaster General, Whether arrangements can be made to permit Members to use the free post for Bills up to 7 p.m. instead of 5 p.m., the hour at which that post is now closed?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am glad that the hon. Member has called my attention to this matter, as I find, upon inquiry, that the time for the free posting of Bills can be extended to 6.45 p.m. on and from to-day.

THE CIVIL SERVICE BREAD COMPANY, LIMITED.
MR. J. ROWLANIDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Barstow in the summons against the Civil Service Bread Company, Limited, heard at the Clerkenwell Police Court on July 6, when he imposed a fine of 5s. on the Company for selling bread without weighing it, and on July 13 dismissed a summons against the Company for the same offence, and mulcted the complainant in 10 s. costs; and, whether he can state which of these decisions of the magistrate was in accordance with the law?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the magistrate, who informs me that in the first case the defendants failed to prove their case, and he accordingly fined them. In the second case the magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, considered that the defence was proved and that the summons was captious, and he dismissed it, as he had power to do. I am not a Court of Appeal from the decision of magistrates.

RUSSIA (ASIATIC PROVINCES)—MILITARY COLONIES.
MR. PRICEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have in their possession any Reports as to the measures adopted by the Russian Government in establishing Colonies of soldiers, belonging to the

99
Reserve, in the Asiatic Provinces of Russia, and the economic results of such settlements, and also as to the system of State-aided emigration to the Usuri region; and, whether there is any objection to the procuring and publishing such Reports?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): We have no official information except such as is contained in a Report on the Provinces of Semirechinsk and Kars, laid before Parliament in March last, but will ascertain whether any Reports are obtainable which could usefully be published.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—KILKENNY.
MR. CHANCEasked the Postmaster General, What is the cause of the delay since May, 1887, in opening a suitable post office for the City of Kilkenny; and, whether complaints have reached him that the present temporary post office is in a most inconvenient place on the outskirts of the city?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The delay in altering the premises required in August—not in May—last year for a post office at Kilkenny has been due mainly to pressure of business at the Office of Public Works. The work is now in hand, and is expected to be completed by about the end of the year. No complaints have been received during the past year of the inconvenient situation of the temporary office, which, I am informed, is reasonably central.

INDIA—INLAND EMIGRATION ACT, 1882—COOLIES—MORTALITY IN TEA GARDENS.
MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the India Office has been drawn to a Memorial addressed to the Government of India, dated Calcutta, April 12, 1888, from the Secretary to the Indian Association of Calcutta, requesting the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the working of the Inland Emigration Act of 1882, and the unrepealed Act XIII. of 1859; and giving grounds, based on the actual treatment of the coolies in the tea-gardens of Assam, for the appointment of that Commission; whether the
100
India Office has received a copy of this Memorial; and, what practical steps are contemplated for granting the prayer of the Memorial and for putting an end to the abuses indicated?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): If the hon. Member will refer to an answer given by me on the 6th instant to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), he will find that it replies to this Question.

INDIA—INLAND EMIGRATION ACT, 1882—COOLIES.
MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that the following, among other provisions, exist in "The Inland Emigration Act, 1882;" that persons male and female of 16 years of age are held by this Act to be competent to make a contract, practically selling their liberty for a period of five years; that after a coolie has been registered he has no liberty to change his mind, but is liable to imprisonment if he refuses to proceed to or remain in the tea garden, to which he can be brought back on arrest without warrant; that the coolie, in many instances, may be transferred from one tea garden to another, without his consent; that in case of illness, if his absence from work is longer than 30 days, the time he is absent beyond the 30 days is added to the term of his contract; that a system of fines and imprisonment for absence from work, which may much exceed the amount of his wages, is imposed under the Act; whether the Government of India contemplate the amendment of any of these provisions; and, whether he is aware that, as a fact, the provisions of the Act for the protection of the coolie, whereby he ought to be individually examined as to his willingness to make the contract, before registration, and other protective provisions are often neglected?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The epitome which the hon. Member has made of Sections 11, 121, 142, 150, 162, 170, and 171 of the Act is not in all respects accurate. The Secretary of State is not aware of any Bill amending the Act being at present before the Legislative Council of India. The Secretary of State is not aware of the provi-

101
sions of the Act for the protection of the coolie being often neglected.

INDIA—THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—THE CANTONMENT REGULATIONS.
MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any further information to communicate to the House with respect to the action of the India Office, or of the Government of India, in consequence of the Resolution of this House of June 5 last; and, whether he can inform the House if the Cantonment Regulations as to Prostitution are still in force or not in the various Military Stations in India?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has no further information to communicate to the House with reference to the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act and amendment of the Cantonment Acts. The Secretary of State has given such Executive directions to the Government of India as will prevent the revival of the regimental system, which has already been wholly abolished; and the Cantonment Regulations hitherto in force are to be so revised as to put a stop to the objectionable incidents in their administration.

ORDNANCE INQUIRY COMMISSION (WARLIKE STORES)—MR. DUNN, A WITNESS.
MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the two men who, since Mr. Dunn gave evidence before the Judge Advocate General disclosing certain scandals which the superior officials had failed to notice, have been promoted over his head to the post of viewer, were so promoted on the ground of better qualification for the post; whether, on promotion, they were both found to be fitted for it; whether the Judge Advocate General reported that Mr. Dunn lately worked as a viewer (though without viewer's wages)
"for 11 months, and did his work very well. No complaint whatever was made against him. Having seen him examine a variety of articles, and give his opinion upon them, I am convinced he understands his business thoroughly. When I come to deal with the hides, pack saddles, bags, and other articles, it will be
102
found that their opinions (those of Mr. Dunn and two others) are supported by the independent experts more than even those of Mr. Spice himself,"
the Inspector who had refused them the post of permanent viewers; whether the Inspector of Saddlery is Captain Horton, an ex-Riding Master, who reported in August, 1887, that a large number of saddles were serviceable which in September were condemned by the experts called in by the Judge Advocate General in consequence of the objections of Mr. Dunn; and, whether, having already intervened to prevent any undue punishment of another workman, Hawkins, described by the Judge Advocate General as "utterly unreliable," and "not a man fit for a place of responsibility and trust," the Secretary of State will, under the peculiar and exceptional circumstances of Mr. Dunn's case, again intervene to prevent a workman who has rendered at some risk a great public service from being denied that promotion for which the Judge Advocate General himself specially reported his capability and fitness?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In answer to the first two Questions, the men promoted were bettor fitted for the position, and I am informed that they have so far worked satisfactorily. As regards the third Question, I have more than once expressed my acknowledgments to the Judge Advocate General for his very careful inquiry; but the responsibility for promotions in the Department rests with myself alone. The selection will be made by merit. As regards the fourth Question, it is not the fact that in the Judge Advocate General's Report a large number of saddles passed by Captain Horton were condemned. Captain Horton is a most competent officer. As regards the fifth Question, I do not admit the argumentative portion. I have always stated that full justice shall be done to Mr. Dunn; but his promotion will depend upon his application to the work which he has to do.
MR. HANBURYinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman still refused to intervene and prevent Mr. Dunn being punished?
MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that he had never refused to intervene. He would take care that full justice was

103
done to this man. More than that he could not say.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MR. LATCHFORD, J.P.
SIR WILLIAM EWART(for Mr. MACARTNEY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has inquired as to the grounds of the decision of the Court of Exchequer as regards Mr. Latchford, J.P.; and, whether he adheres to the statement that the facts and merits of the case were not gone into, but that the decision turned solely on an error in the form of the order?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): No information which I have received leads me to doubt in any respect the accuracy of the statements which I have made to the House.
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is true that not only was Mr. Latchford convicted by the "Removables" of a "riot contrary to the statute in that case made and provided," although there is no statute making riot an offence, but also that Mr. Latchford was convicted alone of creating a riot, the other persons who had been charged having been acquitted, or the prosecution against them withdrawn; and that it appears, both in substance and in fact, from the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, that Mr. Latchford was convicted by the "Removables" of an impossible offence—namely, the riot by one man?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman appears to be entirely under a mistake. Such a conclusion cannot possibly be drawn from the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, for the Court never went into the evidence at all.
MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman so ignorant of the proceedings as not to be aware that Mr. Baron Dowse stated—["Order!"]—I am simply giving facts without colour—that Mr. Baron Dowse declared in his Judgment that "it is impossible for one man to commit a riot?"
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The ignorance, I think, is not on my side. The Judgment of the Court of Exchequer related only to the form of the order of
104
committal. The Court was of opinion that the order should have contained a more particular account of the riot. They, therefore, objected to it as informal, and on that ground, and that ground alone, the conviction was quashed.
MR. SEXTON: I must refer to the Solicitor General for Ireland on the question of law. I wish to ask him whether it is not a fact that all the other persons who were charged on the same occasion with riot were acquitted, or the charges against them withdrawn, and that Mr. Latchford, therefore, stood alone on the charge of making a riot; and whether it is possible to sustain such a charge against one person only?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): Yes, Sir; it is quite possible to sustain such a charge against an individual—a charge of having partaken with other individuals who are not charged in a riot. There is no legal difficulty in the matter at all. The observations of Baron Dowse were not upon the facts of the case, which were not before the Court—the depositions were not before the Court in any shape or form—but upon the form of the order which was made by the magistrates.
MR. SEXTON: Just one other Question. I must ask whether it is possible to convict one man of having partaken with other persons in a riot when it is shown that, in the case of every one of the other persons charged with that riot, the charge was withdrawn, or the accused acquitted?
SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: May I ask whether there was any evidence that there was a riot?
MR. MADDEN: That would be going into evidence which was not before the Court, and I am not bound to express an opinion upon it. It is perfectly possible to convict one man of taking part in a riot with other persons who were not charged with that riot, or against whom the prosecution was withdrawn. However, the only question before the Court of Exchequer was the sufficiency of the order taken by itself as an order, without any reference whatever to evidence which was not before the Court.
SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked, whether they were to understand that

105
there was evidence of riot because Mr. Latchford was convicted?
MR. MADDEN: Certainly, Sir. I think the hon. Member misunderstood what I said. I said there was no evidence before the Court of Exchequer. By that I meant that the evidence which was taken below of a riot was not brought up before the Court of Exchequer in the habeas corpus proceedings, which related solely to the order.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Recess I shall again bring up this case, and shall endeavour to convince the House that Mr. Latchford was convicted by "Removables" of an offence which, so far as the circumstances of the case show, it was impossible for him to be legally convicted of.

CUSTOMS—OFFENSIVE SEARCH OF A DOCK LABOURER AT SOUTHAMPTON—CONVICTION OF A CUSTOM HOUSE OFFICER.
MR. EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to a case in the Courts at Southampton, when a man, named Robert Woodcock, in the employ of the London and South Western Railway Company for 30 years, and a daily attendant at the docks for a period of 40 years, had been stopped at the dock gates and searched by a Custom House officer, named Nathaniel Johnson, under circumstances so unnecessarily painful and offensive as to cause the Bench to inflict a fine of £5, or one month's imprisonment, upon this Custom House officer; whether he will cause a searching inquiry into the matter; if the Customs have the power to fine persons with smuggled goods a fine equal to double the value the roof without taking the matter before the magistrates; and, if the Customs still retain in their employ this officer who has been found guilty of such misconduct?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The attention of the Board of Customs has already been directed to this case, and they considered that the extra man in question, who is not on the established staff, had shown great want of discretion in the examination of the dock labourer, and gave directions that he be no more employed at the dock
106
gates at Southampton, where the alleged assault took place. The Customs have no legal power to inflict fines for smuggling without the intervention of a Court of Law; but, in practice, it has been found that the persons who have been detected in attempts to avoid payment of duty on goods brought by them to this country prefer to pay a sum equal to the amount of the legal penalties rather than be taken before the magistrates. The Board see no reason for discontinuing the employment of Johnson.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR—CASE OF EDWARD ROBINSON, A BANKRUPT.
MR. J. M. MACLEANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the case of Edward Robinson, of Warder, near Rochdale, dyer and finisher, a bankrupt, the Oldham County Court, on May 15, 1888, issued an order that the bankrupt should be prosecuted under Section 166 of the Bankruptcy Act for the following offences:—First, the offence of forgery, in having forged the signature of his brother to a document addressed to the manager of the Oldham Joint Stock Bank (Limited); and, secondly, the offence of perjury in his public examination, in having sworn that this signature was in his brother's handwriting; whether the Public Prosecutor has disobeyed this order; and, whether the Board of Trade has taken, or will take, any steps to compel the Public Prosecutor to do his duty in this matter?
THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, an order was made as stated; but the Public Prosecutor considered there was not sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, which the Board of Trade had no power to undertake. He had, however, intimated his opinion that the Public Prosecutor ought to institute a prosecution under the decision of the County Court.

INDIA—THE NIZAM OF HYDERABAD—COLONEL MARSHALL.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The St. James's Gazette of July 16 last, entitled Another Hyderabad Scandal, which gives a quota-

107
tion from Stubb's List of June 30, showing that in the bankruptcy of H. Wathen and Son, wholesale tea dealers of Fen-church Street, E.C., Colonel Marshall, Hyderabad, India, is put down as an unsecured creditor for £5,250 in the Schedule of the separate estate of William Hulbert Wathen; whether The St. James's Gazette is correct in stating that Colonel Marshall is private secretary and confidential adviser to the Nizam, and that William Hulbert Wathen is Colonel Marshall's brother-in-law; that, last year, when the Hyderabad Prime Minister was in this country, representing the Nizam at the Jubilee ceremonies, Colonel Marshall became, for the time being, virtually Minister of Hyderabad; that, in that capacity, he took upon himself the responsibility of appointing Mr. Wathen Agent of the Hyderabad State; that with the appointment a new procedure was instituted, Mr. Wathen being supplied with funds in advance; that £6,000 were thereupon remitted to Mr. Wathen from the public and private funds of the Nizam, of which amount Mr. Wathen only expended £750, dealing with the whole £6,000 as an unsecured loan to himself, personally, for the balance of which—namely, £5,250, as above shown, Colonel Marshall is now ranked on his separate estate as a creditor; whether he is aware that the unsecured debts of the firm are put down at £26,121 6s. 4d., and of the separate estate of Mr. Wathen at £6,250 11 s. 8d., while the net assets of the firm are quoted at £3,177 0s. 7d., and of the separate estate as £512 10 s. only; whether the above allegations and facts were known to the India Office, or to the Government of India, when it was arranged that Colonel Marshall should accompany or precede the Hyderabad Minister on his visit to Simla, to meet the Earl of Dufferin about the 19th of last month; and, whether he will state what steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government, or the Government of India, in dealing with Colonel Marshall?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has no means of knowing whether the statements in The St. James's Gazette are correct. The matter is one which it is the function of the Viceroy to deal with in the first instance.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether he was to understand that when such a charge was made against an officer in the position of Colonel Marshall the Secretary of State did not consider it his duty to call attention to it?
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that the Secretary of State was not in the habit of calling the attention of the Viceroy to paragraphs in the newspapers.
MR. KELLYasked, whether the Government were not sending Colonel Marshall back to Hyderabad?
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that question was a matter which was entirely within the functions of the Viceroy, and a matter with which the Secretary of State had, in the first instance, no right to interfere.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, was he, then, to understand that when a serious charge was made against a public official the fact was not considered by the Secretary of State a sufficient reason for ordering an inquiry or suggesting such an inquiry to the Viceroy?
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he did not think the hon. Member understood the principle on which India was administered. The person responsible for the administration of India and for the conduct of Indian officials was the Viceroy; it was only the Viceroy who could take such a matter into consideration and pronounce a decision upon it; and it was not in accordance with the practice of the Government of India that the Secretary of State should interfere.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE CALENDAR AND LIST OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, prior to his accession to Office, the practice had obtained at Courts of Quarter Sessions and other Criminal Courts of supplying the presiding Justices, Recorders, and other Judges with a list of those prisoners who had suffered previous conviction on a document separate and distinct from the calendar which contained the names and other particulars of all prisoners; whether, recently, an order has been issued and acted upon by which, on the calendar so supplied, the list of previous convictions appears, and thus the presiding Judge becomes acquainted

109
with the antecedents of prisoners prior to their trials; with what object has that change been made; and, whether he will cause directions to be given whereby the old practice may be reverted to?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed that the old practice was to print the previous convictions on that copy of the calendar which was delivered to the Judge, except in a few cases in which the particulars of previous convictions were supplied to the Judge on a separate paper, or more frequently written in the Judge's copy of the calendar. The present practice is to write the list of previous convictions on one copy of the calendar, which is supplied to the Judge alone. The Judge has always had the previous convictions in his hand before the trial, and the change makes no difference in that respect. The Judge can now, if he wishes, use the ordinary printed calendars in which no previous convictions appear. I have not received any complaints of the new system; and it does not appear to mo to call for alteration.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—MR. HUGH FERGUSON, OF NEWTOWNARDS.
MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Freeman's Journal, of the 8th instant, of the proceedings before Lord Chief Baron Palles, in an action for the recovery of rent brought by the Lord Lieutenant against Mr. Hugh Ferguson, of Newtownards; whether he is aware that the amount sued for by the writ of summons is £93 18 s. 3d., being one and a-half year's old rent due on May 1 last; whether Mr. Ferguson, having served his originating notice to fix fair rent before November 1 last, was entitled to the benefit of his fair rent from May 1, 1887; whether the Lord Chief Baron decided to put a stay on the action if the tenant lodged within a week £56 7s., which was considered to be an interim fair rent; and, whether it is now his intention to appoint a number of additional Sub-Commissions, in order to enable the tenants to avail themselves of the benefit of the fair rent without exposing themselves to the cost
110
and inconvenience of defending actions for the recovery of the old rents?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): A report of the proceedings does appear in the newspaper named. The answers to the second and third paragraphs are in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth paragraph, I have to say that the substance of the paragraph is true. The Chief Baron, however, is reported to have said that the reduction offered by the agent was nearly equivalent to what a reduction of 20 per cent on the old rent would give. The agent was willing to accept, and, in fact, only pressed for one year's rent, and would have reduced it to £1 per acre—£53, while the Court has now ordered payment within a week of £56 7s., but whether as the equivalent of a year's rent or not is not reported.
MR. M'CARTANinquired, whether Ferguson did not offer to the Lord Lieutenant's agent to leave the amount of the rent to arbitration pending the fixing of a fair rent, and whether the offer was not refused; whether, with reference to the last paragraph, the right hon. Gentleman was aware from the recent Return of the Land Commissioners that there were 60,000 cases still remaining undisposed of; and that according to the rate at which cases were heard from November to June last it would take upwards of four years before they could all be disposed of; and whether, in the meantime, the tenants were to go on paying the old rent?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the example the hon. Member had given him of tenants being called upon to pay impossible rents was not a happy one. The agent offered, as far as he could judge, extremely fair terms to the tenant. He was aware that the number of arrears before the Sub-Commissioners was large; but it was somewhat smaller than it was a short time back. He hoped the arrears would be greatly reduced if the Treasury would consent to the arrangement he proposed.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION—ADDITIONAL SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is yet prepared to make his promised announcement as regards the further appoint-

111
ment of Sub-Commissioners by the Irish Land Commission?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Power was taken during the period ending with the 23rd of August to appoint 13 Commission Courts. As a matter of fact, 10 only have been at work; and for the part of the year succeeding August 22 it was originally contemplated only to continue the same number. In view, however, of the fact that the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill has not been as yet passed by the House, I have requested the Treasury to allow the Lord Lieutenant to appoint 10 additional lay Sub-Commissioners. It is proposed to distribute these in pairs among the existing Sub-Commissions. If the course of events in the Autumn Session suggest the necessity of different arrangements, there will be no difficult in carrying them into effect at that time.

THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES—BOMBARDMENT AND CAPTURE OF TOWNS AND PORTS.
ADMIRAL FIELDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, as "Lord High Admiral of the Firth of Forth," took any steps to defend the port of Leith against the recent attack by a hostile fleet on the occasion of its visit to the waters of the Forth; and, whether it is true that the Fort on the Island of Inchkeith was silenced, the Forth Bridge destroyed, and the City of Edinburgh bombarded; and, if so, whether the office of "Lord High Admiral of the Firth of Forth" may be forthwith abolished, as implying responsibility without power?
MR. CALDWELL: Before the Lord Advocate answers the Question, I wish to ask him whether, as Colonel of the Volunteer Brigade at Edinburgh, he did not consider it his duty——
MR. SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. Gentleman likes to ask the Question of a Minister of the Crown, it would be in Order for him to do so.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am not aware what steps were taken by the Lord High Admiral of the Firth of Forth on the occasion in question; but I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that, as far
112
as I am aware, that distinguished naval officer has only a phantom fleet under his command, and probably acted wisely in keeping it out of sight. I cannot say that the Fort of Inch keith was silenced, as I believe it never spoke. I am glad to say that my native city was not bombarded, as I, being here, was unable to do anything in its defence. If the only reason for abolishing the office of Lord High Admiral is that it involves responsibility, I am unable to approve of its abolition on that ground, as I have no reason to believe that it has responsibility. I must, however, admit that it has no power.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it was the duty of the Lord Advocate, as Colonel of the Volunteers at Edinburgh, to be in command of his regiment in view of any attack that might be made on the city?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am quite sure my right hon. and learned Friend discharges his duties as Colonel of the Edinburgh Brigade with such distinguished value to the public service that he will always be there at the call of duty. But I think the hon. Member must be aware that in the course of the naval manœuvres now going on, the land defences, including submarine mining, are not taking any part whatever in the operations.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—RESIGNATION OF PATRICK MURRAY, A POLICE CONSTABLE.
SIR JOHN COLOMBasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a man, named Patrick Murray, engaged in driving a Home Rule van about the country, is described in placards and advertisements as having "left the Royal Irish Constabulary rather than take part in evictions;" and, whether he can state the date and circumstances attending the resignation of Patrick Murray, and the character he bore while in that Force?
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you whether it is in Order to put a Question containing an aspersion of this kind on the private character of an individual, and thus to attempt to deprive a poor man of his employment?
MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid if I were to rule that the Question is out of Order, I should have to rule a great many Questions out of Order.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that no man of the name of Patrick Murray appears to have resigned from the Royal Irish Constabulary for many years, nor does it appear that any man of that name left it rather than take part in eviction; but that three men of that name appeared to have ceased to belong to the Force in recent years—one in June, 1885, who deserted, taking with him a comrade's watch; he was arrested and sentenced to six months' imprisonment; another in June, 1886, who was discharged for drunkenness and absence; and another in August, 1887, who was discharged from ill-health on gratuity. These are the only men of the name who appear to have left the Force in recent years.
MR. SEXTON: Is not the man referred to in the Question the third man referred to by the Chief Secretary—namely, the Patrick Murray who was discharged in consequence of ill-health; and ought not the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Colomb) to be ashamed of himself for putting such a Question?
SIR JOHN COLOMB: Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether it is in Order, when one hon. Member puts a Question, for another hon. Member to ask whether he is not ashamed of himself for doing so?
MR. SPEAKER: It is clearly out of Order. The expression did not reach me, or I should have taken notice of it; but it is an improper and un-Parliamentary expression.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to ask the hon. and gallant Member whether, before putting a Question calling for an answer which involved the statement of a serious charge against a man named Murray, he had had the means of ascertaining the identity of the Patrick Murray mentioned in the Question; and whether the right hon. Gentleman thought it fair to bundle together two Patrick Murrays, with the result that a slur must be cast upon an innocent man?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know what the hon. Member means by
114
casting a slur upon an innocent man. I have been asked a Question, and I have answered to the best of my ability. I do not know any other way that I could have answered it but by giving the facts. So far as I can see, the man to whom the Question referred cannot be a very estimable character, as he is going about the country under false pretences.
MR. MACNEILLasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake not to raise the defence of Parliamentary privilege if legal steps were taken against him by the man whose interests were involved with a view to clear his character?
MR. SPEAKER: Order! order!

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACTS—DEFAULTERS.
MR. AINSLIEasked Mr. Attorney General, If it is a fact that, under Jervis's Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 11), summonses against a defaulter in the case of Friendly Societies must be taken out within six months, and that, in cases where the audit does not take place within six months, such a defaulter may escape; and, if so, if he will consider how an amendment of the law may, in this respect, be effected without unnecessary delay?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In answer to the hon. Member, I beg to say that it is the fact that under Jervis's Act a summons must in the case of proceedings under the Friendly Societies Acts be taken out within six months of the misconduct complained of. It is possible that, in consequence, defaulters may in some cases thereby be enabled to escape punishment; but the remedy by indictment would, I conceive, in most instances be still open to a prosecutor. It is worthy of consideration whether the law in respect to offences of this description does not require amendment, and I will give my most careful consideration to the matter.

SOUTH AFRICA—STATE-DIRECTED COLONIZATION—IMMIGRATION INTO NATAL.
MR. KIMBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention, and that of the Chancellor

115
of the Exchequer, have been called to the fact that the Colony of Natal has accepted the principle of the mode of State colonization suggested in this House last Session, communicated to the Colonies by Government despatch in September last—namely, of the funds necessary to be raised for the purpose being guaranteed as to the interest by the co-operation of the Colonial and Imperial Governments, the former undertaking and guaranteeing the administration of the capital and the collection of the interest from the settlers, and the Imperial Government lending its guarantee by way of endorsement of the Colonial security, to enable the money to be raised at the lowest possible cost; and to the fact that the said Colony has made a definite proposal based thereon, offering 200 acres of land (already surveyed, and recommended by the Immigration Board of Natal), and £200 in money advances, for each of 72 families or groups of five persons each; whether they are aware that this offer involves a liability on the part of the two Governments of £432 per annum only, and this secured by 14,400 acres of land with 71 homesteads and the industry of 360 persons upon it working with a capital of over £10,000; whether the Government will accede to the request of the Natal Immigration Board, that steps be taken forthwith to ascertain the number of immigrants of the classes desired which the Colony could obtain on a basis of the above proposal, having regard to the fact that the Board express their opinion that such immigration "would prove a success and benefit to the Colony;" whether the Government will, on the occasion of the discussion of the Supplemental Estimate for Crofter Emigration, or on some other convenient occasion during this or the adjourned Session, afford an opportunity to the House for considering the relative advantages of eleemosynary emigration, and self-paying State colonization, and the importance of the latter from commercial and strategic points of view, especially in South Africa, and whether they will give effect without delay to at least a tentative experiment, such as that now offered by Natal; and, whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the question of State colonization, as a matter of general Imperial interest
116
and concern, on a scale commensurate with the demand which the increase of population makes for increased development of the great natural resources of the Empire?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My right hon. Friend and I have seen the replies from the Colony of Natal. These replies were to a Circular sending over the hon. Member's scheme for colonization, and were the only favourable replies from the Colonies that have answered. It cannot be said that the Colony of Natal has as yet given its approval to the proposals of the hon. Member, though the Resolutions of the Land and Immigration Board are favourable, and Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to pronounce an opinion in favour of giving the necessary guarantee. Her Majesty's Government do not propose at present to take such steps as are indicated in the third paragraph of the Question, and for this reason—that a further scheme containing the proposals of the Colonization Committee of both Houses of Parliament has been forwarded to Natal, as well as to the other Colonies, and that the replies from Natal or the other Colonies will be awaited before anything further is done. It is thought desirable to learn how the further scheme is received before dealing with an isolated case, like Natal, under the scheme of the hon. Member. It is the intention of the Government to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the question of State colonization, and opportunity will then be afforded to my hon. Friend for discussing the whole subject.

CIVIL LIST PENSIONS—FURTHER RETURN.
MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that on June 26, 1861, a Return was ordered by the House of Commons—
"Of all pensions granted and charged upon the Civil List, in accordance with the Act, 1 Vict. c. 2, with the grounds upon which such pensions have been granted (as in Returns annually presented to this House), distinguishing the pensions which have lapsed, and showing the total sum now payable on account of existing pensions;"
and, whether any sufficient reason can be advanced why another Return should

117
not be granted which would bring down to date in a single Parliamentary Paper the information contained in the aforesaid Return?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am aware that a Return in the terms mentioned by the hon. Member was presented in 1861. Since that date considerable progress has been made in reducing the number of unnecessary Returns presented to this House; and seeing that all the particulars required by the hon. Member are already available through Annual Returns and the Finance Accounts, I see no reason for altering the decision already conveyed to the hon. Member that the Return would be refused.
MR. SUMMERSsaid, that he should move for the Return in the Autumn Session.

CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS—REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.
MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will be laid upon the Table before the House adjourns?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am informed that the Chairman of the Commission fears it will be impossible to lay the Report on the Table before the House adjourns; but he hopes to submit the Report to the Queen very shortly, and to lay it on the Table on the first day of the Autumn Session.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE—SUSPENSION OF THE STANDING ORDER.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I wish, Sir, to put a Question to you on a point of Order. Yesterday, at the commencement of Business, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury moved the suspension of the Standing Orders which apply to Wednesday Sittings with regard to all Bills on the Order Book. After you, Sir, had put the Question, I rose to make a few remarks on the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, when I was met by ejaculations of "No debate." I am sorry to say that some of them came from this side of the House as well as the other. In response to
118
those ejaculations I sat down, thus showing that I was rather wanting in confidence in my own argument. What I wish to ask you now, Sir, is whether the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was one which could be decided without debate, under the New Rules, or whether I was not entitled to continue my remarks if I had persisted in doing so?
MR. SPEAKER: Under the circumstances specified by the right hon. Gentleman he would have been perfectly entitled to make any remarks, or to move an Amendment. The Rule which applies to the suspension of the Standing Orders has reference to the Business which stands on the Paper at 12 o'clock, and not to an ordinary Wednesday Sitting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—POSTPONEMENT OF BILLS.
MR. WARMINGTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will postpone the further stages of the Liability of Trustees Bill [Lords], Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill [Lords], Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Bill [Lords], and Solicitors Bill [Lords], until the Autumn Sittings?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Liability of Trustees Bill is, no doubt, a very important Bill, as it will make a very serious alteration in the law; but, on that very ground, it would not be right to take it in the course of the present Sitting. I hope, however, that there may be an opportunity afforded for considering it in the course of the Autumn Session. As regards the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill and the County Court Consolidation Bill, the Government are of opinion that those two measures ought to be passed before the Recess, and they will be set down for consideration to-morrow. It is important that those two Bills should be passed without any further delay, seeing that the Revised Edition of the Statutes has been kept back for some months, in order that they may be included in that edition. We hope to read the Patents and Trade Marks Bill a second time to-morrow; but we shall not press the Solicitors Bill in the course of the present Sitting if there is any objection to it.
MR. E. ROBERTSONasked, whether it was proposed to pro-

119
ceed with the Court of Session and Bill Chamber (Scotland) (Clerks) Bill?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Government could only undertake to afford facilities for Bills which had passed a Grand Committee, or the corresponding stage in that House. It was not in their power to make arrangements for the progress of private Members' Bills, even although they might have come down from the Standing Committees. The Court of Session, &c. Bill would not be produced with in the course of those Sittings, because there was objection to it.
In reply to Mr. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.),
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments would be in the possession of the House at the beginning of the Autumn Sittings.
MR. HUNTERasked, whether the Government intended to proceed with the National Defence Bill, the Irish Drainage Bills, and the East India Officers Bill after 12 o'clock?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it might be convenient if he stated what Bills the Government proposed to go on with that night. They would first proceed with the Oaths Bill, the Indian Budget, the Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) Bill, the Public Works (Loans) Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Imperial Defence Bill, and the National Defence Bill. With regard to the latter, he hoped that after the Secretary of State for War had made a statement to the House the Bill would not be further opposed. The Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill, the Bann Drainage Bill, the Barrow Drainage Bill, and the Shannon Drainage Bill would be postponed until November 15th. The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Bill would be taken to-morrow, and he hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the Hawkers Bill and the Committee stage of the Municipal Funds (Ireland) Bill to-night. The School Board for London Election Bill, not being a Government measure, would not be proceeded with in view of the opposition to it. There was a Bill down which, though not marked as such, was in reality a Government measure, and which proposed to validate
120
certain marriages which had been performed by unqualified persons who were not clergymen. The individuals affected by the Bill were at present in a peculiar position, from which the House should lose no time in relieving them. He, therefore, proposed to proceed with that Bill also.
MR. HUNTERasked, with regard to the National Defence Bill, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was in a position to say that the Government would not proceed with Clause 2 of that measure, in so far as it varied the present status of Volunteers with respect to being called out? If the Government abandoned the clause, all opposition to the measure would probably be removed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, he proposed to amend the National Defence Bill so as not to interfere with the present status of Volunteers in respect to being called out; but he would bring that provision forward again at a subsequent period.
COLONEL SANDYSasked, whether the First Lord of the Treasury would not consent to postpone the Marriages Validation Bill until November?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not, Sir. The Bill is intended to validate marriages which have been invalidated in consequence of being performed by a clergyman who was not properly qualified. It is quite impossible to allow the persons affected to remain any longer in the very serious circumstances I have indicated.
MR. MUNDELLAasked, if the right hon. Gentleman had enumerated all the Bills which he proposed to deal with before the Recess, and if he could now inform the House of the day on which it was expected to adjourn?
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I suppose we may assume that no Scotch Government Bill will be taken during the present Sitting?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): None.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the High Courts in India Bill and the East India Officers Bill?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not able to give absolutely the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman asked for. There might, however, be some other Bills of a purely formal character, such as Lloyd's (Signal Stations) Bill, that it would be necessary to proceed with. The High Courts in India Bill and the East India Officers Bill would not be proceeded with now. It was hoped to take the Suffragans Nomination Bill. He had, he thought, stated all the important measures which the Government proposed to proceed with. It was impossible to say absolutely when the Adjournment would take place. That must depend on the proceedings in the House of Lords. He hoped, however, they might be able to conclude the serious Business of the present Session on Saturday; but he must reserve to himself the power to take further Sittings if it were necessary.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, whether the Government would move the Adjournment of the House after all the Government Orders had been disposed of, for there were several very mischievous Bills on the Paper?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would move the Adjournment after the 24 Government Orders had been disposed of, and the 43rd Order—namely, the Marriages Validation Bill, which, though not marked as such, was in reality a Government Bill.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, as it appeared to have been a slip not to have put the Marriages Validation Bill down as a Government Order, it might be now set down as such after Order 24.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he must ask the Government not to move the Adjournment until he had been able to bring forward the School Board for London Election Bill, which was the next Order. He was prepared to abandon the whole Bill, save Clause 6, and that would, he felt sure, disarm all opposition, even that of the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who, he knew, objected to the measure.
MR. HOWELLsaid, he trusted the Government would not consent to so unusual a course with regard to this Bill.
SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEalso urged that the Bill should be taken at the present Sittings.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, if they interfered with the present arrangement to allow of one private Member's Bill being taken, they would have to do so in favour of a great many.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he quite felt the force of the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, and although he believed that it would be to the public advantage that the Bill should be passed it was not a Government measure, and did not come within the category of Bills for which he had asked for facilities. It was impossible for him to pick out one Bill and deal with it as a Government measure, or give preference to it over other private Members' Bills. He regretted, therefore, that he could not reply favourably to his hon. Friend.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, in reference to the Marriages Bill, if it was not intended to validate the marriage of persons who gave no reasons to doubt their bona fides?
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he wished to call attention to Order 42, the Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill. That was really a Government measure, and he would be glad to know whether the Government included that?
MR. BIGGARsaid, there was a very wide difference of opinion with regard to the Bill. He would suggest its postponement.
MR. FLYNNcontended that the preponderating sentiment was in favour of it.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, it was perfectly true that it was a Government Bill; but it could not be expected to pass through the House without some controversy, and therefore he was afraid it was impossible to deal with it.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, if facilities would not be given for passing the Libel Law Amendment Bill, particularly as the hon. Baronet in charge of the measure was willing to adopt the Amendment made by the Lords?
SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, that there were other Amendments to the Bill which would lead to very wide differences of opinion.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Bill was not a Government Bill, and it was not for the Government to press it on the consideration of the House. As had

123
been said by the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), the House had given a great deal of time and trouble to the Bill, and it would be well if time could be found for disposing of it during the present Sitting; but it was not for him to make provision for that. He would feel it his duty to press the Marriages Validation Bill.

MOTION.
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (SUSPENSION OF THE STANDING ORDER).

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, until the Government Orders are disposed of, so much of the Standing Order No. 1, Sittings of the House, as relates to the interruption of Business at midnight, the right of objection after midnight, and the Adjournment of the House at One o'clock, be suspended this day and To-morrow."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought there should be a distinct understanding as to the arrangement. As he understood it, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to proceed that night with the first seven Orders on the Paper—namely, the Oaths Bill, the Indian Budget, the Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) Bill, the Public Works Loan Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Imperial Defence Bill, and the National Defence Bill, and also with Orders 20, 21, and 23—namely, the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Bill, the Hawkers Bill, and the Municipal Funds (Ireland) Bill, and that then the right hon. Gentleman would move the Adjournment of the House. To-morrow (Friday) the Lords' Amendments to the Local Government Bill would be taken as the first Order, and after that the County Courts Consolidation Bill and the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill. Assuming that those Orders were gone through that night and to-morrow night, the right hon. Gentleman would not take any further Business, but on Saturday would move the Adjournment of the House.
    In reply to Questions by Mr. MUNDELLA and Mr. MARJORIBANKS,
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that with the exception that he would be obliged to re-
    124
    serve to himself the power of delaying the Motion for the Adjournment to a later day than Saturday, if it were necessary to do so, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was correct. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he should be glad to make the Motion for the Adjournment on Saturday, if it was in his power.
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he did not see why a private Member's Bill dealing with the question of Oaths was more urgent than a Bill for putting the London School Board in a proper condition as to its numbers and electoral areas. Because one or two Members said they had an objection to the Bill, why should they absolutely prevent it from coming on? He was appalled at his own audacity in pressing this matter so much upon the amiable Leader of the House; but he hoped the Government would give facilities for the School Board for London Election Bill, inasmuch as the Board spent £1,000,000 out of the rates every year, while the existing 55 members were not sufficient to conduct its business. Accidents happened from overwork in all departments, and financially something might happen if more help were not given to the School Board. The electoral districts were absurdly large. There were only 11 of them.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now rather going into the details of the Bill than urging reasons why it should be proceeded with.
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he must protest against a matter of that great importance to the education of the young being put back; for if the Bill were not passed then, London would have to go on under the old régime for another three years. He should throw the responsibility of the delay with the measure upon the House itself, and begged to move that the School Board for London Election Bill be part of the specified Business to which the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman would apply.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the words "Government Orders," to insert the words "and the Order for the Second Reading of the School Board for London Election Bill."—(Colonel Hughes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HOWELLsaid, he was in favour of the Bill, but

    125
    he objected to its being included in the list of Orders to be dealt with that night, many of which were of the utmost importance. If the Representatives of the School Beard were so anxious for the passing of this measure, why had they not introduced it two years ago? He objected to the measure being taken after 12 o'clock that night.
    MR. BYRON REEDsaid, he greatly objected to the Government giving special facilities to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) for carrying a Bill which was generally regarded as being most objectionable and unnecessary. He could not understand why many measures of general importance and interest should be set aside in order to enable the Oaths Bill to be read a third time. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich as a protest against the action of the Government.
    MR. ISAACS, in supporting the Amendment, said, it was most unfair to call the School Board for London Election Bill a private measure. There was an urgent necessity for the Bill, and it would be a great mistake to allow the existing state of things with regard to the election areas of the School Board to remain as it was for another three years.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he wished to intervene at once to prevent an unnecessary prolongation of the debate. He entirely denied that the Government were giving undue facilities to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) for carrying his measure. The Government were simply keeping faith with the House and with hon. Members who had attained a certain position on the Paper for their measures on certain occasions, and who had surrendered their advantages at the request of the Government. It would have been a most serious breach of Parliamentary understanding if he had placed the hon. Member for Northampton at a disadvantage, after he had assured the House that it would be the duty of the Government to provide facilities for measures promoted by private Members which had reached a certain stage. He greatly regretted that the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich had not been fortunate enough to
    126
    get his measure advanced to the necessary stage; but the Government could not undertake to distinguish between the importance of measures which were in the hands of private Members. He was sorry that the matter had not been brought under the notice of the Government sufficiently early to have permitted them to have introduced a measure in relation to it themselves, for it was one which should have emanated from them, rather than from a private Member. He trusted that the House would new proceed with the Business before it.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich that, even if his measure had been placed upon the Paper as the first Order of the Day, it would not have been passed that night, as it was certain to meet with the most serious opposition from the Irish Members. There was not the least probability of the Bill being carried through before the Adjournment.
    SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid, he would support the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) to modify his programme in favour of the Bill. In view of the fact that the School Board Bill concerned the welfare and the education of the young, representing one-seventh of the total population of the United Kingdom, he should support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes).
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he would ask the Government for a distinct promise that they would deal with the question of the electoral areas for School Boards. He hoped they would take the matter up and deal with it themselves.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 27 Noes 201: Majority 174.—(Div. List, No. 270.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he found that, owing to the state of feeling amongst his constituents, he must press upon the Government the importance of taking the Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill at the present Sitting. That really was a Government Bill. It had been brought in by a Member of the Cabinet,

    127
    the Irish Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords, had passed through that House, and now awaited a second reading. It proposed to give the Lord Lieutenant power to establish certain Local Bankruptcy Courts, and the principle had been approved and accepted by all Parties. It was a principle that had long existed in England, and which it was desired to introduce into Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said a few evenings ago that the Bill was a Government Bill, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain how it was that it now appeared among the Private Bills? He (Mr. Sexton) himself introduced a Bill on the subject last year. He had it passed through a Select Committee, and it reached the Report stage. There, however, it stopped, and did not proceed further. In the North and South and also in various parts of the Provinces there was a very strong feeling against the system, which obliged cases of the smallest estates in bankruptcy to be brought to Dublin and to be swallowed up in law costs. It was a simple reform of the most obvious utility, and he did not think he was making an unreasonable claim when he simply asked that it should be properly distinguished upon the Paper as being a Government Bill, and that, if possible, it should be taken before the Recess.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that there was a wide difference of opinion in different parts of Ireland, not only whether such a Bill should be passed, but as to the scope of the present measure. Not a single Member representing the City of Dublin, which he understood was very much opposed to the Bill, was present. Nothing material could be lost by allowing the Bill to stand until the November Sitting, and then if the Government were disposed to give facilities for the Bill, and not only facilities for it, but to give time for Amendments to be discussed, he had not the slightest objection to their doing so. But, as an old trader and an inhabitant of Belfast, he had formed very decided opinions regarding what the Bankruptcy Laws of Ireland ought to be, and he thought it unreasonable to press on the Bill in the last two days of the Session, when it could not be properly discussed.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Bill would appear on the Paper to-
    128
    morrow with an asterisk attached, thereby intimating that it would be treated as a Government Bill. It might be possible to pass it in the course of the present Session; but, if not, it certainly would be passed during the Autumn Sitting.
    MR. FLYNNcontended that the opposition to the Bill was confined to the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) alone.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would like the opinion of the House upon the question he had raised.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press for a Division.
    MR. SEXTON: If I find I can be of no use to my constituents in relation to a Government Bill materially affecting them, I shall have no alternative but to resign my seat.
    Main Question put.
    Ordered, That until the Government Orders are disposed of, so much of the Standing Order No. 1, Sittings of the House, as relates to the interruption of Business at midnight, the right of objection after midnight, and the Adjournment of the House at One o'clock, be suspended this day and To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  OATHS BILL.— [BILL 319.]
  (Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir John Simon, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Courtney Kenny, Mr. Burt, Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Richard, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Jesse Collings.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
  MR. HUNTERsaid, he wished to explain the course he intended to take on this occasion. He voted for the second reading of the Bill, and now he found he could not support the third reading. He recognized that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had acted with perfect bona fides throughout the discussion of the Bill, and he had not a word to say against the course which the hon. Member took, beyond this—that the Amendment which he succeeded in carrying by a very small majority deprived the Bill of its principal value in his (Mr.

  129
  Hunter's) opinion. There could be no objection to that Amendment as respects those persons in England and Scotland in whom the hon. Gentleman was particularly interested—those who had no religious belief at all; but with respect to the other and, he believed, larger class, who strongly disliked the taking of an oath, but who were not in a position to say they had no religious belief, this Bill was most unsatisfactory, because, before a person was entitled to make an affirmation under this Bill as it now stood, he must say that the taking of an oath was inconsistent with his religious belief. When the Report stage was reached his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) put down an Amendment, which was the last desperate effort to save the Bill, but the Bill was taken at a time when neither he nor his supporters understood it would be taken, and the Amendment consequently was not considered. It had been suggested, he believed, that in "another place" the purpose of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, which was that those who had some religious belief should be allowed to say, not that the taking of an oath was inconsistent with their religious belief, but that they had conscientious objections to taking an oath, would be carried out; but when the Bill left this House it passed beyond their control. He would not, therefore, vote on the Motion.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he also wished to clear his conscience in reference to this Bill, and explain the course he intended to take in reference to the third reading. The course he had determined to adopt was not the course indicated by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), who had left the House. To the Bill as it at present stood he entertained objections so strong that, unless he received an assurance which he was not likely to receive, he should be compelled to vote against the third reading. The only thing which would be likely to deter him from taking such a course was the fact that he should have to go into the same Lobby with hon. Gentlemen opposite who were opposing the Bill on the grounds which he utterly detested. The Bill in its present shape was to his mind a very different Bill to that which was originally introduced by
  130
  the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). This was entirely due to the obscure and certainly ill-understood covenant entered into between the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke). The hon. and learned Solicitor General was understood to threaten that the opposition to the Bill in "another place" would kill the measure if the hon. Gentleman did not agree to certain modifications, and the result was the introduction of the most objectionable Amendment which had been referred to by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. He so little realized the nature of the compromise that he had voted for the second reading of the Bill. What the hon. and learned Solicitor General insisted upon as a condition to the withdrawal of opposition in "another place" was a provision that a person making an affirmation should say either that he had no religious belief, or that the taking of an oath was contrary to his religious belief. Those words and the grounds on which their insertion was defended involved a stigma on opinion to which he for one could not consent. He could never consent to vote for any Bill leaving that House which imposed on opinion in matters of religion any such stigma. The Bill when it was introduced was called a relieving Bill. It was now a stigmatising Bill and a branding Bill. He acknowledged the great service the hon. Member for Northampton had rendered to the cause of religious liberty, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not contend that he was entitled to dictate to the Liberal Party what course they should adopt on this important Bill. The hon. Member would do well to bear in mind that the vast majority of the Liberal Party went into the Lobby against him in opposition to this critical clause. The assurance to which he (Mr. E. Robertson) had referred as the only condition upon which he could vote for the third reading of the Bill could only be given by some one higher in authority than the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and that assurance was that when the Bill went to the House of Lords it would be amended in accordance with the terms of the Amendment which it had been his intention to propose on the Report stage of the Bill. If this could not be given—and he did not believe it

  131
  could—he would be compelled to vote against the third reading as a protest against the most objectionable and insulting principle which the Bill embodied.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, that if the Bill touched only the question of giving evidence in Courts of Justice, he might have been content to let it proceed without objection or with a more protest; but it went far beyond that, and dealt with juries and with promissory oaths, taking away the religious sanction from them without substituting any other sanction for it, and this he objected to. He recognized the fact that in a Court of Justice you must get the best evidence you can, and wrong may be done if any be excluded; there was, therefore, reason for admitting testimony not given on oath, provided only that the jury knew why no oath was taken; and further, as regarded witnesses in Courts of Justice, a person who affirmed instead of swearing, could be prosecuted for perjury if he gave false testimony; but an indictment for perjury would not lie with regard to the violation of oaths by juries, or to promissory oaths, as it lay against persons who swore falsely in Courts of Law. The result, therefore, of this Bill was that you took away the religious sanction, and gave no other. Was England to set the example of permitting men to undertake important offices or duties without requiring them to give a solemn promise, either under a religious sanction or subject to legal penalties? No other nation had ever yet done that, and he hoped that England would not do it.
  MR. PICTONsaid, if anything would induce him to vote for the third reading of this Bill it would be such speeches as they had just heard from the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Sydney Gedge); but, notwithstanding the strong ground afforded by the speech of the hon. Member for supporting the Bill, he (Mr. Picton) was afraid that he could not see his way to vote for the measure in its present shape. Therefore, as he had not in that House offered any explanation of the course he had taken in regard to the Bill, he thought he ought to do so now, especially as he had been called upon to express his opinion. Therefore, on that, the final stage of the Bill, he might be permitted to say a few words by way of
  132
  explanation. His strong conviction was that the State had nothing whatever to do with the theological opinions of any man, and he declined to be a party to justifying any legislation in that direction. The Bill did little to alter the law in that respect; it would continue very much the same wrongs as already existed. He regarded all oaths as ancient superstitions, which were only suitable to inferior and ill-informed minds. He was not going to support any such ancient abuses, and if he could not do anything to remove them, he would not vote for the Bill before the House. The Bill enabled a Judge or Magistrate to inquire into the religious belief of a person about to affirm under the Bill. That was what was done now in the Magistrates' Courts, and in other Courts of superior authority. But "religious belief" was a vague phrase, and might mean anything or nothing. The ordinary idea seemed to be that it meant the belief in a personal Deity and in the existence of hell. This was exemplified in the case of children when before the Courts as witnesses. They were asked, "Do you know what the Almighty will do to those who tell lies?" and if the answer was that the child would in that case go to hell, that was regarded as perfectly satisfactory. He declined to give any sanction whatever to so barbarous a superstition. Such a practice was nothing else than a gross, barbarous, and heathenish superstition, and it ought to have been abolished in this country years ago. Did not the founder of Christianity himself say, "Swear not at all?" It might be argued that this had reference to the ordinary use of oaths in conversation, but anyone who looked at the occasion when the words were uttered would come to a different conclusion. If he believed in the infallibility of the New Testament he should consider himself debarred from taking an oath, because its highest injunctions were against the practice. He might be allowed to point to the absurdity of Clause 1 of this Bill now under consideration. He could not, if called upon to take an oath, say that it was contrary to his religious belief, nor could he say that he had no religious belief. He did not care to take the oath, yet if called upon, and he declined, he would be expected to accept one of these alternatives before he

  133
  could be allowed to affirm. He did not regard the Bill as affording any relief from the present system; therefore, he could not support the Bill. But out of his profund sympathy with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and for all he had endured, he could not vote against the Bill, and, lost his action might be misunderstood, he would take no part in the Division.
  MR. DE LISLE: Sir, I rise to move that this Bill be read a third time this day six months. I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments which I have urged against this Bill on previous occasions, both in speech and in writing, in treating of the fundamental questions involved in this unhappy piece of legislation. But I should feel that I had failed in my duty to the electors of Mid Leicestershire who have sent me here to represent their political convictions, to the great Tory tradition which is about to be shattered, and to this ancient and illustrious House of Commons which still inscribes upon the Bar of the House Numini et patriœ asto, "Stand true to the godhead and your country," if I hesitated to protest emphatically and irrevocably against the great injury which I conceive is about to be done to the sound natural reason and to the religious faith of the people of the United Kingdom. I regard this Affirmation Bill as deplorable in its origin and its history; deplorable in the circumstance if it shall pass into law under the auspices of a Conservative and a Unionist Government; deplorable also in the results which I fear are likely to follow. I have no wish to pose as a prophet of evil; nevertheless, when I consider the alleged necessity of conferring a legal sanction upon that absolute unbelief and ungodliness which I have been taught to consider inexcusable as a symptom or a cause, I can only read in the majority of 100 votes by which the second reading of this measure was passed in a House of 400 Members a symptom of decay and a cause of decomposition. The Amendments of the Committee do not appear to be substantial. I hope therefore that even now the vote of the 14th of March last, when the Bill was read a second time, may be reversed. Sir William Blackstone, in his immortal Commentary upon the Laws of England, has left us these
  134
  words of warning. They are said to have been constantly upon the lips of the great Lord Treasurer Burleigh, "England can only be destroyed by her Parliament." Sir, in moving the Resolution which stands in my name, I feel confident that we who are determined to oppose this Bill to the end are supported by the sympathy and approval of many millions of the people.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. De Lisle.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he must appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to allow the Bill to pass. After the debate on the second reading, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) had a little startled him. The words to which the hon. and learned Member had objected were the form of words in the Act giving relief from the obligation to take an oath to Moravians, Quakers, and Separatists. In all the legislation on this subject the foundation of conscientious objection to an oath had been the declaration that it was contrary to religious belief, and it was a little too late now to take objection to the form of words. He could not understand how anyone claiming to be a Liberal could vote against it, considering the large number of persons it would enfranchise. He had tried to put himself in the position of those whose standpoint was not his own; and he had fully and strictly carried out the understanding arrived at on the second reading, and he appealed especially to the hon. Members whose objections he had endeavoured to meet to vote for the third reading. He hoped that many of those who would not otherwise have voted for the third reading would support that stage now that it was about to be opposed by a combination of men with specially refined notions about the meaning of words, and men who made a point of obstructing any reform whatever, and whose grievance it would take away.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE)said, he regretted to have to differ very strongly

  135
  from the judgment of the Bill formed by the hon. Member who moved its rejection (Mr. De Lisle). He hoped the general body of the House would show itself wiser than the extremists on either side, and that the measure would be accepted as a substantial and a reasonable amendment of the law. It had been said by one hon. Member that a great Tory tradition was about to be shattered. That statement he repudiated with his whole heart, for there was no Tory tradition in antagonism to this Bill, and the allegation that the measure would confer a legal sanction on ungodliness was quite unfounded. The Bill introduced no now test at all; it adjusted the test to the requirements of the different positions in which persons were who were called upon to take an oath. He wished to remind the House that the Bill merely aimed at removing objections which were strongly and justly felt in the present state of the law. At the present moment a man might take an oath, and, if it was afterwards proved that he had no religious belief, his oath would be held in law to be a nullity, and the evidence given upon it might be held worthless. That was a blot in our system of jurisprudence, and the Bill proposed to remove it. He trusted that the House would vote in favour of the third reading, for there was no Party triumph involved, and the passing of the measure would settle the vexed question of oaths for at least many years to come, if not altogether. ["No, no!"] He maintained that it would. It had been alleged that threats had been made that should not the Amendments suggested from the Ministerial side of the House be accepted, the Bill would be thrown out in the House of Lords. He denied that; he had spoken for himself alone, and had made no reference to the House of Lords; but he believed that if hon. Members opposite who were now opposing the Bill had had their way, the Bill would have no chance of passing during the present Parliament. He had long been anxious that the law with regard to oaths should be made uniform and intelligible, and that object was met by the Bill now before the House. He hoped, therefore, that it would be allowed to pass. If the framing of the Bill had been entrusted to him, he should not have put into it anything
  136
  in addition to what it now contained. It would, he felt convinced, be a very useful addition to our Statute Book.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, that he should vote for the Bill because it was a step in the right direction. He must dissent altogether from the last statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that the present Bill would settle the controversy as to oaths; for that controversy could only be settled by the disappearance of the oath altogether. He must resent, as an insult, the statement which had been made in that debate, that a man's word was unworthy of credit who objected to take an oath. The Quakers strongly objected to taking the oath, and there were none more truthful in the entire community.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid, he felt bound to support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, for he believed it was his duty to oppose it as unjust to his constituents and unjust to the interests of the Christian English people. The omission of the words of imprecation or calling God to witness, compelled him to vote against this measure; for he believed the country agreed with him that when the Almighty was called to witness there was a third person present at the taking of the oath. The Bill was the first attempt in the history of Parliament to thrust out of our Courts of Justice all recognition of the authority of Almighty God. He called upon the House, which had hitherto been an Assembly largely composed of Christian men, to reject a measure which would allow the people of Great Britain to omit to recognize the authority of Almighty God in the transaction of the affairs of the country.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIRsaid, he thought that the religious faith of the country would not be undermined by anything in the four corners of the Bill. It was founded on something a great deal more solid. The Bill was simply and truly a relieving Bill. It would remedy a very serious grievance which still existed in the North of Ireland. Many people there were in favour of swearing by the uplifted hand, considering that form of oath more Scriptural than the ordinary form. Fifty years ago an Act was passed to enable them to take the oath in their own way; but it was a defective measure, and

  137
  many magistrates now thought it necessary to ask—"Do you consider swearing by the uplifted hand to be binding upon your conscience?" That state of things they considered insulting, and it constituted a grievance which one of the clauses of this Bill would remove. It was therefore a relieving Bill, and he hoped that it would be agreed to as such by the House.
  MR. DARLING(who rose amid great interruption) said, the change proposed by the Bill was really very small, and there was no reason for saying that the country was in a state of decomposition and decay. It was an error to suppose that they were now for the first time about to sanction the omission from the oath of all reference to the Deity. The chief innovation which the Bill would introduce was the extension to the House of Commons of the form of affirmation which had been permitted for some considerable time in every Court of Justice. He thought it right to say, before sitting down, that the objections originally raised to parts of the measure on his side of the House had been most fairly met in Committee by those in charge of the Bill, and most especially by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh).
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes:—Majority 87.—(Div. List, No.271.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.

  COMMITTEE.
  MATTER—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST): Mr. Courtney, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, for the present, I confine my observations to the usual formal Resolutions which I have placed on the Table, and to topics of a strictly financial character. I am informed that it is the intention of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) to raise some large general questions as to the policy of the Government of India, but I think I had better reserve any observations of a general
  138
  character that it may be my duty to make in replying to the hon. Member until a later period of the debate. The greater part of what I have to say about the present financial condition of India has been submitted to the House of Commons in the form of an explanatory Memorandum, which was laid upon the Table of the House as long ago as the 20th of June. It was laid upon the Table at that early date, in pursuance of a promise made to the House last year when the usual annual complaint of the late period at which the Indian Budget was discussed was made in the House. Now, there are two reasons for the late discussion of the Indian Budget. One is that the Accounts and Papers necessary for the information of the House are generally not laid upon the Table till a somewhat late period of the Session; the other is that the House is not generally disposed to put aside, I will not say more important, but more interesting, Business for the purpose of discussing the Indian Budget at an earlier period. In accordance with the promise made last year, the Secretary of State determined that during the present year the Accounts should at least be ready for the House of Commons, even if the House of Commons was not ready for the Accounts. Accordingly a despatch was sent out to India in October last, directing the authorities to take such measures as would secure that the whole of the Papers necessary for the consideration of the financial condition of India by this House should be laid on the Table at the earliest possible period of the Session; and in accordance with those instructions which were carried out by the Government of India, I was able to place the Papers on the Table of the House as early as the 20th of June. But that followed which might have been foreseen. That is a period of our Parliamentary life when all the exciting and burning questions which agitate political Parties in this country are in full career, and the House of Commons is most unwilling to postpone any of those important and interesting topics for the purpose of entering on the consideration of Indian finance at an earlier period than that at which we have arrived. Looking back into the history of the past, I find that ever since the condition of Indian finance has been

  139
  brought in this way under the consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons, it has almost invariably been brought forward about the last day, or almost the last day, of the Session, when time is at last found to consider Indian finance. Since 1880 there never has been an instance in which, although expostulations and regrets and lamentatations have been made by the House, it has been found possible to devote an earlier day to the consideration of Indian finance. Since 1880 the Indian Budget has never been brought on before the end of the Session. The precedents have not been encouraging. In 1879 it Came on upon the 22nd of May; but on that occasion the House was counted out. My first business, in addressing myself to my Financial Statement, is to correct the figures of my explanatory Memorandum in accordance with the more recent information received from India. The Committee will be aware that we have under our consideration three sets of Accounts; those relating to the year ending March 31st, 1887, which are now closed, and for which we have complete Accounts; those relating to the year ending March 31, 1888, for which we have the Revised Estimate; and, thirdly, the Budget Estimate for the year ending March 31, 1889, which is in anticipation. Of course, the Accounts for the first year are not altered. They were settled and fixed when I placed my Memorandum upon the Table. The Account for 1886–7 showed—Net Revenue Rx.44,735,940, and Expenditure chargeable thereon Rx.44,557,513, leaving a surplus, including the cost of special Defence Works of Rx.178,427. The Revised Estimate for 1887–8 shows—Net Revenue Rx.44,944,200, and Expenditure Rx.47,960,900, or a deficit of Rx.3,016,700. According to the Budget Estimate for 1888–9 the net Revenue is Rx.46,349,400, and the Expenditure Rx.47,047,400, leaving a deficit of Rx.698,000. These sums include the cost of Defence Works. Excluding that cost, the surplus in 1886–7 was Rx.504,053; in 1887–8 the deficit was Rx.2,457,800; and in the Budget Estimate of 1888–9 the surplus isRx.423,500. A question was raised last year as to how it is that, even in the month of August, it is impossible to get perfectly accurate figures as to the year which
  140
  ends on the previous 31st of March. It may be asked, first of all, what the reason is why the Revised Accounts are not more nearly accurate than they are; and, secondly, why it is so long before the actual figures can be arrived at, and stated either to the House of Commons or the public. The answer is, that the figures are based on the actual Returns of 11 months, and on the estimate for the month of March. Formerly, the Accounts closed on the 30th April, and now they close on the 31st March. But, for Indian purposes, March is the most difficult month of all as to which to form an estimate. More than one-fourth of the entire Land Revenue is received in that month. The Railways and Public Works are also particularly active, and the frequent fluctuations cause immense variation. The gross receipts from the railways amount in that month to Rx.1,500,000, in addition to which it is the season in which the construction of Public Works is in most active operation. For those reasons it is most difficult to get an accurate estimate of the receipts for the month of March. As to the delay in getting in the Accounts, the Committee probably do not recognize all that has to be done before the Accounts for the year can be finally closed. The Accounts have to be collected and examined and settled for a country which spreads over 53 deg. of longitude and 27 deg. of latitude, from no less than 200 treasuries, and 800 sub-treasuries, 300 public works disbursing offices, 200 military disbursing officers, 40 railways, and 200 district boards, Accounts which involve debt and remittances, and advance and store accounts, with many cross transactions, all of which have to be considered before the Accounts of the past year can be finally closed. I will now, with the permission of the Committee, make a few observations on the Accounts of the three years I have referred to. The Accounts of 1886–7 closed with a satisfactory surplus of Rx.178,427, as compared with only Rx.500 shown in the Revised Estimate of last year. That was after defraying the charge for Special Defence Works, as stated last year to have been determined upon if the expected surplus were finally realized. The general improvement was due to an increase of net Revenue by Rx.856,240, owing to large receipts

  141
  in March from Land Revenue chiefly, and also from Opium, Salt, and Excise. The net Expenditure increased by Rx.65,348, owing to heavy charges in March in Burmah, and to the inclusion of Rx.325,626 for Special Defence Works, while in the working of Railways and in other Public Works there was a reduction. Of the net improvement of Rx.790,892, the portion belonging to the Provincial Governments was Rx.612,965, so that the Imperial Account was better by Rx.177,927. In the year 1887–8 there was an anticipated Budget Surplus of Rx.16,700. In my Statement on 9th September last year, I stated that the position in India was believed to be worse by Rx.610,000, giving a deficit of Rx.593,300, to which it had been determined to add the charge for conversion of India 4 per Cent Stock, then estimated at Rx.1,097,000, and the charge for Special Defence Works, then estimated at Rx.474,600. The figures, therefore, stated in my speech, when I addressed the House on the 9th of September, would have given a deficit of Rx.2,164,900. The Revised Estimate in March last showed a deficit of Rx.3,016,700, but it is now thought that this will be reduced in India by Rx.635,000, and in England, including exchange, by Rx.120,900; and there is a further improvement of Rx.300,000, for exchange on the transactions of Subsidized Railways, for which the Government of India did not take credit. The deficit is, therefore, Rx.1,960,800, which is less than that stated last September by Rx.204,100. This alteration is mainly attributable to the transactions in March, the improved Land Revenue and the falling off in Railway receipts counter balancing one another. The Special Defence Works charge is reduced by Rx.115,000. The causes of the deficit may, therefore, be thus summarized:—Conversion of Stock (less by 5,100 than the Estimate) Rx.1,091,600; Special Defences, Rx.453,900; and I am sorry to say, Upper Burmah Military Charges Rx.1,550,000, making a total of Rx.3,095,800; against which is to be set an improvement of Rx.1,135,000 under other heads. Had there been no extraordinary charge for Upper Burmah, there would have been no deficit, for the Special Defence Works might fairly be charged against capital. Though, as a matter of account, they
  142
  are treated as a charge against the Revenue of the year, it is quite clear that important works of that kind, which will only have to be done once, are not charges which ought, in estimating the financial position, to be made against Revenue. If your ordinary regular and necessary Indian Expenditure were not covered by the Revenue, you would be in an awkward and difficult and even critical financial position; but your ordinary necessary Expenditure is amply covered by the Indian Revenue at the present moment, and these charges which have caused the deficit, and have been charged against Revenue, are not ordinary charges, but are quite abnormal, and will not, we hope, recur in future years. I mentioned just now a sum of Rx.300,000, which I said the Government had gained by exchange transactions. I must explain to the Committee how that arises. The Committee are, no doubt, aware that the Government have contracts with certain Railway Companies—the Southern Mahratta, the Indian Midland, and the Bengal-Nagpur, by which the Government undertake to transmit to India the capital of these Companies subscribed in London, which is required for expenditure in India at a certain fixed rate of exchange. In the case of the Southern Mahratta, money is transmitted by contract at 12 rupees per £1 sterling; in the case of the Indian Midland at 12½ rupees per £1 sterling; and in the case of the Bengal-Nagpur at 13 rupees per £1 sterling. The Committee will see that, when exchange comes down below the rate named in the contract, the Government gain by the transaction. For instance, at the present time the £1 sterling is nearly equivalent to 16 rupees in India; whereas the Government would only have to pay the Southern Mahratta Railway 12 rupees; the Indian Midland, 12½ rupees; and the Bengal-Nagpur, 13 rupees; so that they gain so much by the transaction. They are not only able to fulfil their obligations, but they gain a considerable amount by the contract so long as the rupee is lower than the exchange rate of the contract, and this gain explains the sum of Rx.300,000, which I mentioned just now. In the year 1888–9, there is, according to the most repent estimate, a deficit to ac-

  143
  count for of Rx. 1,925,000, which is more, a great deal than the estimate of Rx.698,000 made in India in March last. What has been the cause of that change? The chief cause has been the fall in exchange. The Committee is aware that the exchange value of the rupee has again seriously declined, and the fall since last January has added to the liabilities of the Government of India no less a sum than Rx.1,202,000. That will give hon. Members some idea of the difficulty with which this exchange question is attended. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, arduous and difficult as his duties in this country are, never has to meet such a steady drain upon his resources as Rx.1,200,000 coming upon him between January and July; but in India a very small fall in the value of the rupee puts most serious difficulties in the way of the Indian Government. But that is not all. Besides the fall in exchange, the effect of the fall is a consequent addition to the pay of British soldiers to the extent of Rx.65,000, and those two items, less Rx.105,000 gained on remittance transactions, make a total loss by fall in exchange of Rx.1,162,000. Final payments on account of Conversion of Stock amount to Rx.228,600, the charge for Special Defences amounts to Rx.1,121,500, and the Upper Burmah Military Expenditure to Rx.824,000. All these items together make a total of Rx.3,336,100, from which has to be deducted a surplus on all other heads of Rx.1,411,100, leaving a net deficit of Rx.1,925,000. There is also to be set against that a gain in the exchange transactions with the Subsidized Railway Companies, estimated at Rx.385,000, which reduces the deficit to Rx.1,540,000. Comparing 1888–9 with 1887–8, it will be seen that the deficit for the year ending on March 31 last was Rx.1,960,800. Let me take out of that the Conversion of Stock Rx.1,091,900, and the Special Frontier Defences Rx.453,900, which amounted together to Rx.1,545,800, and you have a deficit, apart from these two exceptional causes, of Rx.415,000. That is caused by the extraordinary fall in exchange, and by military expenditure in Burmah, which we earnestly hope and believe will shortly come to an end. If there had been no fall in exchange, there would have been no deficit at all, and if there
  144
  had been no war in Burmah there would have been no deficit, notwithstanding the fall in exchange. The Budget for 1888–9, as modified, gives a deficit of Rx.1,540,000, of which there is due to Conversion of Stock Rx.228,600, and to Special Frontier Defences Rx.1,121,500, making together Rx.1,350,100. Thus, apart from these two exceptional causes, the deficit for 1888–9 is only Rx.189,900, showing an improvement in the Budget of 1888–9 over that of 1887–8 of Rx.225,100. That is due to the improvement in the Salt Revenue, which is estimated at Rx.1,429,900, and to a reduction in the Military Charges in Upper Burmah estimated at Rx.726,000, making a total improvement of Rx.2,155, 900. Against that there has been all increase in the charge for the Army generally of Rx.510,300, an increase in the loss by fall of exchange of Rx.1,011,100, and on other heads Rx.407,400, making a total of Rx.1,930,800, and making the net improvement Rx.225,100. As to the financial outlook in Upper Burmah, the net charges in respect of that country for the three years under consideration have been for 1886–7, Rx.2,068,700; for 1887–8, Rx.2,727,300; and for 1888–9, Rx.1,880,500. There is no doubt that it has taken longer and cost more to quell opposition and to restore order in Upper Burmah than was expected. The largest Revenue the Burmah Ruler ever got from the country was about Rx.1,000,000, of which Rx.350,000 were derived from Customs Duties, transit dues, monopolies, and imposts, which the British abolished immediately they entered the country. For two or three years before annexation, the King's receipts had decreased, and had eventually fallen below Rx.900,000. So we had about Rx.600,000 to Rx.650,000 we might collect. During the first year, we collected gross Rx.200,000; during the second year, 1887–8, we collected Rx.490,000, and during 1889–90 we may expect about Rx.700,000. By five years after annexation it may be possible to develop new sources of revenue, and in time we shall be able to impose a Land Tax, as in Lower Burmah, over a part of the country. Probably the revenue will rise by about Rx.100,000 every year for a time, and by the end of 10 years after annexation (about 1896), the revenues of Upper Burmah will have reached

  145
  Rx.1,100,000, exclusive of the railway receipts. By that time the expenditure on Military Works will have been reduced to maintenance charges, or about Rx.40,000 only. The "extra charges" for the Army ought to have come down to Rx.300,000. The expenditure on Civil Works can be reduced to Rx.200,000, as in Lower Burmah; and the Police Charges by that time ought to be reduced to Rx.500,000. If these anticipations are fulfilled—and they are not particularly sanguine—then the account for Upper Burmah will stand somewhat thus—In 1896, gross Civil Expenditure, including Police, Rx.900,000; Civil Public Works Rx.200,000; Military Works Rx.40,000; extra Army Charges Rx.300,000; gross total Rx.1,440,000; while the gross Revenue may be taken as Rx.1,100,000; leaving a deficit of Rx.340,000. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member appears to be pleased with that condition of things. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He will see that that is the net yearly charge expected to stand against Upper Burmah 10 years after the war, and that all the improvements I have mentioned form a moderate estimate of what may be expected. Hon. Members will see that, taken as a whole, Burmah is not au insolvent Province, but will be paying its way, and, instead of being a burden, will ultimately contribute to the revenues of the State. The Lower Burmah yearly surplus is at present about Rx.700,000, after charging against the Province all military expenditure within its borders. The yearly surplus will have reached Rx.800,000 by the year 1896, so the united Provinces ought then to be yielding a yearly surplus of about Rx.460,000. The "extra" Army Charges only are shown against Lower Burmah; for, as yet, no increase to the military garrison of British India has been made on account of the new Province of Upper Burmah. It would be unwise to be too confident about the fulfilment of this forecast, which is liable to disturbance by unforeseen circumstances. If things go on as favourably as they are now going, the forecast will be realized. I must just call the attention of the Committee to a subject to which their attention has always been called on the occasion of the Budget. I should not be doing my duty to those who have the management of Indian
  146
  finance if I did not refer to the enormous difficulties which the fall in the value of the silver rupee inflicts on the finances of the country. There is in my Statement a Table of the exchange, and I am sorry to say that even during the short time which has elapsed since the preparation of that Table, there has been a serious alteration, and I can no longer take the average value of the rupee as 16·9d.; but I must take it at 16 d. In the Revised Estimate for 1887–8 it was taken as 16·9, and it proved to be actually 16·898. For the coming year, instead of taking it at 16·9, I must take it at 16, or nearly one penny per rupee less, the effect of which is to alter the Estimate materially. The net sterling Expenditure for 1887–8 is then £15,129,000, or Rx.6,357,000, taking the rupee at 16·898 d. The reduction for gain by exchange in India on remittances is Rx.819,000, and the addition for soldiers' pay Rx.437,000; so that the total for exchange is Rx.5,975,000. In the coming year, for which I take the rupee as 1s. 4d., the sterling expenditure is £15,029,000; the exchange on that sum is Rx.7,515,000, the gain on remittances Rx.905,000, the addition for soldiers' pay Rx.522,000, and the total charge for exchange Rx.7,132,000. The Committee will see how difficult it is for a Finance Minister to arrange his Budget with an enormous uncertain charge of that kind hanging over the Indian Revenue. Certainly, those who are engaged in these transactions deserve the generous consideration of the House of Commons. There is another point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee. When the rupee is as low as it is at present, the fall of a farthing in its value involves a much heavier charge than when it is higher. The fall in that case adds to the charge no less than Rx.346,154, whereas when the rupee was at 20 d. the fall was only Rx.222,223. If, however, we turn from the position of the finances to the present credit of India, I know nothing which the House can consider more satisfactory. The Conversion of the Four per Cents has been virtually completed; but of £53,261,820 Four per Cent Stock, the amount outstanding on the 31st of March last was only £4,403,807, which will be discharged on the 5th of October. Early in the Session an Act was passed authorizing

  147
  the Secretary of State in Council to raise the money required for the purchase of the Oude and Rohilkund Railway; and, as soon as it became law, advantage was taken of the favourable state of the Money Market to invite tenders for Three per Cent Stock to the amount of £7,000,000, the instalments being spread over six months, as the money was not needed all at once. The Stock was subscribed at an average price of £96 9s. 7d. Part of the money has been used in discharging the Debentures, amounting to £1,885,000, which have already fallen due, and the remainder will be applied in the payment to the Railway Company on December 31 of £5,036,049, which is the value of their share capital under the contract. What may be the ultimate gain to the Revenue of India by this operation will depend somewhat on the price at which Stock may hereafter be raised in substitution for the remaining Debenture Stock; but on the basis of the price obtained for the recent Three per Cent Loan, it is estimated at £70,000 per annum. In India, the usual Public Works Loan for Rx.3,000,000 was raised at 4 per cent, at an average price of 99·79. The loan almost immediately rose to a premium. The Government of India thereupon made a beginning in the conversion of their Four-and-a-Half per Cent into a Four per Cent Rupee Debt. The amount of the various Rupee Four-and-a-Half per Cent Loans is Rx.23,250,000, and the greater part of it cannot be redeemed till 1893; but a loan of Rx.1,787,540, named the Transfer Loan of 1870, was redeemable on three months' notice at once. And, accordingly, an announcement was made on July 27, that this loan will be paid off on the 27th of October. Holders are, however, permitted either in India or in England to apply for a corresponding amount of Four per Cent Rupee Notes, and they will, in that case, receive in anticipation the amount of interest at 4½ per cent due to the 31st of October, and thereafter interest at 4 per cent. The saving of interest effected by this conversion will be Rx.8,937 a-year. With respect to the Civil Expenditure of India, some information is to be found on page 14 of my statement. It will be seen that the amount really chargeable as increase is only Rx.1,491,488 in 15 years, or Rx.100,000 a-year. Of course, every
  148
  effort has been and will be made to keep down the Civil Expenditure; but I must warn the Committee that we cannot have improved administration in India unless we are prepared to pay for it. Good Government must to some extent be costly Government. It is idle on the one hand to say that the Government ought to do this, that, and the other for the people of India, and then to grumble at the expenditure entailed. It is an easy thing to get up in this House and denounce the Military, Naval or Civil Expenditure, but the only real, valuable financial criticism which can be applied to the consideration of the Accounts is where hon. Members will point to particular items of public expenditure which might be reduced, and show how with due regard to efficiency economy may be effected. I purposely name that without going further into it, because later on, and after the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has spoken, I may feel it necessary to trouble the Committee again. Therefore, in making this statement, it has been my desire to be as brief as possible.
  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 1887, was Rx.77,337,134; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged to Revenue was Rx.77,158,707; that there was a surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.178,427; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and irrigation Works was Rx.5,670,484, besides a Capital Charge of £4,914,546 involved in the Redemption of Liabilities."—(Sir John Gorst.)
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, the Committee must be gratified by the very clear statement which had been submitted to them by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India; but there were some points involved in the Financial Statements connected with matters of general policy in India upon which he thought it would be necessary to trouble the hon. Gentleman for further explanation, and with reference to what he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was about to lay before the Committee, he would like that it should not be regarded in any way as a Party speech. He had to submit to-night certain grievances of the Natives of India—grievances in intimate relation to many of the details of the very able Financial Statement just made by the Under

  149
  Secretary, and he would be ill fulfilling the task he had undertaken if he permitted the slightest prejudice to rise against the cause he advocated by its being treated as a Party matter. The Natives of India looked to the great Parties of the State to do them justice; they asked audience of the great Parliament of England, without reference to Party spirit on any side, and the allegations which it might be his duty to make were not intended as allegations against one Party more than another, but as allegations against a system which, if the forms of the House had permitted it, he should have gone into at length on that occasion. He thanked the Government and the Under Secretary for India for having given hon. Members the opportunity, which had not always been granted before, of a longer examination into the Statement submitted to the House with regard to Indian Accounts, which had enabled them much better to understand intricate points than otherwise they would have been able to do. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not think it right to say that the great improvement to which he drew attention in respect of the Income of India was a matter which he regretted rather than a matter on which he felt pleased; because, if he (Mr. Bradlaugh) were right, one of the grievances which he should have to lay before the Committee that evening was, that the improvement had been solely arrived at by means of a tax the most onerous and pernicious upon the people of India, some of them almost, if not quite, in a starving condition, and that Salt Tax which formed so rose-coloured a feature in the Statement of the Under Secretary for India, formed in the view of the Natives of India a shocking illustration of harshness and oppression, which they thought might be remedied, and they asked Parliament to inquire whether this might not be done. The forms of the House would not permit him to ask any decision of the Committee on the proposal; the proposal, if it could have been made, would have been that Parliament should order, either by Address to Her Majesty, Royal Commission, or otherwise, as in its wisdom should seem fit, that an inquiry should take place into the present system of our administration of Indian affairs; that Natives should be upon that Com-
  150
  mission, who might bring their special knowledge to bear in the inquiry, and that it should take evidence in India as well as here. The Natives of India thought they had some right to ask that at the hands of the English Parliament, for they said they were guided by what Parliament used to do in the older times, when it was sometimes jealous of the great Company which then controlled our Indian Possessions, and they pointed out that at the time—before Parliament would extend the powers of that great Company—it insisted on making inquiries, which now, for a period of over 30 years, had never been made at all. The Natives of India asked that Parliament should direct such inquiry, and he hoped early next Session to submit the proposal in a form on which the decision of the House might be had. The Natives of India were asking for it in Congresses which had assembled year after year for three years—Congresses of Natives, not gathered together in any spirit of disloyalty or opposition to our Imperial rule, but Congresses of Natives whose education had been carried out under our rule, and who were alive to the civilization which that education had forced upon them—and they said that by giving them the advantages of higher education, they had been given, at the same time, a keener sense of the grievances under which they were suffering; they thought that in many instances they were able to lessen some of these grievances; they wanted to do it by institutions in which they thought they were fitted to take part, and they hoped that Parliament, if a reasonable case could be made out, would not be slow, at any rate, so far as inquiry was concerned, to initiate such inquiry. He had seen in The Times of that morning a statement by one signing himself "A Native of India," objecting to those Congresses, that the language used at them was the language of disloyalty, and speaking of those connected with the movement as men opposed to our rule in India. That he begged leave to say in the strongest fashion was not true. He would quote as his first witness the son of a man whose name occupied an honourable position in the records of that House; he referred to Mr. Allan Hume, the son of Mr. Joseph Hume, who, speaking on the 3rd June

  151
  this year of the importance and objects of this Indian movement, told the English Parliament that by this movement the Natives were taught to recognize the many benefits which they owed to British rule, and also the hopes for the peace and prosperity of the country; they were taught that the hardships of which they complained were, after all, small in comparison with the blessings which they enjoyed, and that all those grievances might and would be redressed if they were to press their views and wishes unanimously and temperately on the Government at home and on the people of England. These Congresses had met, as he had said, for three years and made a statement of their grievances. There was no opportunity afforded by the Forms of the House to submit a statement on this subject before Mr. Speaker left the Chair, and there was much which, under the old system, he would have been entitled to say that he was now precluded from saying, except so far as it affected the financial position of India. But he thought it right, while admitting that undoubtedly there was that discontent which all the subjects of British rule must feel when they laboured under disadvantage and suffered from grievances which they thought could not be redressed, to say that there was no disloyalty. They wanted their grievances redressed by Constitutional means, and under the authority and with the sanction of that House. They only wanted—200,000,000 of them—that they should have more opportunities than once a year, late in the Session, with Benches almost empty, of submitting their case which they wanted the Parliament and the people of England to understand. He quite admitted the force of all that had been observed by the Under Secretary of State for India with reference to his position in bringing the Financial Statement before the House at the time at which it was always presented. But he was not intending to imply anything which needed any kind of answer from the hon. Gentleman from that point of view, and he appealed to him with the greater certainty of having a favourable auditor, because he remembered that when an hon. and gallant Member behind the hon. Gentleman brought forward a question a little while ago with regard to certain officials and their,
  152
  grievances, the Under Secretary for India rose in his place and said it was his duty to defend the poor millions of India. He appealed to that advocate, believing that he would take up the same position to-night as he had taken on that occasion. Although, probably, the hon. Gentleman would answer him accurately enough, that the Forms of the House did not permit him to deal with this question, still he thought he would find it due to the Government of which he was a Member, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman himself would have already considered, and that the Government of India during the Recess would consider, how they would have met the Motion he had put on the Table of the House many weeks ago, and for which he had obtained the first place—how would they have met that Motion at the time, and how would they meet it when the time came for it to be made again? The Natives of India did not expect some sudden and hasty cure of their grievances, but they did expect, and he took leave to expect it for them, that some reasonable show of attention should be paid to their grievances, and that the House would not allow solid and substantial grounds of complaint to be passed without notice. They expected that they would be met half-way, and that we should not drive into a condition of disloyalty 200,000,000 of human beings who were now well affected, and who only came, as they had a right to come, to supplicate the High Court of Parliament for redress of grievances. Another witness, Mr. Soubramana Iyer, said that the rule of Great Britain had given India peace and security, and that the whole of that rule had been better in its result and direction than any former rule in India. That showed that the men who made such statements and the Natives who cheered them could, in no sense, be called men disaffected and disloyal. They were conquered by us, they accepted our civilization as inevitable; but they accepted it as bringing benefit with it, and they asked that, in cases where terrible grievances were associated with it, we should listen to the conquered, and that we should not drive them to the opinion that we had no sympathy with them. This gentleman said it was a matter of the deepest concern to the people of India that the matters of their own country should not be brought to

  153
  the notice of the Parliament and the people of England and become the subject of free and open inquiry conducted by the best English politicians. It might, however, be said.—"Why should the Natives want inquiry? They have a splendid government in the Secretary of State in Council always watching over them." Yes; but even his small experience of the Secretary of State for India had shown him that, with every desire to rule well, he was sometimes deprived of the opportunity of doing so, because he was kept utterly ignorant of what was passing in India. Last year, for example, when he put a simple Question to the Under Secretary of State for India, it was his misfortune to be better informed than the hon. Gentleman himself; the succeeding answers which he gave completely differing from the answer he had given before. More recently, he had put Questions to the hon. Gentleman on the subject of Burmah. At first the hon. Gentleman knew nothing. Information had come by driblets, and one driblet had come that afternoon, which was essential in deciding whether Burmah was wisely and cheaply governed or not. He agreed that governments must be costly; but they need not be quite so costly, that they should pay for the hire of a flat for 12 months twice the sum it would have cost to build it, and in addition to paying demurrage, when they could get the delay for nothing. The answer of the hon. Gentleman conflicted a little with the hope he had expressed of an economical Administration. There was 60,000 rupees charged for hire and 33,000 rupees for demurrage. If that was a sample of the way in which the Indian Government sought cheapness, all he could say was that the bargain had turned out to be a bad one. He could only suggest that if information was to come by driblets spread over five months, with the best desire to do what was right, the Secretary of State for India had the best excuse in the world for doing what was wrong, for all the mischief was done before he got information. The Natives of India asked that there should be an abolition of the Secretary of State in Council for India and England. He should like the Secretary of State for India and the Under Secretary to cease to be Indian officials; he should like to have the pay of Indian officials upon the Votes of the House,
  154
  and under the control of the House. At present they were almost powerless to deal with them. He should be the last to lessen the value of the prestige of the India Office; but why should the Secretary of State for India be in a different position from that of the Secretary of State for War, or that of the Secretary of State for the Colonies? Why should he not be under the control of Parliament, so that once a year they might be sure that they had got him, and that he would be sure to come down when Supplies were to be voted? Now, he came down when all the Supplies had been voted, and he knew that he was in no sense dependent on the House of Commons and that he might say what he pleased. The Native Indians asked that the Secretary of State in Council should be abolished, because they said the Indian Council had proved that they were inefficient. He would not trouble the House with the Report, which had been delivered to Members that morning, of the Committee sitting upstairs; but if Charles Dickens bad been alive, and if he had wanted to write another article like "How not to do it with red tape," he appealed to the Under Secretary for India to say whether he could have found a better illustration of the utter uselessness of the Secretary of State in Council than was given by the Report of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company Committee. It was complained, he thought justly, that the Indian Council in London made no effort to be acquainted with or to understand Native Indian opinion, and that the Members of the Council were not in sympathy with Native opinion. It might be asked why should they be? The reason was, that there were 200,000,000 of them. The Natives of India went further, and said that the Council in London even hindered inquiry into Native grievances. They pointed to the spread of education that had taken place amongst the population of India during the past 30 years; they pointed to the men who, at terrible inconvenience to themselves, had crossed the ocean to become acquainted with our manners, language, customs, and letters, who had taken degrees at our Universities, and had been admitted to our Bar, and they asked that these men might have some opportunity of utilizing the talents which they undoubtedly possessed and which we had helped them to develop. First,

  155
  they asked for some kind of representation upon the Executive Council of the Viceroy in India, and some better representation on the various Provincial Councils; and, further, that the number of Members should be increased, and that the selection of Natives should depend not on the whim of the person who, for the moment, might be Governor General in India or Lieutenant Governor General of one of the Provinces, but upon selection by some process among the Natives. And in making that demand they proposed a system of selection surrounded by all kinds of safeguards. They only asked for Members of their own to be upon those councils. We have already put some there, but we had only done so on a system of selection depending on the whim of the high official who had the duty of making selection. However wise a selection might be made, it would not carry with it the confidence that would have attached to it if the selection had been made by the Natives themselves. They did not ask that the whole of the Council should be elected; they only asked that one-half of it should be elected, and that those who had a strong view of the grievances which they wanted to get redressed should by these means have an opportunity of communicating them to this Parliament. They asked that the House should appoint a Standing Committee, Session by Session, composed of gentlemen to be charged with the duty of receiving such communications and reporting upon them to the House. Surely that was not asking too much for 200,000,000 of people. The Government of India was constantly occupying itself with the defence of their frontiers against invasion. The best defence must be found in the contentment of 200,000,000 of human beings in our rule and in their knowledge that the Parliament of England did not treat them as mere subjects, but as citizens, upon whom they might gradually put the duties of self-government. They asked that there might be even on the Council of the Viceroy some expression of Indian opinion. It was suggested that that had already been thought about by some of the Viceroys, and that the late Lord Mayo himself had contemplated the possibility of a legal Member of the Council being elected
  156
  from among the high Native Judges. It might be asked what was the need for all this? He would endeavour briefly to give the reason why. These 200,000,000 of human beings were miserably poor, so miserably poor that, at the best, they were only just outside starvation. He would show the House what happened when they were not quite at their best. There were records delivered to hon. Members by the Government themselves, and they would recollect the handsome maps delivered to them last year by the Government of India, which told them about the food, crops, and races of people in India, and other things connected with the subject. There was one of those maps which told them of the famines which had occurred. What must be the condition of things, and how desirable it must be, if possible, to remedy it, when it was necessary for the Government to inform Parliament that famines were so frequent that famine maps were necessary for the country over which they were exercising their rule? What was the state of the people? The average income had been stated at something like £2 per head per annum. An hon. and gallant Member not now in his place, but who had shown an intention to take part in that debate, and had himself occupied a position in India, had stated on distinct information in an official Report that the bulk of the people in the Madras Presidency were paupers, and in another Report by a Government official of Madras it was stated that in the best season the gross income of the labourer and his family did not exceed 3d. per day. And when the Government showed an improvement in their income, of which they boasted in their Financial Statement, by means of increasing the Salt Tax, which pressed upon these people most heavily, then he repeated that there was a serious matter which required some kind of answer on the part of the Government and some kind of consideration on the part of the House. He might pile up illustration after illustration, but he would not weary the Committee; he would leave the illustrations he gave to speak for themselves, and if any hon. Member doubted his statement, or considered it an exaggeration, he reminded him that in those valuable Papers which were submitted to Parliament every year, on the moral, material,

  157
  and physical condition of India, he would find a statement of wage given, district by district, showing that what was said could be vouched entirely, and that the poverty of the people was almost indescribable. In that valuable treatise, issued by Trübner and Co., and written by Sir W. W. Hunter, they had the statement that there was always a huge number of the people on the verge of starvation. In 18 years, beginning with 1860, and coming down to this time, there had been 16 famines, in which no fewer than 12,021,000 of these unfortunate wretches had died of starvation. It might be asked whether that could be prevented? He thought it could be prevented. In the statement of the Under Secretary for India this evening he said that the Civil expenditure must not be exorbitant, because good government must be costly. But the Natives said—"You put square pegs into round holes; you put people in offices here who are unused to the climate and not always acquainted with the language, at a high rate of pay, while Natives would fill a dozen of those offices at the price you pay for one," and they said that if the money taken out of the country were expended in it, it would benefit the people and save them from that state of starvation. How did the Natives speak about the Salt Tax? He would refrain from reading more than one extract, because he did not want the Committee to think that he wished unduly to occupy their time. In a leading article of a Native paper, published at Allahabad, it was pointed out that an increase of 25 per cent in the wholesale price of salt would bring 50 per cent increase in the retail price, so that, if the yearly consumption were 8 lb., the average rate per head would be nine annas instead of six for a family. Let the Committee think what that meant with a gross income of 3d. a-day in the best time. It did not mean what it would mean in this country; but it was a very striking matter when looked at from the Indian point of view. It was pointed out that any man with a knowledge of India would know that millions of Indian people eked out their wretched existence with a scanty meal of three or four pice a-day, and an increase in the price of salt meant in their case that they should either do without salt or else four days' meals, so that the increase of the Salt
  158
  Tax meant an increase in the famine rate, and although it might fill the Treasury of the Indian Government, it might also make real discontent and effective disloyalty and enduring mischief among those who saw their parents die of starvation, because the increase of the Salt Tax deprived them in this fashion of four meals. The writer he referred to said-
  "That it could not be understood how, knowing these simple facts, any man whose heart was not altogether dead to the sufferings of the poor could approve of this increase of the Salt Tax, by which the poorest of the poor would be deprived of their four days' meals."
  It was suggested that they might employ the Natives of India usefully for the government of India in nearly all the departments of civil government. The Natives complained, and he thought justly, that all the highly-paid offices, which they could fill cheaply, were given to those who could not possibly live as they lived, and whose incomes, if distributed, would enable the people to live in plenty; and they complained that every day money was taken out of the country by those officials who could not stay there, which, if it were paid to the Natives, would be spent within the country, and they said that the English Government did that in direct breach of the promises made. They referred to the old Act, and to the Proclamation of Her Majesty, some years after the Government of India had been assumed by the Crown from the East India Company, and they reminded us that in that Proclamation Her Majesty was made to say that, "as far as may be" Her Majesty's subjects, of whatever creed and race, would be freely and impartially admitted to Offices in Her Majesty's Service for the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity; and then these words of wisdom were put in, that "in their gratitude would be Her Majesty's reward, and in their contentment Her Majesty's strength." He might quote the present Ambassador of England at the French Court, who himself had occupied the highest official position in India. Lord Lytton, in a Minute, which he believed had come within the official knowledge of the Secretary of State for India, speaking of an Act of Parliament which preceded the Proclamation which practically re-

  159
  peated its promise, said the Act of Parliament was so indefinite as to the obligations on the part of the Government of India towards its Native subjects, that no sooner was the Act passed than the Government began to devise means for practically evading the fulfilment of it. Speaking of the right which every Native had when he entered Government employment to claim promotion to the highest posts in the Service, Lord Lytton said, that they all knew that those claims and expectations never could and never would be fulfilled, and that we had chosen the least honest course with regard to them. Why should the Government prohibit? The Native Indians had been utilized in many ways; their abilities had been utilized in Courts of Justice, and in circumstances of the greatest delicacy. The Indian Government were ready to boast, and were proud to boast, of the offers made to them by Indian Princes of their swords and means in aiding them to protect the Empire in India; but it would be better if they could boast, and their pride would be more becoming if they could boast, that they had knit together the huge mass of the people, and taught them by experience that their government was better than any other, and that this mass of people would resist any foreign encroachment, and would save them from the need of voting huge sums in imaginary and real panics in connection with Russia or any other country. They had no right to govern by the sword alone; especially when they boasted in that House of a higher aim than mere policy, and not only had they no right to rule by the sword alone, but they had no power to threaten, for the strongest Government would one day become feeble, the strongest arm would become paralyzed, and it was then that this people might turn against them because they had regarded themselves as a superior race and proved themselves unfitted to discharge their duty towards them.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid, he was sure that the Natives of India could not have had a more able and impassioned champion of their cause than the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had proved himself to be. The hon. Gentleman had taken that evening a long excursion into the area of Indian government, and like many other travellers he thought he had re-
  160
  turned with his ideas only the more firmly established in his mind. He had asked the Committee to believe, with a view to benefiting the people of India, and for the purpose of improving the administration of the country and reducing expenditure, that it would be a wise thing for this Parliament to appoint a Commission of Inquiry—a wide, far-reaching Commission, which was to go out into India, and which was to be independent of the duration and the decease of the English Parliament, and which was to pursue its inquiries for a great number of years. What would be the effect of appointing a Commission of that sort? It would be to put the Government of India into Commission for an indefinite period, and to plunge the whole Government of India into a state of prolonged and incessant political agitation. The hon. Member for Northampton complained that when India was governed by the East India Company, it was the custom to appoint Committees from time to time to inquire into the working of the Indian Administration; he believed that for 20 years at intervals such inquiries had been conducted by Committees of that House, and he said that that beneficial practice had been discontinued since the Government of India had been taken over by the Crown. But the reason why such Committees were appointed at that time was because the Government of India was entirely independent of the British Parliament. The East India Company was not under the control of that House, and, therefore, it was natural that the people of England, who had delegated part of their authority to the East India Company, should have wished to make inquiry and find out how the Company was administering their powers in India; but the Government of India, since it had been taken over by the Crown, was subject to the House of Commons. He had seen it contended in the debates of that House that the Government of India was in the position of an independent Legislature, and that the House of Commons had no right to interfere with certain actions of the Government of India in the administration of the country. Now, he did not recognize that to be a true description of the Government of India, although he was aware it was used in a certain debate in that House with reference to a de-

  161
  mand to inquire into some particular phase of Indian administration. But, practically speaking, the Government of India was only a Department of the State, like others which were controlled by the House of Commons, and they knew nothing, however small or great, which could be represented as a grievance of the people of India that was not immediately brought under the notice of the House of Commons. He would take the example which the hon. Member for Northampton had given the Committee from his own experience of such matters. The hon. Member told them that the Government of India had tried to make a lease of certain ruby mines to a Company, and that the unfortunate Secretary of State for India had fallen into a state of panic week after week, entreating the Government of India not to grant the lease at all. Could the Committee have a better illustration of the manner in which the hon. Member overawed the Secretary of State and the Government of India? But now the hon. Member told them that there was one patent remedy for all the grievances under which India suffered. The hon. Member was not satisfied with the authority which the House of Commons now possessed; but he said that we must have practically representative government in India. But representative government had always seemed to him (Mr. Maclean) to be a system of government of purely Western growth, and it was confined even now to very few nations. It might be suggested without exaggeration that the only countries in which it worked successfully were those countries in which English-speaking people had a distinct and decided predominance. ["No, no!"] If that proposition was disputed, he might take a definition given by gentlemen who had sent an account of the views expressed at the Congresses in India; by their own confession they spoke of transferring to that country the Constitutional idea which had hitherto been peculiar to England. Did anyone believe that a system of government of that kind could ever be worked in India? They were told that this demand had been put forward by 200,000,000 of people at National Congresses representing the whole of the people of India. Now, that was the first time that he had ever heard that there was a people of India; there
  162
  were a great number of races, and a great number of distinct nations, but to say that there was an Indian people was to anticipate by at least 1,000 years a general cohesion of the inhabitants of that country, and when the hon. Gentleman talked of grievances which they felt under the English administration, he surely did not mean to contrast their condition at the present time with what it was in any former period of their history. The history of India went back 1,000 years.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he had expressly quoted from speeches which admitted that our government had been better in many respects than any other government of their own. But that was no argument against the redressing of grievances which did exist.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid, he was aware that that statement was put forward by the speakers at the National Congress; but he wanted to point out that at no period in the history of India for 1,000 years had the people ever enjoyed anything in the nature of representative institutions. Since we went to India we had not taken away any liberties that the people possessed at the time we went there, although we were a foreign Governing Power there. We had found India in a state of almost desolation; during the decay of the Empire of the Moguls, it was then being ravaged by hordes of banditti, who carried on this work from one end of the country to the other; all along the sea coast different European nations were vieing as to who should obtain the greatest booty out of the country. England at last attained ascendancy, and secured lasting peace to the inhabitants of that great country. Now, that was a very great benefit to the people of India, who, during the whole period of their history, had never had any other than despotic government. It was quite true that our government was despotic also, and it was absolutely necessary in his opinion that it should be so. He had been reading lately an interesting essay by a brilliant writer upon the question whether England was likely to hold India, and the writer came to the conclusion that we might succeed in maintaining our hold upon the country for the next 25 years. But if the idea of the National Congress and of the hon. Member for Northampton were carried

  163
  out, he was perfectly convinced that our term of occupation might be shortened to five years instead of 25, and he did not think, if power were placed in the hands of men who were the chief speakers at the National Congress, that we could possibly retain our hold in that country. The hon. Member for Northampton had laid great stress on the expressions of loyalty which had been made at the Congresses; but the important thing to observe was, not what was said by the delegates, but what were the subjects they really discussed and the aims they put forward. The hon. Member had dwelt at some length upon the claims of those delegates, and he pointed out that they represented 200,000,000 of people.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, his statement was that there were 200,000,000 of people, and that there had been three National Congresses; but he did not pretend that there had been any system of election amongst the masses which would entitle those Congresses to speak with authority.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid, their own friends claimed to represent only 1–10th of the population of India at the outside; he doubted whether they represented 1–20th of the people. He thought they represented simply the educated classes in the Bengal Presidency and the Mahrattas in the Western Presidency of Madras. They had had a letter from Bombay saying that the Mahommedans had refused to send a delegate to the Congress, because they disagreed with the views there put forward, and therefore they had an important race, numbering 60,000,000, who did not look with any favour whatever upon the so-called National Congress. What were the aims put forward? The one great idea put forward by the speakers at the so-called National Congress, and which they hoped to impress upon the British Legislature, was that, if Natives were placed in a position of authority, the cost of governing India would be very much reduced. Undoubtedly it would have that effect, because we should not have the privilege of governing India any longer. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the promise made to the Natives of India when the government of that country was taken over to the Crown. It was quite right of the hon. Member to read the
  164
  significant clause—"So far as may be." What was the meaning of that phrase? It was explained in 1860 by a Departmental Committee of the India Office, which suggested that the Natives of India should be employed in the administration of its affairs to as large an extent as possible consistent with the maintenance of British ascendancy. There was no doubt that, at the time, the Natives of India were largely excluded from administrative positions; but year by year they had been admitted more and more to positions of influence, and they would be necessarily admitted more and more as time went on. But they could never get rid of this necessity of our position in India, that there must be a distinctly English element in the administration of the chief posts in the country. The great aim of the Congress was that Natives should be admitted to equality with Englishmen for all positions in the Administration. Now, that could never be so long as we held India. It was inconsistent with the very idea of an Indian Empire. What were the proposals which the Congress made? He noticed that very little was said about economy and developing the resources of India and improving its material prosperity; they thought comparatively little of these matters; but they dwelt entirely upon political questions relating to their advancement to coveted posts now held by Englishmen; they accepted without question all the extravagant ideas of that extremely ingenious statistician Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji, who availed himself of the slightest opportunity put in his power of setting the people of India against English influence and against English domination. He would give an interesting illustration of the way in which Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji pressed figures into his service, to show what calamities the English Government brought upon the people of India. Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji gave a list of 16 famines which had occurred in India in 18 years between 1860 and 1878, and which had resulted in the death of 12,000,000 of people. If that gentleman had been fair and well-disposed towards the English Administration, he would have pointed out that these were the only famines which had occurred through the last half-century, and that not one had occurred during the last 10

  165
  years. This gentleman took a period of years in which their was a cycle of famines in India, and he gave them as an illustration of the regular course of British government in India. He (Mr. Maclean) said that nothing could be more unfair than that, and he went on to say that this was the real feeling of the national orators at the Congress that—
  "The late monsoon of the present year and the meteorological and cyclical conditions of Indian weather indicate that we are on the eve of a new era of defective rainfall and probably famine."
  He was happy to say that that sinister prophecy had not been fulfilled, because the accounts of the rainfall this year in India had been most satisfactory. That was the way in which the government of India was criticized by these national orators. There was another matter to which he might refer—namely, the question on which Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji had raised a discussion for many years, on the subject of the drain of wealth from India in consequence of foreign government there. Well, the figures he put in did constitute a very telling argument against the maintenance of that government, because he (Mr. Maclean) saw that morning that in order to make out the case against the English Government, he said that the English people carried away nearly the whole of the produce in indigo, jute, silk, &c., from the country; he reckoned the value of the property exported as if it belonged to the English planters, and was so much money in their pockets. But the very utmost they could obtain was a small percentage of this produce; he then said that the remittances of private people amounted to £12,000,000 more, which was reckoning the profits of Englishmen twice over. No doubt there were considerable remittances every year to England of money earned in India through British enterprize. That was well earned; it was the fruit of English capital or of English labour, and they ought not surely to grudge the English, who went out to India and set the Natives an example by starting new enterprizes and carrying them out, the small profit which they obtained by such enterprizes. Those were fair examples of the mode in which speakers at the National Congress dwelt upon the present state of India, and the way in
  166
  which they were found discussing the poverty of the people, which had endured for ages, and was certainly less at the present time than at any previous period. They altogether ignored the fact that there was a better style of living and more widely diffused comfort among the population than there had ever been before, and yet these people spoke as if the so-called poverty of India was the result of British rule. Then they aimed at obtaining for themselves the highest posts in India, and they pointed to the administration of Native States by Native statesmen, and showed what would be the advantage to British India if it were governed in the same way. The hon. Member for Northampton actually had the audacity to quote the Report of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company Committee in support of the statements he had made that evening, saying that it was a great mistake that the representations of the people should be interfered with by the Secretary of State for India. He (Mr. Maclean) took it that the Report was directly the reverse of that, because they said at the end that the direct contact between Natives of India and promoters in London should be prevented by every means; so that the effect of that Report was to lay down the rule that English control should be made more effectual than had unhappily been the case in the past. Then they had another instance of the grievances of India, which he saw had raised the greatest enthusiasm at the National Congress, and that was the so-called disarmament of the people, and the desire of the Natives that they should be allowed to volunteer and offer themselves as a cheap defence in India against foreign invasion. He was afraid that if they trusted to a cheap defence of that sort against Russian invasion they would see an illustration of the old story of the eagle fluttering the dovecote; because he did not think that any man who knew anything about the people of India would say that they would themselves constitute a sufficient defence against foreign invasion. He believed the majority of the people were well-affected towards British rule—that was to say, that they were contented with their position; they were lightly taxed, and every man had perfect freedom for himself and his property. Those were advantages which they had never en-

  167
  joyed under Native government, and he was sure they were appreciated; but to say that we could reckon upon them for active loyalty in the case of invasion by an European Power would be to say that which no statesman would assent to. [Mr. BRADLAUGH: You brought them over to Europe at a high price.] No doubt, we brought over some of the highly disciplined troops to fight for us if necessary. Whether that was a wise proceeding he did not know; but the Indian Sepoy under English officers had done many gallant deeds and done good service in building up the British Empire. That, however, was not what the delegates wanted. They wanted the people of India to be put under arms and to be perfectly independent of British control. The Natives were very well disposed towards our government; but no one would think that, if the English Army were to suffer a single defeat on the frontiers of India, we could rely on the Native Princes or on the people of India for 24 hours. Therefore, he said that all these demands put forward were for making India a nation, and that what they desired was not the extension and maintenance of our authority in India. He would like to say a few words on the subject of the Financial Accounts of the year, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, in his reply, to give the Committee some information as to when he expected that the Special Defence Works would be completed. There was no doubt that the general condition of Indian Finance was, on the whole, much more satisfactory than many critics were ready to admit. The Revenue had shown very considerable elasticity. During the last 20 years, they had had to deal in India with a very serious expenditure on the Afghan Wars, which had cost something like £20,000,000. They had had to deal with two famines, and the necessary increase of the British and Native Army, caused by the acquisition of a frontier which a foreign enemy could now attack, and they had also to go to a great expense in fortifying the North-Western Frontier, besides which a considerable sum of money had been expended on the fortification of strategical points around the coasts of India, points which it was very desirable should be fortified, and which would be of great service to the Empire. He
  168
  thought they might congratulate themselves that, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to proceed with the fortification of our coaling stations throughout the world, by anticipating the revenue from the Suez Canal Shares for more than seven years, the Indian Government had sufficient funds at its disposal to pay for the works he had referred to out of the current Revenue. But he thought it would be more satisfactory if they could learn from the Under Secretary of State for India when those works would be completed, and when the finances of India would be relieved from this very serious strain. Another great cause of leakage in Indian finances was the extraordinary expenditure in Burmah year after year. The Under Secretary of State confessed that all the expectations formed a few years ago, when the conquest of Burmah was first undertaken, had been disappointed, and he now indicated that, perhaps, in the 10th year of our occupation, we should have a slight balance of revenue over expenditure. He (Mr. Maclean) would like to have a little more light thrown upon that subject, and to know how far the great expenditure was attributable to errors of policy. Of course they had a right to expect that the results would have been better now than they had hitherto been, and if it had not been for the hurly-burly of Irish politics, they might have been able to inquire more fully into this matter from time to time; but certainly the statement of the Under Secretary of State for India on that head was by no means satisfactory. Then the other great cause of excess of Expenditure over Revenue was the depreciation of the rupee, for which there appeared to be no remedy, and to which apparently there was not likely to be a speedy termination. He believed that several experts had given evidence before the Currency Commission, to the effect that, when silver dropped to 42 s. per oz., a number of silver mines would be shut up, and we should then reach the last stage to which the price of silver would fall. Silver had reached that price, and there appeared to be no prospect of its rising again. One could not help being struck by the figures given by the Under Secretary of State for India showing how steadily the imports of India were increasing in proportion to the exports.

  169
  The trade in most directions was developing very largely; but India got back more in proportion for her exports than she did in former years. He thought that was a proof of the prosperity of the country, and it would be accepted as such by the people of India, and their considerable gain would enable them more easily to bear the necessary taxation. These were the main features in the Financial Statement of the Under Secretary of State for India which appeared to him to call for remark. He did not think that, in considering the accounts of a great Empire like India, they could hope to do any good by paltry criticism of expenditure here and there and pettifogging cavilling about the salaries of clerks. They had to look to the great heads of expenditure, and he pointed out why that expenditure was now increasing. They had always a heavy burden on the finances of India, because of the very great amount paid for Non-Effective Charges. That amount was something appalling. He supposed that under those various heads there were no less than £6,000,000 sterling for Non-Effective Charges. In answer to some criticisms on the extravagance of Indian Government, he might point out that the Non-Effective Charges were really due to the extreme generosity of that House in listening to the grievances of Indian officers, represented as being due to the alterations in the Indian Army. He hoped that would be a lesson to the House of Commons not to be quite so ready in taking up grievances which it did not thoroughly understand. There was only one other matter to which he would refer for a moment, and that was to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton, that we might effect a very great economy by doing away with the Secretary of State in Council at Westminster. The hon. Member said that the Secretary of State for India and the Under Secretary of State were not responsible to Parliament. He (Mr. Maclean) thought that was carrying a technical objection a little too far; because, although the salaries might be paid by the Indian Government, they were very well aware that a Resolution of the House of Commons censuring them for their policy might, at any time, turn both those officials out of Office. Therefore, he thought that the control of the House of Commons in that re-
  170
  spect was tolerably complete. Then with regard to the Indian Council. Mr. John Stuart Mill described the Secretary of State for India in Council as the most wonderful instrument of human legislative skill which had ever been devised. No doubt, the opinion of that philosopher was biased by his father's connection with India at the time he made that statement. While he agreed to some extent with those who doubted the perfect wisdom of that wonderful form of government for India, he would not go so far as to say that the India Council should be abolished altogether; but he certainly thought that the present term of holding the appointment was much too long, and that if it were shortened to five years, it would be a very great benefit to the country. Nothing was clearer, from the Report of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company Committee, than that the India Council, taking it as a body at Westminster, was deplorably and childishly ignorant of all Indian affairs, and that reform in that direction was, no doubt, urgently required. If the period was shortened to five years, there would be a continuous stream of fresh blood passing through the India Office, resulting in consequent benefit to the country; and if the number of Members were considerably cut down, there would still be sufficient prizes of the kind left within the reach of the Members of the Indian Civil Service.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, that Mr. Justice Cunningham, one of the ablest of the Calcutta Judges, commenced a recently published article on the finances of India with these words—
  "The administration of the Indian finances is a topic in which Englishmen naturally and rightly feel a deep concern."
  He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) ought, in fairness, to mention that Mr. Justice Cunningham was not only a distinguished Judge, but also a distinguished writer of fiction; and some people, when they observed the empty state of the Benches to-night, and when they reflected on the fact that Her Majesty's Government had postponed this great Indian debate, not only to an evening in August which was virtually a penultimate night of the Session, but also to the second Order in that evening, some people might think that Mr. Justice Cunningham, in talking of the

  171
  interests of Englishmen in Indian affairs, was writing fiction rather than fact. And in this connection he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) felt bound to say that he himself thought—and he believed a good many others on that (the Ministerial) side of the House did—they also owed some amends to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). From many platforms in times gone by he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had called attention to the fact that Lord Beaconsfield was the only one of recent English statesmen who ventured to bring on the discussion of the Indian Budget early in the Session, and that it had been the habit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian invariably to postpone the discussion to the fag end of the Session. Well, the ingenious Gentleman who represented the India Office in this House had given them certain reasons to-night why it was almost inevitable in the present Session that the debate should be postponed so long. But he did feel, in the circumstances in which they had discussed this question to-night, that his hon. Friends in the present Government really had out-Heroded Herod; and he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) desired most emphatically to state his own humble opinion that those right hon. Gentlemen on one side of the House and on the other, had, in this matter, entirely miscalculated the wishes of the British public. He ventured to think that Mr. Justice Cunningham was right, and that the British public did feel a real interest in these questions, and would wish that they should be discussed when they could be fairly and intelligibly gone into. Therefore, he ventured to express a most earnest hope, notwithstanding the very clever reasons which had been given to the Committee to-night by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), that next Session would see the hon. Gentleman's Budget introduced at a much earlier period, at any rate, than the present. Hon. Members who would have the courage—he might say the audacity—to address the Committee to-night, would all of them feel that they were speaking, as it were, with a pistol at their heads. In discussing the grievances and the aspirations of 200,000,000 of their fellow subjects, they would all of them feel a
  172
  sort of uncomfortable sensation that they were keeping some of their fellow-Members from enjoying their well-earned holidays. Therefore, in the few remarks that he would venture to address to the Committee, he should confine himself entirely to one point only, and that was, to the demand for an inquiry into the affairs of India to be conducted, not only here in England, but also in India—that demand which had been expressed in such eloquent language to-night by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) thought it necessary at once to say that he did not follow the hon. Member for Northampton in all that he had submitted to the Committee to-night. He thought, from the knowledge he had of the economic conditions of India, that the hon. Member's objections to the Salt Tax, for instance—to the recent infinitesimal addition which had been made to that tax—were not well-founded. He thought, also, that the hon. Member's idea of the great poverty of the large mass of the people of India was exaggerated—or, at any rate, exaggerated so far as his comparison of the relative poverty of the people of England and the people of India was concerned. But still, with all these deductions, it was a most remarkable and undeniable fact that every class in India, and every community which was in any way connected with India and Indian affairs, did, at the present moment, in a more or less earnest form, declare that some inquiry into Indian affairs and Indian administration was really urgently demanded. The Natives of India, with one voice, asked for an inquiry; the non-official English people, with one voice, asked for inquiry; the officials, too, suggested that in our management of the affairs of India there was a good deal that required looking into, and they felt that in their own administration of India out there they were struggling under difficulties to do their duty, as he believed they were doing their duty well towards the country, but they said the obstruction was the India Office and the hon. Gentleman's Council here at home. They expatiated on the enormity of those home charges which had been so aptly put before the House this evening by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean). They knew that on all

  173
  questions where the interests of India clashed with the interests of England, on such points as the cost of soldiers to the Indian Exchequer, as the provision of stores, and as the protection of Native States and Native Potentates against London speculators, and similar questions, the interests of India were neglected in favour of the interests of England. Then, again, the whole of the Uncovenanted servants of India asked for inquiry. They declared that they were ignored by the Government of India, and that, although numerically superior to the Covenanted Service of India, they were unrepresented both in the Council of the Viceroy at Simla and in the Council of the Secretary of State here at home. The efficiency of the India Office had been spoken of by the hon. Member for Oldham in not very warm terms, and another hon. Member of this House had recently said that it was a sort of hospital for aged incurables. Even the India Office was inclined to look with a certain amount of favour at proposals to check the extravagances of the Simla people; and on all sides there was a certain amount of demand for inquiry; and what he wished to submit to the Committee to-night was that the present time and the present year afforded a particularly favourable season in every respect for this inquiry—favourable especially from the point of view of those timid persons like the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, who saw revolution in every inquiry of this kind. Just let them consider the present state of India and of Indian affairs. They had there a Viceroy who was by universal consent a statesman of quite exceptional reputation and ability, one who had, too, the invaluable advantage of being trusted alike by both Parties in the State. They had a Commander-in-Chief there who was the idol of the British Army and of the Indian Army—a Commander-in-Chief who was not only a Victoria Cross man, who had made the most famous march of modern times, but who was also a great administrator and a great strategist. Here, at home, they had a Secretary of State who possessed vast experience of public affairs, and was surrounded in the House of Lords by a wonderful gathering of Indian talent; and if his hon. Friend below him (Sir John Gorst) would forgive him for referring to him
  174
  in his presence, they had in the House of Commons at the present moment a Gentleman representing Indian affairs who by universal consent was especially gifted in the art of tempering the wind of hostile criticism to the shorn lambs of the India Office. The House knew well enough that whenever any special request for an inquiry was presented to his hon. Friend he was always prepared immediately to prove three things. He first of all proved that the India Office was most anxious for the inquiry; he, secondly, proved that it was absolutely idiotic and impossible to think of such an inquiry; and, in the third place, he proved that the inquiry had been held over and over again. Well, in these circumstances, he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) certainly thought the most timid person must admit that an inquiry of the kind asked for by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton might be granted without the possibility of its doing harm to any person whatever. Then there was an additional advantage they had at the same time with regard to the possible personnel of a Commission such as that suggested. He would point out that at the present moment the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), though a Member of the House, was not burdened with any of the cares of Government. Many on that (the Ministerial) side of the House wished that he were so burdened with the cares of Government, but he was not, and he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) asserted, without hesitation, that all classes in India, Native as well as European, and officials as well as non-officials, would regard the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington as an ideal head of such a Commission as that which had been suggested. In India itself it was universally admitted just now there were a remarkable number of distinguished Indian statesmen who could admirably act with such an Englishman as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. There were such men as, in Bengal, the Maharajah of Darbhanga, and the Raja Peary Mohun Mookerji, who would, he was sure, be glad to serve with the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. In Madras there was Sir Madava Rao, in Mysore the Dewan, in Native States the Prime Minister of Hyderabad—not

  175
  to mention many Feudatory Princes of proved ability who might possibly at the present moment be very willing to serve on such a Commission as that suggested. He ventured to think that recent events called trumpet-tongued for some such inquiry as that now asked for. Could anyone read the accounts which appeared in this morning's papers of the Report of the Select Committee into the Hyderabad (Deccan) Mining Company, which had been already referred to in debate to-night, without feeling that we, as a nation, were really grievously neglecting and ignoring our duties to the Princes and peoples of India. On the bare possibility of such a question being asked in this House tending in the same direction as that which was put this evening by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), he would ask the Committee to be good enough to remember that in citing these matters he was not speaking of things that he regarded as proved, or even as likely to be capable of proof, but he was asking simply that they should be examined; and let him tell the Committee that in every mail from India every week, every newspaper that was brought home contained charges against our officials in India which, rightly or wrongly, asserted the existence of a state of things hardly less discreditable than those which had recently been brought to light. It used to be said that these outcries were only raised by that portion of the Indian Press which was disloyal and disaffected to the British Crown—especially the Vernacular Press. But at this moment it was well known to any hon. Member who followed the Press of India at all, that the very ultra-official Press, such as The Pioneer at Allahabad, which was the organ of the official classes in India, had joined in this outcry and was foremost in denouncing abuses which were alleged in the administration of India. At this period of the evening he would not enter into details, but he would refer to one or two cases by name. There was the case, for instance, of the infant Gond Raja of Nagpur, a Petition from whose Representatives, addressed to the Secretary of State for India, was in the hands of hon. Members. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had studied this question, and it was his intention on some future opportunity
  176
  to submit the case to the House. This evening he would not detain the Committee by referring to it further. There was even a worse case than that alleged, and he said "alleged" because he would remind the Committee that he was only relying upon ex parte statements, and as he had said just now, was only asking for an inquiry. There was a worse case in the case of the infant Raja of Mohrbhanj, in Orissa. It was stated most definitely that in that State the family of the Raja had been entirely set aside and superseded in favour of an European protègé of the Commissioner of a neighbouring district. Well, he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) believed, as one with some knowledge of India, that many of these cases, possibly the vast majority of them, were absolutely unfounded, and that probably in all of them the facts were very considerably exaggerated; but surely that very fact was a reason why the demand of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton for an inquiry into these cases should be granted. Why should the India Office not grant such an inquiry? He would appeal to Her Majesty's Government to remember what under very similar circumstances had been stated by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. He asked, for instance, that the case of Sir Lepel Griffin might be fairly compared with the case of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. He had the pleasure of being personally acquainted with Sir Lepel Griffin, and he could say that, to the best of his knowledge, this gentleman was one of the ablest and most honest of all our political officers in India, and yet he had been continuously, and still was persistently, libelled by a large section of the Press of India. That officer was——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that we are in Committee on the Financial Accounts of India. The speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, no doubt, went over very considerable ground, but it was all connected with the economical side of the administration of India. Any inquiry into the general condition of India not connected with the economical side of the question, is foreign to the matter under discussion.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, that, of course, he would immediately bow to the decision of the Chairman. He

  177
  would only venture, most respectfully, to submit this to the consideration of the Chair, that the course he was pursuing in his speech, so far as he had now gone, was to deal with the conduct of the political department of India, and the consideration of the question of how far the salaries contained in the accounts of this Department were earned—the salaries contained in the accounts now presented to the Committee. But, under the ruling of the Chairman, he would leave that point, merely noting, as he did so, this—that he ventured to submit that, in his opinion, it was utterly wrong and improper to ask honourable officers of the British Government quietly to sit down under such libels as those which had been published against Sir Lepel Griffin. In the case of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite he had stated the same thing of them, that they ought not quietly to accept libels; and he therefore said it still more strongly when the libels were directed against an officer who represented the majesty of the British Government in India. He must say a word or two, before he sat down, on the very increasing volume of complaints, not only of the expense, but also of many of the methods of our internal administration of India. These complaints were ever increasing, and they must, in his opinion, be over increasing until Parliament granted the inquiry which was asked for, because, in former years, before the administration of India passed from the East India Company to the Crown, such inquiries as this were periodically granted. But now, he must say, the tendency of the bureaucratic spirit of India was rather to burke such inquiries than encourage them. The sham Report, as he ventured to call it, of the Public Service Commission had been followed by an equally sham Report from the Finance Committee. These, he maintained, were the results of Departmental or purely official inquiries. He should like hon. Members in this House to read the pamphlet lately issued on this point by Sir Richard Garth, the Chief Justice of Bengal. He should like hon. Members to see what the Chief Justice of Bengal thought of these bogus inquiries. He should like hon. Members to read what this experienced official said about the secrecy with which the financial accounts of the Government of India were now
  178
  passed every year in Calcutta without being submitted to debate or discussion in the Legislative Capital as in former times. When Sir Richard Garth dealt with the expenditure of the Judicial Department, of which he was the head—which he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) was sorry to say Sir Richard Garth was not allowed to reform—he there reflected on the manner in which judicial duties were now inextricably associated with the Executive duties—that the policeman who traced the alleged criminal and hunted up the evidence against him was one and the same man with the magistrate who weighed the evidence and with the Judge who convicted upon that evidence—the system was clearly one which could not result in justice being done to accused persons. Another point that Sir Richard Garth dwelt upon in his capacity as head of the Judicial Department was our stamp fee system as it existed in Bengal. At the present moment that system actually required stamps to be used which amounted to 50 per cent more than the total cost of all the Civil Courts in that Presidency. Now, this was prohibitive of justice in many cases. It was excused by Ministers on the ground that litigation should be controlled; but it really acted beyond that and absolutely denied justice to the people. And what interested him (Sir Roper Lethbridge) himself he confessed in Sir Richard Garth's pamphlet was the confirmation he gave to the plea to which they had listened to-night in the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton—the plea for extended representation and for an extended popular element in the Legislative Councils of India. The hon. Member for Oldham, in replying to this, told them that the English régime in India had not taken away one of the liberties of the people of India. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) was proud of that fact, and every Englishman must be proud of it; but he said that the time had come when they might feel that they might safely not only secure to the people of India such liberty as they had formerly possessed under Hindoo and Mahommedan rule, but add some of the liberties we ourselves possessed. Of course, if that were done it should be done with great discretion and with all safeguards. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) did not pin his faith

  179
  to National Congresses, of which the hon. Member opposite had spoken, nor to any of the schemes referred to in this pamphlet, and he did not pin his faith to any scheme of electoral colleges such as were criticized by the hon. Member for Oldham; but he did say this, let them attempt—for the time was ripe and the Natives of India were prepared for it—let them attempt to extend to India some of the representative institutions on which we pride ourselves. He would like, for instance, to see the introduction in the Legislative Councils of the right of interpellation which was always one of the most valuable safeguards of liberty. And he could not conclude without noting in one or two words the hideous cynicism of our fiscal system in India. We forced India to sacrifice immense sums of revenue and to admit our cotton goods free of import duties, because, forsooth, of the immutable verities of Free Trade, and then we put heavy duties on every pound of tea that comes into this country from India, we tax Indian tobacco up to the hilt, and we laid upon the Indian silver industry such restrictive duties and regulations that that industry was in a fair way to be altogether destroyed. Then he objected to another part of the financial system—namely, the Excise Revenue of India. He would not enter into the merits of that question in detail, because it had already been discussed in this House. Our method of raising that revenue was objected to not only by every Native of India, but also by a large majority of the tea planters of the Darjiling district and other districts in Bengal. They saw it at work in the armies of coolies employed on these tea estates, and no wonder a conflict of opinion existed amongst the best authorities in the absence of that inquiry for which he was asking that night. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple) and the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell), both of whom had held the Office of Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, had, he was glad to say, publicly denounced the out-still system as "tending to increase the revenues of India at the cost of the great increase of drink." These were the words of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs, and he (Sir Roper Leth-
  180
  bridge) knew that these words accurately represented the opinions both of that hon. Member and of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division. But the leading newspaper of India——namely, The Calcutta Englishman, commenting on these words on April the 10th last, said—
  "Lieutenant Governors have evidently short memories. …. Nothing could be more misleading, as Sir George Campbell was originally responsible for it, and Sir Richard Temple professed to be pledged to carry out the views of his predecessor, whilst Sir Ashley Eden first put a check upon the increased number of out-stills."
  There was a discrepancy here which he was sure they could only clear up by inquiry—there was a discrepancy such as the inquiry for which he asked would clear up beyond all possibility of doubt; and therefore he did appeal to these hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to join with the hon. Member for Northampton in the demand he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had been supporting. And he hoped his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India would not treat this demand, as he had sometimes treated similar demands as this, as if it were meant in a spirit of hostility to his protégés at the India Office. He could assure the hon. Member that those who made the demand respected his official Colleagues, and were as keenly sensitive as he was of any aspersions on the character of the British Administration in India, and it was because they were so keenly sensitive in this matter that they appealed to him and to Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision, and to grant an inquiry.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, it seemed to him that there were three distinguishing marks in our Indian debates. First of all, they were conducted in a very thin House. When he looked round he saw that they had present about one Member for every 10,000,000 of inhabitants in India. Then it was also to be noted that there was a general concensus of opinion that economy was most desirable, and everyone on both sides of the House appeared determined to enforce economy wherever it was possible; and then came the last point, most singular of all, that nothing came of these expressions of opinion but long and protracted debates. On the present occasion he hoped to bring to a practical issue, at all events,

  181
  the desire of hon. Members for economy, and before he sat down he should submit to the Chairman the Resolution to be discussed by the Committee. He was rather surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) that absolutely he anticipated what would be the results of any large admixture of our Native fellow-subjects with ourselves in the administration of India. A great call was made upon them by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) to accede to the natural desire and aspirations of the Natives of India, and to put them in the same position as ourselves, associating them with us in the work of administration. Now, he (Sir William Plowden) had had a long spell of administrative work in India, and one matter had always forced itself upon his attention, and that was the great capacity of the Native Hindoos for native work. He was quite certain that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who had taken any part in the administration of India would bear him out in that conclusion, and he especially addressed himself to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple), whom he saw was going to speak. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would agree with him that the Natives, so far as he had seen them associated with Europeans, had shown themselves most capable and efficient, and, starting from that fact, he should like to observe what had been the opinion with regard to the association of these men with him in the administration of India. It was more than half a century ago that by Act of Parliament and by declaration of the then responsible heads of the Government, every possible bar to the appointment of Natives to assist in the administration of the country was removed, but though that bar was removed the Natives had not been associated with us hitherto in the higher appointments they might have aspired to. He had seen in India men he should have been pleased to serve under, even though they occupied the highest positions in the official Departments. He would mention only one—namely, Sir Dinkur Ras, who was a most thoroughly capable man. This person had been an able administrator of the Province of Baris, but the Maharajah was firm, and he performed the work, not only of
  182
  an efficient administrator, but of a most royal administrator, because it was through his action that Gwalior took up the position it did. That was at the time of the Indian Mutiny. It must be obvious to those who hold office in India that at such a serious time as that of the Mutiny this country had to depend a great deal on the assistance of Native fellow-workers. The hon. Member for Northampton had referred to a gentleman who had occupied such office as we allowed Natives to take in one of the Northern Provinces, in a district absolutely deserted by Europeans during the Mutiny. The individual in question remained at his post notwithstanding that it had been conclusively shown that offers had been made to him by his co-religionists in Delhi under the Emperor there—for at that time Delhi was not in our power—to give up the post he occupied and take part in the rebellion. His reply, however, had been that he had lent England his sword, and England only should use it, and, as a matter of fact, he remained in our service and died in it. He (Sir William Plowden) maintained that such men as this were most capable and of the highest value, and a time should come when we should see such persons placed, perhaps, high up in the administration of India; and he could not for the life of him see why they should not be. We saw them conducting their own affairs with the most admirable perspicuity and prudence in those cases where there were Rulers of large territories in India. On the point of economy it would be greatly to our advantage if we could secure the assistance of men of this kind, because they would accept office at a much lower rate of pay than that at which we could secure the services of European agents. He would pass from that point merely stating that his opinion was, that instead of our rule being shortened in India by an extension of administrative power amongst our Indian fellow-subjects there, it would possibly very materially prolong that rule by adopting the course he had pointed out. And he now came to the practical point on which he wished to deal. In 1879 a Commission was appointed in India with the object of securing larger economies and equal, if not greater, efficiency in our official administration. This Com-

  183
  mission was composed of able and distinguished officers. It was presided over by the official who preceded the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire in the Governor Generalship of Bengal (Sir Ashley Eden), and one of the ablest assistants Sir Ashley Eden had on that Commission was the present Commander-in-Chief in India, Sir Frederick Roberts. Now, this Commission, amongst other things, made a recommendation which seemed to him a remarkably happy one. The Commission was anxious to do away with the commands in Madras and Bombay, held as they now were by several Commanders-in-Chief with separate and expensive staffs. The representations of the Commission on this point were thoroughly formed and taken up by the Government of India, but the Government of India in recommending this reform were met in an extraordinary manner by the Government at home, who entirely dissented from the recommendation and put a stop to action in that direction. From that day to this nothing had been done towards the removal of these Commanders in Madras and Bombay and taking up the more economical proposals in substitution for this appointment which were put forward by that Commission. Now, he had called attention to this matter before, and he had received, he must say, an extraordinary answer from the hon. Member opposite (Sir John Gorst), whose conduct to the "shorn lambs" had been so happily presented to the House by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge). In this case presumably he did not like to shear the lambs, and he (Sir William Plowden) quite understood that it must be extremely distasteful to remain in Office to cut down the area of their patronage; but he would be sorry to include any Member of the House in being actuated by such a consideration as that. He was sure they were all desirous of affecting the economies where it was practical and possible to do so, and he therefore trusted that the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Office, the Under Secretary of State, would see his way to use his influence on his friends in the India Office to see if this Company, at all events, should not be carried out. Then, again, there was another matter in which he (Sir William
  184
  Plowden) thought that practically economy might be increased very much, and that was in the Civil Department. They had got their different systems still prevailing in the two Presidencies of Madras and Bombay to that they had in the newer and more unequal and awkward territory in the North. There seemed to be no argument that could be forwarded which would justify the different state of things which was allowed to exist in Madras and Bombay to that which prevailed in Bengal. The Presidencies in Bombay and Madras were each much smaller than the Lieutenant-Governorships of Bengal, and the population in the latter was as one to two. For the administration of the large territories of Bengal and of its very large population of 66,000,000 against the 31,000,000 in Madras, they had a Governor whom he believed received 10,000 rupees a month, besides certain other allowances, and who was assisted by a Council, the civil Members of which received 2,500 rupees a month, and a military Member who received even more than that, while in Bengal they had a Governor who was content with the more modest salary of 5,638 rupees a month. Upon that, if they put their Madras administration and Bombay administration on the same footing, so far as economy was concerned, as the administration of Bengal and the North-West Provinces of the Punjab, they would secure a large economy. He put it to the Committee, who were anxious frankly to secure economy in our Indian administration, whether it was not desirable that they should put forward their opinion that the time had come when the recommendations of the Indian Royal Commission should be acted upon and enforced by the bringing about of a certain amount of economy and, at all events, an equal amount of efficiency; and though these other recommendations which he was making were not made on the authority of the Commission, he was certain that it was one which would commend itself to common sense. He did not know how anyone could get up in the House and defend the system which existed, and he should like to see the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India taxed in defence of the existing system of Administration in Bombay and Madras. He

  185
  begged to add to the proposed Resolution the following Amendment of which he had given notice:—
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "But this Committee is of opinion that the economies proposed by the Army Commission in India should be enforced, especially those which would do away with the Commands in Chief in Madras and Bombay; and that the Civil administration of those Presidencies might be more economically conducted, but with equal if not greater efficiency, by making those Presidencies Lieutenant Governorships instead of Governorships."—(Sir William Plowden.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he had so much matter to deal with in the course of the observations he was about to address to the Committee that it would be impossible for him to follow the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir William Plowden) who had just sit down. He would endeavour to lay before the Committee a large argument in as compact and succinct a form as possible. Some of his points he would address to Liberal Members of a reforming turn of mind opposite, and other points he would address to hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House who may be of an Imperial disposition. In the first place he must assure the House that, with two great exceptions, the finances of India were in a thoroughly satisfactory position—that was to say, the Revenue was elastic, the expenditure was kept well in hand, the public credit was rising, and the fact of the long sustained surplus shown by the account showed the great sum that India had paid within the last few years out of her cash balances towards the cost of war and famine. But he admitted that there were two serious exceptions—two heavy thunder clouds were hanging over the prospects of our Indian finance. The first of these clouds was that of the Exchange. It was a fact that more than half-a-century ago we turned our old double standard into a single silver standard, under the belief that the value of the rupee would remain for ever as it then was, at the value of about 10 rupees to one pound. Since that time, mainly owing to the great War of the Mutiny and to the construction of railways in India, we incurred many sterling financial obligations. We found it
  186
  hard to borrow large sums in silver on the spot, and we therefore resorted to the facile expedient of borrowing in sterling in the London Money Market. And now what had happened? These sterling obligations were immense, while our means of paying them had fallen. Within the last 15 years the exchanges had fallen at the rate of ½d. per year. And now we come to the tremendous fact that every six months we were losing to our Indian finance about £250,000 sterling. It was impossible to over-estimate the gravity of that situation, more particularly because there was no hope that we had as yet touched bottom. After all, let the House consider what was the cause of this fall. He would not detain the Committee by recounting all that had happened from the demonetization of silver on the Continent of Europe. He would only remark this—that one cause of the fall was the over production of silver. Every hon. Member who had travelled as he had done in the Western parts of the United States, especially in Nevada and Colorado, and who had seen the wonderful development of silver mining in those regions, would readily understand why the exchange was falling. The second cloud was that of the prospects of opium. There was a danger lest the Chinese Government should succeed in diverting into her own coffers part of that large revenue which we had hitherto secured for India. There was grave fear that in the development of the poppy culture in China that country would be able to supply all the requirements of the opium smokers themselves. The Committee might remember that these were points which in 1886 he ventured to bring forward before the House after a Motion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), who then sat on those Benches, as to the opium trade. But these facts, however formidable they might be, did, at all events, knock the bottom out of the argument then adduced as to the opium trade. It was then said that we were forcing opium on the Chinese, whereas it now seemed that the Chinese were taking measures to supply themselves with opium. Then the case of the Salt Tax was mentioned by hon. Members opposite. It was very possible indeed that

  187
  with these heavy financial losses we might again be obliged to resort to fresh taxation. He did not intend to detain the Committee by answering again all that was said from the opposite Benches in regard to salt. The very same arguments were adduced against the Salt Tax earlier in the Session, and he slew them then. Now, if we did impose some slight extra taxation to meet the loss on exchange and on opium, we should, at all events, have to reduce the expenditure not here and there, but upon a large scale. It would be necessary to pick up not only the pins which were mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton, but to pick up pins throughout the length and breadth of the land. We should have, he grieved to say, to stay the progress of improvement, both material and intellectual; we should certainly have also to check the growth of obligations in sterling, and if possible reduce them; whatever obligations we incurred in the future must be in silver on the spot. He did not intend to detain the Committee more than a moment by alluding en passant to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) with reference to Cotton and Tea Duties, and the out-still system. Surely it would be in the recollection of all Members present that the Cotton Duties so long imposed in India were really taxes on British industry in the days of our depression; they also practically acted to the protection of rival native industries carried out with British capital, British machinery, and under British supervision. Was it likely that the manufacturers of our own country would endure this longer? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) knew too well that the Tea Duties were necessary for our national finance—[Cries of "No, no!"]—We imposed then on China tea, which was the greatest part of our tea importation, and how could we possibly draw a distinction in favour of India, or how long would we be able to discriminate between China tea and India tea? As to the out-still system in Bengal, he thought that it would be hardly becoming to enter into a controversy with a local newspaper—however influential—published 6,000 miles away. All he said was that he adhered absolutely to
  188
  every word he stated in the House in the earlier part of the Session, and if any further reply was required he left it to his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), his predecessor in Bengal, who would vindicate his own action and his (Sir Richard Temple's) in this matter. Something was said by an hon. Member opposite in respect to famine maps, and it was asked why, with all the efforts we made when we poured out our treasure like water, we had not been able to save more life? He (Sir Richard Temple) commanded great famine relief operations in the field when millions of people were threatened, who were, however, all rescued from starvation. In another part of India a few years afterwards he had the honour to command relief operations in Bombay. On that occasion thousands of people perished, but not so much from starvation as from disease. He admitted that the main point about India was her alleged poverty. That was a specious allegation which had been adduced before, and which he ventured to whip with the scourge of argument. He would not trouble the House with a repetition of that process. He would now merely mention two undeniable facts which he thought would come home to the judgment of hon. Members opposite. First, there were no unemployed in India; and, secondly, there was not there, and there never had been in India, and there never would be, any Poor Law, for there was no need of it. Another great factor in the problem consisted in the contentment of the mass of the people. An hon. Member opposite said that we had no right to rule India by the sword; he (Sir Richard Temple) heartily concurred in that view. We did not, however, rule India by the sword. No doubt there were battalions and cannon in the background, but in the forefront of the administration was its benevolence, its thorough trustworthiness, and the general acquiescence of the people in it. In that acquiescence consisted the main element of our strength in India, financial and other. Now, it was impossible to overlook all that had been said this evening regarding the so-called "National Conferences." Too much must not be made of them; but, on the other hand, they could not be ignored. The Conferences had been held at several

  189
  times and places in India during recent years. The movement was undoubtedly advancing; but what really was the object? In spite of all the "high falutin" language employed the object was practically financial. It was just this, that the delegates who attended the Conferences wanted better pay for the appointments they had got, higher posts than any which they had held hitherto, improved prospects, and more generous concession in respect to furlough and leave. Further, they wanted a larger share in the administration of their country and in the control of its finances, and they wished to escape from some of its fiscal burdens which had pressed upon the shoulders of themselves and their forefathers. But upon them the burdens were lighter compared with those borne by their ancestors. These were not unreasonable objects of ambition, though they were hidden in a mass of verbiage. They were like kites sent up in the breeze of popular enthusiasm, and they were like balloons inflated with the breath of high sounding phraseology. If they were carried to the extreme conclusion, or even to the logical conclusion to be deduced from the language used, the methods of the Conferences would require our abandoning all our Imperial position in India. In other words, if they were not exactly disloyal, or treasonable, or seditious, they were, nevertheless, inconsistent with the idea of British rule in India. But to a certain point he heartily agreed with the aspirations of these men; but then, again, he must insist upon certain limitations being imposed. In the first place, we could not possibly excuse the people of India from fiscal burdens. One would imagine that they ought not to pay any taxation; every tax we imposed was objected to at these Conferences; of every tax which had hitherto existed they demanded the abolition; but they suggested nothing in return except that we should give them everything and keep nothing ourselves, but virtually pack up, bag and baggage, and leave the country. As to their having financial control, let him remind the Committee that already the Legislative Council, in which they were largely represented, had considerable financial control, because no new taxation could be imposed without their sanction. But there was another thing.
  190
  However anxious we might he to give the Natives high pay, higher posts, better positions, we must secure for our European countrymen those posts in which British firmness, energy, and loyalty to the death were required. It was all very well to say that these high posts could and should be filled by Natives at a lower scale of pay. Why, of course, they could be so filled in times of peace; but how about the day of danger? Were we to suppose there never would be danger in India, and were we to lay up for ourselves the embarrassments which would happen in the event of danger overtaking us unprepared, and with nothing but Native agency, and without that European strength upon which we always relied? A word must be said about the status of the delegates who attended at the Conferences. To hear some hon. Members speak one would suppose these delegates claimed to represent 200,000,000 of people. He understood that the allegation was not made in so many words; but it undoubtedly was the inference, from the speeches they had heard this evening, that these men did claim to represent 200,000,000 of people. He maintained that no greater statistical fallacy was ever uttered in this House. The delegates represented no one but themselves and a very limited class. He did not want to disparage that class; it might be morally and politically important, but numerically it was but the smallest fraction of the teeming millions of India. Of whom did they consist? They consisted of the educated Natives—that was to say, the Natives educated in Western civilization and in the English language. He did not mean to discourage them; they were what we had made them; they had been taught in our ways, in our tongue; they had looked at everything through our spectacles; they were intellectually our offspring; and he held that we ought not to be, and he was sure he, for one, was not at all ashamed of them. But they did not represent the people of India; the men of the sword, of the plough, of the loom, the factory, the counter, the hard-headed, strong-armed, horny-handed men, who really formed the mass of the teeming and industrious millions of that Empire. Why, if there came a revolution to-morrow, as these Conferences would bring about if we let them have their

  191
  heads, so to speak—if such a revolution were to come to-morrow, these educated classes would unhappily be driven from one end of the country to the other till they reached the sea and had to plunge into the waves thereof. There was a great difference between demands made moderately and demands made immoderately. If it was said that we had done something for the Natives, but that more remained to be done, that was one thing; but it was quite another thing to imply, if not to assert directly, that we had done almost nothing for the Natives, that we had neglected their interests, that we did not attempt to perform our Imperial duties towards them. In that he did not agree. What he did agree with were moderate demands; when it came to immoderate demands, he protested for this reason particularly, that, whereas he and many other Europeans would be willing to meet moderate demands, they were obliged to take the other side and speak against demands and against all who ventured to put them forward in an extravagant manner. This brought him to the electoral point. It was urged that we should have electoral institutions in India generally, as we had already in the Indian Municipalities. He heartily agreed in that; but we must again remember what were the objects of the delegates. Those objects partly related to legislation and partly to local administration. If these delegates were to be Members of the Legislative Council, which alone could impose now taxation, then, he said, they ought to be there by right of popular representation, and by the votes of their fellow-countrymen enfranchised with the suffrage. Nothing would be easier than to substitute elected Members of the Legislative Council for the appointed Members we now had. If these people were to have a share in local administration involving local taxation, there, again, the right of representation was manifest. There were District Boards in such numbers as had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India this evening. But he was sorry to hear that the well intentioned efforts of the late Viceroy (the Marquess of Ripon) had not been so successful as was hoped. But we must preserve the ultimate control financially by means of a Governmental majority when needed. Of course, if men were
  192
  to take an interest in voluntary work they must have some real power allowed to them; still the official check must be held in reserve. Another great factor in Indian finance was the cost of the Army and of the National defensive arrangements. That cost would greatly depend upon the loyalty of the Natives, and upon the question as to how far we could depend upon that loyalty. In what did that loyalty consist? He must respectfully warn the Committee that if they came to a comparison between British rule and Native rule, they could not depend upon the loyalty of the Natives. If they saw a chance or an opening for striking for their own Government, or for their own Sovereign, or for their own Chiefs, they would take the opportunity. If an Archangel administered the Government of India, he would have no chance whatever of striking into the hearts of the people. This fact was deeply impressed on our memory by the experiences of the Mutiny. If, however, a choice had to be made by the Natives between us and any possible European rival, say Russia or France, then, no doubt, we could depend upon the loyalty of the Natives. On such occasions they ceased to complain against us. Now, when there was no rival in the field, when we held the field, as it were, against all comers, they were too ready to find fault. But when it came to a question between us and someone else, then they recollected how good we were, how much we had done for them, how sorry they would be to lose us, and how bad the next comer might be. In all his experience in India he had never seen or heard such manifestations of loyalty as had been exhibited during the last few years in India, especially in 1885, when there was what had been called the Russian scare. It was the fear of Russia—no, he would not say the fear, but the apprehension of Russian hostilities, which made the Natives turn their hearts to British rule, which they had become to think rightly of. When any danger arose there would certainly be on our side every man who had money to lose, or advances out on good security, or property which had been secured to him and his heirs for ever, or had had his taxation fixed for a lengthened period, or who was in the enjoyment of good pay with prospects of a pension, or had

  193
  industry based upon capital, or had lucrative employment. All these men constituted a majority; while, added to them, there was every Native Chief from one end of the country to the other who had had his status recognized, who had had his succession made sure by the recognition of the right of adoption, who had got his territories pacified, and who was fenced round about by the shield of England against every possible danger from without. All these Chiefs would be on our side, and they constituted, he believed, a great majority. We must recollect that there were some who would be against us. Every irreconcilable fanatic, every man with nothing to lose, every restless man without a career under a settled government, every person injured or dispossessed in any way—and there were, even under British rule, many necessarily of such cases—every member of the criminal classes was against us, bitterly opposed, and inalienably hostile to us; but they constituted a minority. Now, were the educated classes loyal? He held that the great majority were. He could not conceive how they could be otherwise; they owed everything to us in their intellectual culture, and he might almost say in their material resources. If they were wise, as he was sure they were, they must know that they would be nothing whatever without us; so they must be loyal. But that they were all loyal was more than he could venture to say. He feared that some of them in their hearts were deeply disloyal, and that they clothed their disloyalty with many smooth pretences. With all these chances in our favour—and he thought that they greatly outweighed all the chances against us—he hoped our position was strong. He quite admitted that European advocacy of the Natives of India and their claims in England, though it might be overdone, yet had its great advantages, for it showed that there were some men in the ruling nation who were fanatically in favour of the educated Natives. In former days the Natives of India looked up to the East India Company; now they looked up to a Gracious Sovereign, an Imperial Parliament, and an enlightened electorate. If there was to be a Parliamentary Inquiry into Indian affairs, there was nothing to fear in it, no reason to shrink from it. But he must protest against the manner in which the House
  194
  of Commons was in the habit of running itself down. It was said that the House had neglected the interests of India. On behalf of the House of Commons he denied that statement. He affirmed that the House most conscientiously and industriously did its duty to that distant Dependency as much as to any other part of the Empire. Although the Indian Budget was brought forward late in the Session, he could call to mind that on three occasions during the present Session there had been debates on Indian affairs; on each of these occasions the whole evening had been given up to the discussion. On two other occasions portions of evenings had been given up. A Select Committee had sat upon an Indian case. If challenged, he would move for a Return of all the Questions put, during the Session and during this Parliament, relating to India, for he was quite satisfied that that would prove a most interesting Return statistically. They had, on the whole, he contended, given at least four evenings during this hard-worked Session to India, and that was more, according to the account of their Scotch Friends, than they had given to Scotland or Wales, and even more than was given to England last Session. He had noted the claim made on the opposite Benches for the appointment of a Standing Committee on Indian affairs; but that claim was of English, not of Indian origin. He recognized the Jupiter from whose brain that Minerva-like idea emanated, and that brain certainly did not belong to a Native of India. Then, the last factor he should mention as affecting Indian finance was that of Russia. The apprehension of Russia's advance had greatly added to our financial difficulties of late years. Certainly, Russia was entering into competition with us not only in regard to political organization but as regarded good work and charitable deeds done in the service of humanity. Russia had not only constructed railways in Central Asia, greatly menacing our North-Western Frontier, but had abolished the most frightful and cruel forms of slavery in that quarter. He wished we had shared in that good work; it was as much our business as Russia's, but Russia had done it, and in the name of suffering humanity he thanked her. No longer did the Turkoman hordes sweep over the inhabited and cultivated plains like the simoom of the Desert or

  195
  the blizzard of North America. No longer were the wretched people of these regions carried off in miserable slavery to distant places, tied to the tails of horses and dragged on until they sank from sheer exhaustion. These things had been stopped by Russia; all this was done partly with a political purpose, partly from feelings of humanity, and partly also from what? It was commonly said Russia had designs upon India, but he doubted whether Russia had direct designs at all upon our Indian Possessions. [Laughter.] He was talking of a subject which he understood, and he repeated that Russia had no immediate design directly upon India; but in the event of any complications arising in South-Eastern Europe she might advance upon our North-Western Frontier by way of diversion or counter movement. This advance would be made for the purpose of crippling our resources and adding to our financial difficulties. But when that danger arose we might greatly rely upon all those elements of loyalty he had specified to the Committee. We should have a contented and prosperous people at our back on whom we could rely. But our chief reliance must be on ourselves in battle array within our own frontier, with our fortified posts, our bases of operations rendered impregnable, our border communications and mountain railways, our passes rendered impassable to an enemy, our girder bridges across mighty rivers. He knew, too, that in one respect we should follow the example of Russia, and find officers who would be as thoroughly loyal to our interests as Kauffmann, Skobeleff, Tschernaieff, had been loyal to Russian policy. He would conclude his speech by adapting the words of the poet to present circumstances, Britannus sum, Britanniœ nihil a me alienum puto.
  MR. MAC NEILLsaid, he did not think he was called upon to apologize for intervening in the debate. He had long taken a very great interest in Indian affairs, and, circumstanced as Irishmen were at home, he did not think any Irishman who had a seat in the House of Commons ought to consider Indian affairs foreign to his province. As a matter of fact, Irishmen chose to take their part in the government of the Empire, and to accept their share of
  196
  the responsibility; they wished, too, when there was any suffering in the Empire, to endeavour to alleviate it as far as they possibly could. As the Chairman had ruled, the question before the Committee was an eminently financial question; but he did not think he would be transgressing the Rules of the House if he spoke of the unfortunate condition of the people who had to pay the taxes of India. It was amusing, if it were not for the serious aspect, to hear hon. Gentlemen talk so lightly of the millions of taxation raised in India. To whom did those millions belong? They belonged to the poverty-stricken people of India. That night between £80,000,000 and £90,000,000 sterling would be taken from the pockets of the Indian people, and the only means of investigating the demands upon those people were the imperfect means offered by that debate. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean), who was able, like many Gentlemen he (Mr. Mac Neill) knew, to bear the misfortunes of others like a Christian, had opposed the proposed Commission of Inquiry, because it would be, as he called it, a roving Commission—too many things would be inquired into. Only three years ago the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who was then Secretary of State for India, came forward with a Financial Statement not a bit more able, than the Financial Statement made that day. The noble Lord then said—
  "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 propose themselves, or support a Motion for an inquiry into the system of government in India."—(3 Hansard, [300] 1311–12.)
  The noble Lord was interrogated as to the extent of that inquiry, and said, in reply—
  "The inquiry will embrace the whole of the constitution of the Government of India."—(Ibid. 1321.)
  It was strange that, having had the whole responsibility of India on our shoulders since 1858, we had never had a Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of India. Before 1858 the financial affairs of India were thoroughly overhauled every 20 years. It was very fitting to inquire how far we were governing India for our own interest, or

  197
  for the interest of the people of that country. The hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Temple) spoke very disparagingly of the Indian National Council. The Indian National Council at their very last meeting—in December, he believed it was—complained bitterly of the neglect of the Imperial Parliament in the management of Indian affairs. One gentleman quoted from the speech of an hon. Member of this House, who said—
  "How could Parliament do anything, when these matters were only brought to its cognizance on one of the very last days of a weary Session, when only 15 or 16 Gentlemen had sufficient energy left to watch the proceedings—the debate was almost reduced to a farce—the discussion was begun at about a quarter past 6 o'clock, and in four or five hours from that time they would have settled the affairs of 200,000,000 of their fellow-subjects and sanctioned the expenditure of between £70,000,000 and £80,000,000 sterling? Surely, it would be better to delegate those duties than to continue doing that which was a mere mockery. Would it not be possible to appoint a Committee to overlook the affairs of India, in order that the people of that country might know that their interests were being cared for adequately by the Imperial Parliament?"
  The hon. Baronet seemed to consider that in India nothing was known about this Commission. The Commission which was asked for would do all that now was done by that desultory discussion, and be able to inform the House, which was at present overburdened with work, as to what were the wants and interests both of the Natives and officials of India; for both classes were suffering from the present system of management. He had read very carefully the reports of the proceedings of the National Conference. In one circular which was sent to him, and which, no doubt, was sent to all hon. Members of the House, it was stated that any single voter in England had more direct control of the destinies of India than had the whole 200,000,000 of British subjects in that country. That was a terrible state of affairs; and he maintained that if hon. Gentlemen did not accept their responsibility, did not act up to it, and did not attend to the wants and wishes of the Indian people as they would to their own, they were unworthy of seats in the House of Commons. Now, it had been a common subject of complaint that the Natives, however great their ability, were practically Boycotted in the Civil Service. Owing to the dif-
  198
  ference in habits, a Native was able to live in pretty much the same rank of life as a European for about one-third the expense, and, therefore, if the Natives were allowed to have proper management of their own affairs, there would be an enormous saving to the State. The Natives considered that they should have the full and equal privileges which were guaranteed to them—firstly, by Act of Parliament; secondly, by Her Majesty's Proclamation in 1858; and then by the declarations made over and over again by nearly every statesman who had governed India since the time of Lord Dalhousie. By the Act of 1833, it was expressly declared that no Native nor any natural-born subject of Her Majesty resident in her Dominions should, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment under the Government, and that every post was to he open to the Natives. How had we fulfilled that undertaking? Lord Lytton, speaking at the Delhi Assemblage on the 1st of January, 1877, said—
  "But you, the Natives of India, whatever your race, and whatever your creed, have a recognized claim to share largely with your English follow-subjects, according to your capacity for the task, in the administration of the country you inhabit. That claim is founded in the highest justice. It has been repeatedly affirmed by British and Indian statesmen, and by the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. It is recognized by the Government of India as binding on its honour, and consistent with all the aims of its policy.'
  That was Lord Lytton's public declaration; but possession had been obtained of a confidential note written by Lord Lytton. He did not know where it came from, but it was read at the National Conference in Bombay in December, 1886, and it had been reproduced in a magazine article in this country. Lord Lytton wrote—
  "Since I am writing confidentially I do not hesitate to say that both the Governments of India and England appear to me, up to the present moment, unable to answer satisfactorily the charge of having taken every means in their power of breaking to the heart the words of promise they had uttered to the ear."
  Lord Lytton also wrote with reference to the employment of Natives in the Public Service of India—
  "We have had to choose between prohibiting them and cheating them; we have chosen the least straightforward course."

  199
  They had chosen to cheat the Natives. There was something straightforward in saying "You shall have this, but you shall not have that;" but there was something very odious in saying "You shall have equal rights and privileges," and in then loading the dice against any man because he was a Native. He had read a secret and confidential statement of the Governor General, the head of the Indian Administration; let him now give a statement made in 1869 by the Duke of Argyll when he was Secretary of State for India. The Duke of Argyll said—
  "I must say that we have not fulfilled our duty, or the promises or engagements that we have made."
  At that Conference, that objectionable Conference at Bombay in December, 1886, it was stated publicly that in the whole Settlement Department of Madras there were only three Natives holding Office, and that even in the Uncovenanted Service Natives of great ability were passed over. Latterly, the age at which men could compete for the Civil Service had been reduced to 19 years. That was only done in order to handicap still more unfairly the unfortunate Natives who came over here to compete with the highly educated European youths. During the last three or four years the difficulties placed in the way of Natives had been increasing, and fewer of the Natives had therefore been able to obtain places in the Civil Service. Everything was done to oust the Natives from honourable posts in their own country. Perhaps he might now be allowed to say a few words upon other points of our Indian Administration. Every single penny of the Salt Tax was raised on a vital necessity of a starving people. The Government of India were like harpies preying on the vitals of the poor. What was the position of the vast mass of the 200,000,000 people of India? They were steeped up to their lips in poverty. Lord Lawrence, one of the greatest Governors General India had ever seen, said, in 1873—
  "The mass of the people in India are so miserably poor that they have hardly the means of subsistence."
  Sir William Hunter, describing the people as a steadily, underfed people, said—
  "The remaining fifth, or 40,000,000, go through life on insufficient food."
  200
  The misery of India was a disgrace to England, and he hoped the people of England, who had now got an extended franchise, and who had known, some of them at least, what it was to have their food taxed through the iniquitous Corn Laws, would rise in the majesty of their might and destroy the Salt Tax, come what would, which raised artificially the wretched subsistence of countless millions of people. Famine seemed to be the usual condition of the people of India; there was always famine somewhere in the country. [Sir JOHN GORST dissented.] The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India shook his head; but he (Mr. Mac Neill) would point out that it was shown by the Parliamentary Papers published in 1885 that out of 200,000,000 people 12,724,000 had died of famine within a period of 20 years. To tax salt in India was as bad as to tax potatoes in Ireland. Again, 115,000,000 of the population of India lived directly on the produce of the soil, and he would ask if any other country of the world could be pointed to, with the exception of Ireland, where agriculture was the staple industry of the people. Why was that? It was because the English people had destroyed every other industry in the country. He had the honour to know the gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) had referred as having written two articles on affairs in India. It was this gentleman who, on behalf of the Indian people, presented an address of welcome to Lord Lansdowne on his departure for India, and it was he who was now called a luckless student, because he wished justice to be done between man and man. Hon. Members had had cast upon them the heavy responsibility of seeing that at least justice should be done. If the Natives of India had the smallest share in the management of their own affairs, there would not be seen in that country a starving people to whom food was denied, although there was a plentiful supply in the country. There was no responsibility on the India Administration—the India Council had no responsibility to Parliament, and that meant that the officials were the masters of the people, and that they were the controllers of their destinies; whereas in England the statesmen who sat on the Treasury Bench were

  201
  responsible to the people of England for their acts. He thought that a great deal of the mischief of our rule in India was owing to the division of responsibility. It was impossible even for a man of Indian experience to understand the various channels through which the Government agency went. There was one Administration at Madras, another at Bombay, and there were two Administrations at Calcutta, and then there was this hybrid Administration in London with its 15 wise men composing the Indian Council, who were irresponsible to Parliament, who each received £1,500 a-year, and whose functions he had never been able to understand. The hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Temple), whose speeches he always looked to with interest, because he liked to see clever men in difficulties, had spoken of Indians being represented on the Legislative Councils in India; but the men who were appointed to sit in those Councils did not represent the people because they were nominated by the Governor General or the Governors of the Provinces; they were men who liked to go to garden parties and who passed all their time with what, by an easy transition, might be called the "Castle lot." Bad as things were under the old system in India, he said of the Anglo-Indians that, with all their faults and oppression, their hands were infinitely lighter on the people of India than the hands of the present Government. They had at the present moment in India a set of men who did not care for and were not in sympathy with the people, who cared only to make money and to come home, and the drain from India from that source alone amounted to £10,000,000 a-year. The Indian people were kept out of the fruits of their toil in their own country, and they were denied the control of the expenditure of their own money. Why not admit the people of India to a share in the government of their country? Why should they not be entrusted with that? They owed their education largely to English rule, they had been educated in Western civilization, and was it intended to keep them in the bonds of old Eastern darkness? One of the speakers at the National Congress in India said that the British Empire extended over many countries; that many Colonies, Canada and the Cape,
  202
  innumerable smaller Colonies, and oven some Crown Colonies, had all of them a measure, and some a good measure, of representative government, and he asked why that should be refused to India. The last great Commission to inquire into affairs in India was in 1853, and it ended in a measure of education by which the people were now benefited, and there were among them men as well educated as any Member in that House. Knowing that the people of India must sooner or later be educated to that point, why should it not be admitted that British government in India, however wise, had been a miserable thing in having now a starving population of 200,000,000 to deal with. Why not give the people of India higher powers of self-government, and enable them to work for this country a great and glorious benefit. India had special means for the development of self-government, and by granting that self-government, with reasonable safeguards, we should further the best interests of the Empire.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire (Sir Richard Temple), who always spoke with great breadth of view, and with great knowledge of all subjects relating to India, had mentioned a point which closely bore on the whole question of Indian finance, and which was one of the leading difficulties of the question. The hon. Baronet referred to the military policy in India as being regulated by what might happen in the South-Eastern corner of Europe. We, therefore, who taxed India largely because of the military armaments which we kept up in that country for its benefit and for our benefit as a nation, remembered, and were bound to remember at all times, and particularly in considering the Indian Budget, that a very large portion of the taxation of India, whether brought from salt, opium, or anything else, arose from causes created by our own foreign policy. It was on that account that the House of Commons, dealing with the question of Indian finance, ought to treat with peculiar kindness and tenderness the proposals which came from India for its own government and the regulation of its finances. There had been proposals made with respect to the better govern-

  203
  ment of India which had been frequently referred to in the course of that evening, and which at that hour (11.15 P.M.) it was not his object to repeat. It was enough for him to say that he thought the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) who endeavoured, with much knowledge of the case, to answer some of the points brought forward with reference to the India Council had not answered the main points. The hon. Member endeavoured to make out a case, and, in some respects, no doubt, he had been successful, of some amount of exaggeration of facts or statement of claim made on behalf of the people of India. But the hon. Gentleman himself had admitted, what had also been admitted by the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Temple)—namely, that the great drain upon Indian finances arose from the payment of some £6,000,000 for pensions in this country. That was one of the real causes of complaint and a source of dissatisfaction which had been repeatedly mentioned and brought forward by the National Congress of India. There was another point with regard to which the Member for Oldham made no answer, or to which he gave an answer that he (Mr. James Stuart) ventured to say was beside the mark. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had referred to the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85. The 87th clause of that Act enacted that no Native of the said territories, nor any natural-born subject of His Majesty resident therein, should by reason of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them be unfit to hold any office or employment under the said Company. Now, one of the sources of dissatisfaction was the non-fulfilment of that clause, and when the Crown took over the government of India from the Company, it was felt advisable to insert in the great Proclamation issued at that time, a repetition of the assurance given in the clause, with the apparent determination that the past neglect should be remedied, and the words of the Act were accordingly inserted. The hon. Member for Oldham seemed to treat the words as if they were the main portion of the Proclamation; but if he looked to the number of Natives employed in offices of trust and emolument, he thought he would be bound to admit that the words
  204
  "so far as may be" had been made not only operating and limiting words, but acted upon as if they were words of prohibition. It was that very point—the non-employment of Natives—which gave rise to the dissatisfaction which had been expressed at the Congresses in India to which his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had referred. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire said that nothing would be easier than to substitute elected for nominated Members of the Council, and he went so far as to suggest, along with the hon. Member for Oldham, to a nomination or kind of semi-election of what might be called the more exclusively educated classes in India. He (Mr. James Stuart) welcomed that sentiment of the hon. Gentleman, because he felt that they had found in it much of the description of the difficulties under which they laboured; and he noticed that the hon. Baronet stated that his idea was applicable, not only to the Legislative Council, but even to other Bodies, and he said that a number of those who were elected ought to have real power—as he (Mr. James Stuart) presumed—more immediately and directly over the finances with which they had to deal. The hon. Baronet would remember that the fundamental claim of the Indian National Congress was that that principle should in some way be adopted, and he, for one, would in no sense desire to adopt it in a more extended form than that of the nomination of the hon. Baronet. He did not understand that these Councils or Congresses called National in India made any other demand than that the Natives should have a voice in the management of Indian affairs, and if that were so they were much at one on both sides of the House in seeing their way to the great rectification of the difficulties which he now very shortly referred to. He rose, not immediately to make those remarks, but having been an attentive listener to the debate as it was proceeding, he felt called upon to offer his contribution in the direction in which the debate had mainly taken. But he wanted to call attention to the point he had given Notice of—namely, the relations of the India Office with and the control of the India Office over the Government of India itself, which was a point closely connected with

  205
  that which he had touched. He was not such a fool as to intend, on the present occasion, to refer to the question which he brought before the House, or, at any rate, which he had taken part in bringing before the House at an earlier period of the Session, because the question to which he had referred had been decided by the House, and there was no necessity or desirability at all for departing from a firm position which the unanimous vote of the House had placed him and his Friends in. But, in connection with that action in the House, there had been a good deal said on behalf of the India Office, and on the part of the Government of India, which threw a good deal of light on the management, or, if he might venture to say so strong a light upon the administration of India. The first point he wished to call attention to on the matter was this—the very tardy method in which the Government of India obeyed any injunction which they received from the Government at home, and he could not see how any business could be conducted in which we had in India a representative, and in which we had also in England a representative, where the means of communication were so slow, and where the obedience to orders was so insufficient, as in the case to which he referred. The Committee would remember that it was so long ago as the 11th of August, 1887, that a request was made by the Secretary of State for a number of Papers to be sent home, and that that request was acknowledged by the Government of India four or five months afterwards, though the request was made by telegram. In the next place, although six months after he had asked in this House whether the documents were in the hands of the India Office, he was told they were not, and the other day, after all that had happened—after all the difficulties in which the India Office was driven by the non-production of these Papers—he again asked whether more recent documents which had been issued in the early part of the year, were in the hands of the India Office, and he was told that they were not. Well, that after more than a year, such carelessness and neglect on the part of the Indian Government to the orders of the India Office should exist was intolerable. Now, that was the only instance that he would take of neglect as
  206
  regarded that state of the matter. But the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India and the India Office were themselves very much behindhand in the work they did as between this and the Government of India. That House was very much interested, there could be no doubt whatever, in the subject to which he had referred.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say I do not see how this is connected with the finance of India.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, with all deference to the Chairman, he would explain the connection. His argument, as he had begun by pointing out, was this—that the Government of India, however it was controlled, was the responsible Body for that principal matter in India, the finance, and he was now dealing with the Government of India as carried on. There was no other opportunity in that House of discussing the question of the Government of India than this Budget, and he submitted, with all deference to the Chairman, that some discussion of the methods by which the Government of India by the Secretary of State was carried on was a matter directly connected with the Government of India. He would put that briefly; but it was of great importance in considering the subject. He had asked the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State two Questions, one of them a week ago, and the other that day. These Questions were about the Cantonment Acts, in consequence of a Resolution of this House. He was not now going into details as to what had occurred; but the hon. Gentleman, on answering, said that a certain document dated the 17th of May, and issued by the Secretary of State for India, had been sent to the Indian Government containing orders, and he said what the Indian Authorities would do in consequence of that. That point was germane to the manner in which the Government of India was carried on. He was not dealing with that subject now, because it was a special case; but he desired to show the delay and the difficulty which occurred in connection with the Government of India, and he desired to go on from that point to this other one, which he thought was even more germane to the question. He confessed that the hon. Gentleman

  207
  the Under Secretary of State for India was under a misconception as to what the powers and duties of the India Office were. The hon. Gentleman was forgetful of this—that a Resolution of that House was as binding upon him as it was upon any other Minister, and that a Resolution of the House was no mean matter. And he (Mr. James Stuart) submitted this—how were they to get at the Government of India unless it were by Resolution of that House to be conveyed through the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India; and yet when the Resolution was passed unanimously by the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman replied to his Question, asking what was to be done in consequence of that Resolution, by going behind the Resolution, and studiously referring only to a despatch of the Secretary of State, of which the Resolution was largely condemnatory. And now he desired to come to his last point of mismanagement by the Government of India and by the Government Office in these matters. He (Mr. James Stuart) had asked two days ago for a despatch which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had sent out to India in consequence of the Resolution of the House. He found that the hon. Gentleman looked upon the Resolution of the House as of so little importance that the hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to act upon it sooner than nine days after it was passed. And, lastly, when he (Mr. James Stuart) said, two days ago, that the House had a right to know what that document was, and that it should be in the hands of hon. Members, seeing that it was not in the Library, neither he nor anyone else was able to obtain it. He submitted that the Government of India as conducted by the India Office was dilatory in the extreme, that the hon. Gentleman who represented it in that House was to blame for its dilatory nature, and that the hon. Gentleman was badly served from India. These statements affected the character of the Government of India, and there was no other opportunity of discussing such matters than the present. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had argued—and he (Mr. James Stuart) should like to know whether he did so at the present moment or not—that he had no right to give orders as Under
  208
  Secretary of State for the Government of India with respect to any particular law or Bill which it might be desirable that they should pass. He (Mr. James Stuart) contended himself that the hon. Gentleman maintained an entirely unconstitutional opinion in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman desired to get up and tell him (Mr. James Stuart) that he did not maintain that position, then he would say no more; but if he was not prepared to do that, then he (Mr. James Stuart) should persist in concluding what he had to say, and in laying down what he believed to be the Constitutional relations between the Secretary of State for India and the Indian Government in the matter of legislation. On that matter he should be as brief as possible, because, in the first place——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question the hon. Gentleman has been hitherto discussing—that of the extreme difficulty of getting the Government of India into action, and the subject of organization in India—is scarcely relevant to the Question before the Committee. And, certainly, the question he now proposes to examine—namely, the Constitutional Government of India, is altogether irrelevant.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he submitted to the hon. Gentleman's ruling; but he put it to him whether this was not abominable—namely, the misunderstanding of the Constitutional relationship between the Secretary of State and the Government of India, which at present existed on the part of the Under Secretary of State, which the Under Secretary of State had not dealt with, although he (Mr. James Stuart) had invited him to do so?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I did not get up when the hon. Member invited me, because I thought that the question was out of Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question cannot he discussed at all.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Hear, hear!
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman need not cheer that observation. That was the only opportunity they would have of discussing the question, and the matter was not a Party one; so far was it from being a Party question, that the arguments he (Mr. James Stuart) had used be should be prepared to address to any Government; even to one formed from his own

  209
  side of the House. He had never been backward in blaming his own Party when he thought they deserved it in these matters. Bowing to the ruling of the Chairman, he desired to say that it was a serious matter, if in the course of this debate, which was the only one which could take place during the Session on Indian matters, they were necessarily by the nature of the case precluded from discussing the Constitutional relationship, or rather the understanding of the Constitutional relationship, of the Under Secretary of State for India between the Indian Government and the Home Government. He believed that the India Office had laid down erroneous views.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I wish to know if the hon. Member is in Order in discussing the views that the Under Secretary of State entertains as to the Constitutional relationship between the Home Government and the Government of India?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question which I have already said cannot be discussed.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I suppose I should be called out of Order in asking whether there will be any opportunity of discussing that question?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The fact that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to discover any opportunity for entering into that question does not entitle him to go into it now.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman, and took that as an illustration of the extreme disadvantage to which the 200,000,000 of people in India were necessarily put through the present method of Indian Government; because he took it that the relations existing between the Home Government and the Indian Government and the character of the connection and the method of carrying out everything which was resolved upon in the House of Commons, was a matter of the deepest importance to the whole of the people of India.
  SIR JOHN GUESTsaid, he really must say that the strictures which had been passed by the hon. Member who had just sat down, on the Secretary of State for India and on himself, fell on them quite easily, because they were based entirely on ignorance of the facts of the case. He would just
  210
  take one instance as an illustration The hon. Member had blamed the Secretary of State because, as he said, the formal despatch which related to the Resolution passed by the House was not sent out till nine or ten days after it had been passed. Now, the Resolution was passed on a Tuesday. The Council of the Secretary of State met every Tuesday; and, therefore, this meeting was held before the Resolution of the House was passed. The next weekly meeting was on the following Tuesday, and then the formal despatch was approved. That was done, therefore, on the earliest possible day, and the despatch went out on the Friday by the first mail after it was passed. Therefore the despatch was sent out on the earliest possible day, and there was no need of any complaint on the part of the hon. Member. As to the Government of India, what could be more unreasonable than the complaint made? On the 17th of May a despatch was sent by the Secretary of State giving directions to the Government of India for dealing with most important and delicate matters relating to the Cantonment Acts, and putting an end to certain practices condemned by this House. On the 9th of June a Resolution of this House was sent out on the subject. There had not been time to do more than to receive from Simla an answer by return of post to the despatch, and yet the hon. Member complained because he (Sir John Gorst) could not tell him and the House all the different measures which the Government of India intended to adopt in order to deal with that extremely difficult subject. When the matter was discussed, he remembered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) saying that he agreed with him, that in this matter the Government of India ought to be treated with consideration and courtesy; but if the Secretary of State were to do as the hon. Member would have him do, and telegraph to India every day asking them what they were doing as to extremely difficult matters, it would not be treating the Indian Government either very considerately or very courteously. Let the hon. Member wait until the mails arrived, which would give him all the information, and then would be the reasonable and sensible time for going into the discussion of

  211
  these subjects. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) asked how long it would take to complete the Special Defence Works. He (Sir John Gorst) believed it would take three or four years—that was for the works at present sanctioned. The Amendment before the Committee was that proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir William Plowden). That Amendment dealt with the two subjects of the separate Presidency commands and the Presidency Governors. As far as the question of the separate Presidency commands were concerned, it was not at all a financial question. The hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that the Commission was a fruitless Commission. It was not fruitless. [Sir WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I did not say that.] The hon. Gentleman said it was fruitless so far as economy was concerned. There were several departmental savings recommended, and these had all been effected; but he was informed that if the separate Presidency commands were now abolished, it would not effect any further pecuniary saving. It might increase the efficiency of the Indian Army by centralization; but it would not effect a reduction of expenditure. Then, as to the Presidency Governors, he had made what inquiries he could, and he believed, on the best information he had been able to obtain, that the total saving by the abolition of the separate Governorships for Madras and Bombay would be Rx.42,000 per annum. But the question was also a political question, and one of a magnitude which he did not think he ought to be called upon to discuss without notice at five minutes to 12 o'clock on one of the last days of the Session. The effect of such a change in regard to the treatment of the numerous Native States within the Bombay Presidency would have to be considered. The abolition of the Governorship of Bombay would throw on the Governor General an immense amount of work in connection with those States, which was now done by the Governor of the Presidency. Whether that would be an advantage to India and to the Native States was a point worthy of more consideration than it could receive that night. Another objection which he had to make to it was, that it was a reactionary measure altogether. The object of their policy in
  212
  India ought not to be to centralize, but to decentralize as much as possible. The people of this country had now learnt that India was an aggregation of a great number of nationalities; and any step that tended to centralize in India was a weak one. The Presidency Governments of Madras and Bombay, being in the direction of decentralization, were institutions which ought not to be done away with, at all events, without much more consideration than it was likely to receive at that hour. He now turned to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), which raised issues of such importance that he felt quite unable to answer it in the limited period within which, with any regard to the time of the Committee, he must confine his remarks. The hon. Member for Northampton practically suggested an inquiry; but let him (Sir John Gorst) remind the Committee that there had recently been two great and exhaustive inquiries in India—one into the finances, conducted by the Finance Committee, and another called the Public Service Commission, which investigated the very subject which the hon. Gentleman and others had so strongly pressed on the Committee that night—namely, the employment of Natives in the Public Services. Both of those two inquiries had been very extensive and very exhaustive. Their Reports had been laid on the Table; but he ventured to say that very few Members indeed had read or looked at them. He advised hon. Members to study the Report of the Finance Committee, and that of the Public Service Commission and then let them have a discussion in the House, and after that, if they found that those inquiries were insufficient, or if any point required to be supplemented, let there be further inquiry.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the Government give it?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that no one knew better than the hon. Member for South Donegal that the claims for inquiry were not made with a view to information. The fact was that hon. Members were in possession of all information. India was not now a remote and hidden country. It was a country with which there were improved communications, where half the Members of Parliament spent the winter. Everything which

  213
  went on was well known, and there were no secret and hidden facts which required to be inquired into. Inquiry was claimed only to disturb and discredit, if possible, the Government, and to unsettle people's minds by leading them to think that through the efforts of Members of that House some progress could be made in the direction of the revolution in India desired by the hon. Member for South Donegal. If, after discussion, further inquiry were wanted, neither the Government of India nor that of England would shrink from it. As he was speaking about inquiry, might he say one word about the Council of India? He had listened attentively to what had been said, because he was anxious to see whether there was anything tangible concerning the Council of India of which he could lay hold, and to which he could reply. As a matter of fact, those who had found fault with the Council of India had found fault with it in such vague and general terms that there was nothing he could say in answer; there was no charge he could lay hold of. All he could say was that, judging from his personal experience, the Council of the Secretary of State was an extremely valuable Body, which it would be difficult to replace, and that it conduced largely to the good government of India. The proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton was that legislation for India should be handed over as he said to the people of India—not, however, to the people of India themselves, but to a set of persons who were thought to be men of superior education and intelligence. The hon. Member proposed to create in India a kind of Venetian oligarchy. The duty of governing the people of India, that we had exercised for the last century, was to be transferred to this Body of educated gentlemen from Bengal, and of Mahrattas from Bombay and Madras, who were not in any sense the people of India. These persons were an urban class; the people of India were agriculturists. The people of Great Britain had no right to hand over their responsibility to other people. It was by the power of Great Britain that India was governed. So long as it was governed by the power of Great Britain, the British Sovereign and people were responsible for the good government of the country, and it was a
  214
  responsibility they could not shake off on anyone else. We had no right to keep India under, in order that we might subject her to the domination of educated Baboos. He now passed to a subject which had been much spoken of to-night—namely, the employment of Natives. He would not enlarge upon it at length, but invited hon. Members to study the Report of the Public Services Commission. But he would like to observe that, while 30 years ago there were 962 Covenanted civilians in India, there were now only 964. Notwithstanding the enormous progress and increase which had been made in the administration of India, the Covenanted civilians had only increased by two. And while 30 years ago there were no Natives in the Covenanted Service, there were now 58, 10 of whom had entered by open competition, and 48 under the operation of statutory conditions. Thirty years ago there were no Natives in the Sudder or High Courts; now there was not one of those Courts in which there was not a Native Judge. Out of 2,624 inferior Judges and magistrates 2,473 were Natives, and in 1879 it was laid down that Europeans could not be appointed to such positions without the express sanction of the Secretary of State. There were five Legislatures under the Indian Councils Act, all of which bad Native members. There were hundreds of Town Councils and Local Boards, many of them elected by the ratepayers, for the management of education, sanitary matters, public works, and local taxation. On those Boards most, and in some cases all, the members were Natives. A great deal had been said in the debate about the poverty of the Natives of India, and the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) had talked as if their poverty was a new thing, a mischievous invention of the British Government. Though, no doubt, the people were poor, every sign pointed to the conclusion that they were better off than they were 30 years ago, and that they were continually advancing in prosperity. He would not talk about the increase of population; but he might remind hon. Members that there had been an extension of cultivation, of irrigation, and of railways, about which he would speak in a moment a little more at length. He was informed the standard of living

  215
  had risen, the selling price of land had risen, the number of carts and draught animals employed by the peasantry had greatly increased; the baked earthenware vessels, which were formerly in universal use, had been largely replaced by brass vessels; and articles of luxury, such as sugar, clarified butter, silk fabrics, and umbrellas, were used in much greater quantity. There was one thing which was some test of the wealth of the country, and that was imports and exports. The exports in 1856 were Rx.25,500,000 and the imports Rx.14,250,000. In 1887 the exports were Rx.90,500,000 and the imports Rx.65,000,000, and during the last 30 years there had been an absorption of gold and silver at the rate of £11,500,000 per annum. A good deal had also been said about salt. They had a discussion about salt at an early period of the Session, and he thought that everything that could be said on the subject was said. Certainly, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple) had already said enough to answer the remarks of hon. Gentlemen. Had the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) reflected on the fact that, notwithstanding the small increase of the tax on salt which had been found necessary that year, the price of salt at that moment in Bengal, the Punjab, the North-Western Provinces, Oude, and Central India was lower than it was some years ago. Improved railway communication had done more to pull down the price of salt than the slight addition to the tax had done to increase it. Of course his statement did not refer to Bombay and Madras, where, no doubt, the price of salt had increased. But he did not think that those charged with the defence of the administration of the Government of India ought to be content with merely answering the objections that might be raised. He had said often in the House, and he believed it, that there was nothing of which the Sovereign and people of this country had more reason to be pround than of their administration of India. He hoped the Committee would pardon him if he once more drew attention to some of the chief improvements which had been effected in the last 30 years. The State was a great landlord, and it was in the
  216
  administration of the land and Land Revenue, a subject which no one had mentioned to-night, that the welfare and well-being of the people of India mainly depended. During the last 30 years the survey of the whole of India, including the Native States, with the single exception of the district of Upper Burmah, recently annexed, had been completed. Outside the permanent settled estates there were now cadastral surveys, showing every field, of so improved a character that the revision for the purpose of re-settling the Revenue, which used to cost eight annas per acre, could now be done for three annas, and the operation could now be completed in between two and three years, whereas formerly it took five; and that reduction of time, be it noted, was an immense boon to the agricultural population. The rates of land revenue had been reduced in many parts of India, with the result that the cultivated area had enormously increased. In Lower Burmah, the increase of cultivation was more than 100 per cent. In Berar and Assam it was from 35 to 60 per cent; in Oude, 30 per cent; and 25 per cent in Madras, Bombay, and the Punjab. It might be safely said that over the whole of India the cultivated area of land had increased by 25 per cent, while the population had only increased by 15 to 18 per cent. How, then, could it be thought that the cultivators of the soil were poorer than they were 30 years ago? Prices had risen and were steadier; proprietors were guaranteed against enhancement, and petty occupiers in Bombay, Madras, Burmah, Berar, and Assam had been made proprietors. But one of the most extraordinary advances that had been made was the recognition, by Statute, of tenant right in Bengal, the North-West Provinces, Oude, the Punjab, and the Central Provinces. There was no doubt that some such tenant-right existed in ancient times, but 30 years ago Mr. John Stuart Mill wrote:—
  "The rights of the Bengal ryots had passed away sub silentio, and they had become to all intents and purposes tenants at will."
  That was the state of things 30 years ago, and what was it now? A recent cadastral survey in the populous part of Behar showed that 91 per cent of the small cultivators were in possession of tenant-right. Now as to the Customs

  217
  duties. All the Inland Custom line had been abolished from the Sutlej to Sumbulpore—a line of 2,000 miles; the inland duties on sugar had been taken off; and all import duties had been abolished except those on salt and arms. ["Oh, oh!"] He observed that some Liberal Members sneered at the abolition of import duties, quite forgetting their doctrine, as members of the Cobden Club, that the reduction of the import duties was, as he believed it to be, a boon to all consumers. All the export duties, with the exception of those on rice and opium, had also been abolished. He had not a word to say in defence of the Rice Duty, and the moment it was possible to do without the export duty on rice it certainly ought to be repealed. Now, might he point out some other marks of progress in India which were most striking? He would first take the Post Office, which was generally considered a good illustration of the progress of a country. Thirty years ago there were 700 post offices and pillar boxes in India, and there were now 17,000; while the letters and newspapers, &c. sent, which 30 years ago were 28,000,000, were now 259,000,000. Besides that, savings' banks, money order offices, and parcels insurance, and other offices conducing to the benefit of the people, had been established. So cheap now was the postal system of India, that a letter could be sent from Quetta on the borders of Afghanistan to Bhamo on the frontiers of China—3,000 miles—for a halfpenny. Thirty years ago there were 3,000 miles of telegraph lines, now there were 32,000 miles. Thirty years ago there were but few telegraph offices, now there were 1,837, and the number of messages sent, exclusive of railway messages, in 1886–7, was 2,500,000, making 4½ per cent profit on the capital, Rx. 4,000,000 invested. Great progress had been made in legislation and in judicial establishments. During the last 30 years Codes had been passed for the Criminal Law, the Civil Law, and the Law of Civil Evidence and Procedure. When the House recollected that they had never been able themselves to pass any Code at all, they must admit that there was some little merit in the Legislature of India. These Codes had been translated into all the important languages of the country. Many of the Judges in the advanced
  218
  Provinces and all the Judges and most of the Magistrates of first instance were Natives. Corruption was now almost unknown amongst the Judges in the advanced Provinces, and even inferior Judges or Magistrates, such as the Tahsildars and Mamlatdars, had attained a much higher standard of rectitude than was dreamed of some time ago. One of the most remarkable improvements in the judicial administration of India was the institution of honorary magistrates, who, without pay, administered justice in very many parts of the country. Then with regard to hospitals, 30 years ago there were 142 civil hospitals and dispensaries, and there were now 1,411. And that occurred under a Government which the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neil) denounced as cruel and barbarous. Thirty years ago the number of patients treated annually was 700,000; but now it amounted to 10,300,000. Vaccination had extended greatly, and in some places the yearly vaccinations were equal to the number of births. There were 25 towns which had a supply of pure water, and there were many others in which the supply had been greatly improved. All that sanitation had been carried out under the direction of Local Bodies, mainly, and very often exclusively, composed of Natives. In 1865 there were 26 Colleges, in 1886 there were 110. In the former year there were 1,582 students, and 10,538 in the latter. In the number of schools there had been an increase in the same period from 19,201 to 122,227, and in the number of scholars an increase from 619,260 to 3,314,542. The girls' schools had increased from 2,105 to 5,586, and the girl scholars from 42,327 to 99,510. It was calculated that there were now at school 19½ per cent of the boys of school age. He did not say that was final. He did not say that was a satisfactory condition of things to stop at, but he maintained it was progress during 30 years for which they might be thankful, and which might encourage them to proceed in the course they had adopted. Now as to Public Works. In 1857 there were 400 miles of railway; in 1887, 14,382; the passengers in the former year numbered 895,000, in the latter, 95,500,000; the goods traffic had increased from 77,000 tons to 20,000,000 tons. The railway

  219
  receipts in 1887 were Rx.13,468,000, and it had been calculated that it would have cost four times as much to move these goods and passengers without railways, and that, therefore, the Government of India might be said to have saved the people of India Rx. 54,500,000. These railways had, no doubt, cost the Government of India Rx.1,000,000 a-year; but by this time, if it had not been for the extraordinary fall in the rate of exchange, they would cost the Government nothing. Great advantages had also been secured by Irrigation Works, which, in the North of India, yielded a return of 4 per cent, and in the Madras Presidency gave very much larger profits. Trunk roads had been made, and turnpikes and tolls had been abolished. With regard to Local Government, he might point out that in 1858 there were scarcely any municipal towns, whereas now there were 462 of such towns, spending Rx.3,480,000 annually, and controlling the sanitary and local interests of a population of 14,250,000 persons. There were also Rural Boards and Port Authorities which provided for the education and sanitation of the districts, and for the improvement of commercial facilities at seaports, and these Boards and Governing Bodies consisted mainly of Natives. Reference had been made to the fact that certain Indian fabrics had been displaced by English goods; but that was the natural result of India coming into contact with a great manufacturing country which could manufacture more cheaply than themselves. But there was a great deal to be said on the other side. If some Indian industries had been displaced, there were other industries which had been developed, by contact with Great Britain—namely, railway labour, which employed 225,000 men, steamboat labour, indigo manufacture, cotton manufacture in Bombay, and jute manufacture in Bengal, and the timber and rice trades. There were 89 cotton mills with 2,250,000 spindles in Bombay; there were 24 jute mills, nine paper mills, and a number of timber and rice mills. The exports of cotton yarns and fabrics amounted in 1887 to Rx.4,250,000, and the manufacture of tea, coffee, jute, and cinchona employed 400,000 men, and the trade in these articles, which had not existed before the British occupation, now amounted
  220
  to Rx.12,250,000, besides the Indian consumption. He thought that when it was possible to point to a record of that kind as the result of 30 years' administration of the Government of India, we had no reason to complain. He repeated, without fear of contradiction, that there was no national achievement which afforded greater satisfaction to the Sovereign and the people of this country than the just and noble administration of our Indian Empire.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, he desired to make au appeal to the Committee on behalf of a class of men who had no means of expressing their opinions except through Members of that House. He alluded to the non-commissioned officers promoted from the ranks and afterwards promoted to commissions in the Indian Army. The grievance of which they complained was as follows:—That the Statement made in January, 1884, by the then Secretary of State for India to the effect that the usages in the Indian Army and the English Army should be assimilated, had not been carried into effect. He did not want to multiply details or mention too many instances, and he would, therefore, refer to one or two only in which it had failed. One was that the non-commissioned officers promoted in the English Army were allowed £100 for outfit, whereas those in the Indian Army received nothing. Again, in case of the death of officers in the English Army, their widows had pensions of £80, whereas in the Indian Army the corresponding pensions were cut down to £36. He wished to call attention to the fact that the men on whose behalf he was speaking were, all of them, of many years' good and honourable service, who had been promoted in consequence, and, therefore, deserved all they were entitled to get. They were really hardworking, practical soldiers; they were not men who counted their 10 years' Indian service, with five years' in a Volunteer battalion, two years at a depôt, and one year's leave, but men who had gone regularly through their period of service in India. He regretted that no hon. Member of higher standing than himself could be found to take up the cause of these deserving officers. That, however, was their misfortune, and not their fault; and he hoped his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of

  221
  State for India (Sir John Gorst) would give a favourable consideration to the few words he had said in their behalf.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he sincerely hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India would pay attention to the case which had been urged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken. Most hon. Members had listened with interest and attention to the harangue which had been pronounced by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India in support of the many injustices which had been perpetrated in India. The hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the railways had increased in that country, and implied that the Natives had at least sufficient confidence in their Rulers to embark in the railway carriages which were provided for them. The fact had been brought before him in the course of the last few days that on some of the railways passengers had to wait while a ticket was being written out. That was simply absurd; and he maintained that if they really wanted to promote the railway system in India, which had furnished the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary with some plausible arguments that evening, they should remedy such grievances as this. The position taken up by the hon. Gentleman appeared to him to be founded on the supposition that railways were never known before; but, as a matter of fact, progress had taken place all over the world, and because it had taken place in India the hon. Gentleman took advantage of the natural progress made as a set-off against the claims of hon. Members on behalf of the people of India. He had asked the hon. Gentleman a fortnight ago what the Government were going to do in connection with the India Medical Service, and he was good enough to put him off, maintaining at the same time that it was for the benefit of the Medical Service in India that it should be educated in India, instead of as heretofore. The subject was not, of course, one which would generally interest the Committee, and he should, therefore, be as brief as possible in the remarks he had to make. It was in the knowledge of the House that medical officers in India had been educated at Netley, at which place also the Army medical officers were educated,
  222
  and great economy had resulted from that system. It should also be borne in mind that the officers belonging to the Army Medical Staff, serving as they must in India, were likewise educated at Netley. What was now proposed to be done? It was, he believed, that candidates for the India Medical Service would have to be examined in London by practically the same staff as that which examined for the Army Medical Service at the present time. Those gentlemen who satisfied the Examiners would have then to proceed to India to three or four medical schools which were not at present in existence, and for which no provision had been made. The hon. Gentleman had told them that there were hospitals in India, but he had on two occasions distinctly evaded answering his Question as to whether those hospitals were provided with the necessary means and resources for bringing the students to the state of efficiency to which they had hitherto been brought at the medical school at Netley. He was speaking in the interest of a very large class, whose grievance if not attended to would result in the supply of really qualified men, when they were wanted, being conspicuous for its absence. The Government by this course were proposing to relieve themselves of a very moderate expense, and transferring it to the people of India; they were trying to carry out a very unwise proposal, and in confirmation of what he said he had only to refer the hon. Gentleman to one of the leading medical newspapers of the country. In this matter, although an Irishman, and there were many Irishmen in the India Medical Service, he was speaking as a medical man. The proposal of the Government implied a certain amount of contempt for the Medical Profession, because they seemed to think that because there were doctors now there would always be doctors. He recollected that in the Queen's University, Ireland, which was a Government institution, placards were put up telling gentlemen who were becoming qualified members of the Profession not to join the Indian or Army Medical Service. The Government had on that occasion to cry "peccavi," and they might have to do so again. He asked the Government to pause in time, and look into this matter with the seriousness which it demanded.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, he rose to call attention to a case of injustice done to a medical officer of his acquaintance (Deputy Surgeon General Joynt), who had been retired on a lower pension than he was entitled to receive. This gentleman had served 26¼ years in the India Service and received a pension of £500, although it was the general practice to give a pension of £700 after 25 years' service; he appeared to have been known throughout his career as an excellent officer, and to have been complimented by his superiors. He had also been refused the opportunity of serving longer to complete his term. He brought this case before the hon. Gentleman, because he thought it undesirable that the repeated complaints of this officer should remain unanswered.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he regretted that he had not received Notice of the circumstance which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward, because he was unable to give any reply upon it. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would put a Notice on the Paper, or if he would communicate with him, the subject should be inquired into and a reply given.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 105: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 272.)
  Main 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 1887, was Rx.77,337,134; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged to Revenue was Rx.77,158,707; that there was a surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.178,427; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.5,670,484, besides a Capital Charge of £4,914,546 involved in the Redemption of Liabilities.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 354.]
(Mr. Jackson, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 354.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Amendment of 50 & 51 Vict. c. 31. s. 9, sub-sections (a), (b), (e),
  224
  (g), (h), (i), (l), (m), s. 10, s. 11, sub-section (i)).
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he did not like to go into the various items of this clause, but would put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) with reference to one or two of the sub-sections. He desired to know, as to the 1st sub-section, whether the Board had settled any scheme for the expenditure of this £35,000 for the Fire Brigade? As to Sub-section 3, he might say that he had thought the expenditure closed. Would the hon. Gentleman tell them what the remaining £11,000 was for? Already £135,000 had been spent in this direction. Then, as to Sub-section 8, it gave powers under the Various Powers Act for the expenditure of £81,000 more this year than was given under the Act of 1885. He wished to ask which of the various powers of the Act of 1885 were to be carried out under this expenditure. Lastly, as to Sub-section 9, it was proposed to take £131,000 for, he thought, main drainage and sewers. This, he believed, had nothing to do with the outfall, but was a separate matter. Why did they want to spend so large a sum, the system being practically complete?
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that as to Sub-section 1, he understood that the power here given in respect of the Fire Brigade was in lieu of the power given under the Metropolitan Expenses Bill of last Session which had not passed into law.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the hon. Member had not been present last night when this matter was explained. So far as the Metropolitan Fire Brigade was concerned, it had nothing to do—no connection with the Bill introduced into the House. This was a capital expenditure on hydrants and matters of that kind, with a view of making better provision for fires occurring in different parts of the Metropolis. In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) as to Sub-section (i)——
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he had asked if they had settled anything in this matter, as the expenditure was abnormal?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that, no doubt, it was an abnormal expenditure, because a further extension a the scheme had

  225
  been decided upon and an additional sum was being asked for. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked, as to Sub-section 3, why this expenditure was not closed? The reason was because the work done in 1887 was less than had been expected, and the additional expenditure was consequently thrown on the present year. The hon. and learned Gentleman would understand that as the amount placed at the disposal of the Metropolitan Board of Works last year had not been expended it had been surrendered.
  MR. FIRTH: Yes; but they are asking for £4,000 more.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he understood that it was in consequence of less work having been done in 1887 than was expected, more work being thrown on the present year. This caused the sum taken in 1888 to be larger than the amount originally estimated. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked as to Sub-section 8, and desired to know if the money was to be expended on special works? Well, he (Mr. Jackson) understood that the Supplemental sum was due to the fact that in this case also the work that was expected to be done in 1887 was not done in that year, and threw more work upon this year. It was work in connection with the Woolwich Ferry. As to the expenditure under Sub-section 9, the engineer estimated that everything had been got into working order, and that the work would proceed more rapidly than when the Estimate was prepared.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Powers to expend money for the purposes of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act, 1888, Thames Tunnel (Blackwall) Act, 1888, Hampstead Heath Enlargement Acts, 1886 and 1888, Clissold Park Act, 1887, Vauxhall Park Act, 1888, Brixton Park Act, 1888, and the Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse), &c., Confirmation Act, 1888).
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he desired to draw attention to certain words in this clause especially bearing on the lending authority—namely, the words "as the Board think fit." Would there be any objection to altering the words into "as the London County Council think fit?" The London County Council would have to consider the authorities to whom so much money
  226
  was to be lent. The discretion of the Metropolitan Board of Works was a vanishing quantity, both in public esteem and in fact.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he thought the hon. and learned Member would see that, though it might be that the County Council when established might alter the manner of dealing with this matter of lending, in the meantime, so far as the Metropolitan Board of Works was concerned, the words "as they think fit" must stand. The work would have to be taken over by the new Governing Body, and the transfer of authority would be covered by the general legislation.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power to expend money for sundry purposes during year 1889).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. CREMERsaid, he was afraid he should have to ask the House to bear with him for a few moments, whilst he gave reasons for opposing Sub-sections "h, i and j." It was proposed by this clause to authorize the Metropolitan Board of Works to spend a very considerable sum of money on artizans and labourers' dwellings improvements, and for purposes of street improvements. He had first of all to complain, in regard to the clause to which he referred, that the dwellings erected in the Metropolis were of a most unhealthy character. He asked any Member of the House to visit any of the blocks of buildings which had been erected, and to ask themselves whether they would care to reside within them? He did not know who was responsible for the blunders which had been committed—whether it was the architect or the Board of Works, or whether it was any particular Department of the Government; but there was not a single block of artizans' dwellings in the Metropolis—excepting those which had been erected under the Shaftesbury Park Estate Company, and over which the Metropolitan Board of Works had no control—which was fit for human habitation, and he said that advisedly. The windows of the dwellings were more like pigeon holes than

  227
  windows. They were set back from the brick work 14 inches, and in some cases as much as 18 inches, Every effort seemed to have been made by the architect or surveyor of the Board of Works to exclude light and air from these dwellings. In some of them there were from 1,400 to 2,000 windows; and, to say nothing as to the injurious effect upon the people who resided in them, a considerable saving might have been effected in the construction of these dwellings had the windows been as large as they should have been, as glass and wood was much cheaper than bricks—especially the brick walls that were employed in artizans' dwellings. He had first of all to complain of the shameful way in which the people were housed in the so-called improved dwellings of the working classes. He would ask hon. Members, between now and the next meeting of the House, to judge for themselves as to the accuracy of his statement by visiting the artizans' dwellings in the Metropolis. They need not go far. There was a block in Bedfordbury where a considerable amount of money had been spent, though how people managed to subsist in it was to him a perfect mystery. The windows, as he had said, were more like pigeon-holes than windows, and reflected the greatest amount of discredit upon those who were responsible. He assumed that the Metropolitan Board of Works, more than anybody else, were responsible for the construction of these dwellings, from which light and air were excluded. Then he objected to arming this Body with powers for what were called street improvements. He would ask the Committee to bear with him for a few moments whilst he referred to two thoroughfares which were now well known in the Metropolis. He referred to the new street from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road, and the Shaftesbury Avenue. Eleven years ago the Metropolitan Board of Works, or someone who was connected with that Board, thought it desirable to purchase a number of houses on the site of these improvements, and they paid, in many instances, considerable sums of money by way of compensation to the persons occupying the houses. Many of those houses were closed for six or seven years before they were pulled down. One would have thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works, if
  228
  they deemed it necessary to acquire these houses, would have let them until such time as they were prepared to pull them down, without burdening the Metropolis with the interest which had to be paid on the money wherewith the purchases had been made. Ten or 11 years ago there existed in Nassau Street a snug little hotel which might have been known to some Members of the House who were fond of dishes cooked in the French fashion. The Metropolitan Board of Works paid the proprietor of the hotel some thousands of pounds by way of compensation, and the house remained empty four years. He (Mr. Cremer) believed it was afterwards let for some trifling sum; but it was 10 years after the house was purchased, and after thousands of pounds had been expended in compensation to the proprietor, that the Metropolitan Board of Works pulled the place down. All this time the Board of Works was paying interest on the money given to the proprietor of the hotel. Again, the proprietor of another house at the corner of Hayes Court was paid for being dispossessed of his business. The Board let the house to another tenant; and would hon. Members credit it when he stated that the Board paid to the man who took it, after he had remained in it two or three years, compensation for depriving him of his business? A third man obtained possession of the house, and he also tried it on with the Board of Works, and very nearly succeeded in obtaining compensation. That was the way in which the money of the ratepayers had been squandered by the Board of Works; and the House was now asked to arm them with authority to continue this process of wasting the ratepayers' money. When the new street was constructed from Piccadilly to Broad Street, the Board constructed, and very properly constructed, a large subway. He admitted that this subway was admirably constructed. He had watched its progress, and had congratulated himself that a little common sense had been infused into the business of the Board, and that in the future, in that street, at any rate, they would not see the road torn up every two or three weeks for the purpose of operating on the gas and water pipes. The Board constructed that subway, and they knew that they were going to con-

  229
  struct another street from Tottenham Court Road to Charing Cross. Any schoolboy could have told them that it was desirable to construct what was known in the trade as a junction, so that when the new subway was made from Tottenham Court Road to Charing Cross it might have been easily connected with the subway then existing. Nothing of the kind took place, however, and what happened? Why, 12 months after the first subway was constructed the Metropolitan Board of Works had to pull up the road, break into the subway at Cambridge Circus, and spend a large sum of money in making the junction, which should have been constructed when the first subway was built. These were a few instances of the way in which the money of the London ratepayers had been wasted by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He had no hesitation in saying that the Board, in the instances he had referred to, had the opportunity of constructing magnificent thoroughfares of which the inhabitants of London might have been proud; but if anyone would walk through these thoroughfares and look about him, he (Mr. Cremer) would undertake to say that he would find the streets full of angles and bungles. He could go on multiplying instances, but he should be sorry to waste the time of the House by going into more details, as he assumed that there was no one who had not made up his mind as to the general character of the Board which they were now asked to arm with these additional powers. He, for one, would go into the Lobby against a Board which had so disgraced itself that its name was a bye-word and reproach not only in the Metropolis, but throughout the whole civilized world. Even if no one went with him, he should feel it his duty, on behalf of the ratepayers of London, to protest against arming the Metropolitan Board of Works with the new powers contained in this clause.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 31: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 273.)
  Clause 7 (Special power to expend money for purposes of main drainage and main sewers).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he did not know whether it was worth while discussing the Bill, but he had one observation to make upon Clause 7. He supposed the £142,000 was for the experimental works that had been carried out at the outfall at Barking. Last year they voted £170,000 for the same purpose, and he understood that the total cost of the work was estimated at over £1,000,000. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could tell them what the total cost of the work was likely to be; and whether he himself approved of the system of purification of sewage which had been adopted?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he was afraid he could not give the hon. and learned Member any information as to what the ultimate cost of the work would be. He had, personally, little experience in dealing with matters of this kind, and therefore he would not dare to make an estimate. But it must be obvious that, whether the system adopted was approved or not, some attempt must be made to deal with the sewage. He did not think that at this late hour of the Board's existence, so to speak, they could usefully hinder or suspend their operations. A very large amount of money had been spent upon the works, which were now in progress. He understood that very considerable progress had been made with the works at Barking, and that the Board were hopeful—he would not put it higher than that—that the plans they had adopted and were carrying out would be successful. Anyone who had any experience of dealing with the purification of sewage, or kindred matters, would speak with very great caution as to certainty of success, and even as to the expenditure which would be involved.
  MR. CREMERasked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if it was not possible for the Government to use their influence with the Board of Works in order to prevent any further expenditure in this direction, pending an inquiry into the Report which had recently been published in regard to the remarkable success which had attended the utilization of the sewage in Berlin? Hon. Members of the House might probably have seen the Report, and those

  231
  Members who were acquainted with the City of Berlin 10 or 11 years ago would remember the terrible sanitary condition of that city before the system of canalization was introduced. If the Report was a reliable one, he certainly thought it would be worth while, on the part of the Government, to use any influence they possessed with the Board of Works to induce them to stay their hand, and not expend any more money on a scheme which, he believed, was condemned by every expert, until an inquiry had been instituted and a Report made as to the accuracy of the statement which was recently published with regard to the successful result of the system adopted in Berlin.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the hon. Member would see that to suspend the works at this moment and in their present condition would, to say the least of it, be a very large waste of money. It would, moreover, give rise to very difficult questions. It was quite certain the Metropolitan Board of Works had before them the information the hon. Member had represented to the Committee—their attention had been drawn to the Report. In view of the fact that these responsibilities of the Board were about to be taken over by a new Body, whose duty it would be to carry out these works, he thought it would be extremely unwise for the House of Commons to impose any new conditions, or stop works which were going on, and which had received Parliamentary sanction.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that, as a matter of fact, this money would be expended in constructing additional settling tanks. The opinion of many competent authorities was that the expenditure of this money would be absolutely waste—that in a few years the settling tanks would be absolutely useless.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 and 9 severally agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Extension of amount of loans to the managers of Metropolitan Asylum District).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that he called attention to the subject of this clause yesterday, but he did not receive much satisfaction.
  232
  The object of the clause was to increase by £50,000 the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to lend money to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. As he said last night, he thought this was a very unfortunate time for the Metropolitan Asylums Board to come to that House and ask them to increase its possibilities of borrowing money, for he was sure he did not exaggerate the case when he said that, possibly with one exception, the Metropolitan Asylums Board was the most unpopular Body in the Metropolis. It was certainly believed to be the most extravagant. The expenditure of that Board had grown with frightful rapidity. In 1872 the Board's expenditure was £197,000. In 10 years it had grown to £386,000. In the next year it was £420,000, and in 1885 it was £566,000. In 1886 there was a drop, but a very slight one, for the expenditure was £524,000. The Board had the administration of a more corner of the whole field of the Poor Law, and yet the sum he had mentioned was no less than 23 per cent of the whole cost of the Poor Law administration in London. Taking the case of his own constituency, he believed that the contribution of Bethnal Green was as large as 9d. in the £1 of the rateable value. But, large as this expenditure out of the rates was, they had also to take into consideration a very large expenditure out of loans. He did not want to weary the Committee, and therefore he would only give two figures. In 1885 the expenditure out of loans was £90,000, and in 1886 it was £101,000. And then there was, perhaps, the still more serious aspect of the expenditure of the Board which was presented to them by the fact that the amount of outstanding loans was constantly increasing. He found that on Lady Day, 1883, the amount of outstanding loans was £910,000; on Lady Day, 1886, it had risen to more than £1,000,000, and at Christmas, 1886, it had risen to more than £1,100,000. What it was now he could not say, because they had no information. He thought they had much reason to complain of the fact that although they had now arrived at the 9th of August, 1888, and were called upon to assent to the financial operations of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, they had not yet received a Report of that Board for the year 1887. The issue of

  233
  that Report ought to be expedited, so that it would be in their hands, at all events, when the Money Bill for the following year was presented for their consideration. He referred last night to the suspicion which rested on the Board, and he did not want to labour that aspect of the case; but the answer which, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would make would be that none of this money could be lent without the sanction of the Local Government Board for the expenditure. It was perfectly true that such sanction had to be obtained, but the argument was not conclusive. If they provided the money they took the first step, at all events, to enable the Metropolitan Asylums Board to get possession. He would like to impress on hon. Members the fact that there was no more persistent Body in the Metropolis, or perhaps in the world, than the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The Board was constantly going to the Local Government Board and pressing for consent to schemes. It frequently happened that, in the first place, consent was withheld; but, nothing daunted, the Board returned to the charge, and in many cases successfully. He was afraid that in the cases they had now in view the virtue of the Local Government Board might not be able resist these constant and persistent assaults. Let them protect the Local Government Board against the pressure which was constantly applied. If the Metropolitan Board of Works had not the money to lend, it was clear the Metropolitan Asylums Board could not get it from them; and, considering the character which the Metropolitan Asylums Board had at present, it was the plain duty of the Committee to take precautions against the Board unduly increasing its responsibilities. No reason had yet been alleged—at least, he was unable to elicit last night from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury any reason whatever for extending the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to lend to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. In the absence of satisfactory reasons he should certainly feel it his duty to divide the Committee against the clause.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he was sorry his answer last night had not removed the hon. Member's objec-
  234
  tion. He certainly endeavoured to supply him with a reason why the clause should not be omitted. He took it that the object of the hon. Member was to prevent expenditure by the Metropolitan Asylums Board. Let him point out that even if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion were adopted his object would not be effected. Although they might strike out of the Bill the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to lend money to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, they would not thereby prevent the Metropolitan Asylums Board borrowing money in other quarters. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that the Asylums Board had been very persistent in its demands; but he could trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to be equally persistent in refusing to accede to any demands made by the Asylums Board until the Board convinced him that the demands were honest and ought to be met. The hon. Member would see that the Metropolitan Asylums Board having got the sanction of the Local Government Board to certain expenditure for the extension of their Asylums and having got the power to borrow money either from the Metropolitan Board of Works or in the open market, his object would not be attained even though he prevented the Metropolitan Board of Works lending the money. But there was an advantage, which the hon. Gentleman would admit, both to the Metropolitan Board of Works and to the Asylums Board, that one should lend money upon ample security and at a reasonable rate of interest, and that the other should borrow money without paying too high a price for it. The striking out of this clause might cause the Asylums Board to borrow money at a higher rate of interest than was necessary.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he was sorry he was not able to be satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. From time to time greater facilities had been given to the Asylums Board to borrow money. It was all very well to say that the Local Government Board would use their discretion, but the Local Government Board had many duties to perform, and in the case of a persistent Body like the Asylums Board it was very

  235
  likely that sometimes they might be caught napping. As long as they had these Boards in London which were not directly elected by the people, which consisted of nominee members, it was his and his hon. Friend's bounden duty to prevent them having facilities to borrow money in the large manner they would be able to borrow if this clause were passed. It was absurd for the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to say that if this clause was not passed the Board could go into the open market and borrow money, possibly at a higher rate of interest. What would be the effect of the omission of this clause? For the first time the expenditure of the Asylums Board would be brought under the notice of the public; and, therefore, they would have to be much more careful how they expended money than they had hitherto been.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he shared, to some extent, the distrust hon. Gentlemen had expressed of the Asylums Board; but the course they now proposed to take would not carry out the object they desired to secure. The Bill conferred no power upon the Metropolitan Asylums Board. It was a re-grant of an old existing power on the Metropolitan Board of Works—to do what? To lend such sums of money as the Metropolitan Asylums Board were authorized to borrow with the consent of the Local Government Board. He did not see that they could have a better control than that of the Local Government Board. He should be compelled to vote against the omission of the clause, though, at the same time, he would not like his vote to be taken as an expression of confidence in the Asylums Board. He hoped to see the time when London would be as other great Municipalities were, independent of Parliamentary control in its financial matters. They could trust Birmingham and Manchester to spend their own money, and he hoped London would be trusted to the same degree and extent. But this clause simply said that if the President of the Local Government Board, in the exercise of the power already vested in him, sanctioned the borrowing by the Asylums Board of certain sums of money, the Board should be able to go into the cheapest market to get the money.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, they desired to press their protest to a Division. The Metropolitan Asylums Board should have no further powers of borrowing. That Board was a corrupt Body, and they desired to see it swept away. The sooner it was made the subject of inquiry similar to that held by the Commission into the doings of the Board of Works, and the sooner the Board was deprived of the power of spending the ratepayers' money, the better.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he did not understand what the money was for. He was given to understand it was for the extension of hospital accommodation; but, as had been pointed out, the hospitals provided by the Board cost a very much larger sum than others. Hon. Members who were responsible to the ratepayers of London ought to have some control over this expenditure. His hon. Friend had used some very strong language in respect to the Board; but if anybody would refer to The Spectator, which, he thought, was a Conservative journal, more or less—at all events, a journal of very high respectability—it would be found that in reference to the Homerton inquiry the language of his hon. Friend was mild as new milk compared to that used by this respectable, sober, high-class journal. The Committee should know what this money was for. It might not, it was said, be borrowed at all; but if it should be, the ratepayers would have to find the interest, and the Representatives of the ratepayers were entitled to know something about it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the hon. and learned Member asked what the money was required for, and though he could not give information as to all the items lie could assure the hon. and learned Member that it was after a great deal of negotiation with the Board that the Local Government Board satisfied themselves as to the propriety of the demand. The item for the erection of huts for convalescent small-pox patients had in the course of the inquiry been reduced to one-half the sum first mentioned. The accommodation was absolutely essential in the interest of London in view of the possibility of the outbreak of a small-pox epidemic; but the Local Govern-

  237
  ment Board thought that in their first proposal the Metropolitan Asylums Board were proceeding in much too costly and large a manner. The Local Government Board urged that, so far as possible, existing buildings should be availed of, and that these should only be supplemented where they would be likely to be required in a case of a small-pox epidemic. Ultimately the Asylums Board adopted that view, and, in consequence, the original sum asked for was reduced by about a-half. The Local Government Board sanctioned the borrowing of money for the erection of sheds, and though it was to be hoped that these would not be required, yet it was essential that provision should be made. To say that no further borrowing powers should be given to the Asylums Board was a proposition that could not be entertained for a moment. The Asylums Board might not be constituted in a satisfactory manner, and he was willing to admit that the time must come when the entire management of matters of this kind should be transferred to the County Council; but in the discussion of the clauses of the Local Government Bill he gave reasons why he thought these powers should not now be transferred. The time, however, must come for the transfer. He must guard himself against being supposed to agree with the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch's attack on the Board. The Board had done great service to the people of London, and very often when it was by no means a pleasant duty. Whether the Board was constituted in a satisfactory manner or not, and whether or not its functions should be transferred to the new authority about to be created, the people of London owed to the Board a debt of gratitude for services rendered. This was no very large item of expenditure; it had the sanction of the Local Government Board, and he hoped the Committee would assent to the Metropolitan Board of Works lending the sum.
  MR. CREMERsaid, before the Division was taken it should be made quite clear that it was because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board disregarded the advice tendered by Metropolitan Members, when the Local Government Bill was under consideration, that those Members now felt
  238
  it their duty to divide the Committee on this question. He merely referred to this because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) seemed to have fallen into the error of supposing that the County Council would have control over the Metropolitan Asylums Board; but it was because the County Council would have no such control over the Board that hon. Members felt it their duty to make this protest. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton was probably under a misapprehension. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: No.] Well, then he was misunderstood by the Committee, for there were several ejaculations of dissent when the right hon. Gentleman made the statement. Had the County Council possessed the control the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was urged to confer upon it, there would have been no need for the protest about to be recorded.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 28: Majority 72:—(Div. List, No. 274.)
  Clause 11 (Power to lend to School Board for London).
  MR. KIMBERsaid, he desired some explanation in reference to the borrowing powers of the School Board for London. The School Board borrowed under powers vested in them by Act of Parliament. If the Bill referred to previous Acts, then, by reference to the Schedule, it would be seen that the unexhausted borrowing powers of the London School Board at the end of last year was £250,000. He asked whether this authority now asked for to lend and borrow £300,000 was in addition to that borrowing power of £250,000? If not, then it would seem that the amount in the clause ought to be reduced to £250,000. As the House did not seem to have any means of estimating how this money was to be spent, and as there was not in this case, as in the case of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the check of the Local Government Board, the Committee ought to be put in possession of a short summary or estimate of what the money was wanted for. He had heard it stated that part of the money had already been expended;

  239
  and, if that were so, it made the want of control rather more dangerous and somewhat a farce to ask the House for these powers without limitation or supervision by anybody.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he thought it would be clear to the hon. Member and to the Committee that in Table 2, to which the hon. Member referred, the £250,000 was merely a statement of the borrowing powers that expired on December 31, 1887.
  MR. KIMBERsaid, no; powers that expired at the end of this year—Table 3 was the one he referred to.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that this had nothing to do with the powers of the School Board. Of course, they were governed by another Act. This simply gave to the Metropolitan Board of Works power to lend to the School Board to an amount not exceeding £300,000.
  MR. KIMBERasked, was it in addition to the £250,000?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, it had nothing whatever to do with it.
  MR. KIMBERsaid, but the Board would have the power to raise the money.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, of course, the Metropolitan Board of Works could not lend to the School Board any sums, large or small, that the School Board had not Parliamentary powers to borrow. So far as the Metropolitan Board of Works Bill was concerned, all the Committee had to deal with was this lending power. The Board asked Parliament to give them power to lend out of their moneys £300,000 to the School Board. The School Board, of course, must have authority to borrow, else the Metropolitan Board of Works would not have the power to lend; and, assuming the security to be sufficient, he did not see any objection. There was the precaution that none of the money could be borrowed by the School Board or lent by the Metropolitan Board of Works unless with the sanction of the Education Department and of the Treasury; therefore, there were as many safeguards as could possibly be needed.
  MR. KIMBERsaid, the hon. Gentleman did not see his point. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not often trouble the House, and was sorry to do so now. This clause said the Board might lend and the School
  240
  Board might borrow a sum not exceeding £300,000; so that these were new borrowing powers. ["No, no!"] If they were not, if it was only power to lend the School Board that which the latter had already—the power to borrow—then the maximum sum should be £250,000; why the power in the clause to lend £300,000?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Member was confusing the borrowing powers of the School Board with the lending powers of the Metropolitan Board. The Schedule dealt with the lending power of the Metropolitan Board of Works on December 31, 1888, and the powers of the Board in that respect would expire on that day. They had the power to lend the School Board to the extent of the School Board's unexhausted borrowing power. To strike out the clause would be to place the School Board at a disadvantage, for they would have to raise the money they might require in the open market, instead of going to the Metropolitan Board of Works on more favourable terms. With the policy of School Board expenditure the clause had nothing to do—it was simply the question of giving the Board of Works power to lend to this among other Public Bodies; there was nothing in it giving the slightest borrowing power to the School Board.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Power to lend to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police).
  MR. LAWSONsaid, the Committee would be very captious if it objected to Metropolitan Members criticizing these clauses one by one, seeing that they dealt exclusively with the Metropolis and the liability of Metropolitan ratepayers. After all, it was not often they troubled the House with questions peculiarly concerning themselves, while the claims of other sections of the House were frequently allowed. The Representatives of 5,000,000 of population were entitled to ask that these vast sums of money should not be expended so long as Parliamentary control was assumed without adequate examination. When the Local Government Bill was under discussion—[Cries of "Question!"]—this affected the question—the right hon. Gentleman the

  241
  President of the Local Government Board said it was necessary Parliament should have control over Metropolitan expenditure on account of the fatness of the Metropolis; and on that ground he desired to know why there was this power of lending to the Receiver of Metropolitan Police? Although former loans might have been justified, this required a special defence. Former loans were justified, because it was said it was desirable to give unity and coherence to the debt of the Metropolis; but he could not look upon the Metropolitan Police as a local force in view of the fact that ratepayers had no control over it, and the police area was not co-extensive with that under the jurisdiction of the Board of Works. Why, then, should the Metropolitan Board of Works be under any liability in respect to the Metropolitan Police district? It was said, though he did not agree with it, that the Metropolitan Police must be an Imperial, not a local, force; but, if that was so, why should the Metropolis be put under any liability for the sake of the Metropolitan Police? Some defence was surely required for this clause.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he was extremely sorry that the hon. Member had not paid a little more attention to the clause about which he had spoken. The hon. Member was under the impression that it imposed some charge upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, it was exhausting the amount of borrowing power.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, it conferred no power on the Receiver of Police that he did not otherwise possess. The whole action of the clause was limited simply to this—it gave the Metropolitan Board of Works power to lend to the Receiver of Police certain sums of money the Board had in hand. The Receiver of Police had authority to borrow certain sums of money; and whether he borrowed from the Board of Works, or in the open market, or from whatever source, it was entirely a question of the rate of interest at which he could get what he required. The clause did not really impose a penny of obligation upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. It did, however, afford the Metropolitan Board
  242
  of Works the opportunity of lending on good and adequate security money that would otherwise have to be obtained elsewhere. If hon. Members wished to discuss the expenditure on the Metropolitan Police this was not the opportunity of doing it—this was merely the question of lending to the Receiver of London Police a sum of money which the Board must lend or invest in some way, and he supposed hon. Members would not deny that the security was adequate. It really afforded the Metropolitan Board of Works the opportunity of safely investing the money.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, the point of objection was the power to lend the ratepayers' money to Bodies over whose expenditure the ratepayers had no control, and the interest upon which borrowed money the ratepayers had to pay.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 13 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  DR. TANNERsaid, the clauses having been disposed of and the majority of hon. Members present having succumbed to the influence of Morpheus—[Cries of "Order!"] It was a fact, unwilling as supporters of the Government might be to recognize facts. It was surely time to report Progress. Surely Her Majesty's Government would recognize the propriety of this at half-past 2 o'clock.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  DR. TANNERsaid, he would remind the Chairman that he had moved to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he declined to put that Motion, being of opinion that it was an abuse of the Rules of the House.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he agreed to the Motion, but hoped that next year the Bill would be taken at a different time and earlier in the Session. The attempt to debate it had been made under constant expressions of impatience from the other side of the House, but, in the interests of those he represented, he trusted it would be treated in a different fashion when it was brought forward under the auspices of the new County Council.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he believed it was a very unusual proceeding to take three stages of a Bill at Sitting, and he should certainly oppose it were it not that hon. Members near him acquiesced. But the Government most not imagine that other Bills down for Committee stage would be allowed to pass with the same facility.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
(Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

  [BILL 355.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Grants for public works and Scotch Fishing Boards).
  DR. TANNERsaid, he had on previous occasions endeavoured to raise his feeble voice to show that the Irish Board of Works, to whom a sum of £1,000,000 sterling was proposed to be advanced, was not deserving of that confidence and trust bestowed upon it by Her Majesty's Government. The hour was very late; and, having made his protest quite recently, he would only now accentuate that by moving that Progress be reported, and the discussion might be deferred to an occasion more fitting. The Irish Board of Works had been impeached, and found guilty of manifold acts of gross injustice almost amounting to fraud.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. He need only
  244
  indicate how extremely inconvenient it would be to Members of the House to be detained two or three days longer to pass Bills that must be passed. It would be for general convenience if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion and allow the Committee to proceed.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he always recognized the fair and honourable spirit displayed by the hon. Gentleman; but the question to be considered was, why was the Board of Works to get control of this sum of £1,000,000 sterling? He mistrusted the payments to Grand Juries. His own experience was that Grand Juries were capable of actions of the grossest fraud; and accordingly, when he saw it set forth that certain money was to be given by the Commissioners to Grand Juries to pay off certain amounts, and also that certain other monies were to be paid to tenants, he could not help letting his mind dwell on the old proverb. He knew perfectly well that these people were quite capable of corrupting the tenantry of Ireland, and he believed he was doing his duty, though the hour was late and hon. Members impatient, in raising the question why should this money be given to a corrupt Body like the Irish Board of Works? Again and again had he brought before the House cases of wanton, wilful expenditure and misapplication of public money, and he could not avoid expressing his explicit remonstrance on this proposal to give the Board control of £1,000,000. To go thoroughly into the matter was too late; but he might just call attention to one item, the expenditure of £123,151 on the Clare Slob Land reclamation. Last year, in connection with this expenditure, a Colleague of his——
  MR. BYRON REEDrose to Order. Was not the hon. Member trifling with the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member (Dr. Tanner) must remember he had moved to report Progress, and must address his observations to that Motion.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, no one admired more than he did the usefulness and vivacity of his hon. Friend's contributions towards debate; he would, however, remember that the arrangement and the intention of the Govern-

  245
  ment was to take the first seven Orders of the Day, and that Irish Members were waiting to take part in the disposal of Irish measures. He would submit to his hon. Friend that he was inflicting severe physical penalties on his Colleagues.
  DR. TANNERsaid, of course, he was bound to regard any rebuke, no matter how hard it was to bear, from a senior Member of his Party, and one of the most eloquent Members of the House. He had moved to report Progress, and was about to point out in a very few words—when he was interrupted by the hon. Member opposite—that during the debate this time last year, this Clare Slob Land Scheme——
  MR. BYRON REEDagain rose to Order, and asked, was not the hon. Member still trifling with the Committee? If he were in Order he would claim to move that the Question be now put.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again remind the hon. Member (Dr. Tanner) to speak to the Motion to report Progress, and try to be more succinct.
  DR. TANNERsaid, since he was not allowed to explain, and was subject to interruptions from hon. Members who had just woke up, he would content himself with having made his Motion.
  MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he was in accord with his hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) in his criticisms upon the Board of Works; but considering that the Bill contained items for labourers' cottages in Ireland, and that there would be other opportunities for enforcing his protest, he would add his voice to that of his hon. Colleagues in asking his hon. Friend to allow the Bill to proceed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not know whether he ought to raise the question, and expect an answer from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Jackson); but there was an item for the improvement of leaseholds, not a large, but still a substantial sum. Could the hon. Gentleman give any explanation in regard to this application of public money——
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question had no relation to the 1st clause; the hon. Member was probably referring to the Schedule.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Certain debts not to be reckoned as assets of the local loans fund).
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he thought the loans to tenant farmers for the improvement of their holdings was a discreet outlay of public money? He had heard suspicions expressed as to the manner in which examinations took place in regard to these advances, and seeing the unfavourable position of Irish tenant farmers, and noticing, moreover, that the repayments were exceedingly small, it was not a profitable proceeding. The sums were small, and he did not know in what part of Ireland these particular tenants were; but that was not material. Then there was the Slob Land Reclamation Company, £129,000 odd, and it must be perfectly clear to anybody who knew anything about the matter that the money was thrown away, and finally lost. He would ask whether or not the outlay was entirely finished; and, if so, whether this would be accepted as a caution in time to come to refrain from listening to private speculators and swindling promoters of schemes? Let the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury put his foot down firmly for all time to come—to lend no ear to any schemes unless bonâ fide security could be shown.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, hon. Members might be under the impression that this was a sum about to be lent; but he might just say that he quite agreed with the hon. Member as to the necessity for security, for he was afraid these must he looked upon as bad debts. As to putting his foot down and refusing loans for any such purpose, he thought hon. Members were aware that he held in very high esteem the desire to limit the obligations of the Treasury in this direction, and he could promise, as far as possible, to keep a firm hand on the public money.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that was all very well; but he would point out that practically the House was asked to sanction more expenditure in the same direction. It was too grossly absurd and grotesque. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members who interrupted should have some experience of the slob land, and they would understand this

  247
  better. If this £1,000,000 were entrusted to the Board of Works, as probably it would be, without proper consideration, there was every reason to fear that these bad precedents would be followed in spite of repeated warnings, and the desire of Irishmen that the money should be spent in works really productive and benefiting the country.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL DEFENCE BILL.— [BILL 235.]
(Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Mr. Brodrick.)
NATIONAL DEFENCE BILL.— [BILL 235.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2 (Calling out for actual military service of yeomanry and volunteers).
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, he proposed to postpone for another opportunity this controversial clause that had reference to the Volunteers.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he was sure there was no wish on the part of Volunteers that the clause should not be proceeded with; and there would be a feeling of regret among the Force generally that it should be implied by the Bill that they occupied an inferior position to the Yeomanry and Militia.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, holding it to be a matter of high national importance that the Bill should pass before the Adjournment he would withdraw the clause, which had provoked much difference of opinion, for a more convenient occasion.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 3 (Calling out for actual service of naval artillery volunteer corps).
  MR. MOLLOYasked, did the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the same course with this clause?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, certainly not.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he had not so much information in reference to Naval Volunteers; but as the Act would pass in a few days, and become operative at once, recruits for the Naval Volunteers would not have information as to its effect and the conditions of their service. In order that they might have due notice when they joined, he proposed to insert as an Amendment, in line 13, the words "for six months after the passing of this Act."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "at the passing of this Act," and insert the words "for six months after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Molloy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, the number of persons to whom it would apply would would be very small, and he would not object to the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words inserted.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, a consequential Amendment would be required in line 15.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the words "passing of this Act," and insert the words "last-mentioned date."—(Mr. Molloy.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Amendment of 44 & 45 Vict. c. 58, s. 115, as to supply of carriages and vessels in case of emergency).
  On the Motion of Mr. E. STANHOPE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 9, at end, to insert the words—
  "And in determining the amount of the purchase money for any carriage, animal, or vessel purchased regard shall be had to any injury caused to the trade or business of the person furnishing the same, by reason of his being required to furnish a larger proportion of his carriages, animals, or vessels than other persons in the same trade or business are required to furnish."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  New Clause—
  (Calling out for actual military service of yeomanry.)

  "(1.) Whenever an order for the embodiment of the militia is in force, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen to call out for actual military service all or any of the corps of yeomanry of Her Majesty's military forces, and sections eighteen to twenty-five (both inclusive) of 'The Militia Act, 1882,' so far as they relate to embodying and disembodying the militia, shall apply to the yeomanry in like manner as if embodying were calling out for actual military service, and disembodying were releasing from actual military service, and as if the said sections were herein re-enacted, and in terms made applicable to the yeomanry.

  (2.) Every corps of yeomanry when called out for actual military service shall be liable to serve in any part of Great Britain until released from actual military service, but before being released shall be returned to the county to which it belongs.

  (3.) Nothing in this section shall apply without his consent to a man enrolled in any corps of yeomanry at the passing of this Act, but as regards all men enrolled after the passing of this Act, the Acts specified in the first schedule to this Act shall be repealed to the extent in the third column of that schedule mentioned,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

  —brought up, and read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  On the Motion of Mr. E. STANHOPE, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, Schedule 1, Column 3, leave out the words "sub-sections one and three of section eighteen."
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MUNICIPAL FUNDS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Jackson, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MUNICIPAL FUNDS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 371.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Costs of promoting or opposing Bills to require sanction of meetings).
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, the Bill was modelled on the Act of 1872; but in line 27 of this clause there was a divergence from that Act. The proposal here was to be submitted to the Local Government Board or the Chief
  250
  Secretary, and they might disapprove; and they were to have a month or as much time as might be necessary for consideration. It was undesirable that the period should be unlimited, for the delay might render nugatory any proceedings in reference to a Private Bill. A month was surely long enough; otherwise the Governing Body would never really know whether the authorities disapproved or not.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, in ordinary cases a month would be sufficient; but it might happen that a project might be of such magnitude that that time would not suffice; and then there would be an advantage in having some elasticity in the system. As a rule, a month would be a sufficient interval.
  MR. SEXTONsuggested that some words should be inserted, so that the Governing Body should receive information, and not be left in suspense for an uncertain interval.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, it was rather difficult to make the alteration now; but he would consult with the draftsman to-morrow, and see if anything of the kind could be done.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Vote of the electors).
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, in order to save the borough from the expense and vexation of a poll at the instance of individuals entertaining some crotchet, though the feeling of the ratepayers might be almost unanimous in one direction, the objection should be on the part of some reasonable number of ratepayers—say, a dozen.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, to leave out the word "person," and insert the words "twelve persons."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the difficulty about accepting that was that the words of the clause followed the lines of the English Act, and he could not assent to the alteration without some consideration.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the English Act was passed when the ideas of local

  251
  government were not so advanced as they were now. Take Dublin as an illustration. Public opinion was generally in favour of the action of the Town Council; but it might happen that because the judgments of some two or three persons were not satisfied, the ratepayers might be put to the heavy cost of a poll. He would not press it, however.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at end of Clause—"All expenses properly and necessarily incurred in giving notice, and in convening and holding a meeting in regard to this section, and all expenses necessarily and properly incurred in taking a poll and providing polling stations, shall, whether the Bill is proceeded with or not, be charged to the borough funds or rates to which the expenses in favour of a proposal or in opposing the Bill are made chargeable under this Act."—(Sir James Corry.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the Amendment had not come before him in time to consult with his Colleagues in reference to it; and, therefore, he hoped that, though he accepted it, it might be held as still open for consideration.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the Amendment was absolutely necessary, for it might happen that although on a poll it might be found that a majority of the ratepayers differed from the Corporation, still the latter might have acted unanimously and in perfect good faith for what they considered the good of the borough, and it would be a grievous hardship if individual members should be saddled with expenses that clearly ought to fall upon the common fund.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that if the provision were necessary here, then it ought to be necessary in the English Act. He did not know that there were any complaints in this respect of the English Act, though he had known a case in which the action of the Corporation was not supported on a poll, and the expenses were paid, though from what fund he could not say.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not admit that what in either case would be a hardship should be submitted to in Ireland because it had not been complained of in England.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he might fairly ask that the example set by the Government might be followed, and that the third reading should now be taken.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he must ask the House to defer Consideration until the next Sitting. He had assented to an Amendment without having had an opportunity of consulting the draftsman, and had promised to consider another. It would be improper for him to assent to the Bill outright, without careful consideration of the whole of the circumstances it was intended to cover. There would be no actual delay in letting the consideration of Report stand over for a day.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MARRIAGES VALIDATION BILL [Lords].
(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
MARRIAGES VALIDATION BILL [Lords].

  [BILL 370.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid, when he formerly asked that the Bill might be postponed, it was because he had a suspicion of what might be effected under cover of the measure. Having since then satisfied himself that the only object of the Bill was to relieve the unfortunate people from the anomalous and invidious position in which they were placed, an object with which he had every sympathy, he would offer no opposition to the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed; considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he hoped the House would now agree to take the third reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, the Government had passed over the preceding Order, the Local Bankruptcy Bill for Ireland. It was practically a Government measure, though not marked so, and there was an understanding that it should be proceeded with. In such an expectation, he and his hon. Friends had waited while the Government made progress with their Business. If they were to be humbugged after all, he certainly should object to any further Business being taken. There was no opposition to the measure.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Very well.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill road the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 344.]
(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 344.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BIGGARsaid, there seemed to be much anxiety to have this Bill passed; but, so far as he could see, its primary object was to carry out a small job of an electioneering nature in West Belfast. If the Government thought proper to assist in carrying out such an object, he would not throw any obstacle in the way.
  DR. TANNERhoped his hon. Friend would forego his objection.
  MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he desired to say, on behalf of many traders in the South of Ireland, that they were deeply interested in the passing of the Bill. Whatever motives there might be elsewhere, the traders of the South of Ireland desired facilities by which they should have the means of coming to arrangements with their debtors. He doubted not that similar desires existed in other parts of Ireland, and he did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) represented any serious opposition.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON,)said, he
  254
  thought his public life would be sufficient answer to any imputation of sitting in that House to promote any electioneering job in West Belfast, or anywhere else. As the hon. Member for West Cavan was nominally his Colleague, he refrained from using language he might otherwise employ.
  SIR WILLIAM EWARTsaid, the measure had been much desired for many years, and he had great pleasure in supporting it.
  MR. M'CARTANsaid, that, as a Belfast resident, he repudiated any such motive in supporting the Bill as that suggested by the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar). It was one of the few things upon which the opinions of all classes in Belfast were united. It was intended to do away with jobbery, to prevent debtors' estates being eaten up by costs in Dublin, and to give creditors a fair share in the assets.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to make provision for the Office of Divisional Magistrates in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 374.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  THE SECRETARY To THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, that having now reached the end of the Government programme, he believed he should be carrying out the general understanding in moving the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr Jackson.)
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but only to express his great disappointment that he had not had an opportunity of bringing before the House, in consequence of the way in which Business had been managed, the very serious feeling that he knew existed in Wales, and he believed to a great extent in England, at the unjust im-

  255
  prisonment of Mr. Dillon and other Members. He knew it would be useless for him to attempt to bring on the Motion which stood on the Paper now, and he would offer no observation beyond the expression of his great disappointment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—St. Giles Restoration (Scotland) Act Amendment* (261); Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*; Bail (Scotland)* (262); Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations)* (263), Sea Fisheries Regulation* (264); Sale of Goods* (267); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (268); Public Works Loans* (269); Expiring Laws Continuance* (270); Hawkers* (271); Oaths* (272).
Report—Third Reading—Local Government (England and Wales) (257), and passed.
Third Reading—Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland) (246–266), and passed.

ST. GILES RESTORATION (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD BALFOUR: I desire to present a Bill for the purpose of amending an Act passed in the year 1879 concerning the restoration of St. Giles' Cathedral Church, Edinburgh. The circumstances under which this Bill is presented are as follows:—The late Dr. William Chambers offered in 1879 to restore St. Giles' Cathedral Church, provided the congregation worshipping in one part of it were provided with another church elsewhere. £10,000 was subscribed for that purpose, and the congregation of West St. Giles' had another church built for them. The sum of £500 was also set aside in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Scotland for the upkeep of the fabric of St. Giles',
  56
  but in the Act a clause was inserted for the purpose of preventing, as it was then thought, the use of St. Giles' Church for secular purposes. Under that clause the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, acting, I believe, from the purest motives and in pursuance of what they thought to be their duty, have claimed the right to draw seat rents from the part of St. Giles' Church formerly occupied by the West St. Giles' congregation, in spite of the fact that a new church has been furnished in lieu of it. The object of this Bill is to declare what we believe to have been the real intention of the Act of Parliament, as carrying out the bargain between the late Dr. William Chambers and the public. The only other purpose of the Bill I am now presenting is to make a slight increase in the managing Board of St. Giles' Cathedral. I should like to add that in this matter I am acting on behalf of the representatives of the late Dr. Chambers and members of the Committee who got this £10,500 from the public; and I may further say that there is no intention of attempting to proceed with the Bill until the Autumn Session. I hope before long it will be printed and circulated, so that if anybody objects, which I do not anticipate, no one will have reason to say he has been taken an undue advantage of.
  Bill to amend an Act to make provision in regard to the restoration of the ancient church of St. Giles' in the city of Edinburgh—Presented (The Lord BALFOUR).
  Bill read 1a (No. 261).

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE LATE GERMAN EMPEROR.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS. [JUNE 18.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)read to the House the following translation of a letter from the German Ambassador expressing the thanks of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, for the special Resolution of sympathy passed by the House of Lords with the sorrow of the Imperial family of Germany on the occasion of the death of the Emperor Frederick:—
  "German Embassy, London,
  "July 31, 1888.
  "My Lord,—On the occasion of the decease of His Majesty the Emperor and King Frede-

  57
  rick, my gracious Sovereign, the two Houses of the English Parliament sent expressions of condolence to Her Majesty and Empress-Queen Frederick, the House of Lords and the House of Commons both in the form of resolutions dated June 18. Besides this, the House of Lords expressed by a special resolution of the same date their deep sympathy with the sorrow of the Imperial family, of the Government, and of the people of Germany. Although I may remark that the thanks of Her Majesty have already been conveyed to the two Houses of Parliament for the resolutions of sympathy addressed to Her through the British Ambassador at Berlin, I am instructed to express the thanks of His Majesty the Emperor and King for the second resolution of the House of Lords, and I beg your Lordship to inform the Upper House of the fact.
  "I have, &c.,
  "V. HATZFELDT.
  "The Marquess of Salisbury, K.G."

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he wished to call attention to a recent case in which a young woman named Catherine Morgan was arrested and charged with the murder of her infant child. Some comments had been made upon the statement of the Judge who tried the case that the conduct of the police towards the prisoner had been cruel and inhuman. He fully justified the criticisms of the learned Judge. The girl was arrested by the police late at night, and examined at once by a medical man in the presence of a female searcher. After a lengthy experience he could say that there was no class of evidence which required more careful watching than that given by the police.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he did not quite follow his noble and learned Friend in his statement of what had occurred. The evidence given by the police was amply corroborated. The facts appeared to be that the girl was secretly delivered of a dead child, and, for the purpose of concealing her shame, she placed the body in a tub. If that was for the purpose of concealment, she was guilty of a misdemeanour and ought to have been found guilty of it. The police appeared to have been under the impression that there was some evidence which justified them in suspecting, at all events, that the child was murdered. Consequently they
  58
  were bound to act as they did. The girl, who denied altogether the birth of the child, assented to the examination by the doctor, and immediately afterwards she was placed in the infirmary. Neither the girl nor her friends made any complaint whatever of the conduct of the police. He only said this much upon the facts as stated before them. There might or there might not have been an error of judgment on the part of the police in not waiting till the next morning for the examination, but he thought the young woman, who had been so near to committing an offence against the law, had not very much reason to complain. Occasionally the police failed. Like other men they were at times guilty of error of judgment, but this was a failing to which all, from the highest to the lowest, engaged in the administration of justice, were equally liable. He certainly could not agree with the implied censure of the police, for after a very lengthy experience in the Courts of Justice he maintained that a finer or more respectable body of men it would be difficult to find anywhere.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he was very glad the Lord Chancellor had spoken out in the way he had, and he certainly did not in any way agree with the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice. The police, not merely in London, but in the provinces, gave their evidence as well as any set of men who came before the Courts. They had a most difficult duty to perform. They had no right whatever to question a prisoner, but very often the kindest act they could render him was to put a question to him. In the case mentioned, had the girl's statement been confirmed by a medical man, she would have been at once liberated.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he entirely concurred in what the noble and learned Lord had just said about the high character and the general good conduct of the police both in London and throughout the country. He thought they were subject to very great temptations, and it was not remarkable if at times they deviated from the course which calm judgment would dictate. Without in the slightest degree wishing to cast discredit on the evidence given by the police, it must be remembered that the evidence of any body of men ought to be carefully scrutinized. There was a natural temptation to men in the position

  59
  of the police which might load them sometimes to exaggerate. Considering, also, the rate of pay given to the police, it was not marvellous that occasionally they acted improperly. The wonder rather was that they could get a body of men to discharge their duties so well. It was owing to the temptations to which they were subject that proper caution—he did not mean unreasonable caution—should be attached to the evidence they gave.
  LORD COLERIDGEwas understood to say that he did not desire to make any general charge against the police. A body of men engaged in the pursuit of crime were naturally sometimes over zealous, and their evidence required to be watched.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY), in moving that the Bill be now read a first time, said, I wish to say a word in respect to our proceedings with regard to this Bill. We propose to read it a second time to-morrow, but we are much in the hands of the House as to what the further proceeding shall be. If the House accepts the second reading, we propose to take the Committee stage on Saturday, and if there is no objection, which seems to be entirely reasonable to suppose, we will take the third reading on Saturday also. That, however, is not a method which I should like to use with the power of a majority. It must be entirely a question for noble Lords opposite as to whether they think that is a reasonable course or not.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have, of course, no objection to the Committee being taken on Saturday, but I should not like to give a decided opinion now as to the third reading.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 263.)

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Moved to resolve
  "That the following be made a Standing Order: A copy of every Local Bill, if amended
  60
  in Committee, shall, as so amended, be deposited at the Office of Her Majesty's Treasury and at the General Post Office three days before the Bill is read a third time: Agreed to; and the said resolution ordered to be added to the Roll of Standing Orders, to be numbered 143A, and to be printed. (No. 265.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order) and dispensed with during present sittings of the House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 257.)
  (The Lord Balfour.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the said Report be now received."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  LORD DENMAN, in moving that the Report of Amendments be received that day six months, said, that the rejection of Lord Basing's Amendment for selection of County Councils out of magistrates only was a condemnation of Lord Lieutenants, who, especially in Derbyshire, had nominated Justices of the Peace without any bias as to Party. The noble Lord (Lord Balfour), who piloted the Bill so ably, admitted that they had conducted the financial business of each county with economy and ability; but it was proposed to transfer this important duty to a Council, the election for which—only partly admitting women—had to be registered in a most complicated manner, and the election would be far more disturbing than a General Parliamentary Election—a step which he wished to see put off until the new electors had a more thorough knowledge of the great questions of the day. When cloture was first proposed by another Government, he (Lord Denman), at a meeting to celebrate the return of a Conservative Member for South Derbyshire, held at Ashbourne, said he should look with great suspicion on any Bill from "another place" which might not have received orderly consideration; but this Bill was passed by suspension of the Standing Orders, in a late Sitting in the House of Commons, and hastened by the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and read a first time in their Lordships' House on the same night. What was its origin? A talented M.P. had

  61
  said that, "whichever Party might be in Office, a Local Government Bill would be framed." But this Bill did not satisfy the Opposition, who wished to carry it much farther; and it was rumoured that a like Bill was to be proposed for Scotland, whilst the noble Lord the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill), as well as the right hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Birmingham, wished to adopt a similar Bill for Ireland; but their Lordships knew how much the views of the last two were distrusted in Ireland, whilst the noble Lord had not gained their confidence. The grant of part of the Probate Duty and of the Licensing Duties might he invalid through a change of Votes in Supply. The abandonment of the Licensing Authority disappointed the temperance advocates, and the withdrawal of the Compensation Clause took away the attempt to satisfy the licensed victuallers. The only place of distinction he (Lord Denman) had in the county was as Chairman of the Committee for conferring or rejecting new licences. He had attended all meetings where a quorum was requsite for 34 years. He had often gone 12 miles to Buxton and Chapel-en-le-Frith, and had often given up a day's hunting to do so. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had been told that his speech should have been against the second reading. The same was said as to the Irish Land Bill by the Earl of Derby—the advocate of Life Peerages—and of this Bill, of which he is to be the head. His Lordship said—"You should have voted against the second reading of a Bill confessedly a failure." He (Lord Denman) was sure that great confusion would arise if this Bill were to become law. The new elections were to begin in January, 1889, and business to commence not earlier than 1st of April. He could not hope to see the effect of this measure, for he ought to say, like Prospero—
  "Every third thought shall be my grave."—(Tempest, Act V., Scene I.")
  On third reading, passed by suspension of Standing Orders, it was said they were creating a rival power which no Local Government Board would be able to control.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and add at the end of the Motion, "this day six months."—(The Lord Denman.)
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I do not rise to enter into any general discussion such as the Notice of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Denman) is framed to open, but to make one or two remarks upon the London Clauses which could not well be made at any former moment, so great was the desire on Monday to go at once into Committee, and then to get through all the work of the Committee in one evening. I desire merely to support the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Fortescue) who has twice spoken in the sense which I approve of. He ought not it seems to me to be alone. Beyond this House, indeed, he is not. Mr. Bowles, who has brought much ability to bear upon the subject, in an elaborate arraignment of the Bill contributed to The Fortnightly Review of April last, decidedly sustains him. Mr. Baumann, a Metropolitan Member, in The National Review of June, as regards the London Clauses, has unanswerably backed him. He has a yet more powerful supporter in the country. It is the most authoritative organ of the Party which the Government belong to, in an article intended to explain the Bill and recommend it. What is the language of The Quarterly Review in a recent number? Although I hardly ever read an extract, your Lordships ought, I think, to be possessed of it.
  "It would have been wiser to have postponed the Metropolitan portion of the Bill till another Session. The Bill is rural in its essence. The scheme for London government set out in the Bill would depend for its success on a healthy and influential public opinion which exists in country districts but does not exist in the Metropolis. The impossibility of getting more than a small percentage of voters to exercise the franchise, which has been demonstrated in a long order of various Metropolitan elections, proves that there is no such common interest in London government as would result in a strong and able County Council. But looking to the state of affairs which had been reached in this month, they might have been dropped without disadvantage. They are admittedly imperfect. And it is far better that London should wait a while for some more comprehensive and well-worked out system of government, than that valuable time should have been consumed in the discussion of temporary proposals, which must be amended in another Session."
  Such is the language of The Quarterly

  63
  Review, although so very far from hostile to the measure. For anything we know, it is an emanation of the Cabinet. For anything we know, it comes directly from the Minister. But we are not to fathom the anonymous. One thing is manifest. In the course of these discussions, no vindication of the London Clauses has been offered. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill with so much mastery of detail seemed to pass them over altogether. The noble Marquess did not say a word on their necessity or policy. No answer either was attempted to the speeches of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. The ground I take is that London must be separately handled, and cannot be disposed of parenthetically. Opinion is exceedingly divided between the plan of an immense municipality like that presented by Sir William Harcourt and the plan of many corporations which was urged by Mr. S. Mill, by Mr. Buxton, and, I believe, by Mr. Torrens. The subject is one which merits long debate and long deliberation. The partizans of neither scheme ought to be contented with this precipitate arrangement. To create a London Council suddenly and blindly, while the mind of Parliament is not directed to that topic, would be a sacrifice of prudence. A London Council may always be a great political organization, full of menace and embarrassment to Cabinets and statesmen. Even the City was so in the last century, as you may see by merely glancing at contemporary pages. At this moment, unless I am wholly misinformed, every French Government is more or less engaged in a struggle with municipal authority in Paris. There are two or three grounds on which Her Majesty's Government might well accede to the omission of these clauses without the faintest loss of dignity. They form a specimen of tacking which the Government would have been certain to expose if it had come from any other quarter. It is much as if in some measure to reform one House of Parliament, a few sections to reconstruct the other had been surreptitiously injected. Again, when legislation has been active for more than 50 years, its material must be inevitably circumscribed. It is not expedient to consume by mixing in one Session the problems upon which two Sessions would be legitimately exercised.
  64
  In this very year the noble Marquess delivered an anathema against large and comprehensive measures, in which he pointed out with emphasis that separate enactments are more prudent. Indeed, on two questions—the adjustment of tithes and the alteration of this House—he has conspicuously acted on the view which he put forward. Why is it now to be abandoned? Does this Bill emerge from quarters independent of the Government? There has seldom been one more large, more comprehensive, more heterogeneous, or, therefore, less in accord with the principle the noble Marquess had laid down for his direction. If any defence is given, it is that the Metropolitan Board ought at once to be superseded. How do we know that a London Council suddenly created will be less corrupt or more effective. If the Metropolitan Board of Works has not turned out well, there cannot be too much deliberation in replacing it. It is not likely that for many months the Metropolitan Board of Works will be hurried into error. It is now under the vigilant control of the Press, the public, and the Chairman is thoroughly awakened. There is no tendency more common or less prudent than to be full of caution against evils which have recently appeared, and full of blindness as to those which may emerge from the securities adopted. On that point illustrations might be given from history and from private life, if I was not reluctant to detain your Lordships any longer. What I suggest is, that without any adverse vote Her Majesty's Government should from their own initiative eliminate these Clauses 40 to 45 inclusively—under the shelter of the friendly counsellor whose language I have brought before them. By such a course the Bill might be retarded, but if it is there will not be a national calamity. Delay will be no injury to them nor to the public.
  On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  LORD THRINGwas understood to appeal to the Prime Minister to allow the matter as to the division of Suffolk to be an open question.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)could not assent to this, as it might lead to a conflict between the two Houses.
  Clause 2 (Composition and election of council and position of chairman).
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, having forborne, with a view to your Lordships' convenience, moving an Amendment in Committee, I venture to ask your kind indulgence for the few remarks with which I shall have to trouble you with regard to the Amendment which I have placed on the Notice Paper. On the advantages of the collection of votes given by the electors of voting papers instead of at polling booths, of sending the few collectors round to the many electors instead of the many electors to the few clerks at the polling booths, whether to vote by ballot or otherwise, I have long had strong convictions—indeed more than 30 years ago I wrote a private memorandum upon it for the then President of the Poor Law Board, who asked my leave to lay it before the House of Commons, and moved for it accordingly, as some Peer did soon after in this House. And, though I individually, after repeatedly risking my seat by opposing the ballot for Parliamentary elections, became a convert to it shortly after being called up to this House, I did so, retaining my preference for the system of voting long in use for the election of Guardians. But it should be remembered that the County Councils which the Bill creates are not at all analogous to the House of Commons. They will not decide the fate of Ministries. They are to be purely administrative, not legislative; and it is desirable, therefore, that the Councillors should be elected with a view to their businesslike rather than oratorical qualities, and that the votes for and against them should be given calmly, and under the influence of quiet conviction, not of political excitement. The ballot—according to an American statesman in The Contemporary Review, in 1880—has in the United States failed to suppress either intimidation or bribery. In England, as the Election trials after the Dissolution of 1880 proved, the ballot has not prevented, though it has much shielded, electoral corruption. The difficulty is, as it always has been, to get ordinary voters to vote without
  66
  payment; and that will, of course, be greater in the rural districts, where they have much further to go for that purpose than in urban districts, where the polling booths are comparatively close to the voters' houses. In the two last General Elections, a large proportion, doubtless of the newly-enfranchised electors, voted for the pleasure of exercising their new right twice within a year, and with exaggerated hopes of the happy result to themselves of doing so. The proportion voting then should therefore not be taken as probably normal. But, reverting to elections taking place under more ordinary conditions, we find that even in the larger boroughs, with their numerous polling booths, the proportion who did not take the trouble of voting was very large. There were contests in each of the 24 largest boroughs in Great Britain in 1874, when less than two-thirds of the electors in them voted. In 1880 there were contests again in 23 out of the 24, when only half could be got to vote in spite of the great exertions made and the great amount of money spent. Nor was this a new feature, for only 55 per cent of the electors were found to have voted at the General Election in 1852 in 12 very large boroughs. But there was an opportunity of testing the working of the two systems in connection with elections for local as distinguished from Parliamentary purposes, given at St. Pancras, in consequence of a legal mistake made by the Poor Law Commissioners, who erroneously thought themselves empowered to issue the same election order to that as to other parishes. An election by voting papers accordingly took place there in 1837, at which more than half the electors voted. Shortly after that, in consequence of a decision of the Courts, the elections there had to be conducted again under what was known as Hobhouse's Act, and under that a more than usually exciting contest took place in 1853. But only about one-seventh of the electors could be got to vote at it. In 1879, after the parish had been divided into wards, there were contests in four of them, when nearly half voted with voting papers. Mr. Rendle, a Medical Officer of Health, told the Committee of the House of Commons on the Metropolis Local Management Act, that he himself was elected as a vestryman by about 12

  67
  votes, but as a Guardian by voting papers by some 1,200 votes; and that that proportion was not at all unusual in his parish. I do not contend that under the voting paper system no voter is bribed or coerced into destroying or making void his voting paper, or into filling it up contrary to his convictions. I only maintain that a far greater number of electors being thus induced to vote, the general result of an election gives a much truer representation of the real, deliberate feeling of the whole body of electors than does going to the poll, whether publicly or under the ballot. Moreover, the abstention from voting is not that of the least desirable electors. Of course, the very best men take a part in elections from a sense of duty, religious or patriotic, or both. Then a certain number, placing a just value on their time—namely, a very small one, take a part in them from a love of the excitement, the conviviality, and the gossip attending them, to say nothing of any hope of possible personal future advantage. There is, however, a large number of men of good average industry and character who, caring much for their own interest and their families, cannot be persuaded—however decided their preference or however clear their convictions—to sacrifice for any public cause or any candidate by going to vote at a polling-place, the time and labour which they value so highly and know so well how to turn to good account. If the opinions of Committees of Inquiry are to be regarded, it should not be forgotten that one, of which Mr. John Stuart Mill was a Member, unanimously recommended the adoption of the system of voting by voting papers in use for the election of Poor Law Guardians, not as being without disadvantages, but as being on the whole the best. I have to thank your Lordships for the kind patience with which you have listened to my arguments in favour of an Amendment to which I am not sanguine enough to expect you to assent; and I will only repeat in this late stage of the Bill that, notwithstanding my objections to its mode of dealing with the Metropolis and with the mode of voting, I hail this measure as on the whole being not only comprehensive but satisfactory.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 18, at the end of the line insert ("The
  68
  councillors shall be elected in like manner as guardians of the poor").—The Earl Fortescue.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he must resist the Amendment, which was utterly inconsistent with the whole scheme of the Bill, and for all practical purposes, if it were insisted upon and inserted, the House might just as well have accepted the Motion of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Denmam) and stopped the Bill. Therefore, he hoped at this stage the House would not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of Lord BALFOUR, the following new sub-section was inserted at the end of the clause:—
  "The county council may from time to time appoint a member of the council to be deputy chairman, to hold office during the term of office of the chairman, and, subject to any rules made from time to time by the county council, anything authorized or required to be done by, to, or before the chairman may be done by, to, or before such deputy chairman."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Powers as to police).
  On the Motion of the Marquess of SALISBURY, Amendment made, in page 6, line 17, at end of line, by inserting—
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect the powers, duties, and liabilities of justices of the peace as conservators of the peace, or the obligation of the chief constable or other constables to obey their lawful orders given in that behalf."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Adjustment of financial relations between counties and boroughs).
  On the Motion of the Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 24, line 13, after Sub-section (2), by inserting as a separate sub-section—
  "In the adjustment regard shall be had to the considerations that the county is not to be placed in any worse financial position by reason of the boroughs therein being constituted county boroughs, and that a county borough is not to be placed in a worse financial position than it would have been if it had remained part of the county."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 76 (Application of Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, to county councils and this Act).
  On the Motion of the Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 69, line 14,

  69
  at the end of line, by inserting as a fresh sub-section after sub-section 13—
  "The quorum of the council shall be one-fourth of the whole number of the council, and one-fourth shall, for the purposes of this section, be substituted for one-third in paragraph ten of the second schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882."
  "'Ten days' shall be substituted for five days' in section thirty-four of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as the time within which a person elected to a corporate office is to accept that office, and twelve months shall be substituted for six months in section thirty-nine of the said Act as the period of absence which disqualifies an alderman or councillor."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill read 3a with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he desired to say a few words on the passage of this great measure. He wished to say one word as to the intimate knowledge of the subject displayed by the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) who had charge of this complicated Bill, and the ability with which he had conducted it, and he was sure that the noble Lord would be ready to acknowledge that he had received valuable assistance from his noble Friends sitting behind him (Earl Granville). The Bill contained a very valuable principle for the country generally and for the Metropolis. He gathered from what the noble Marquess was reported to have said yesterday that he regarded this Bill as a final measure. If so, that would very much diminish his own satisfaction.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in using the word final he merely meant that it was final with respect to the matters with which it dealt. He did not mean that no supplementary provisions would be necessary. In fact, there was a whole branch of the subject which had been left out of the Bill on account of the impossibility of passing it, owing to the lapse of time.
  LORD BALFOURthanked the noble Earl for the more than kind manner in which he had spoken of himself. He cordially concurred in the remark that he had had valuable assistance, not only from noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, but from all sections of the House. He desired to add that he was quite certain that the Bill could not
  70
  have been dealt with by the House with the ease with which it had been were it not for the intimate knowledge of the subject shown and the excellent work done by the permanent officials of the Local Government Board, to whom also he wished to express his thanks for the services rendered to him.

SALE OF GOODS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he rose to call attention to the expediency of codifying certain branches of the Criminal Law, and to present a Bill for codifying the law relating to the sale of goods. Whatever opinion might be entertained as to the practicability of the general codification of our law, experience had proved that the codification of certain branches of it was both possible and desirable. Their Lordships and the country had had experience of a code passed some years ago of the laws relating to bills of exchange and negotiable instruments. That code, he believed, had worked in the most satisfactory manner, and it had been adopted by more than one of our own Colonies. He believed, also, that a proposal had been laid before the Congress of the United States for the adoption of a precisely similar code. It was desirable that the same principle of codification should be applied to other branches of the law. He had, therefore, brought before their Lordships a Bill codifying the law relating to the sale of goods. If anything could be done to codify the law at all, it could only be effected by taking special subjects and devoting to them that minute care and attention which was only possible when isolated subjects were dealt with. The Bill had been drafted by the same learned Gentleman who was now the County Court Judge of Birmingham, and who was the author of the Bill codifying the law relating to bills of exchange. He had sufficiently examined it to be able to say—though he could not pledge himself to every detail—that the work was very satisfactorily done, and well worthy of the consideration of Parliament. He introduced it now, not because he proposed to proceed with it during the present Sittings, but for the purpose of making it public and obtaining that criticism of the Profession which was a most import-

  71
  ant aid to the satisfactory passing of a measure of this description. After the Bill had been read a first time, he hoped that the assistance of the Profession, which, on such a matter, was never asked in vain, would enable their Lordships during the ensuing Session to make a practical effort to pass the Bill into law.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, your Lordships should be thankful to the noble and learned Lord for the care he has taken in relation to a very difficult, and, in some particulars, an obscure branch of the law. The noble and learned Lord has wisely adopted the plan of codifying the law on one subject at a time. The more ambitious plan is unsuited to our legislative requirements, and consequently fails. I may mention that it is to the noble Lord we owe the successful Code of the law as to bills, notes, cheques, and other negotiable instruments; and I anticipate that his present attempt will be equally successful.
  Bill for codifying the law relating to the sale of goods.—Presented (The Lord HERSCHELL).
  Bill read 1a. (No. 267.)
  House adjourned during pleasure at 6.10 P.M.
  House resumed by The Lord KINTORE (E. Kintore) at 3.31 A.M.
  Several Bills brought from the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock, A.M., till half past One o'clock, P.M.