Sitting of 20 February 1888

MINUTES.
AFFIRMATION.—Joseph Firth Bottomley Firth, esquire, Member for the Burgh of Dundee, being one of the people called Quakers, made the Affirmation required by Law.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Richard Knight Causton, esquire, for Southwark (West Division).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Amendment * [131]; Criminal Evidence * [132]; Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment * [133]; Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (India) * [134]; Pauper Lunatics' Asylums (Ireland) (Officers' Superannuation) * [135].

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (REMAND OF A MEMBER IN CUSTODY).
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House, that he had received the following Letter relating to the Remand in Custody of a Member of this House:—
Clonmel,
Ireland,
16th February, 1888.
Sir,
I beg leave to inform you that late last night I remanded Douglas Pyne, esq. a Member of the House of Commons, until Wednesday next the 22nd February, when he is to be brough
858
up for trial, under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, at Clonmel. He is now, and will remain until that day, in Clonmel Prison.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
S. T. CAREW,
Resident Magistrate.
The Right Honourable,
The Speaker, House of Commons.

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA—RAILWAY FROM SUKKUR TO SIBI—THE SCINDE-PISHIN LINE.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will supply the House with details of the cost, up to date, of the railway from Sukkur to Sibi; and, also, of the railways known respectively as the Scinde-Pishin line and the line through the Bolan Pass; also, the estimated cost of the extension, by means of tunnelling, to Chaman?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The cost of the line from Sukkur to Sibi was Rs. x. 1,293,710, exclusive of Rs. x. 294,941, the cost of the Sukkur Bridge. The cost of the Scinde-Pishin line was Rs. x. 4,085,603; of Bolan Pass line, Rs. x. 875,711; of Killa Abdullah Branch, Rs. x. 48,351; of extension, with tunnelling, to Chaman, Rs. x. 1,408,697. The total cost of all lines and branches was Rs. x. 8,007,013.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Is it intended to carry out the tunnelling?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The work is in course of construction.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED ATTACK ON CHURCHES, &c.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the speech of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. H. K. Redmond), at the meeting of the National League, as reported in The Freeman's Journal of the 15th instant, in which he is reported to have said that the
  "Orangemen of Ireland" were "hirelings engaged in attacking their own churches, so as to have the fact of these outrages wired to England;"

  859
  whether he has any evidence to support the allegation of the hon. Member, that they were committed by "some Orange enemy of the Nationalist cause;" whether, on Friday, the 20th of January, there were illuminations in those parts of Fermanagh where there were branches of the National League; and whether a light was seen in Oughterdrum Church, near Castlecaldwell, by parties across Lough Erne; whether, next morning, the church door was found open, and, on the remains of a fire, the large Bible of the church half burnt, and burnt parts of the communion cloth were found among the ashes; and, if he will make further efforts to discover the perpetrators of the outrages near Castlecaldwell and at Mulloughdun?
  MR. H. CAMPBELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I would like to ask him whether it is a fact that some years ago an outrage was committed in Castlecaldwell, and whether efforts were not made to fasten the outrage on the Catholics of the district; whether it turned out that the author of the outrage was not a Catholic, but a stranger brought into the neighbourhood by a local magnate; whether it is a fact that the perpetration of the present outrage has been charged against the Nationalists and Catholics of Fermanagh; whether there is evidence to prove the contrary of Mr. Redmond's allegation; and whether, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman intends to resort to the provisions of the Coercion Act to let in light upon these mysterious matters?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of his Question, as I have no knowledge whatever of the events to which he refers. In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that my attention has been called to the speech referred to. The County Inspector of Constabulary reports there is no ground for the allegation contained therein. It appears that there were illuminations at Derrygonelly, where there is a branch of the National League, on Friday, the 20th of January, and on the following day at several places in Fermanagh, where there were branches of the National League. A light was seen in the direction of Oughterdrum
  860
  Church between 5 and 6 o'clock on Saturday morning, and later that day the outrage alluded to was found to have been perpetrated. The police are making every effort to discover the guilty persons.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—NON-DELIVERY OF A REGISTERED LETTER.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Postmaster General, Whethe he is aware that a registered letter, containing a money inclosure, was posted in Curry, County Sligo, on the 29th of October last, by Patrick Howley, and addressed to Messrs. Neale, Jones, and Co., Mincing Lane, London; whether its non-delivery was duly reported to the Department; and, if so, what inquiries were made, and with what result; whether the Department will now pay to Patrick Howley the value or amount of the inclosure—namely, £5 5s., as the letter cannot be delivered; and, what is the usage in all such cases of the non-delivery of registered letters?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have been informed that the registered letter referred to by the hon. Member was delivered at the address given on the letter, and that the receipt was duly signed by the house-porter. The letter appears to have been lost by the porter, and he has this day handed to one of my officers the amount (£5 5s.) contained in the letters for disposal.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED POLICE OUTRAGES IN CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether information has reached him that on Tuesday night last, the 14th February, in the City of Cork, a local band, on returning from accompanying the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Cork (Mr. Lane) from the Great Southern and Western Station to his residence, was charged and batoned and their instruments smashed by a body of police under Sub-Inspector Creagh, and that one of the bandsmen, Alexander McCarthy, was so seriously wounded that he had to be immediately removed to hospital; whether another member of the Barrack Street Band, after having been knocked down by a

  861
  baton blow, was kicked by the police in the head and face while lying insensible on the ground, inflicting such serious injuries that his life was considered by the medical gentleman under whose care he was placed to be in danger; whether this is the third attack which has been made upon local bands in Cork for having, in response to the request of the citizens, played in the streets of the city upon the release of Representatives released from imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and, whether an inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the case, and similar occurrences in the future be prevented? The hon. Gentleman also asked, Whether it was not a fact that the drummer was knocked down, and another policeman deliberately kicked him whilst on the ground, breaking his upper jaw; whether another man sustained a severe fracture to the base of his skull, and his life has been in imminent danger since; whether upwards of 30 people were not seriously wounded by the police; and, also, whether at the North Infirmary, where the policemen would be treated if injured, not a single policemen was brought for treatment?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: With regard to the Questions which are not on the Paper, I can give no information. In reply to those which are on the Paper, I have to say that the Constabulary Authorities report that the occurrences referred to arose out of a riotous assault on the police, at whom a volley of stones was thrown as the band, accompanied by a large crowd, passed, the stone throwing being kept up for half-an-hour afterwards. The police charged with batons, when some of the instruments were broken. McCarthy did not go to hospital. He received a bruise on the right side from a fall, which he states he got when running away from the police. Another member of the band was seriously injured, and the doctor stated he could not pronounce his life out of danger; but he has not alleged that he was kicked by the police. Several constables were struck. Two of them are under medical treatment, one suffering from concussion of the brain. Bands have not been interfered with, as alleged. Whenever it is proposed to
  862
  prevent any demonstration as likely to lead to a breach of the public peace, the bands are invariably warned beforehand. The occurrence in question was due altogether to a most unwarrantable attack on the police.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not answered the third portion of his Question, as to how it was that if the stone-throwing continued for half-an-hour none of the police had to be treated at the infirmary? He also wished to ask, whether this was not the third time those wanton attacks had been made on the citizens of Cork by an infuriated constabulary?
  [No reply.]
  DR. TANNERintimated that he would repeat the Question.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked, was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that one of the injured men stated to him (Mr. Gilhooly) that a policeman knocked him down and kicked him?
  [No reply.]

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONS, COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, considering that according to present arrangements no sitting of any of the Sub-Commissions can be held in the County of Down before April next, he will take steps to have an additional Sub-Commission appointed, in order that the tenants of the principal landlords in Down may have their fair rents fixed at once, and not be compelled, as at present, to pay their old rents when they are entitled to the benefits of the judicial rents?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: As I have already explained to the hon. Member, a sitting of a Sub-Commission in the County Down will be held in about six weeks. To adopt the course suggested in the Question would not expedite the matter, even if it were found feasible.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Under the circumstances, would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider the advisability of appointing a new Commission which

  863
  could sit during the next month in County Down?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: There would be some delay in the appointment of a Sub-Commission.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How many Sub-Commissions are operating now. Is there one for each county?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to put the Question on the Paper.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —TRAVELLING POST OFFICES— SUNDAY DUTY.
  MR. TUITEasked the Postmaster General, Whether the officers employed in the travelling post offices in England are paid overtime for every hour they are on duty on Sundays; if so, how is it that two hours' pay per Sunday is stopped from officers doing similar duty in Ireland, notwithstanding that the late Postmaster General, Mr. Fawcett, undertook to place the men in this Department in both countries on the same footing; whether it is a fact that the officers employed in the travelling post offices in England are paid 6d. per trip risk money when dealing with registered letters; and, if so, why a similar allowance is not made to officers doing the same duty in Ireland; and, why a Memorial on the latter subject to the Inspector of Mails, bearing date 30th of April, 1887, still remains unanswered?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state, first, that in England officers attached to offices where Sunday duty is part of the regular work of the staff are, when employed in the travelling post office, paid extra for all Sunday work in excess of an average of two hours per Sunday, and officers in Ireland are so paid also. In England, however, much of the work is performed by officers attached to the General Post Office, London, where Sunday duty is not part of the regular work of the staff; and these officers, when working in the travelling post office on Sunday, are paid extra for all the work they do. As regards the payment of 6d. per trip risk money to officers of the travelling post-office, when dealing with registered letters, I understand that such payment has been
  864
  made in some instances. Should the practice be maintained as a permanent arrangement, I will take care that, the conditions being similar, it shall be extended to Ireland. The matter, which is still under consideration, will necessarily take time to settle.

  LAW AND POLICE—REVIVAL OF PUGILISM.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called, to the sudden outbreak and rapid increase of pugilism in this country recently, under the designation of sport, boxing, prize-fighting, or other euphemistic terms; whether this mode of combativenesss is in accordance with the law of the land; and, whether newspaper reports of these encounters are legal; and, if illegal, whether the Government will institute proceedings against all those who take part in such practices, whether as principals or accessories, and against the newspapers which contain reports of them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to a certain amount of increased interest which has recently been displayed in pugilism. Prize-fighting, as distinguished from boxing or sparring with gloves, is illegal. A concourse of persons attending a prize-fight in this country is an unlawful assembly, which the authorities ought to prevent or to disperse. A newspaper paragraph, of which the object is to promote a prizefight, or to incite people to attend one, in this country would, I apprehend, be illegal; but, speaking generally, a mere narrative in a newspaper of a past prizefight, even in this country, would not be illegal. The Government have used, and will continue to use, their best endeavours to prevent those different breaches of the law.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Arising out of that answer, may I ask why it is that the publication of a bare record of the meetings of a political Society in Ireland are subject—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I ask why it is that the editors and proprietors of such newspapers are subject to a month's imprisonment?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. HOWELL: May I further ask whether the publication of challenges for a prize-fight would or would not be an infraction of the law?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Really, Sir, it does not belong to me to answer questions of law; but if the hon. Member desires to know my private opinion I should say it would.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—ST. MARTIN'S-LE-GRAND.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the First Commissioner of Works, When building operations will be commenced on the site that has been cleared in St. Martin's-le-Grand; and, whether he will have them started as soon as possible, in order to give employment to some of the men now out of work in the building trades?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): Treasury sanction has now been obtained for the works at St. Martin's-le-Grand, and they shall be commenced as soon as possible; but some time must be occupied in getting working drawings and entering into a contract; but there shall be no unnecessary delay.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—TRIAL OF THE MAYOR OF CORK.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state why the Mayor of Cork, Chief Magistrate of the City, was tried before two Resident Magistrates under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act for a petty assault on a policeman on the 14th instant, and not tried before the ordinary Petty Session Bench of Magistrates which sits every day, or made the defendant in a civil action; and, whether this departure from the ordinary practice was taken with his sanction?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: As already stated, the assault was by no means a petty one, but a gross interference with a policeman in the discharge of his duty. The practice is to try under the recent statute charges of assault on the police when the section dealing with such charges is in force in a district where
  866
  the alleged assault occurs. There was no reason for departing from this practice in the case in question.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, that the practice was quite the other way. The case should have been tried before the ordinary Court, which sat every day.
  DR. TANNERasked, Whether it was a fact that Sergeant Knox, who had brought the accusation against the Mayor of Cork, had been promoted to the position of Head Constable—had, in fact, been rewarded?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had no information whatever upon the subject; but with regard to the Question of the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn), he believed that the answer he had given was quite correct.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Who decides whether a case of assault is to be tried by a Crimes Act magistrate or is to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I do not know. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would ask the Solicitor General perhaps he will be able to tell him.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General if he can state whose province it is to decide when the jurisdiction of the ordinary magistrate should be withdrawn in assault cases and the matter dealt with by Government magistrates?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): If the hon. and learned Member will give me Notice of that Question I will inquire.

  SCOTLAND—MEASLES IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he can state the number of cases of, and of deaths from, measles, which took place in the last three months of 1887 in each of the parishes in the Island of Lewis; and whether in any of these parishes any steps were taken to relieve the sick, or beyond the closing of schools to check the spread of the disease; and, if so, what steps?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): My information is that in Stornoway burgh there were a large number of cases and four deaths; Stornoway parish, many cases and 18

  867
  deaths; Barvas parish, nearly 300 cases and one death; Lochs parish, 300 cases and 16 deaths; Uig parish, two cases and no deaths. The disease has been, on the whole, of a mild type; and in all these cases medical attendance was given, and the sick supplied with medicine and such necessaries as were ordered by the medical men. Isolation, wherever practicable, was insisted upon.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIVER BARROW.
  MR. LEAHYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in their Bill, to obtain powers to deal with the drainage of the River Barrow, to ask the House to give a larger contribution, by way of a free grant, than the sum of £75,000 recommended by the Royal Commission on Public Works in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): No, Sir; it is not the intention of the Government to increase the sum.

  ADMIRALTY—DEVONPORT DOCK— VICE ADMIRAL GRANT.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is his intention to retain Vice Admiral Grant in his position of Superintendent of Devonport Dock, notwithstanding the fact that he has attained to the rank of Vice Admiral; if so, whether there are any, and what, reasons for adopting this special course; what is the difference in the pay of a Vice Admiral and a Rear Admiral when employed; and, whether there are several Rear Admirals on the Active List who are thoroughly competent to discharge the duties of Superintendent of a Dockyard, by reason of their having served as Captains of Steam Reserve?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Under the old Regulations the post of Admiral Superintendent of a Dockyard was only tenable by Rear Admirals, promotion to the list of Vice Admiral, necessitating retirement from the appointment, although the period of three years for which the appointment ran might not have been completed. Short terms of service being prejudicial to the efficient working of the yard, I made an ar-
  868
  rangement by which an officer might, irrespective of his rank, complete his term of service with the consent of the Admiralty. The difference in pay between a Vice Admiral and a Rear Admiral when so employed is £117 2s. 6d.; but the difference between their half pay is £136 17 s. 6d. The State, therefore, retains the services of the officer of experience, and saves £20 per annum under the arrangement. Vice Admiral Grant is the first officer to whom the change applies.

  POST OFFICE—THE SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Postmaster General, If the House may depend on him to continue to resist the attempts of the Submarine Telegraph Company to reestablish the monopoly under which the country has so long suffered?
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Is it true that, after enjoying a monopoly of the Cable traffic between this country and the Continent for the past 20 years, the Submarine Telegraph Company have obtained the further concession of an extension of time for three months valued at £25,000; and, is it true that, notwithstanding the fact that besides paying heavy directors' fees and declaring dividends of from 15 to 25 per cent for many years, the Submarine Telegraph Company have obtained the promise of the Government to grant a bonus to each shareholder on the conclusion of the term for which the monopoly was granted, beside purchasing from the expiring Company the whole of their old Telegraph Cable and working appliances at valuation?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Submarine Telegraph Company have been informed that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to agree to any renewal of the concession to them which will expire shortly. No agreement has been come to with the Company as to the purchase of their plant and transfer of their undertaking; and I do not think it would be to the public interest that any statement as to the details of negotiations should be made until some definite decision shall have been arrived at. I may say, however, that the inferences suggested by

  869
  the Question of the hon. Member for Canterbury are very inaccurate.

  EGYPT—THE SUEZ CANAL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether successive Governments of this country have always been in favour of keeping the Suez Canal open to ships of war of belligerents, or whether any Government has ever proposed to limit its use to commercial purposes and the peaceful passage of transports and vessels of war in time of peace between the Great Powers; and, whether the French Government has always insisted on keeping the Canal open to belligerents, or whether any French Government has ever proposed or suggested to Her Majesty's Government that it should be consecrated to peaceful purposes only, as always urged by its founder, M. de Lesseps?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It is unnecessary, for practical purposes, to go further back than the Convention of London of 1885, conducted on behalf of this country by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when the Powers then assembled agreed to a Declaration that the freedom of the Suez Canal at all times should be guaranteed. Her Majesty's Government then and since proposed that the Canal "should be free for the passage of all ships in any circumstances;" and I cannot find that any former Government—at least, since the opening of the Canal—held any other view. This, I think, was also always the view of the French Government, and it was the expressed view of the Canal Company as early as 1869, although they always wished the Canal to be excepted from military and naval operations.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to give Notice that on the first appropriate Vote I shall call attention to the inconvenince and complications that would be likely to arise from the use of the Canal by belligerents to the world in general, and to this country in particular.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT, 1887— CHECKWEIGHMEN.
  MR. FENWICKasked the Secretary of State
  870
  for the Home Department, Whether he has received any information respecting the appointment of one James Watts as checkweighman at Farrington Gurney, in Somersetshire; whether such appointment was made by a majority of the workmen voting by ballot; and, whether it is true that since his appointment the owner of the colliery has refused to allow him to perform his duties?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received, just before I entered the House, a lengthy Report on the subject which I have scarcely had time to master, but from which I collect that the owner, who is also the manager of the colliery, has not received any intimation from the workmen of the appointment of Watts as checkweighman, and that from inquiry he has made he believes that no ballot has taken place for the appointment of Watts. Watts came to the colliery one afternoon after work had ceased, and interfered with the weighing machine without authority, being at the time in the employment of a neighbouring mine-owner, to whom he has not yet given notice to leave his employment. Watts was ordered away by the clerk.

  IRELAND—THE MITCHELSTOWN INQUEST— COUNTY INSPECTOR BROWN RIGG.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the two following questions which were addressed, as reported in The Times, to County Inspector Brownrigg, who was in command of the police at Mitchelstown, when a meeting took place there last September, by District Inspector Irwin, who was second in command on that day, during the inquest that took place in respect to the death of certain persons at that meeting:—
  "Was it your object, after the previous day's occurrence, to deter me from adhering to my original words?
  "Would it be correct to say that the object of bringing these men (the police constables) to the office was to coach them?"
  whether any investigation has been made into these charges made by the District Inspector against the County Inspector; and, whether both are still

  871
  members of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The matter referred to by this Question, is to be dealt with by a Departmental inquiry.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH MONEY ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, in reference to the promise made in reply to the hon. Member for Canterbury, during the discussion of the Estimates last Session, to establish experimentally telegraph money orders in this country, What steps have been taken in the matter?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that this matter has been under consideration, as I promised in answer to the Question addressed to me when the Estimates were under discussion last year; and I hope before long to be in a position to institute an experiment in this direction.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS— THE RETURN.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Commissioner of Works, What is the cause of the delay in presenting a Return, ordered on 16th June last, of certain particulars respecting the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens; and, if he can state when this Return will be presented?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): It was not possible to have the Return referred to in the Question respecting the Royal Parks ready before the close of last Session; but I am informed by the Treasury that it will now at once be laid on the Table.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— FAILURE OF A 10-INCH GUN.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a large gun, stated to be a 10-inch gun, has lately failed under proof at Woolwich; and, if so, under what circumstances and from what
  872
  causes, and where it was designed and constructed; and, whether any guns have burst, or otherwise failed, since the failure of the 43-ton Collingwood gun; and, if so, what guns, and in what particulars?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): A 10-inch gun lately failed under proof at Woolwich, the chase snapping in two at the forward end of the liner at the first proof round. The gun was otherwise uninjured. The cause of the failure is now under investigation by the Ordnance Committee. The gun had been designed at the Royal Gun Factory; but the design was modified during manufacture, the gun being chase-hooped and lined in accordance with the proposal of the Elswick Ordnance Company, who made it. No guns have burst on service since the failure of the 43-ton Collingwood gun; though several have been found defective at proof. I think it only right that a marked distinction should be drawn between failures at proof and failures on service. Our guns are subjected to very severe proof; and I should be sorry if severe criticism in Parliament upon failures at proof were to produce any tendency to pass into actual service guns which had not been most scrupulously tested.

  INDIA—THE DIRECTOR OF THE INDOEUROPEAN TELEGRAPHS.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the retirement of the present Director of the Indo-European Telegraphs is overdue under the Service Rules; and, whether he is not only allowed still to retain his appointment, with all its valuable remuneration and perquisites, but that he is also allowed to hold the appointment of Director of the Edinburgh Museum on a large salary?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST), in reply, said, there was no Service Rule regulating the retirement of the late Director of the Indo-European Telegraphs, who had retired, as settled in January, by an Order of the Secretary of State, on the 15th of February.

  SOUTHERN PACIFIC—THE NEW HEBRIDES.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French troops have yet evacuated the New Hebrides; and, when the Papers relating to that evacuation and the future regulation of those Islands will be delivered to Members?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The French, troops have not yet evacuated the New Hebrides; but the French Government undertook to withdraw them at the expiration of four months from the signature of the Convention—namely, from the 16th of November last—if it were not possible to do so earlier. Copies of the agreement, with regulations for the guidance of the Joint Naval Commission, will be delivered to hon. Members on Wednesday morning at furthest.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—RE-ARREST OF MR. PYNE, M. P.
  MR. M'CARTAN(for Mr. P. J. POWER)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what charge was the hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) rearrested at Kilmacthomas, on the 15th instant, after he had entered into bail to prosecute his appeal against the decision of Messrs. Considine and Bodkin, Resident Magistrates; why bail was refused for his appearance at Petty Sessions, at which the second charge against him was to be heard; if on the hearing of the second charge the Crown applied for a remand for eight days; if it is a fact that bail to a large amount was offered for the hon. Member's appearance at the end of that period, and on what grounds was that application refused; if when making this application to be admitted to bail the hon. Member was suffering from a severe wound inflicted by a police bâton; what action is to be taken with regard to the police constable who inflicted the wound; on what grounds, and by whom, were the police ordered to disperse by force any people accompanying the hon. Member to the Waterford and Limerick Railway, on his way to
  874
  Clonmel, on the 15th instant; were the wishes of the Mayor and the Local Justices consulted; and, if not, why, before issuing such orders to the police; whether he has information to show that much indignation prevailed at the treatment which the hon. Member received, and at the manner in which the Mayor and the Local Justices had been treated, and that a collision between the police and the people was averted only by the influence of the Mayor and his friends; and, why did the police authorities refrain from giving notice of their intention of dispersing the hon. Member's friends until near the hour at which he should start for Clonmel? The hon. Gentleman also asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman can state if the hon. Member for West Waterford, while in custody under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and on his way to the Clonmel Court House yesterday, received a severe bâton wound on the head from one of the policemen on duty; whether his attention has been called to the report of the case in The Daily News of the 17th instant, where it is stated that Alderman Strange applied to the Court to have the hon. Member admitted to bail in order that he might receive proper medical treatment for the wound thus inflicted on him; that a Mr. Lonergan offered bail to the amount of £5,000; that the District Inspector of Constabulary had received instructions (from Dublin Castle) not to accept any bail, and that Colonel Carew, R.M., said "he could not accept bail under the circumstances;" and, whether, having regard to the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in admitting to bail the hon. Member for West Cork, he will consider the propriety of extending to magistrates the right of exercising some discretion on the question of admitting to bail the political prisoners brought before them under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887? The hon. Gentleman said, the quotation from the remarks of Colonel Carew as given in the Notice Paper should read—
  "He could not attempt to accept bail under such circumstances."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The hon. Member referred to was,

  875
  in the second case, charged with unlawfully taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and with inciting to intimidation. The Resident Magistrate reports that he refused bail because it was opposed by the District Inspector; and also because, in his own opinion, a person who does all in his power to evade arrest is not entitled to bail when made amenable. The Crown applied for a remand to next Petty Sessions. Bail was offered to a large amount, and refused for the reasons just stated. The police were not ordered to disperse by force any people accompanying the hon. Member. A crowd of roughs did follow the party, and on arrival at the railway station threw stones at the police. It is believed one of these struck the hon. Member, as the immediate police escort were armed with rifles, not with bâtons. The doctor who examined the cut refuses to say it was caused by a bâton. A torchlight procession with bands had been contemplated; but on the representation of the police the Mayor prevented it. I have no information as to the alleged indignation of the Mayor and Local Justices. The magistrates had full discretion as to admitting to bail in a case such as that referred to in the Question.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. and gallant Member say whether an investigation will be ordered as to whether the hon. Member was struck by a stone or by a bâton, as we have been statements which lead us to suppose that it must have been by a bâton?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Government had no information which would lead them to call for any special investigation. He had also seen statements that the blow was inflicted by a stone, and as the police escort were armed with rifles and not with bâtons, it was natural to suppose the wound was not caused by a bâton.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that his information seemed to show that the blow was given by a police bâton. He wished to know whether the Chief Secretary would order such an inquiry into the circumstances of the case as would enable independent testimony to be brought to bear upon it?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to put the Question on the Paper.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, if any inquiry was made as to how the wound was inflicted; and he also wished to know how many of the policemen who were on duty in Clonmel had been engaged in guarding Lisfinny Castle while the hon. Member was patiently awaiting arrest?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had no information on these points.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—IRISH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any large measures involving his personal supervision are now in course of preparation for Ireland; if not, what reason exists why the subjects dealing with Irish administration, brought forward by means of Questions in this House, are no longer answered, as has been the practice since the Union, by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but are left to a subordinate official, for whose appointment no legislative sanction exists; and, whether any precedent can be cited for this devolution of responsibility in dealing with Irish subjects?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. and learned Member has referred to the practice since the Union. I may remind him of two changes that have occurred since then. One is the gradual, but still recent and enormous, increase in the number of Questions put to the Irish Government; the other is the appointment of a Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. It is in consequence of these changes that a partial alteration has been made in the method of dealing with Questions. I may remind the House that answering Questions is probably of all Parliamentary operations among the least difficult and responsible; for the answers are, as the House is aware, read out from manuscript by the Minister in charge. It is true that occasionally Questions of great nicety, or involving large principles, are asked; and on such occasions the answers are prepared, in the Irish, as in other Departments, after consultation between the Under Secretary and the Chief Secretary. But, for the most part, answers are merely a transcript of information received from Ireland with

  877
  respect to some local incident, condensed and arranged for the convenience of the House. It is not accurate to say, therefore, that there is any devolution of responsibility. All I have done is to assume that a Question addressed to the Chief Secretary is addressed to the Department of which he is the Head; and have made it a matter of arrangement between the Parliamentary Representatives of that Department who shall answer it. This is, I think, highly conducive to the proper despatch of Public Business, in which the House is primarily interested; and the hon. and learned Gentleman will, I think, himself see the absurdity of leaving it to the Chief Secretary to decide who shall have charge of a Bill, and not at the same time to allow him to settle who shall read out an answer relative to alleged misconduct on the part of a constable. I may add that no Minister in my recollection has answered Questions more to the satisfaction of the House than my right hon. and gallant Friend, and that I am always here in time to deal with Questions put without Notice when such a course seems desirable.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman is never in the House at Question time, I should like to know from what source he gathers that his right hon. and gallant Friend's answers are to the satisfaction of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE WATER SUPPLY—APPREHENDED WATER FAMINE.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the letters which have recently appeared in The Times newspaper on the question of the water supply of this country; and, whether, in view of the opinions expressed by Sir John Lawes and other eminent authorities as to the possible danger of a water famine occurring during dry summers, and in view of the vast importance of the question of the proper storage of water throughout the Kingdom, the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire and report to Parliament on the whole question?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My
  878
  attention has been called to the letters which have appeared in The Times on the question of the water supply of this country. The question is, undoubtedly, an important one; but it would be impossible for any steps to be taken now which could affect the water supply of the ensuing summer. Looking to the fact that large sums of money have in late years been borrowed by Local Authorities for the purpose of providing water in the districts for which they are responsible, the Government hardly think that a Royal Commission, such as is suggested by the hon. Member, is at present advisable. I may state, for the information of the hon. Member, that in 1884 the Local Authorities obtained powers to spend £750,000 to obtain water; in 1885, £1,613,000; and in 1886, £1,741,000; so that in three years £4,000,000 have been authorized for the purpose of water supply.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) —LEGISLATION.
  MR. RICHARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in accordance with the assurance given last Session by him, to deal with the question of Intermediate Education in Wales during the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Her Majesty's Government have been giving attention to this important subject during the Recess; but the hon. Member is aware that the earlier part of the Session must be occupied by legislation of considerable importance to which the Government is specifically pledged. Should, however, opportunity be afforded to them at a later period, Her Majesty's Government hope to be able to ask Parliament to consider a measure dealing with intermediate education in Wales.

  EGYPT—THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AT CAIRO.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that, before proceeding to Egypt to prosecute the claims of the ex-Khedive Ismail, the Judge Advocate General offered to place

  879
  his resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister; and, whether it is the fact that the Prime Minister declined that offer?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Judge Advocate General, with reference to a discussion which took place in this House towards the close of last Session, placed, shortly after the close of the Session, his Office absolutely at the disposal of the Prime Minister. No answer has yet been given to his letter. The Government are, however, of opinion that it is advisable that the arrangements for the discharge of the duties of the Office should be modified, and they are considering in what manner that can best be done.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE METROPOLIS —TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether "I, Charles Warren" has removed his ukase prohibiting the right of free speech in Trafalgar Square; and, whether the Square is now available for the citizens of London for free meeting or not?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Mr. Speaker, the Regulations issued by Sir Charles Warren, under the Metropolitan Police Act, have not been revoked.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I would like, then, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government is afraid to allow—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!The hon. Gentleman must couch his Questions in proper Parliamentary language.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government see reasonable reason for apprehension from the law of free speech—whether they have any reasonable ground of apprehension in prohibiting meetings—what reason, they have for prohibiting meetings?
  [No reply.]

  ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW (IRELAND) —"BLUNT v. BYRNE."
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  880
  tenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the public importance of the questions of law and facts raised in the action of "Blunt v. Byrne," he would lay a full and accurate report of the proceedings on the Table of the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman has not given me Notice of this Question; but I am of opinion that it would be very desirable if an authentic report could be laid upon the Table. I am not aware that there is any precedent for laying the evidence upon the Table of the House, and I do not think it is possible to do it if our sole authority is newspaper reports. If, on inquiry, I find that any authentic transcript could be put in, I will consider the propriety of laying it on the Table.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, Whether he is aware that the proceedings against myself in the Parliament of 1880–1885 were laid on the Table of the House, and in my absence and to my detriment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know from what source they were taken. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me on the subject.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: It appears from the Papers as printed that some of them, at any rate, were taken from the attorney employed against me.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary, Whether, in view of the fact that 11 of the jury who tried the case of Mr. Blunt were of opinion that the meeting was a legal meeting, and were in favour of a verdict against the Government, and in view of the principles laid down in the Charge of Chief Baron Palles, the Government did not see their wav to immediately liberate Mr. Blunt?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman asks me to advise the Lord Lieutenant to review the sentence on Mr. Blunt, on the ground that if one juryman had been of a different mind Mr. Blunt would have got a verdict for damages. I answer, in the first place, that the question of the illegality of Mr. Blunt's intentions was never submitted to the jury, being withdrawn from their cognizance at the request of Mr. Blunt's own counsel. In the second place, that the unauthorized gossip on which the hon. Gentleman bases his request could,

  881
  under no circumstances, be a ground for Executive action. In the third place, that the gossip which has reached me on the subject of the distribution of opinion among the jurymen is of an entirely different character to that which appears to have reached the hon. Member. In the fourth place, that I cannot consider a civil action as providing an appeal against a verdict given in one Criminal Court—[An hon. MEMBER: A verdict?]—and confirmed, on appeal, in another. And, finally, in the fifth place, that, if I did so regard it, the character of the evidence given in Court, and the tenour of the Judge's Charge, must entirely remove any doubts which could have previously been conceived to exist as to the gross illegality of the meeting which Mr. Blunt, in spite of the warnings of the Executive, persisted in attempting to hold.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA— RUMOURED HOSTILITIES.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked, Whether it was true that orders had been given to the Naval Commander in Chief to take hostile stops against the Government of Venezuela? Had not the latter Government made repeated offers to submit the various disputed questions to arbitration, especially that of territorial boundary, and on what grounds had this offer been refused?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer together Questions of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs. There is no truth whatever in the report that any naval or military action against Venezuela on the part of Her Majesty's Government is being taken, or is in contemplation. Negotiations have been for some time going on respecting the doubtful territory between British Guiana and Venezuela, and proposals for arbitration have been made by Venezuela. Her Majesty's Government were not averse to the principle of arbitration, but were not able to accept the bases proposed by Venezuela. But all negotiations were necessarily stopped in consequence of the suspension of diplo-
  882
  matic relations by the late President Guzman Blanco.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—ALLEGED MEETINGS OF SUPPRESSED BRANCHES OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether he can give the House any information as to the alleged meeting of a suppressed branch of the National League at Droumtariff, as reported in United Ireland, on the 28th of January last, and quoted by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) in his recent speech?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The facts are—as reported by the local police—that on the day in question no meeting whatever of this branch took place. The only thing which, by any stretch of imagination, could be construed into a meeting was a football match, which took place in a field at a place called Islandhill, near Droumtariff; and if any election took place, or any voting occurred, as reported in United Ireland, it must have been in the course of this match. Certainly no attempt whatever was made to hold a meeting in the League Hall, or in any other place in Droumtariff on this occasion.
  MR. W. O'BRIENasked, Whether the statement the right hon. Gentleman had just read out was given on the authority of the local policemen, who failed to detect the meeting?
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, Why the Question had not been answered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman)?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I said in my reply to the hon. and learned Member a short time ago, I am always here to answer Questions put without Notice when such a course seems desirable.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Waring) asked to put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman?
  [No reply.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [EIGHTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th February.]—[See page 64.]
  AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that before the discussion closed he was anxious to refer to one paragraph in the Gracious Speech from the Throne to which he had heard no reference made by any of the Ministers. The paragraph to which he referred stated that "the prospects of commerce are more hopeful than they have been for many years past." Well, if that were so, no one would be more rejoiced to hear it than he was; but he confessed he had considerable doubts on the subject. He was very sceptical indeed as to the possibility of any material or permanent improvement occurring in their trade until they had, in the first place, a genuine revival in the agricultural prosperity of the country. He was sceptical for this reason, that other countries were becoming more and more surrounded by a wall of hostile tariffs, which absolutely prohibited English trade. If that were so, it seemed to him the only real improvement they could look for was in the increase of the purchasing power of the markets at home; and that, in his opinion, was to be found only in. a large increase in the agricultural productions of the country, and in the wealth which ought to be annually created by agricultural prosperity. Now, could this be done? Could any means be devised for bringing about this state of things? Why, English manufacturers would then have at their very doors the very best markets for their goods—markets far superior to those for which they were looking in vain abroad. Every additional quarter of wheat that would be grown in this country would provide an additional market to that extent for the goods the manufacturers desired to sell; but not one single quarter of wheat brought from America at the present moment provided the least additional market for British manufacturers, for
    884
    the simple reason that the Americans refused to purchase in return. How much they had lost in this way in the last few years could be shown by the simplest possible computation. If the House would allow him he would refer to the evidence given by Sir James Caird before Lord Iddesleigh's Commission. He should take only one paragraph from the Report—paragraph 73. He pointed out that as regarded the home markets there had been a serious loss in the purchasing powers by reason of the deficiency or decrease of the produce of the soil. That was what occurred in 1885; but matters had become considerably worse since then. Sir James Caird spoke of the loss in that year as £42,000,000 or more, and the loss in several of the preceding years must, no doubt, have been equal to or even greater than that. This amount had been lost to the markets in which it was formerly spent, and could not fail to have had an important influence upon the demand for manufactured goods. He would ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House whether that was not a lamentable state of things? But since 1885 matters had become considerably worse, and from later computations the loss could not now be put down at less than £50,000,000. Exports had diminished by something like a quarter. The exports of British and Irish manufactures for last year, given in the Official Returns, amounted to £220,000,000, and, according to the latest computation, the loss was equal literally to a quarter of the whole of their export trade. That was exactly what the depression in agriculture was costing at the present time; and it was literally nothing to what it would cost in the future if the present state of things continued. It was as certain as that he was speaking there that thousands on thousands of additional acres of land would go out of cultivation if the prices remained as they were. He wished to say a word upon the subject of land which had gone out of cultivation, for the latest Returns upon this subject had given, he believed, a totally false impression. In 1881 a special Return was made upon this point. It was called a Return of the acreage of unoccupied farms and plots of land available for cultivation. Under this head the quantity of unoccupied land was shown as 43,000 acres. No subsequent Return

    885
    of this kind was made again until last year. This showed it to be 25,000 acres, or apparently a diminution of 18,000 acres; and it was argued in consequence—and very naturally—that, as there had been a diminution of 18,000 acres in the area of uncultivated land, that betokened a considerable improvement in the agricultural position. He wished to examine this question a little more closely. Where did they find that the chief increase in the cultivated area was shown? It was shown under the head of permanent pasture. Arable land had fallen from 17,600,000 acres to 16,900,000 acres in round numbers since 1881. Permanent pasture, on the other hand, had during the same period increased from 14,600,000 acres to 15,600,000 acres. Now, he ventured to express the confident opinion that thousands of acres had gone out of cultivation between 1881 and 1887, of which we had no account whatever. What had happened had been this. A considerable proportion of the area which was now returned as permanent pasture, and which accounted for the large increase under that head, was simply land which had been left to go waste, and had what was called "laid itself down to grass," growing little but weeds and thistles, and little, if any, grass at all, and probably fit to feed nothing but a donkey. Borne of it, no doubt, had been let of late for whatever it would fetch, probably a shilling or two an acre, and consequently it was now returned as permanent pasture, and no longer reckoned as uncultivated land. That was the explanation of the apparent improvement under that head, and he should be much surprised if hon. Gentlemen well acquainted with agriculture did not agree with him. There was another aspect of the case which he desired to put before the House, which showed the remarkable result that, although there was so large a diminution in arable land and so growing an increase in permanent pasture within the last two years, although there had previously been an increase, there had been a considerable diminution of stock and a great falling-off both in cattle and sheep. Happily, however, in consequence of the good lambing season, there was last year a considerable increase in the number of lambs. But the most lamentable and painful feature connected with, the agricultural depres-
    886
    sion was the terrible number of labourers throughout the country who, in consequence of this depression, had been thrown out of work. There was an instructive Memorandum issued on this subject in The Board of Trade Journal of November last year, which referred to questions of labour and wages in the South-Eastern Counties. The interest of that Memorandum consisted in a comparison of the numbers of unemployed, and of the rate of wages at present as compared with 1880. From them it appeared that there were now many more labourers out of employment than there were seven years ago. It would also he seen that not only the rate of day wages, but those of piecework, had been materially reduced. On the first page he found such items as these with respect to piecework. In the first village mentioned in this Return the reduction was from 30 to 40 per cent; in another one-half; a little further one-third; and in others 25 per cent. Weekly wages had also fallen, but not so much. In the column which indicated the number of labourers out of employment he found that in one village the number was 20; in the next two-fifths of the total number; in others 15 and 40 or 50. All these were at places where in 1880 there was not a single man out of employment. In a large village with which he was personally acquainted he was told, to his great distress, that there were from 60 to 80 labouring men willing to work, but absolutely unable to obtain work the whole of the winter; and the most miserable part of the story was that those on whom those men had been previously dependent for employment were now, in consequence of the reduction of their own incomes, unable to provide work and wages. He was, however, glad to say that some alleviation had been found for these poor and deserving people in the increase of the number of allotments, the granting of which, he was happy to say, had been stimulated by the Bill of last year. But allotments were never intended to be, and could not be, regarded as a substitute for wages and employment, however desirable they might be as a supplement to them. What, then, was to be done? It was no use for these unhappy people to go into towns, where a similar state of things was already in existence. The number of artizans out of employment

    887
    was something of which few people had anything like an accurate conception. There was some remarkable evidence given by a man who was specially competent to speak on this question, and whoso statement had, within the last few hours, been laid on the Table of the House. He would venture to call the attention of hon. Members to it. This evidence was given by Mr. J. C. Fielden, a gentleman intimately acquainted with the condition of the working classes, and connected, as he said, with all the movements among the working classes in the cotton district since 1859, and the arbitrator for the operatives in all the great wage questions when the question had been settled by arbitration. His evidence came to this—that out of the total number of men, women, and children of the people employed in the country earning wages, no fewer than 700,000 were out of employment altogether, owing to the depression in trade and agriculture, and those that were in employment were receiving greatly reduced wages, and what was more in what was described as real wages. And this estimate, he told us, was put even higher, 200,000 higher, by the delegates representing all the principal trades at the Trades Conference at Wolverhampton. If that was anything like an approach to a true description of the present state of things—and there was every reason to believe that it was—it was not unnatural that he had taken a great interest in the paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech of which he had spoken. It deeply regretted that there should not be in agricultural matters a corresponding improvement to that in trade. It commended that industry to the care of the House, in the hope that means might be discovered to meet the difficulties under which it laboured. It was for no light reason that such a paragraph was inserted in the Speech. It indicated a very deep concern on the part of Her Majesty's Government for the condition of agriculture, and all classes connected with that industry would be proportionately grateful for that concern. But it would be more interesting to the House to know what was the view of the Government on the subject, and what were the means which they proposed to improve our position in that regard. He, of course, presumed that no return to Protection would be suggested. The speeches of Ministers
    888
    during the Recess had put that out of the question entirely, and so long as the exports of wheat from silver-using countries were stimulated as they were at present by the existing rate of exchange, which many competent authorities considered to amount to something like a bounty of 25 to 30 per cent upon every quarter of wheat sent to us from those countries, he confessed that he had come to the conclusion that Protection would not have the beneficial effects which were expected from it so far as the English producer of wheat was concerned. Several other measures were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. There was a Bill dealing with the question of railway rates, which he was glad was to be introduced again and hoped would be carried. But it would have to be considerably different from the Bill of last Session if it was to have the desired effect. He also rejoiced at the indication of an intention on the part of the Government to mitigate the burdens which now fell on the ratepayers of the country. But he, for one, could not think that these were all the measures which were in the minds of Ministers when that paragraph of the Speech to which he had referred was framed. If that were so, and the Government were able to give any hope or to throw any light on the present position of the agricultural interest, it would be matter of great encouragement at a time when encouragement was sorely needed. He did not think it was necessary for him on this occasion to suggest any remedy for agricultural depression, even if it were possible for him or anyone else to do so. His object was to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government what they were really to understand from the expressions contained in that paragraph of the Speech from the Throne. He thought any Member of the House was fully justified in pressing this question upon the attention of the Government. There were, it was true, more exciting questions, yet he was sure that the depression in trade and agriculture, with its results shown in thousands of people out of employment, was not a less important subject even than the Irish Question, of which, in his opinion, it formed a most material part. It formed, in his opinion, the gravest, most difficult, and, perhaps, the greatest problem for solu-

    889
    tion at the present time; and he was certain that any Government, whichever Party might be in power, would shortly have to deal with it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JOHN MANNERS): I am sure my right hon. Friend need not apologize for having brought this subject under the consideration of the House. No set of men can be more aware than Her Majesty's Ministers of the terrible depression from which the agricultural interest is, and has been, suffering. It is nearly 10 years since the agriculturists began to struggle with unabated energy and dauntless courage against the difficulties which threaten to overwhelm them. My right hon. Friend has divided his observations into two main heads. First, he made some observations upon that portion of the Queen's Speech which refers to the presumed revival of trade, and he assigns many reasons to show that that revival of trade does not really exist; and I think he went so far as to say that there could not be a revival of trade until agriculture was flourishing. To a certain extent I agree with him; but I would ask him whether the position might not be reversed, and whether we might not say that agriculture could not really flourish until trade revived? Her Majesty's Government do see some symptoms of a revival of trade—speaking generally, I am not asserting that in some trades there are not a great lack of employment and diminished profits; but, taking the trade of the Kingdom as a whole, we have reasons to believe that there are signs and symptoms of revival, and pro tanto I think those signs of revival of trade do augur well for the future of agriculture. My right hon. Friend went at some length into the statistics of unoccupied farms. I think that, on the whole, his explanation of what appears to be a discrepancy in these Returns is probably correct, and that certain farms after two or three years have managed to put forth a rough kind of grass upon them which produces a certain amount of revenue to the owners, so that the farms are not included in the Returns. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has seen a remarkable paper in The National Review by Mr. Harris, who gave chapter and verse as to two farms of his own
    890
    that were bringing in between £200 and £300 a-year each.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought the farms referred to by Mr. Harris had been laid down to grass, whereas he had spoken of farms which had laid themselves down.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: I am speaking from memory. My right hon. Friend drew a very sad picture indeed of the condition of the labourers. I know nothing more painful and nothing more sad than the facts to which my right hon. Friend has called attention. It is impossible to controvert them; but I should like anyone to point out how, under the circumstances, the case is to be remedied. I am afraid it will be a slow process before we can again see the agricultural labourers restored to their former position and employed at good wages. Then my right hon. Friend asked what the Government meant by the paragraph in the Queen's Speech, and what we meant to do in consequence of that paragraph. Those two questions are most reasonable, and the only purpose I have in rising is to explain what the Government intended by that paragraph, and how they propose to give effect to it. The paragraph is undoubtedly worded rather abnormally. It invites the attention of the House. We inserted that paragraph advisedly, as we wish to take the House fully into our confidence in regard to this subject, and to have the support of Gentlemen on both sides in endeavouring to palliate the disastrous situation described by my right hon. Friend. A great deal has been said about the character and composition of the Department with which I have the honour to be connected. A good deal of misconception has arisen on that subject; but I admit that the constitution of what is called the Committee of Agriculture is not what it ought to be, if agriculture is thought worthy to have a Department of its own. It is a misnomer; there is really no such thing as a Committee of Agriculture. There is a most admirable Department with two objects. The first is to make regulations with reference to the prevention of diseases among animals, and the regulation of the transport of animals to and from this country; the second, to obtain, tabulate, and publish agricultural statistics. In regard to these objects there cannot be a better

    891
    Department than that which exists at the present moment. It has so far worked admirably with the able assistance of Mr. Peel and Professor Brown, together with an excellent staff of Inspectors. Again, I think extremely well of the way in which the statistical branch is conducted. I see no reason to make any change in these two branches. But when I have said that I have said all. I have described the whole Agricultural Department. I am, however, glad to say, on behalf of the Government, that having regard to the great and unprecedented depression to which agriculture has so long been and is still subjected, we propose to introduce a Bill establishing an Agricultural Department. We think, however, it would be premature to describe at present the character of that measure; but I may mention that we propose to adopt several of the recommendations of the Committee on Agricultural Education and Dairy Schools. Another topic on which I desire to lay stress is the paragraph in the Queen's Speech referring to the readjustment of local and Imperial taxation. I must not anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say on this interesting subject; but we hope that the measure we shall introduce will be a measure of sufficient magnitude and importance to make the agricultural world feel that a great operation is being performed, and that justice, which has been so long delayed, is now being tardily rendered to them. Then, Sir, my right hon. Friend has made some comments on the proposal to re-introduce the Railway Rates Bill. All I can say on that subject is that it will be introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the sincere hope and expectation that it will have a practical effect in the way of putting an end to the bounties which now exist upon the introduction of foreign produce, and that the agriculturists of the country will gain relief, at any rate, from that unjust burden. I am aware that any measure I may have indicated can have really but a small effect in diminishing the evil of which the agriculturists complain; but, at any rate, we will do all that it is possible for us to do within the limits of the existing fiscal system, and we shall make our proposals in the hope and expectation that by their agency the oldest, the greatest, and most important of all our
    892
    national industries may be fostered and preserved.
    MR. H. GARDNERsaid, the information which the noble Lord had been able to give as to the intention of the Government to create a Department of Agriculture was, doubtless, very interesting to the right hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate, but not so much interest to the remainder of the House; while that was the case he was willing to admit that some of the measures indicated in the Queen's Speech were of great importance to the agricultural community. The Railway Rates Bill was one which, if carried out in a proper spirit, would be a great benefit to the farmers of this country. He regretted that no legislation had been proposed in the interest of agricultural labourers, but trusted that if any was put forward by the Opposition the Government would not oppose it. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) make no reference to the Tithes Bill. He hoped the Tithes Bill of this Session would not be a sham one, as he regarded that of last year. He disagreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question. The levying of tithes was neither a landlord's, a farmer's, nor a labourer's question in particular, but it was essentially a land question. In his opinion, though the State might do much for the agriculturist, it could not do everything. The key to the situation was the individual himself. Naturally, the first remedy that occurred to the farmer was a reduction of rent and in the cost of production; but he was certain that hon. Gentlemen would agree that the landlords of England, Scotland, and Wales had done their duty in this matter. ["Hear, hear!" and "No!"] The reductions of rent throughout the country had averaged something like 25 per cent. In trade and manufacture the energetic man met the situation by what was called a system of expansion. It was said that the farmer was not able to do that; but he thought he might meet the situation partially and improve his position materially by producing more largely such things as cheese, butter, and eggs, for all of which the demand was always great and a good price could always be obtained. The British farmer unfortunately had one fault, one inherent weakness, and that was a strong

    893
    hankering after the fleshpots of Protection. He was therefore very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite disavow any intention of supporting a protective system. It was a most delusive and unsettling notion to put into the heads of the farmers—namely, that their position could be alleviated by any return to a duty on corn. Yet some hon. Gentlemen and others were going about the country apparently preaching that doctrine. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division, who justly possessed such influence with the agricultural community, might do something to disabuse the minds of the farmers on this point; but now that he had given up the position of Leader of the Protection Party in the House, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) had stepped into his shoes. He hoped that the hon. Member would take this opportunity of explaining to the House what he meant by Fair Trade. A great deal of vague language was used by its advocates, but what they exactly meant it was difficult to discover. As one deeply interested in the agricultural community, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for his speech, and to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government would bring forward real remedial measures. If they did he felt sure they would be heartily supported by the Agricultural Members on both sides of the House.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENTsaid, that with the permission of the House, and as a borough Member, he should like to say a few words upon that portion of the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He felt certain that the whole agricultural community would read with the greatest satisfaction the speech of the noble Lord the Member for East Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), who so ably represented the agricultural community in the House, and that they would be grateful for the indication afforded in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech that speedy relief might probably be attainable. But he joined with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford in saying that it would have been far more satisfactory to the
    894
    unfortunate farmer and agricultural labourer if more precise information had been afforded to the House of Commons as to the measures to be adopted for the relief of the agricultural interest at the present day. The sympathy of Her Majesty's Government—and more especially the sympathy of the noble Lord—would be highly acceptable to the suffering and depressed agricultural interest; but he certainly thought that what was wanted was an early and thorough and practical remedy for a great and crying evil. He confessed he did not see, in the measures which had been foreshadowed in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, any great sign of a remedy for the agricultural depression at the present moment. The extension of local government was, no doubt, desirable; but he only hoped that it might be obtained without any increase of local burdens. Technical education had, no doubt, been scandalously neglected in the past; but he felt quite certain that any effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government to promote and encourage it would be received with ready favour by both sides of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division had given an indication that he thought the first remedy might be found in what was known as bi-metallism. The right hon. Gentleman's authority was great in the country—his experience in agricultural matters was unequalled—but he (Mr. Howard Vincent) ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman would have some little difficulty in persuading the country of that fact. No doubt the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget) would hear with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Lord that it was in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government to establish an Agricultural Department; but he (Mr. Howard Vincent) should like to say this—that, having acquired considerable knowledge of the feeling of the agricultural community in the country, he was in a position to state that they were not only anxious for men, but also for measures. One of the measures 'which would be most acceptable to them—in fact, the chief amongst those which they wanted—and he was not singular in this belief either in the House or in the country—was a measure which would stimu-

    895
    late British and Irish production, and which would give the British and Irish consumer a direct interest in the encouragement of the industry and labour of their fellow-countrymen. He had no intention of going at any length into this matter at the present time, in spite of the observations addressed to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. H. Gardner). Other opportunities would, he believed, occur during this Session, when he would be able more fully and thoroughly to gratify the hon. Member's curiosity, and when he would also be able, with the assistance of hon. Friends, to bring this matter before the House on an occasion when a more practical result would be obtainable than was possible this evening. No doubt, the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex had noticed, in common with other hon. Members, that on the Order Book was his (Mr. Howard Vincent's) Motion on the subject, and similar Motions in the names of other hon. Members. Upon some of these Motions he trusted that they would be able to get the opinion of the House. Of course, the opinion of the House would only be taken provided it could be done without endangering the present patriotic Government, which nine commercial men out of every ten recognized as alone capable of bringing about any real revival of industry. Perhaps the House would allow him to say that in all parts of the country energetic men were actively at work in arousing public opinion upon this question, and he did not think there was any prospect of their relaxing their efforts until the interests of the masses of the whole population were regarded as more sacred than those of a small minority who produced nothing more deserving of legislative protection than the interests of the foreign importer and producer. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Mr. C. W. Gray) would corroborate the statement that the revival of agricultural industry was a matter of the greatest importance to the home population, and for this reason he asked for a few minutes. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire had remarked, the state of agriculture was terrible; numerous farms had been
    896
    deserted, and thousands of acres of arable land had been laid down in permanent pasture. The wages of the agricultural labourer had shrunk to 8s. or 9s. a-week, and many men with wives to maintain and children to support were unable to obtain employment. For the urban population the state of affairs was also very serious. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford did not refer to the influx from the unhappy country districts into the towns during the past few years, but it had been enormous, and amounted to hundreds of thousands of persons. With the depression in trade and the decreased purchasing power of the agricultural population, amounting—according to Sir James Caird—to over £42,000,000 a-year; with the increased and increasing taxation and increasing competition on the part of foreigners in the home market which had rendered employment in the towns scarcer and scarcer, it was no wonder then that the bitter cry of the unemployed became every day louder and louder. He was satisfied that the sights to be seen on the high roads of the country and at every street corner of London—a gaunt man, a miserable woman, and the famished children—must pierce the heart even of the most zealous member of the Cobden Club. The pauperism in London alone showed an increase of more than 10,000 persons in the first week of the present month, compared with the corresponding week in 1886. Thousands of persons were fed by charity, and it was stated by Mr. Shipton, of the London Trades Council, in a deputation which recently waited on the Prime Minister, that there were numbers of persons who would rather suffer martyrdom than let their sufferings be known outside the circle of their friends. In Sheffield and many other towns and villages numbers of deserving persons were altogether unable to obtain employment, and numerous unprofitable relief works had been undertaken in many parts of the country. A high authority—Mr. Francis—the Chairman of the London and County Bank, stated recently that the depression in agriculture amounted in the last 10 years in Great Britain to £10 an acre, with an addition of £2 per acre for the tenants' capital. If the land were to be realized now at the present prices there would be a loss in money of more than

    897
    £600,000,000 sterling. With these facts before them, he was justified in saying that the question was one which deserved attentive consideration. The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) wrote a letter a few weeks ago in which he said that £50,000,000 sterling a-year, which might be applied to the encouragement of agriculture in this country, now went over to the foreigner in the trade of butter, cheese, poultry, eggs, vegetables, and bacon. He submitted that these were matters which deserved the close and speedy attention of Parliament. He was quite sure that neither he nor his hon. Friend the Member for the Maldon Division of Essex, nor any other Member of that House, intended to make any attack upon real Free Trade; but bearing in mind that this country raised a far larger revenue from import duties than any other country in Europe, his hon. Friends and himself intended to attack, singly and together, wherever and whenever they could, in that House and in the country, that unfair system of one-sided Free Trade which admitted the produce of the foreigner into the British markets, while the same privileges were rigidly denied to our produce in every quarter of the globe. They intended to assail, by every legitimate means the circumstances of the hour might justify, those abuses which the Prime Minister pointed out at Liverpool had crept in under the broad mantle of Free Trade. He felt convinced that the great body of public opinion was being aroused in this matter with a view of securing the legitimate defence of British industry. The struggle they had before them might be a long and difficult one; but they would not flinch from it, because they were of opinion that the welfare of the British producer and of the great masses of the community of the country rested upon the prosperity of British industry. They knew that on their side was ranged the opinion of every other nation, of every self-governing British Colony, and of every democracy in the world. They believed that they were working for the welfare of their own countrymen, and endeavouring to secure their industries from destruction at foreign hands; and, with all deference, he would remind their opponents of the well-known dictum pronounced at Manchester by the right
    898
    hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—
    "It is in vain that you struggle against the opinion of civilized mankind. The judgment of the whole world continued and prolonged is never wrong."
    MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, that judging from the speech of the hon. Member opposite who had just spoken (Mr. Howard Vincent), there would be no great result from his efforts on the question of Fair Trade if it were likely to interfere with the patriotic Government now sitting on the Treasury Bench. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) would, before long, drop his new nostrum of bi-metallism for agricultural distress, and go back to his old love, Protection. Whatever the landlords of Ireland and Scotland might have done in reducing rents—although in the latter country the Crofters' Commission had to lower them 40, 50, and 60 per cent—the majority of the Welsh landlords had not met their tenants fairly. The consequence was that thousands of tenant-farmers in Wales were on the verge of ruin. Landlords had been somewhat startled by the establishment of a Land League in the Principality. He did not then wish to discuss the rise of the League, or argue whether it was justified or not; but he would point to two counties in Wales where there was no Land League—namely, the counties of Anglesey and Montgomery. A short time ago, at the invitiation of the landlords, a conference of farmers was held in Anglesey to discuss the causes of agricultural depression and the best means of meeting it. The result of that conference was that the tenants came to the conclusion that unless the landlords met them more fairly than they had hitherto done, much of the land in that Island would fall out of cultivation, for this reason—that while the price of agricultural produce had fallen 30 per cent, the landlords had made only temporary reductions of 10 per cent in the rent. The farmers had year after year been paying rent out of their savings. Those savings had now gone; and they were now paying rent from loans obtained from the banks on the security of one another's credit, and everybody knew that a system of obtaining money from the banks on credit, with a falling market, must in the end land the farmers in

    899
    ruin. The same state of things existed in the county of Montgomery. The fall of prices there amounted to from 30 to 35 per cent, and only temporary abatements of 30 per cent had been made to meet this terrible fall. The farmers said that it was impossible to effect further economy either in labour or in manure, and if any reduction in labour were made the only result would be that the land would be deteriorated and go out of cultivation. The farmers further complained of unnecessarily restrictive covenants in regard to cropping' and gale of produce, which operated prejudicially in creating a feeling of distrust and insecurity among the peasantry. Whatever greater measure might be under consideration for the improvement of trade, they might give the farmers greater scope in cultivation and freedom of sale for their produce. The reforms which the farmers asked for were, that in connection with County Boards there should be a board of conciliation and valuers, who should settle disputes as to rent between landlords and tenants, that the farmers should have security of tenure so long as they paid their rents and complied with the clauses of their rents, so that they should not be liable to be turned out from their farms for taking part in political or religious combinations. Finally, they demanded that the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 should be strengthened by giving fuller and more ample compensation for the improvements the tenants had made. As yet the only indications the farmers had of any readiness to receive them was a threat from a land agent, who is a Welsh Tory Member, that he would make a clearance of all his tenants and resort to co-operative farming, while his antidote for Welsh agitation was the threat of a Coercion Bill for Wales. Another cause of the deepening dissatisfaction among the farmers in Wales was the method of collection and application of tithes in the Principality. It was a matter for regret that during the whole of last year the Government refused to give the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), or any other Member, an opportunity of bringing before the House their grievances as to tithes and the Church Establishment. The hon. Member for Swansea had obtained a favourable place in the ballot, but the Government refused to give him
    900
    the day he had secured. A still deeper cause for dissatisfaction was in the methods resorted to in the Principality for the collection of the tithe. Not only were Emergency men employed, but the police and military had been called upon the scene. He had no wish to refer to the condemnation which the Welsh people had passed repeatedly on the alien Establishment. At five General Elections the Welsh people had, by overwhelming majorities, condemned the continuance of this alien Establishment in their midst, and at their last Election they sent 28 Members out of 34 to vote for its discontinuance. Apart from that question he desired to enter a protest against the employment of emergency men and military in the collection of tithes in Wales. He admitted that in the earlier history of the movement there was a considerable amount of groaning at the bailiffs, clergymen, and others, who refused to make a reduction in the tithe, and that on one or two occasions the bailiffs were pelted. In the face of such manifestations it was right that the police should be in readiness to prevent injury to life and property. But he maintained that no cause had been shown for the employment of military for the collection of a debt, whether the debt belonged to a tradesman or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It might be said that the state of feeling had been such as to justify the calling out of the military but he thought he should be able to show from the Report of Mr. Bridge—the Special Commissioner sent down to inquire into the matter—that there was no cause whatever for sending the military into Wales. Mr. Bridge said—
    "The commencement of the disturbances, which have occurred in Wales, was contemporaneous with the agricultural depression, which became acute when the price of stock fell in the years 1885 and 1886. This took place after a long-continued fall in the price of wheat."
    Mr. Bridge went on to say—
    "There existed in Wales from old times a strong feeling among the Nonconformists that the tithes were improperly claimed and taken by the Church of England, and a desire has grown up, not that the tithes should be abolished, but that they should be applied to some lay purpose for the benefit of the nation. This feeling has arisen from causes partly religious, partly social, partly national, and partly political, and, although it had formerly been to a great extent passive, it became active and aggressive when the demand of the farmers

    901
    for the reduction of the rent-charge had been refused."
    Mr. Bridge gave an account of all the disturbances which had taken place in Wales, and he said that—
    "The first place where the police appeared to protect the bailiffs was at Llanorman, on the 26th of August, 1886. In this case a few stones were thrown at the police, but on the whole the proceedings were good-humoured and orderly."
    In another case the Report said—
    "There was a very large number of people present; there was much pushing, yelling, and horse play, and in one place a large stone was thrown. This was the only violence, and a cry of 'Shame !' seems to have arisen from the mob at the throwing of the stone."
    Mr. Bridge said further, in reference to the most serious of all the tithe disturbances—that at Mochdre—
    "It will also be seen that there was probably no intention on the part of the people to use force, and that but for the steepness of the lane the collision would not have occurred."
    This is the only case in which there was any excuse for employing a large force to collect the tithe. Mr. Bridge said that no blame attached to the people, and that there would have been no collision but for the steepness of the lane in which the people and the constabulary met. That was the only excuse of the so called riot at Mochdre. Whatever may be the sins of Welsh Nonconformists, it is not their faults that lanes on Welsh hillsides are steep. The only other serious riot was that at Llangwm. The auctioneer and the police refused to give notice of the day of sale. They instructed their men to go down on the dawn of day and sweep away the cattle of the peasantry. This cattle-lifting naturally irritated the peasantry, and the district became much disturbed. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners only took three policemen to this disturbed district, and there is no doubt but that the bailiffs and the myrmidons of the Commissioners were treated with some harshness, and some of them received injury. In Flintshire, the landlords had had to revert to the Emergency men, but he protested against the importation of such men into Wales, for they formed the most repulsive feature of the doomed system of Irish landlordism. They were dressed in a semi-military uniform, and armed with the new regulation police baton that did such execution in
    902
    Trafalgar Square. He did not know whether these men were sworn in as special constables, but if so he would ask the Government to confine them to the use of the police baton alone. He said this because the last few weeks they had been marching about the country armed now with cutlasses, and then with revolvers. He wished to give fair warning to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews), who was responsible for the peace and order of the country, that he must not expect the peasantry to remain quiet and passive when such exasperating methods for collecting iniquitous imposts were resorted to. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what justification he had for sending detachments of Cavalry into Wales in order to assist in the collection of debts, and he pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government that, upon the evidence of their own Commissioner, the use of a military force was altogether unnecessary. Not only was it unnecessary, but it involved considerable cost, and was irritating and exasperating to the people. Although the military, each man armed with 20 rounds of ball cartridge, might overawe the people, still such a deep sense of dissatisfaction and exasperation was aroused that it will be difficult to make the peasantry submit peacefully to their grievances. He would ask the House to note the strange anomaly which existed in Wales at the present day. There they found the Church of the State supported by galling imposts levied by the use of the bayonet and the ball cartridge, whilst the religious and moral life of the people was fostered by Nonconformity, the adherents of which were worried from day to day by the presence and action of the emergency men and military. He (Mr. T. E. Ellis) asked the Government if it was not time that this system should end? His view and the view of the Welsh people was that the first charge on land and industry in the Principality ought to be devoted to some lay purpose that would be for the general good of the mass of the people. For years they had pressed both upon Liberal and Tory Governments the necessity of inaugurating a system of intermediate education for Wales. It was admitted on all hands that in the matter of intermediate education Wales

    903
    was absolutely starved. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) gave a promise that the question should be grappled with; but he now found the right hon. Gentleman promising in a hesitating sort of way that some measure should be introduced towards the middle or end of the Session. That was a mere mockery. If the Government would introduce their Bill at once, and allow it to go side by side with the Bills of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) and that of the Tory Members for Wales, it could be discussed by a Select Committee, a general agreement could be come to, and a measure could be passed this Session. He had only one other point. The new President of the Board of Trade, the ex-Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in a remarkable speech, made five or six weeks ago, said that one of the chief causes of the difficulty in Ireland was that this country had persistently refused to give to the Irish people the same respectful hearing and attention which they had given to the people of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that one of the chief causes of Irish discontent was that this country refused to listen to the expressed wishes of the majority of the Irish people, and he added that the first ray of hope and the best method of meeting the Irish difficulty would be to give to the Irish people and the Members for that country the same consideration which they gave to the Scotch people and the Scotch Members. He (Mr. Ellis) trusted that in future the Government would extend to Wales the same principle. It was certainly the best way of settling Welsh grievances, and of doing away with the rising irritation of the Welsh people. He maintained, and he appealed to the whole House, that Her Majesty's Government, whether it happened to be Liberal or Tory, should pay the same attention to the Welsh Members on exclusively Welsh questions as they now paid to Scotch Members on Scotch questions, and as would soon, he hoped, be paid to the Irish Members on Irish questions.
    SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he did not intend to follow the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. T. E. Ellis). He would only ex-
    904
    press a hope that the good sense of the people in Wales would induce them to pay their debts like honest men. When they did that, there would be no necessity for taking the extraordinary precautions against which the hon. Member had protested. He trusted, further, that the good sense of the landlords of Wales would induce them to follow the example which had been set to them by the landlords of Ireland. Turning to the speech of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy (Lord John Manners), he ventured to say that the little agricultural episode which had taken place would form by no means the least interesting part of the debate on Her Majesty's Speech. There was only one expression that fell from the noble Lord to which he would venture to take the slightest exception. He certainly could not feel the noble Lord's confidence that the present revival of trade pro tanto augured well for a corresponding revival of agriculture. He wished that he could entertain the same view. He saw little reason for believing that the increase of manufactures was likely to give to agriculture that which was necessary at this moment—namely, an interest in the value of produce. The real difficulty in agriculture was this—that the value of produce was so small that it was impossible to pay the necessary expenses of raising a crop in order to realize profit. The land was rapidly going out of cultivation. That was the real difficulty, and how was it to be remedied? To his mind there were but the four directions which had been indicated that night from which they could hope for assistance, and, of these, two had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech—namely, railway rates and the adjustment of taxation. He wished to say a word or two on the question of railway rates. With regard to that question, it was not apolitical one, but it was none the less one which had two sides to it. On the one side would be found those who were interested in railways, and on the other those, far less organized, who were interested in agricultural and commercial pursuits. The question of railway rates was one which largely affected agricultural difficulties. He would venture to put before the House one set of figures, and one only. Mr. Howard, formerly a Member of that House, had recently prepared a

    905
    careful estimate of the annual value of agricultural produce, not that which was merely moved from farm to farm, but that which found its way into the outer market—and he put it at no less than £216,000,000 sterling. He (Sir Richard Paget) would like to put side by side with those figures another sum of a very similar character—namely, a sum of £212,000,000, which represented the total value of their manufactured exports in the year 1886. So, consequently, the value of their agricultural produce was acknowledged to be more than that of the whole of their exports. Now, what became of this agricultural produce? It was sent all over the land, North, South, East, and West, mainly by railway; and if, through legislation or the action of the Railway Companies, they could get it carried at a lower rate—at a rate at all equal to that for which agricultural produce was carried in America—they would then have contributed materially to the revival of agriculture. There could be no doubt that at the present moment agriculture was heavily handicapped. What he wanted to see was not so much low rates for full truck-loads carried for long distances, but the charges reduced for short local traffic from station to station. It was the local traffic which handicapped agriculture. They were told that they ought to be Free Traders, and most of them were; but if they were to have Free Trade, let them have fair play also. He could not for the life of him call it fair play that a Company of Traders, or any member of a Company of private traders, who had been granted by statute, the practical monopolies of our highways, should be induced by any process to give preferential rates to foreigners and refuse them to the English producer. He would now pass from that question of railway rates, merely saying this—that he hoped the Government would take into consideration the opinions which had been expressed with regard to the Bill brought in in "another place" last year. He hoped that Bill would not be persisted in by Her Majesty's Government until it had undergone those material modifications which the farmers considered necessary for their own interests. With regard to the question of the re-adjustment of taxation, he ventured to say that there was nothing in the Queen's Speech
    906
    which was of greater importance. Of all the classes that suffered by the present depression in agriculture, none had suffered so bitterly as that class which they all professed to wish to retain—he meant those who were known as "statesmen" in the North of England, and as independent yeoman farmers in the South. They know only too well that the land which was the possession and the birth-right of these men had been depreciated in value to one-half of what it was formerly, and its produce in even a greater degree. He maintained that these men were burdened by an unjust amount of taxation. He therefore hailed with delight the announcement that there was to be a re-adjustment of the incidence of taxation, and he hoped that the re-adjustment would be made in a manner sufficiently broad and comprehensive to give complete satisfaction. He believed it was perfectly capable of proof that, taking Imperial taxation alone and leaving local taxation out of the question altogether, the burdens of taxation on real property far exceeded those on personal property. If the two were taken together, and local taxation added to Imperial taxation, the injustice and inequality were more distinctly marked. He would only allude briefly to two other points where he considered that injustice was done to agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had brought forward what he thought was absolutely necessary for the relief of agriculture; and the right hon. Gentleman said that nothing would do more good than largely to increase the produce of the land. What was wanted was to improve it both in quantity and in quality. To accomplish that, they must do what every other nation under the sun did—namely, provide agricultural education. They were told that enormous quantities of butter were annually introduced into England. Any hon. Member who would take the trouble to look into the figures would see how that arose. Look at the case of Denmark. That was a country which, a few years ago, was distinguished for the production of execrable butter; but the importations from Denmark had been increasing in value year by year, until last year they amounted to £2,600,000. Let them go behind the figures and see how this arose. It

    907
    would now be found that the Danish butter market had reached a high pitch of perfection; and why? Because a complete system of agricultural education had been established; dairy schools had been set up, and the immediate result had been an enormous increase in the production of butter. As a matter of fact, Denmark was supplying the butter which we ought to produce ourselves. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy had referred to the Royal Commission on Agriculture. He would not enter into the recommendations of that Commission, of which he had himself been a Member; but he learned with great satisfaction from the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government intended to act upon several of the recommendations of that Commission. One of the recommendations of the Commission was a novel one; because they suggested that State aid was necessary in order to set up those schools which they maintained it was absolutely requisite to establish. They hoped that in England and Ireland, too, there would he a multiplication of these schools. There was only one other matter upon which he would say a word, and it had reference to the formation of an Agricultural Department. He trusted that the Department would be on a footing worthy of the great industry it was to benefit. That it would be of substantial benefit to the country he could have no doubt whatever. The work which had already been done had an admittedly insufficient Department, and he hardly agreed with all the noble Lord had said; still, many things remained to be done, and he hoped that the new Department would be able to do substantial service to the country. Without detaining the House any longer, he would only say that out-of-doors there would be a general feeling of satisfaction at the announcement which had been made that evening on the part of Her Majesty's Government. After what had occurred in the debate since the speech of the noble Lord, there was every reason to expect that the subject would be approached from both sides of the House; not from the point of view of Party politics, but with an earnest desire to do something for the interests of agriculture. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would receive every assistance from both sides of the House in passing the measure
    908
    which had been announced. He also trusted that the Government would receive from hon. Members opposite reasonable aid in the legislation they were about to attempt; that no obstruction would be placed in the way of the rapid passing of the measure; but that, on the contrary, hon. Members would assist Her Majesty's Government in doing something for the industry which had been suffering so long, which had been well-nigh driven to despair, and which would be very grateful for the smallest measure of relief that Parliament could pass.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that during the debate several allusions had been made to the Welsh Tithe Question, and to the absence of any mention of Wales in the Queen's Speech; but he thought the House hardly appreciated the serious state of affairs that existed in the Principality. It was admitted that the people of Wales were among the loyal and law-abiding subjects; it had been stated in that House by a home Secretary that Wales gave him less trouble than any other part of the country; and the charges of Judges attested the comparative absence of crime in Wales, where crimes of violence were almost unknown. But, unfortunately, a change had occurred; their normal conditions of peacefulness had well-nigh come to an end, and something approaching to a state of civil war had been brought about. How was that? The reason was not far to seek. The Church was reduced to collecting its own tithes, and to do this it employed an army of bailiffs or emergency men, who had required the aid of a troop of Hussars, provided with 600 rounds of ball cartridge, to collect the sum of 12 s. 6d., arrears of tithes from an old woman. He thought that operation beat the record of even the Irish Secretary. The revenue of the Church was collected exclusively from agricultural holdings—in other words, from that part of the population which was most thoroughly Nonconformist and which suffered most from agricultural depression. If the Church of England had made any progress in Wales, which he very much doubted, it was certain that that progress had been made in the towns and in what might be called the English colonies, and that in the agricultural

    909
    districts 19 out of 20, or 99 out of 100, of the ratepayers were Nonconformists. One man had told him that he had been compelled to pay £800 for the support of a Church which he had never entered for the last 30 years. The House was bound to recognize the serious dissatisfaction which prevailed, and, if possible, to remove it. As to the stock arguments that it was due to the efforts of interested agitators, he wondered that sensible men could be found to lend themselves to such absurdities. Why, they might as well blame the vanes of a weathercock for the violence of the storm. No agitation like this could flourish unless there was a substantial grievance to feed it. If the Tithe Bill referred to in the Queen's Speech were at all like that of last Session, it would be a most inadequate remedy, for its simple effect would be to shift the burden from the right shoulder to the left by transferring it from the occupier to the owner, and leaving the latter to recover it from the former as part of the rent. He wished the owner joy of the compromise, for there was little hope that when he had paid the tithe he would recover it from the rack-rented occupier. It seemed to be generally supposed that the great bulk of the farmers of Wales were tenant-farmers; but there were thousands of them who were small freeholders, and who therefore would not be benefited at all by the proposal to throw the burden upon owners. What they objected to was not the sources from which tithes were collected, but their application when collected. Let the Church of the rich minority be disestablished and disendowed, and let the tithes, which were national property, be applied to national purposes and readjusted to meet the justice of each case, and the poor Welsh farmers would make as honest a struggle to pay them as they now made to pay School Board rates. If the Government would not go so far, they might, at any rate, allow the subject to be discussed. Last year his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea Town (Mr. Dillwyn) had obtained the first place on the first working night of the Session for his Motion on Welsh Disestablishment. But his coign of vantage was filched from him by the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), supported by Members on that side who
    910
    should have known better, on the plea that not a single night could be spared from the discussion of Procedure Rules, which it took two months to pass, and which when passed had proved so worthless that they required to be retinkered on the first opportunity. Another ground of complaint was the indifference of the Government to the question of Intermediate Education, which was a burning question among all parties in Wales. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) had brought in a Bill on the subject; but with 50 or 60 Private Bills in front of him, what chance was there of his obtaining a second reading for it? Returning to the question of the Tithe Riots, he said that they could not dragoon people into an enthusiasm for an alien Church, and that the only result of the late high-handed proceedings was to quicken indifference into active hatred. If they wanted to have another Ireland in Wales, they were taking the best steps to get it. The Government were playing with fire, and he trusted that before it was too late they would remember that it was neither wise nor just to turn a stone deaf ear to the demands of the Representatives of 1,500,000 of Her Majestys subjects, who were easy enough to govern if treated with ordinary consideration, but who were quick to resent neglect and still quicker to resent injustice.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, he did not think that the agricultural interest would suffer from the fact that some of the younger Members of the House had ventured to raise their voices in support of what had been said, and also to express their appreciation of the propositions likely to be made by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners). It was not his intention to attempt to elaborate any fresh propositions or to suggest any new plans beyond those which had been shadowed forth to the House; but he urged with all the power that belonged to any Member representing an almost entirely agricultural constituency that it was absolutely necessary and vital that the Government should not play with the measures they had promised to introduce—that the measures should be introduced in no niggardly spirit, but in such a manner as to satisfy the needs of the agricultural population, and not merely the ends of a political Party. He be-

    911
    lieved it was well known throughout the rank and file of the agricultural community that they had not for a long time had better friends to their cause than those now occupying the Front Bench in this House. They were grateful, and ought to be grateful for the measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. Probably, the most important of these measures had not received that consideration at the hands of the agricultural community that it deserved. If the farmers had taken advantage of it throughout England, and had chosen to seek for the relief that measure afforded to them by coming under the Schedule for assessment, which was suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there would have been a much more widespread feeling of gratitude than even existed now. He (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) was very glad indeed to notice the words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) as to the necessities of the labouring portion of the community. It was very often forgotten by those who dealt with these subjects in the House of Commons that labourers formed an important element in the agricultural community, and that they were championed by the Conservative Party just as much as were the other classes connected with the land. The question of the condition of the landlord and farmer and the question of the condition of the labourer were essentially one and the same question. The questions could not be treated differently, but must be co-extensively and comprehensively dealt with. As to the table of wages referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he might venture to assort that it would portray oven a more terrible state of things for the agricultural labourer, if it were not that so much land was now held in cultivation by the landowners themselves, or by gentlemen at large throughout the country, who had an old-fashioned and hereditary and worthy wish not to lessen wages so long as they could afford to pay them. Inasmuch as many farms had been given up, and labourers were now drawing their wages directly from the landowners, instead of from the occupiers, and drawing the same amount as before, he thought it could be proved
    912
    that the general run of wages was even worse than was stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He was most thankful to the Government for what they had promised to-night, and he hoped that what the Government proposed to give would not be in shadow, but in actual substance, and that it would be given promptly. It was certain that the heart of the agriculturist was getting sick with, deferred hope, and that he really wanted something which would make the coming year better than those which had gone before it. He understood that the two measures which the Government proposed were, one for the relief of local taxation and one dealing with railway rates. The agriculturists of the country were told again and again that they were wanting in energy, and were in fault in not adapting themselves to the necessities of life now-a-days. They were told that they did not bring themselves as producers sufficiently into contact with the great centres of consumption. He ventured to assert that that was exactly what agriculturists were longing to do, and were bending all their best efforts to do, but they were warded and fenced off by almost hopelessly heavy railway rates which were levelled against those who lived at any distance from the great centres. It was not for him to bring figures before the House, as statistics would come with much greater effect from those who were acknowledged authorities. Figures, however, were at hand with regard to this subject, and he believed it was utterly impossible to contest their correctness. These figures proved that it was almost impossible for agriculturists who lived any distance from the centres of consumption to bring their produce to those centres because of the large and prohibitive tariffs that were exacted from them. They had been told over and over again that they ought to try to help themselves first, and then to seek relief from the community at large and the Government that ruled over them. He did not think it could be charged on the landlord or tenant or labourer or farmer, that the class to which he belonged had been backward in trying to help themselves. They had, he thought, exhausted almost every means of helping themselves. They had drawn on all the funds at their disposal; they had drawn on their

    913
    savings; they had drawn on their capital; they had drawn on their industry; they had drawn on their labour; and now they came to those who led and guided them for that help which it was necessary they should give, and give freely and largely if they wished to step between the sufferers and a ruined industry. It would not be becoming in him (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) to attempt to elaborate on this scheme. He would only now express his hearty thanks for that which had been promised to agriculturists, and for the hearty willingness of that section of the community to co-operate with hon. Gentlemen wherever they sat in that House in dealing with any measures which might be brought forward for the relief of agriculture, and a hope that, at last, they might see the dawn of brighter days for the agricultural community.
    MR. MARUMsaid, he wished to say a few words on this subject as agriculture was a staple industry in Ireland, and there was a general opinion that the depression in that industry at the present time was unexampled in its severity. The agricultural industry in Ireland had of late years received great consideration from Parliament by reason of the fact he pointed out, and also by reason of another fact which he did not bring forward in an invidious manner—namely, that the absence of a commercial community in Ireland was owing to the direct interference of this country in preventing Irish manufactures. That Ireland was entitled to special consideration by reason of this interference on the part of England had been clearly shown in leaflets circulated during the General Election by English politicians; that even Mr. Cobden, in years gone by, had declared that the policy of this country had been directed incessantly to the destruction of the foreign trade of Ireland, whose industries had been mercilessly nipped in the bud. It was therefore especially necessary that Irish agriculture should receive attention at the hands of Parliament. He was glad to recognize the view which had been put forward with regard to the establishment of a Department of Agriculture, and he trusted a Minister of Agriculture would likewise be appointed. He regretted, that the terms of the
    914
    Queen's Speech were extremely vague. It struck him, that though there was a Department of Agriculture proposed, and that very likely a Minister of Agriculture would also be proposed, it was an abnegnation of duty on the part of Her Majesty's Government not to propose measures of relief. The mere creation of a Department would not mean that steps were being taken to relieve the industry, which was in a most distressed state. As showing the necessity for the establishment of some supervision or control over agriculture, he would refer to what had recently occurred. In connection with the Land Commission in Ireland a very singular thing had happened. The Land Commission had had entrusted to them the administration of a most serious part of the legislation of last year—namely, the clause enabling them to reduce the judicial rents. Upon that clause there had been considerable difference of opinion amongst the Commissioners. At the time the clause was passed it was declared that prices should regulate the reductions; but the Commissioners had made the reductions vary from 3 to 14 per cent, and they had made those reductions over extensive areas of Poor Law Unions. They had given, say, 10 or 11 per cent of reduction in a particular locality which was stretched over pasturage, feeding land, and tillage land, altogether irrespective of the fact that a 10 per cent reduction on feeding land was equal to 30 or 40 per cent reduction on tillage land. The Land Commission, however, had thrown indiscriminate reductions on all classes of property. That illustrated the necessity of having some agricultural supervision—of having some active Minister to supervize these matters. Something even beyond a mere Department of Agriculture was necessary. The agricultural loss last year, owing to the unfavourable season, had been enormous. Agricultural statistics had been published in Ireland which showed conclusively that the loss during the last season by the agricultural interest had been £6,000,000 sterling, and it would be seen how enormously this must affect the community when it was borne in mind that the agricultural valuation of that country was only between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000. It would be seen from this that some supervision of agriculture was asolutely necessary, and that it was

    915
    not by coercion that the Government would get rid of the causes which lay at the root of the distress of the Irish people.
    COLONEL DAWNAYsaid, that the agricultural classes had reason to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) for calling the attention of the Government to this subject, and also to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord John Manners) for the satisfactory statement he had made. One proposal for the relief of agriculture was to return to Protection; but that policy had to-night received its death blow, and he was glad that the Government had brought forward a scheme of their own to enable our greatest industry to adapt itself to the altered times in which we live. It was true that we did not hear so much about agricultural distress in England as we did in Ireland; but that was not because the distress did not exist, but because the English farmer knew how to suffer like an Englishman. He knew how to suffer without complaining, and to fight doggedly on when other people surrendered themselves to despair. There was no doubt about the facts of the case. According to the Earl of Derby, who could not be accused of making exaggerated statements, the loss of those who cultivated the land in England during the past 10 years was something like 30 per cent, and reckoning the value of the land at £1,000,000,000, that would make a loss to this country during the 10 years of something like £300,000,000, which did not of course include the largely increased burdens which had been imposed on the land during that period. Those who desire to see the extermination of the landlords, if they would only exercise a little patience, were likely to get what they wanted, without having recourse to anything in the way of heroic legislation. The condition of the farmer was even worse than that of the landowner. Thousands of people 10 years ago, who were making incomes out of farming, were now abandoning that industry, or pursuing it at a loss. Many of them had gone on hoping against hope for a turn of the tide. They had not only to contend with bad seasons, but they had to compete with Russia and America, and
    916
    now a new factor was brought in against them in India. The wheat supply of India was practically inexhaustible. The railways were opening up new tracts of that country. The Indian peasant did not live on wheat, but on cheaper kinds of grain, and he was an individual who could live, marry, and bring up his family on 1s. 6d. a-week. He wore no clothes to speak of, and could work on one meal of rice per day. This showed how terribly the English agriculturist was handicapped, seeing that he had to pay his labourers 2s. a day as against 3d. a day. The struggle was as futile as the well-known struggle of the old woman against the Atlantic ocean. What he would ask the House to consider was this—if wheat growing in this country was doomed to destruction, what was going to be the fate of the agricultural labourer? Up to the present time the agricultural depression had sat very lightly upon him. Parliament had set itself to work to improve his condition, and had thrust a large measure of political power into his hands; but in spite of this, the prospects of the agricultural labourer were never more gloomy that at the present moment. An allotment and a cow were very good things in their way; but they did not enable a man to keep a family without regular wages, and if we cannot grow wheat in this country except at a loss, clearly the occupation of the agricultural labourer was gone, and the consequence must be the depopulation of our rural districts. We were already face to face with this calamity. Our agricultural community was drifting into the great towns at the rate of 50,000 or 60,000 a year, to exchange a hard lot for one which was perfectly hopeless, and, as if this were not enough, we alone of all nations in the world were permitting the unrestricted immigration of pauper foreigners, who were pouring into the East End of London and elsewhere by thousands, burdening our rates, bringing down wages to starvation level, developing the sweating system, and swamping and overstocking the labour market, and depriving our own labourers of the last chance of obtaining a livelihood. For a great number of years the agriculturists had received little sympathy from any Government. Some sympathy was now being shown them by Her Majesty's present Advisers. He thanked

    917
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had done; and he trusted the Government would yet see their way to deal with the difficult problem before them, and to arrest the ruin which was now impending over the agricultural population, and save the country from a great national disaster.
    SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he wished to express the feeling which he knew was uppermost in the minds of the tenant farmers of England, which was one of great satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government had recognized the gravity of the agricultural situation, find at their having referred in such important terms to it in the Queen's Speech. He agreed in the main with what had been said by other speakers; and there was, no doubt, gratitude due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) for having given thorn an opportunity for having an agricultural discussion, and clearing up the somewhat dark terms of the allusion to agriculture in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. The question of the remission, or rather of the transfer, of taxation from local to Imperial sources was one of the utmost importance, and was one which he knew would be deeply appreciated. With regard to the Railway Hates Bill, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would not be frightened by the opposition which had been, in part, brought forward by the Railway Companies; and they knew, from the speeches which had already been made by the Chairmen of some of the leading Railway Companies at the annual meetings, that there was a considerable amount of opposition in store for the Railway Rates Measure. He hoped the Government would make up their minds that the Bill was not to be a sham measure. He knew that those who represented the agricultural interest in this House would do their best to amend the Bill if it required amendment. The agricultural community would not be satisfied with the Bill brought in last Session; and he trusted that the one now brought in would be amended in the direction required. He did not think that any speaker this evening had referred to the extraordinary bad season that the country had just experienced. The year ending Michaelmas last was unqestion
    918
    ably the worst year for agricultural purposes that this country, or, at any rate, the Eastern counties, had experienced for the last 10 years. The Returns for Great Britain, published during the last month, showed that there had been a decrease in the number of bushels of barley and oats, as compared with the year 1886, of no less than 18,103,000. He was bound to say that there was a set-off against that in the shape of an increase of 12,855,000 bushels of wheat. The Return was important in another direction, because it clearly stated that the turnip, the mangold, the hay and the hop crops had largely decreased. With regard to the question of grazing stock, he supposed there was no district in England where there were more fat bullocks and fat sheep than in the Eastern counties. Well, the loss in grazing during the past year had been most serious, though he was bound to say that this was the only point in which he could see any hope of daylight for the future, because the tenant farmers had had an opportunity of buying their lean stock on more favourable terms. With regard to grain crops, he did not see how, under the present prices, they would ever be able to grow wheat, barley, or oats at any profit at all. It was just nine years ago that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) brought forward the question of the then agricultural depression, and asked the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the then state of agriculture. He (Sir Edward Birkbeck) was quite convinced of this—that there had not, in the interval between 1879 and the present year, been one single good season, or one which the farmers could say was a favourable one to their pockets; and, in addition to that, prices had fallen every year, and had been going from bad to worse. What was even more unfortunate for the tenant farmers was that their capital had been gradually decreasing, and that many of them at the present time had no capital at all to farm with. With regard to the question of the labouring classes, there had been undoubtedly a large number of labourers out of employment in the last winter in the Eastern counties; but where they had good allotments or gar-

    919
    dens, they had been able to keep themselves alive. Allusion had been made to the question of allotments, and he might say that in his county of Norfolk, there had been undoubtedly a very strong expression of approval on the part of the labourers, and a sense of the benefits they were likely to derive from the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman below him. There had been from time to time criticisms of the working of that Act; but he believed that there was ample proof already that in many districts excellent organizations had been put into force for carrying out the working of the measure. With regard to the poor landlords, it would, no doubt, astonish the House when he said that in his own county, at the present time, no less than 50 per cent of the larger class of landlords were no longer able to live in their own homes. They were obliged to desert them or let them, and if the times did not improve, in another two years 75 per cent of the landlords of Norfolk and Suffolk would have shut up their houses on account of the agricultural depression. He was glad that hon. Members had spoken out on this question of Protection, and he thought it was a most unfortunate thing that, either during the Recess or in the House, any hon. Members should in any way have misled the tenant farmers in England, by holding out to them the hope that there would be Protection in any sense of the term. He believed that his hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) had done more to bury Protection than any other man in England, and which he was sure the farmers were convinced they would never get. He hoped the Agricultural Department would not be a sham Department; and he laid a great deal of stress on the fact that, as he believed, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) would do all in his power, by giving a good Vote, to make it an enlarged, effective, and thoroughly useful Department, and one worthy of this country. He did not believe that without such aid as was given in America and other countries it would ever be effective. He hoped the Government would bring in a Bill to amend the present system of arriving at corn averages. The present system was most unsatisfactory. The averages were
    920
    taken when the corn had been sold and re-sold; expenses and profits were added, and the prices given did not represent those at which the farmers sold, or the actual prices in the Corn Market, and it must always be remembered that in some seasons half the crop is consumed for feeding purposes. He was confident that the farmers in barley-growing countries were now realizing the fact that the transfer, not the repeal, of the Malt Tax to a Beer Duty in 1880 was proved to be a failure. It enabled brewers to make beer from materials which the British public would far rather they did not use. The country had been led to believe that a repeal of the Malt Tax had taken place. It was nothing of the sort; but, as he had said, only a transfer. Whatever Her Majesty's Government were going to do with regard to the agricultural interest, he trusted they would do it quickly and effectively, and before it was too late for the long-suffering tenant farmer.
    MR. MOREsaid, the farmers in his part of the country were suffering from the depression; but they were tired of giving expression to their feelings, and were anxiously looking to that House to suggest a remedy. The hon. Member for Merionethshire said that in the improbable contingency of the Government—which he called patriotic—changing their places, the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division would again become a Protectionist. This insinuation must proceed from the assumption that an alliance had sprung up between Unionists and Parnellites, as the Leader of the Irish. Party had declared that if an Irish Parliament were established its first act would be to set up Protection. He did not think that sufficient importance was given in that House to the feeling, general throughout the country, that there was something more to be said for the idea of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent), who had, as he said, taken Protection at his word and given Notice of a Bill on the subject. He thought it would give great satisfaction to the farmers of the country if a debate on the question were to take place in that House. The hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) had spoken of Montgomeryshire, and said that the farmers there had suggested

    921
    that their rents were not sufficiently reduced, and thought there ought to be an independent authority set up there as between landlords and tenants. He (Mr. More) wished to point out that the opinion of those gentlemen who went down to help the re-adjustment of the relations between the two classes was, that this would not in any way interfere with freedom of contract or diminish the interest of the landlords in their estates. He wished to state that the ad joining Shropshire farmers had no wish for any outside interference between them and their landlords. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) for the kind mention which he made of the Com mission of which he (Mr. More) had the honour to be a Member. He approved the decision to give a higher agricultural education; and in nothing was this so needed as in the manufacture of butter and cheese; and he thought that in this one possible relief for agricultural depression might be gained, for, as was well known, more butter was imported than was manufactured in the country. The programme of the Government was, as nearly as possible, the Mid Lothian Manifesto of 1885, which they were all returned to support on the Liberal side of the House in that Election. Turning to another subject relating to the introduction of two Bills of which Notice had been given to deal with the Law of Sunday Closing in Ireland, he said that no one could be in Ireland without being struck with the great necessity of amending the present law; and he pointed out that, while the Revenue from the Excise had in England fallen off, there had been in Ireland during the recent agitation a considerable rising in that branch—
    MR. SPEAKER: I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that it is not competent for him now to discuss the question of Sunday Closing in Ireland.
    MR. MORE: With regard to the question of tithes, he was sorry to infer that the Bill to deal with that was to be introduced in "another place," because when that was done last year it was not in unison with the feeling in the House of Commons. He was afraid the Government would have a great deal of trouble with the
    922
    subject during the present year; and, having spent part of the autumn in Wales, and carefully examined on the spot into the disturbances which had taken place, he could state that, in the opinion of the wisest and most experienced clergymen and churchmen in England and Wales, it would be more judicious if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to give the 10 per cent which the farmers asked for now than to introduce a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) stated the other night that the introduction of a Tithes Bill would raise the question as to whether the tithes belonged to the Church or the Nation, and he could not think it desirable that such a question should be raised. He had moved for a Return last Session as to the way in which the tithe was taken in Scotland, and he believed that if the same method were adopted here it would give satisfaction. In Scotland they appointed a Committee to assess the value of all sorts of corn in a county, which was done for the county for one year, and that year only. It was clear, however, that the farmers considered that they had a grievance with regard to the tithe, and, as he had said, ha thought it would be better to settle the question in that House rather than in the House of Lords.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it was admitted on all sides that agriculture was in a most deplorable state; and as in the Gracious Speech from the Throne it was intimated that agriculture was to have some redress, he trusted that they might feel certain that Her Majesty's Government had determined to do all that was right, fair, and just with regard to this question, and that the long-deferred hope which made the heart sick would not be disappointed. It was perfectly true that this had been a most peculiar year, and that they had opportunities of cleaning the land which they had not had for some time past. That, notwithstanding the failure of certain crops, was a great advantage; but there was no man acquainted with agriculture who could not see that there was a great deterioration of the land in respect of cultivation, and which would not admit of the same crops being grown now as heretofore. Again, it would be found that

    923
    farms were not stocked as they used to be; many farms were stocked by jobbers and dealers. Farmers were taking in sheep, which, showed that they had not the money necessary to purchase them. They were delighted to hear the speech of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord John Manners), because he had clearly stated certain things which the Government intended to do; and if he could draw one or two other promises from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) he should be still more pleased. The noble Lord said that a re-adjustment of Imperial and local taxation was to take place. That was a very important admission to make, and he himself had urged for many years that everything which tended in the direction of Imperial wants and needs that was now provided by local taxation ought to be paid for out of Imperial resources. Again, real property now paid the whole of this taxation, and his right hon. Friend had stated that personal property was to come in for its full share of the burden. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) hoped that the Government intended to introduce at once a more equitable system in that respect. They were now going to have another Local Government Bill. What might happen to that Bill he could not say; but he trusted that whatever might be the principle of election on which members were to serve on the Local Government Boards, there would be in the Bill some security that the resources of the ratepayers would not be wasted, and that they might find they had some power to prevent the gross and extraordinary extravagance which took place in the case of some school boards. Even on the supposition that the Bill did not pass, he hoped they would not be told that these things were only to be done provided that the Bill did pass. The noble Lord (Lord John Manners) had touched upon some points, but there were others about which he had said nothing. There was the question of indoor relief, referred to by the Duke of Richmond's Commission. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) cited that to his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench as one which touched them most keenly, and because there were grounds on which the recommendation of that Commission
    924
    should be accepted. Again, there was the important question as to the basis on which the rates were in future to be raised, and he laid it down as the starting point that they must have a new valuation throughout the country, because at present one Union was not rated like another, and, consequently, one Union was more heavily rated than another. They wanted a new assessment throughout the country, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree that all rates should be raised on the same principle, whether the county rate, the ordinary poor rate, or those rates which were raised for the purposes of Imperial taxation. They felt that they ought to know at the commencement of the year the amount of rating which they would have to bear. They had been suffering grievously, and in no respect more than in that of local traffic, which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget) had referred to. The railway rates were so heavy that the farmers were handicapped. He would not go into the foreign produce question, but he was obliged to say that the present system offered a bonus to foreigners to compete with us. They were certainly unfairly treated as long as they were unable to send their goods into the market at the same cost as that which was borne by foreigners, and he trusted that the Bill to be introduced would meet this difficulty in a fair and reasonable manner. They all admitted that railways had been a great advantage to the country; but he repeated that they considered it most unfair that the Companies should charge far less to their foreign competitors than they were called upon to pay. With regard to the question of Free Trade and Protection, he thought it would be most unwise and impolitic to raise a question of that sort at the present time, which was one of peculiar difficulty, and to give hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of saying—" This is a Tory cry; we have nothing to do with it." The question of Protection was one which had been considered by a large number of persons; it was idle to deny that there were many who thought it would be a panacea for all their ills, and it would be foolish, from the Government

    925
    point of view, to ignore the fact. It could not be denied that there was a large class of men in the country who had suffered most severely, and who still believed that Protection would be their saving, and the only thing that would save them at the present time. The working classes also were beginning to ask how it was that their wages were reduced, and that, instead of 14 s., 15 s., and 16 s.,they were now getting only 10 s., 11 s., and 12 s. a-week. The House might depend upon it that if the movement came strongly from below, and grew strong, hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite would change their views upon this question as quickly as they had done on a celebrated occasion which occurred a short time ago; they would say that the question was pressing on them more than any other, and that it was one which deserved earnest and serious consideration on the part of the Government, and be forthwith dealt with. The question would never be thoroughly taken up until it was taken up from below; and if the working classes realized the important practical issues which were involved in our fiscal policy, they would make their influence felt, and the policy which they desired, whether it was or was not Protection, would be carried out whatever Ministry happened to be in power. He thought he remembered the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying some time ago that the area of taxation was too limited, and he would ask him to consider that question most seriously. He laid down no proposition, nor did he state what ought to be done; but he said it was wise to be prepared in time and consider what in the circumstances might be done to relieve or content a large number of working men in the country. It need not be Protection, but something which would do something to help them in their difficult position He thanked the Government for what they had promised to do. The pledge they had given must be performed. He ventured to hope that, whatever might happen, those measures which they thought they could fairly and honestly give to the agricultural interest would be carried out. Having said this, he should leave it to the Government to carry out their pledges, which he believed would be for the benefit of the country.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—RUMOURED DEFICIT.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. S. SMITH: Sir, I rise to move the Amendment to the Address which stands in my name, and I trust the House will not consider that I unduly trespass upon its time in taking this opportunity of calling its attention to the concerns of our vast Indian Empire—
  "But this House humbly expresses to Her Majesty its regret that another deficit is threatened in the Indian Budget, and that it has been deemed necessary to raise the Salt Tax in order to meet the same: That it views with anxiety these recurring deficits in the Indian Revenue Accounts, and urges greater economy in the Administration: That it calls upon the Government of India to meet the wishes of the Native population, both in respect of finance and administration, so far as it can do so consistently with prudence and sound policy, and that it urges Her Majesty's Government to redeem the promise made in the Queen's Speech two years ago, that an inquiry should be made into the Government of India by the appointment of a Royal Commission for that purpose."
  It is several years since Indian affairs have been seriously discussed in this House. The Indian Budgets are invariably kept to the close of the Session, and are feebly discussed by a handful of jaded Members. It was the 8th of September last year when Parliament was invited to consider the affairs of 200,000,000 of the subjects of the Queen, the attendance averaging 10 to 16 Members. The condition of affairs in India demands more vigorous criticism; the finances are steadily drifting into confusion; there is much Native discontent; reforms are urgently needed that will never be granted, unless this House intervenes; and I trust I shall be pardoned if I set before this House, to the best of my power, some of the grievances of the patient and long suffering population of India. My Amendment calls attention, in the first place, to the recurring deficits in the Indian Budgets. Let me state what these are. I find, from the Statistical Abstract of India, that in the 10 years ending March, 1886, the aggregate deficits amount to about 15,000,000 of tens of rupees, or conventional sterling, as it is called in the Indian Accounts, while the surpluses are a little over 8,000,000, showing a total deficit of about 6,500,000. Last year another

  927
  deficit would have been shown had not the Famine Insurance Fund been intercepted, and this year a still larger deficit unless the Famine Fund had again been taken and the Salt Duty also raised; in fact, the aggregate real deficit in the last 12 years amounts to about 9,000,000, for I regard the Famine Insurance Fund as a sacred trust, which should never be devoted to other purposes. But what adds to the gravity of the matter is this. We have had a succession of bountiful seasons in India; we have had no famine of note since 1879, and in the ordinary course of things we must be approaching what is known as a famine cycle in India; these cycles recur about every 10 or 12 years; the last one commenced in 1866 and lasted till 1879—it embraced five great famines—it cost the lives of 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 of people, and, I believe, cost the Government £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 sterling for relief; and we may depend upon it that if another succession of famine years occurs, the Government of India will not be allowed to let the people die in millions, as happened in those years. A vigilant opinion on this side will insist that, at all costs, the people shall be fed, and true wisdom would point to the need of accumulating a reserve fund in times of plenty to meet the inevitable demands that will come upon us some day. Now I will ask, what are the causes of this lamentable state of things? I reply, the heavy expenses in Upper Burmah and on the North-West Frontier, and the great loss by exchange. The total expenses of the Army has grown, in the 10 years ended 1886, from 16,500,000 of tens of rupees to fully 20,000,000, from which it has come down to about 19,000,000 the last two years. The extra expenses may be divided roughly between the North-West Frontier and Upper Burmah; but there are also heavy civil charges in Upper Burmah; and, as far as I can make out, from the very complicated accounts that are presented to us, the cost of that annexation has been about £2,000,000 per annum the last two years, in place of the estimate of £300,000, which was given to us by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), when he lightly embarked in that aggressive policy. This policy has cost India dear; and I can only repeat the
  928
  view I have formerly stated to this House, that it was most unjust to saddle the cost of this war upon a poor country like India, whose people were strongly opposed to it, and gained no advantage from it. I will not, however, attempt to re-open a question which the House has decided. I pass now to the other source of embarassment in the finances of India, the loss on exchange. It amounts this year to the alarming figure of £5,500,000. We all know the cause of this, and I will not waste the time of the House in discussing it. There is no remedy that I know of except the re-establishment of the old bi-metallic system of Europe, which for 70 years gave a virtually fixed exchange of 1s. 11 d. per rupee. I am aware there are some deductions and set-offs from this enormous loss; but I think few experts in Indian affairs will put the net loss to the Government of India from exchange at less than 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 of tens of rupees. I now ask the House to consider the means by which the Indian Government is seeking to restore equilibrium to the finances. It is by cancelling the Famine Relief Fund of £1,500,000 a-year, and adding 25 per cent to the Salt Duty, which is expected to bring in fully £1,500,000 a-year. I think both these methods are disastrous. I have already pointed out what a strain may come upon the Famine Fund any day, and with regard to the Salt Tax I assort that salt is about the last thing a benevolent Government should tax. It is an absolute necessary of life to an extremely poor population, and is just as odious as a tax on bread would be to the people in this country. Nearly all the taxation of India is already borne by the poor, and this will add greatly to their heavy burdens. The Salt Tax at 2½ rupees per maund, to which it is now raised, amounts to 16 times the prime cost of the Native product. Think of a tax of 1,600 per cent on a necessary of life. I am told that such is the dearth of prime salt in some parts of India, and such is the poverty of the people, that they have been known to mix earth containing saline particles with their food. Let me quote the opinion of Lord Lawrence on this subject—
  "When I was a magistrate many men accused of smuggling salt were brought before

  929
  me; and I had to try them and punish them under the Customs Law. I thought it was very hard and very severe system. Here are the people in India paying an excessive price for salt. I think it is an enormous rate, and not only does it limit the consumption as regards human beings, but, I think, it limits the consumption very much as regards cattle, and I believe myself that a great deal of the loss of cattle from murrain in India has arisen from want of salt."
  I believe the Salt Tax is more oppressive in India than a corresponding duty on tea, sugar, or milk would be in this country. Consider what would be the feeling in this country if a duty of 10 s. per lb. was levied on tea, 3s. per lb. on sugar, or 4s. a quart on milk; yet we are doing the same thing in India with a stroke of the pen. We are doing it to a people who have no representation, who are dumb and helpless, and whose silent sufferings are unknown to the nation that governs them. I protest against this monstrous and cruel tax in the name of humanity, and in the name of Christianity, whose voice we are disregarding. I will boldly affirm that if India had popular representation its taxation would be arranged in a very different way. The 200,000,000 of British subjects in India would, with one voice, re-impose the cotton duties, which in no way press on the people, and are hardly perceptible. India imports over £40,000,000 worth of manufactured goods and metals, a duty of 10 per cent on this would produce £4,000,000, and would at once place the Indian Exchequer in affluence. A duty of 5 per cent would produce £2,000,000, and meet the existing deficit. I know how unpalatable this suggestion will be to my Manchester friends; but justice compels me to say that, though interested in the trade myself, I will contend that our duty is to consider solely what is good for India. Of course, Indian machine manufactures would have to be taxed pro ratâ, to avoid all appearance of Protection. I fear, however, no English Government will have courage enough to do what is right in this matter, unless we decide on giving to the Native population of India an efficient voice in the Government of their own country. This leads me to what I regard as the pith of my Amendment, and far the most important point of it—namely—
  930
  "That this House calls upon the Government of India to meet the wishes of the Native population, both in respect of finance and administration, so far as it can do so consistently with prudence and sound policy, and that it urges Her Majesty's Government to redeem the promise made in the Queen's Speech two years ago, that an inquiry should be made into the Government of India, by the appointment of a Royal Commission for that purpose."
  I cannot deny that an implication lurks in these words that the existing policy of the Government is not giving satisfaction to the Natives of India. This House will permit me to say that a recent visit to India, and conference with many of the ablest representatives of the Native population, opened my eyes to the fact that there is much more discontent in India than I was aware of, and than this country is aware of, and that unfortunately there exist only too good grounds for this discontent. It is far better for us not to live in a fool's paradise, and I am sure that this House is only too anxious to know the real state of affairs, and will welcome any light that can be thrown upon it. The universal complaint of the Natives of India is that the country is too expensively governed, considering the extreme poverty of the people and the paucity of its resources. The real crux of the situation is the poverty of India, and, till we realize that, all our views, both of administration and policy, are certain to be wrong. The fact is that the vast majority of the Indian population can scarcely do more than support life in ordinary seasons. When a year of scarcity comes their sufferings are extreme; when a famine comes they die by millions, unless supported by the Government. I could not satisfy my mind that there has been any great increase of well-being in India as compared with the early part of this century. Certain it is that there are large districts of India, such as Bengal, Oude, the Deccan, parts of Madras, & c, where human life is supported on the barest minimum. All our wisest Indian Administrators have recognized this. Permit me to quote from Lord Mayo and from Lord Lawrence. Lord Mayo said—
  "I admit the comparative poverty of this country, as compared with many other countries of the same magnitude and importance, and I am convinced of the impolicy and injustice of imposing burdens upon this people which may be called either crushing or oppres-

  931
  sive. Mr. Grant Duff, in an able speech which he delivered the other day in the House of Commons, the report of which reached by the last mail, stated with truth that the position of our finance was wholly different from that of England. 'In England,' he stated, 'you have comparatively a wealthy population. The income of the United Kingdom has, I believe, been guessed at £800,000,000 per annum; the income of British India has been guessed at £300,000,000 per annum; that goes well on to £30 per annum as the income of every person in the United Kingdom, and only £2 per annum as the income of every person in British India.' I believe that Mr. Grant Duff had good grounds for the statement he made, and I wish to say, with reference to it, that we are perfectly cognizant of the relative poverty of this country as compared with European States."
  Lord Lawrence, before the Finance Committee, said—
  "The mass of the people in India are so miserably poor that they have hardly the means of subsistence. It is as much as a man can do to feed his family, or half feed them, let alone spending money on what you would call luxuries or conveniences."
  Several years have elapsed since these statements were made; exhaustive inquiries have subsequently been made into the relative resources of both England and India. It is generally admitted that the aggregate income of the United Kingdom is now £1,200,000,000 to £1,250,000,000, or £35 per head; but the best authorities on India state that its income cannot be put at more than £2 per head, or £400,000,000 sterling for the 200,000,000 people that inhabit British territory. (Sir Evelyn Baring, one of the best Finance Ministers, estimated the income at Rs. 27 per head; but Mr. Dadhabhai Naoroji, one of the best Native statists of India, and a man universally respected, puts the income at only Rs. 20 per head. Compare that with even the poverty of Ireland, where the income, according to Mulhall, is £ 16 per head, or with Russia, where it is £9 10 s. per head. The Income Tax Returns of India fully confirm all this, as I have already stated in this House. They show that a given area of population in India only produces one-sixtieth part as much as in England, and that only one inhabitant in 700 reaches an income of £50 per annum. I apologize for wearying the House with these statistics, which I have already given; but they are essential if any just conception is to be formed of the financial policy we should pursue in India. Now I must protest against the
  932
  highly misleading statements of taxation circulated by the Under Secretary of State for India in his Explanatory Memorandum along with the last Budget. A table was appended to it, page 19, to show the burden of taxation on the people of British India. In it the total Budget Estimate of Revenue, about £77,500,000, was pared down to £20,500,000 as far as taxation was concerned, and when divided per head over the population of British India was set forth as Rs. 0:15:2, or something less than one rupee; then a note was appended stating that if the land revenue was included the amount was Rs. 2:0:3. I should like to know why the land revenue was excluded; it is the sheet anchor of Indian finance; it yields in gross £22,500,000; it is in many parts of the country an oppresive tax. I was repeatedly assured by the Natives that in times of scarcity it was an intolerable burden, and in order to raise it that they got hopelessly in debt to the moneylenders. Sir James Caird says—
  "The right of the cultivator to mortgage the public land has made him the slave of the moneylender. Government rent must be paid on the day it becomes due. It is rigorously exacted by the officials, and as the money-lender is the only capitalist within reach the cultivator gives a charge on the lands and hands over all his crop as a security for cash advances."
  The only pretext for not counting it as revenue is that in most of India there is no intermediary between the tiller of the soil and the Government, and it is assumed that what the cultivators pay the Government is equivalent to rent paid the landlord here. The fact is the ryots have no surplus to pay a landlord, for they can barely exist themselves. Sir William Hunter, the well-known Government statist, calculates that 40,000,000 of the people go through life on insufficient food. I was myself repeatedly informed that a large proportion of the people only eat one meal a day; their condition is lower than that of the Connemara peasantry, and it is ridiculous to exclude from consideration the heaviest tax they pay. A large part of the Opium Revenue is also paid by the people of India; for, were it not for the profit made by the Government, the cultivator would get a far higher price. I estimate the true incidence of taxation in India as follows (from "Statis-

  933
  tical Abstract," p. 70):—Gross land tax, £22,500,000; one-half the opium duty (not counting what is grown in Native States), £4,500,000; salt tax, £6,250,000; stamps, £3,500,000; excise, £4,000,000; provincial rates, customs, assessed taxes, and sundries, about £6,000,000. Total, in round numbers, £47,000,000. I have excluded any branch of revenue which cannot be clearly defined as taxation. Let us compare it with the taxable Revenue of the United Kingdom. It was calculated in last Budget as £76,000,000; that is almost exactly 6 per cent on the aggregate income of the nation, if that is reckoned at £1,250,000,000. If we take the aggregate income of British India at a point half-way between the estimates of Mr. Dadhabhai Naoroji and Sir Evelyn Baring—namely, £470,000,000, it follows that the taxable revenue is just 10 per cent, against 6 per cent paid in the United Kingdom. I believe these figures to be as reliable as can be given, and they show clearly that the pressure of taxation is already very-heavy, and that it would be cruel to add to it, unless on the direst necessity. I am aware that many consider the great increase of the foreign trade of India a proof of the growing prosperity of that country. I believe the figures, if analyzed, show just the reverse. The average imports and exports of India for the last 10 years, given in the Statistical Abstract, excluding Government stores and treasure (p. 138, No. 82) is—imports, including treasure, £58,000,000 a-year; exports, about £77,000,000, or an average surplus of exports over imports of about £19,000,000; but, to make a fair comparison, we must deduct freight and charges on the imports, seeing the exports are valued without these charges. If we put these at only 10 percent, then it follows that India exports on the average about £25,000,000 more than she receives; in other words, she virtually pays to this country what may be called a tribute to that extent. Of course, I admit she has had value in return for much of this. It represents guaranteed interest on railways, and remittances on private investments; but it also represents a large sum payable for interest incurred in wars of which the people of India disapproved, and a heavy pension list which they do not regard with ad-
  934
  miration. In my opinion, the growing indebtedness of India to England is a real source of danger. If the time should ever come when India becomes self-governing, one may conceive the temptation that would arise to repudiate these claims. The fact is, India is, in many respects, what Ireland has been for ages, a country whose wealth is drained by absentees; and the time may come, if we are not careful, when it will reproduce many of the political features of Ireland. One other remark I would make about the growth of the foreign trade; it is largely swollen by the destruction of the hand manufactures of India. Many millions of small artificers and weavers have been thrown out of employment by our cheap-made manufactured goods; and these people have been often reduced to the greatest penury, as no employment could be obtained in lieu of the one they had lost. We have, in fact, by our Free Trade system, forced nearly the whole population on the soil for their maintenance. That soil is becoming poorer and poorer from over-cropping, and the vast bulk of the peasantry are deeply and hopelesshy in debt to the money lenders. I repeat that the great expansion of foreign trade is no gauge of the increased prosperity of the people of India; and it is very doubtful indeed whether any substantial improvement is taking place in their condition. Now, I may be asked, what remedy do the Natives of India propose for this state of things? I will reply by calling attention to a Parliamentary Return, moved for in 1878 by the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright),of the salaries, pensions, & c, paid to persons in the employ of the Government of India. I find the salaries of those resident in India came to £7,640,000; non-resident, £3,473,000; total, £11,013,000. Of this amount, upwards of 80 per cent was payable to Europeans, while of salaries of £2,000 and upwards, not one was held by a Native. I am aware that since then some changes in favour of the Natives have been made; but I believe the facts thus disclosed are not very materially altered. Now, the people of India think that the time has come to redeem the promise made in the Queen's Proclamation 30 years ago. I will read the noble words in which it is couched—

  935
  "It is our further will that, as far as maybe, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge,
  "In their prosperity will be our strength, in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward. And may the God of all power grant to us, and to those in authority under us, strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people."
  I make bold to say this Proclamation has not been adequately carried out yet, and unreasonable obstacles have been put in the way of the Natives entering into the higher Services. For instance, entrance to the Covenanted Civil Service was formerly open to youths up to 22 years of age, and several Natives of India, at great cost to themselves, came over to this country and successfully competed with the flower of our youth at the entrance examination; but, as I think, unjustly and unwisely, the age was reduced to 19, and this has effectually stopped the entrance of Indian youths into the Covenanted Civil Service. India now produces a large class of well-educated men, and it is as impolitic as it is unjust to exclude them from a full share in the Service of the Crown. They contend most reasonably that if this extraordinary drain for salaries and pensions is to be lessened, it must be by employing cheaper Native agency whose incomes will be spent in India. But the fundamental change which the Indian people demand is a voice in the government of their own country. I must impress on the House the urgent necessity of dealing with this question. The time is past when we can govern India as a nation of children. We have given them education; we have familiarized them with our own political maxims; and we cannot complain if they try to act up to the lessons we have taught them. It is vain to think that we can impart the great political literature of England, with its lofty traditions of human freedom, without begetting the desire, and even the fitness, to receive this freedom for themselves. The ills under which India suffers can never be remedied by a purely foreign government. The real wants and desires of its people can never be fully understood by strangers, and we must be prepared gradually and prudently to introduce representative institutions. Of course, that can only be done very gradually
  936
  and cautiously; but I wish to call the attention of the House to a remarkable development of political life that is now occurring in India. Three National Congresses have been held, attended by delegates from all parts of India. One of them was held at Madras last year, and another at Calcutta the year before, attended by 500 or 600 delegates from all parts of India. The proceedings were conducted in English, and the speeches were as able as they were loyal and moderate in tone. There is not the slightest wish among these intelligent Indians to overthrow British supremacy; but there is a striking agreement on the lines of reform that are required. Their main contention is that Native Members should be elected to the Legislative Councils of India, in place of being nominated as at present. This is a most reasonable request, and I hope the Government of India will concede it. Then they demand that the Budget shall be discussed and voted upon annually, which also seems a most reasonable request; and they also ask that a Standing Committee of Parliament should be formed to supervize Indian affairs, to which they could carry their complaints. But perhaps the most practical resolution of all is the demand for an inquiry to be held into the Government of India on the lines announced by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), when he held the Office of Secretary for India two years ago. I do most earnestly urge this demand on Her Majesty's Government. The Natives of India have been most eagerly expecting this inquiry, since it had a place in the Speech from the Throne two years ago. The present Government was then in power, and it placed these words in Her Majesty's mouth—
  "The time which has elapsed since I assumed the direct government of India renders it desirable that the operation of the statutes by which the change was effected should be carefully investigated. I commend this important matter to your earnest attention."
  That statement was commented upon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) as follows:—
  "I am of opinion that Her Majesty's Government are eminently right in asking the House to appoint the Committee. I trust that it will be a carefully selected Committee, and that it will be efficient in proportion to the greatness of the subject; and that it will devote itself to

  937
  that subject with a zeal and diligence such as we have known in former years and former generations."
  I now call upon them to redeem this pledge; it has awakened hopes which it would be dangerous to disappoint. I expect the hearty support of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, who so ably advocated the inquiry two years ago. I verily believe that the safety and welfare of our Indian Empire demand such an inquiry; grave discontent is arising among the Indian population at the neglect of their interests; this country and this House are too much occupied with home affairs to do justice to India. A full, complete, and impartial inquiry is necessary. Let me add that no inquiry at all would be better than one which was not both searching and impartial. It is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that a Royal Commission should be appointed, containing eminent men outside Parliament and the official class, that some leading Natives of India should be on the Commission, and that it should visit India in the cold season, and take evidence on the spot. Untold advantage would flow from such a course. It would give a new lease of life to our Indian Empire; it would appease Native discontent, and nobly vindicate the Royal Proclamation on the assumption of the Sovereignty of India by the Crown. I will close this speech in the noble words of Macaulay, uttered as long ago as 1833 in this House, which are as true to-day as when they were spoken, and which are far nearer their fulfilment—
  "The destinies of our Indian Empire are covered with thick darkness. It is difficult to form any conjectures as to the fate reserved for a State which resembles no other in history, and which forms by itself a separate class of political phenomena; the laws which regulate its growth and its decay are still unknown to us. It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown the system; that, by good government we can educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that having become instructed in European knowledge they may in some future age demand European institutions, Whether such a day will ever come I know not. But never will I attempt to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes it will be the proudest day in English history, To have found a great people sunk in the lowest depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to make them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would indeed be a title to glory all our own. The sceptre may
  938
  pass away from us. Unforeseen accidents may derange our most profound schemes of policy. Victory may be inconstant to our arms. But there are triumphs which are followed by no reverses. There is an empire exempt from all natural causes of decay. These triumphs are the pacific triumphs of reason over barbarism. That empire is the imperishable empire of our arts and our morals, our literature and our laws."
  MR. SLAGG, in seconding the Amendment, said, that when a non-official Member ventured to address the House on Indian subjects it was sometimes asked—" What can you, a non-official, non-resident in India, possibly know of the complex subjects affecting that great and distant country?" Well, for his own part, he claimed no special personal knowledge of Indian affairs. He claimed only to know and to discuss those matters which were presented to them by officials themselves, and to criticize the evident results of their acts and policy; and it appeared to him that no apology was needed on the part of any hon. Member in the House who ventured to think that he might be permitted to take part in Indian debates by reason of the great responsibility which rested upon them in respect of all Indian affairs. It could not be denied that they in England, whether they knew anything of Indian matters or not, were responsible for everything that was done in their name respecting the Government of India. They were under great responsibilities, political, financial, and commercial. Politically, he thought it would be agreed that India drew them into close connection—he might say into dangerous connection—with everything which took place in Europe, with every political phase of affairs in the whole of Europe. With regard to finance, although we did not pretend formally to guarantee the financial affairs of India, it could not be disputed that we were responsible for them, and that the Debt of India was as much an obligation on this country—[An hon. MEMBER: No, no !]—yes, as much an obligation on this country as though it were added to our own Budget every year. An hon. Member said "No," but he should like to see an Indian official rise to-night and tell them that they were not so responsible. India we had got and India we must hold, and for India in every respect and degree we were responsible, and certainly from a

  939
  financial point of view. Commercially, also, it could not be disputed that we leaned upon the consuming power of our Indian fellow-subjects for a vast portion of our trade. He was one of several Members who represented manufacturing constituencies whose very existence rested on their trade with that great country, and which, if that trade were withdrawn, would be at once deprived of all employment. Well, he thought it would be very pleasant for him and for all of them to accept the smooth and pleasing official declarations which they were accustomed to hear in the House respecting the prosperity of India, the soundness of Her finances and the well-being of everything connected with her. He, for one, should be very glad if he could take that roseate view of her affairs, but the bitter lessons of experience taught us that we could not so readily accept those assurances. Official blunders of a grave nature had been made in the past. It was not too much to predict that they would be made in the future, and it was open to question whether, even at the present moment, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to India was not open to very grave objection and mistrust. It would be within the memory of every hon. Gentleman here to-night, that when our troops entered Burmah we were assured that we were going to have a very easy walk over—in fact, that the inhabitants of that country were positively pining for us to take possession of it, and that we had only to present ourselves there in order to be received with open arms by every class of the population. Well, we knew what had happened. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) had told us that for several years past this Expedition, which was to cost us nothing at all, really cost us a considerable sum—£1,000,000, or—his hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. Samuel Smith) said—£2,000,000 annually. It occupied some 20,000 of our troops, and, he believed, a very large number of police as well. But it was in regard to the Indian Budget that he thought the mistakes and miscalculations of their official friends showed in their most exaggerated and extraordinary form, for every year they were assured that
  940
  they were going to have a surplus, and yet, year after year, a mistake was discovered, and they were presented with a deficit, until this deficit in the financial accounts had become almost as regular as the procession of the Equinox. And now they were confronted with the problem of additional taxation to fill up this chronic deficit in our Indian finance. As they heard this deficit was to be made up by an addition to the Salt Tax, and they were assured—as they had been assured before on similar occasions—in the name, he supposed, of the Indian people, that this addition to the Salt Tax would not be felt. Well, he begged to differ from that opinion, and to state that, on the contrary, this addition to the Salt Tax would be felt, and felt very severely, by these 40,000,000 of inhabitants whom his hon. Friend had alluded to as living perpetually on the very brink of starvation. But that question whether an increase of the Salt Tax would be an evil or not was completely thrashed out at the time when Lord Ripon reduced it; and he remembered well, in the course of that discussion, a missionary of very great experience in India describing a little incident which showed how those matters were felt by the people of India. He saw in a bazaar a man. half-clothed and shivering in the keen air of a winter evening squat down and begin to bargain for his evening meal. He wished to buy rice, salt, and chilis, but if he took the two condiments he could not get more than half enough rice for a full meal; and it was pitiable to see the poor wretch trying so to adjust the account as to get a little salt with his rice and chilis. There were many scores of millions of people in India who would have to make this pathetic computation, and ask themselves whether they would be able to get a little salt to season their rice and chilis. But it was in the North-West Provinces that the weight of this Salt Tax would be felt most severely, for there there was already a rise in the price of grain. There were signs of an impending scarcity of food. In Burmah, he was sure, it was not too much, to say that this increase of duty—whioh would amount, he supposed, to about half a rupee per maund of 80 pounds—would be very strongly resented by the people; and we need not be surprised if we found an outbreak there

  941
  such as took place in Orissa when we did a like thing. The Salt Tax showed something much more ominous, much more threatening, than anything that related even to the feelings and resentment of the people. It showed with perfect distinctness that the financiers of our Indian Empire had come pretty nearly to the end of their resources, for it did not appear to him that they would have adopted an expedient so offensive, and he might say so sad, if by any process of financial ingenuity they could have levied a tax which would have produced a similar amount. In short, the Indian Government confessed by that act that they were at the end of their resources, and yet the limit of their expenditure was very far from having been reached. Now, one of the chief causes of the excess of expenditure which had produced this call upon the very poorest of the population was, of course, the very large sum of money that had been expended on frontier operations, which, as they were told the other day, had already cost an enormous sum; and he supposed the whole system of railway works in connection with the frontier defence had cost two or three times more than was originally anticipated, and yet millions of money were still needed to fit those vast preparations for anything useful in the way of a military defence. Now, in the Queen's Most Gracious Speech, we were assured that what was called the settlement of our boundary difficulty as between Afghanistan and Russia was a matter of very great satisfaction to the Government, and we were supposed to be relieved by this act of very grave sources of anxiety, but he would remind the House that a frontier line, however scientific and however complete it might be, was not by any means a frontier defence; and it appeared to him that by those preparations and that boundary settlement, and the extraordinary importance which we attached to all those defensive operations on our North-West Frontier, we did little more than disclose to Russia our most vulnerable point. Our frontier could only be said to be safe so long as we were at peace with Russia in Europe. Now, it would be remembered how, when Lord Beaconsfield made his great coup by sending 5,000 Native troops to Malta in order to eat up Skobeloff and his 25,000
  942
  troops, Russia responded by a simple act. She sent three men out to Cabul, and this simple act landed us in such turmoil that we had eventually to undertake the war in Afghanistan with what consequences we were familiar. What did those facts disclose? That Russia could always paralyze our action in Europe by simply threatening us with difficulties in Afghanistan. There could be no doubt that a very influential Party in that House would drag us now into an alliance with Austria and Italy, and was it unreasonable to suppose that if that were done Russia would at once respond by occupying the Dependencies of Afghanistan, or was it doubted on the part of anyone that she would be hailed with delight by the population there as a welcome deliverer? Unless, therefore, we could act harmoniously with Russia our new boundary seemed only to have thrown us more into her path. What followed? It seemed to him that the millions that had been spent on those frontier preparations were simply and solely preparations for further expenses, and it was not an unreasonable apprehension, he was perfectly sure that when the present frontier operations and the railways were completed it would be discovered that we had not gone quite far enough, and that it was absolutely necessary, in order to complete our military preparations and make everything quite secure, to continue our line to Candahar. We now stood certainly committed to the Ameer to defend Afghanistan and all its Dependencies, but he ventured to say we were utterly unable to do anything of the sort. We had undertaken what we could not perform, and, in the absence of roads or any means of communication, it was absurd to imagine it was practicable or possible to keep any such engagement. Now, just a few words on the Revenue Question. It seemed to him that an endless vista of growing expenditure was stretching out before us in India, and he wanted to ask hon. Members—who, he hoped, would give them some comfort later on when speaking from the other side—where the money was to come from? We could not go on increasing the Salt Tax; it was unreasonable to think that the population could stand another application of the screw in relation to a necessity like salt. His hon. Friend had pointed out that

  943
  the Opium Revenue was steadily declining and there was no doubt whatever that it would decline very much more. Revenue from an Income Tax was wholly out of the question for it had already been discarded as an impracticable expedient, which could only produce annoyance and irritation. He ventured to describe this as a desperate condition of Indian finance, and he heartily joined with his hon. Friend in asking for this inquiry into our Government in India. He would most gladly accept the dogma of official infallibility if one could possibly do so. They knew very well the official picture presented to them in glowing and pleasant colours, but what they wished to know was the Native opinion. They wished to know from their own lips how they regarded our Government, and how they felt and saw our acts and our legislation. In asking for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the working of the Acts relating to the Government of India they on that side of the House were asking for nothing new. His hon. Friend referred to the consensus of opinion which existed on both sides of the House with relation to the desirableness of this Commission, but the hon. Member neglected to remind the House of the fact that in having recourse to this inquiry they were only reverting to a very ancient and wholesome practice. The House would remember that during the time of the East India Company's Charter every 20 years a similar inquiry was made, and he (Mr. Slagg) was sure no one would deny that those inquiries were useful and beneficial to the Government and the people of India. Before he sat down he might allude to the enormous changes that had taken place since the last inquiry was made—changes of so fundamental a nature that it seemed impossible to resist such a review of our relations with the many races of India. He thought it was not too much to allege that within the last 30 years education upon an extensive and general scale had only sprung into existence in India, or, at any rate, that was so from a Western point of view. We knew how a large class had betaken themselves with a sort of passion to the study of Western ideas and forms of Government, and had acquired a complete mastery of our own
  944
  language. He must refer with the same satisfaction expressed by his hon. Friend to the Reports of the Congress at Madras. We had there 700 delegates from all parts of India speaking in the name of vast masses of the people, and no one could, he was sure, peruse the Report of that Congress without being struck by the extreme moderation of the resolutions and the thoroughly practical spirit which animated the whole of their proceedings. Not one word of disloyalty; not one scintilla of suspicion was shown as to the doings of the Government; but, on the other hand, favourable comments as to our rule; but, underlying all, an intense and burning desire to share, to some reasonable extent at least, in the Government of their own country, and to take part and lot in the heritage which we had professed so long to be holding only in their name. Now he (Mr. Slagg) did not, for one moment propose to tell the House or profess to think himself that these delegates at the Congress of Madras represented in our conception of the word their fellow-countrymen, but we might be certain of this: that the time was not far distant when they would so represent them, and when the spirit that animated those highly-educated Natives in such a thorough and practical manner would be transmitted to the masses of the people. Thus it was not only a matter of wisdom, but a matter of prudence, for us to take up this question in time. He felt perfectly certain that we should be amply rewarded for a step so judicious. At any rate, it was inconceivable that it would do harm. If such an inquiry produced evidence to show that our acts, our administration, and our system of government, were all that could be desired why then we should be fortified in going on in the same way. If, on the other hand, we discovered that in many respects our system of administration and taxation, our laws and enactments bore heavily on the masses of the people, we should be able by the evidence which such an inquiry afforded us to apply at once those wise and timely reforms which would do more than anything else to produce a spirit of confidence in the country—a spirit which would lie deeper even than the sentiment of loyalty which already existed. He was sure that we should

  945
  thereby give universal satisfaction to all classes of the population and produce in them an esteem for our rule and a feeling of security as to our intentions which would afford the most impregnable frontier for our territory, and provide the surest resistance to the assaults of our enemies.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Address, to add the words,—"But this House humbly expresses to Her Majesty its regret that another deficit is threatened in the Indian Budget, and that it has been deemed necessary to raise the Salt Tax in order to meet the same;
  "That it views with anxiety these recurring deficits in the Indian Revenue Accounts, and urges greater economy in the Administration;
  "That it calls upon the Government of India to meet the wishes of the Native population, both in respect of finance and administration, so far as it can do so consistently with prudence and sound policy, and that it urges Her Majesty's Government to redeem the promise made in the Queen's Speech two years ago, that an inquiry should be made into the Government of India by the appointment of a Royal Commission for that purpose."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, that the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of the Amendment, although nominally supposed to have reference to the Salt Tax, in reality were speeches de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis. To reply to them concisely was, therefore, next to impossible. As to the Mover of the Amendment, he felt sure that the Natives of India, whatever they might think of his facts and arguments, would recognize gratefully the charitable and sympathetic spirit in which he had dealt with the subject. His hon. Friend, however, was a philanthropic pessimist, and a political Jeremiah. His hon. Friend chose to wear dark green spectacles through which to view the condition of the people of India, and there fore the picture which he saw was, of course, very dark. If any man chose to put on the same kind of spectacles, he might make out a very touching story regarding the unfortunate condition of any people under the sun. The hon. Member had been to India to see for himself, and that was laudable, for his subsequent as compared to his previous knowledge must be as light compared with darkness. Still, his knowledge of
  946
  India had been acquired in a winter's tour, and, having returned home, he now treated the House to "a winter's tale." Might he remind the hon. Member that a tour of such short duration could not make a man omniscient in regard to so vast an Empire and population? The hon. Member, no doubt, had met a certain number of highly educated Natives who could speak to him in the English language; but there were some 20 different tongues spoken in India, and with those who spoke them the hon. Member had, of course, been unable to converse. Who were the educated Natives whom he had met? They were men who only spoke for themselves and not for their countrymen collectively, and who had but two objects in view, one of which was to obtain for themselves a larger share in the management of the country, through representative institutions; and, in the second place, to secure for themselves also some of the loaves and fishes distributed among Europeans. These men, in order to make out a case in furtherance of their objects, painted India black, exaggerated everything, and strove to make all facts and arguments point to the conclusion which they desired. With both the objects above referred to be sympathized. He quite admitted their title to consideration at our hands, and he acknowledged their many virtues; but he must say he thought the hon. Member pretended to utter the universal opinion of the Natives of India when, as a matter of fact, he only repeated the sentiments of a limited class. Indeed, their claim to represent the people would be repudiated by the Natives generally. They were a class of political agitators who would be swept into the sea if the protection of England were withdrawn from them. When that was considered they appeared rather ungrateful, for they were constantly vilifying their protectors. Their own evidence might be turned against them, for, as the House knew, there had, as just mentioned by his hon. Friend, been large conferences at Calcutta and other capitals, at which strong loyalty had been expressed, and even laudation of the British Government. These really responsible utterances ought to be set against such irresponsible conversations as his hon. Friend had held with Natives in trains, railway stations, and other public places of resort. To

  947
  prove his contention that the people of India were excessively poor, his hon. Friend contrasted the statistics relating to their condition with English statistics. But poor and rich were comparatively relative terms, and. his hon. Friend had overlooked the fact that an Englishman was five times as strong as a Native of India, did five times as much work, and had a vastly greater number of artificial wants. Besides that, he possessed vast mechanical resources which were wanting to the Native. The Indian, it was true, earned comparatively little, but his wants were few and he could supply them without difficulty. There was, therefore, less of real grinding poverty in India, and fewer people suffered from the extreme pinch of the res angusta domi. Would the House be surprised to hear that the people whose poverty was so feelingly, even so pathetically, described by his hon. Friend, were a people whose numbers were increasing annually, whose cultivation was continually extending, whose internal transactions were multiplying, and whose surplus of wheat enabled them to flood British markets for several years—and now to begin flooding the markets of Southern Europe, as we learned from the newspapers of this very day? It should also be noted that they absorbed vast quantities of the precious metals. Much had been made of the evidence of Lord Lawrence as to the existence of poverty and misery, and he yielded to no one in respect for Lord Lawrence's memory. But it was a mistake to suppose that his words had exclusive application to India. They were, unfortunately, applicable to every nation under the sun. Statistics showed that the Natives of India were probably the most lightly taxed people on the face of the earth, for it had long been our policy to reduce the rate of taxation, limit its incidence, and abolish the imposts which were exacted under Native rule. As to the Land Tax, he would not enter upon the hon. Member's discussion as to whether this was rent or revenue. It mattered little to those who paid the tax whether the name of rent or revenue were used. His hon. Friend said, on the authority of certain Natives with whom he had conversed, that the tax amounted to 25 per cent of the gross produce; but according to the most competent administrators and statisticians, who had examined the
  948
  figures closely, it only amounted to between 7 and 10 per cent. Would the House consider that casual conversations with the most unstatistical people in the world were to be set against official and responsible dicta founded upon careful inquiry? The old subject of opium had been referred to. If the hon. Member wished in the course of the Session to initiate an opium debate, questions could be raised and answered then; but there was one point which he (Sir Richard Temple) wished to impress upon the House. The hon. Member had said that we intercepted the profits of the opium culture, which would go to the people of India if it were not for us. Nothing of the kind; if our opium revenue were abolished tomorrow, the people of India would not get the profit, but the Chinese Government would get it; and it was a question whether the Indian Government should get it, in whose country the article was grown, or whether they should let the Chinese take it. With regard to the question of Excise, in a miscellaneous speech such as he (Sir Richard Temple) was obliged in the circumstances to make, he would only give this general assurance—that the policy and effect of our Excise revenue in India was to tax drugs and spirits, and so to guard against intemperance by making their consumption expensive and difficult. When accidentally rein was in some degree given to intemperance, the Government stepped in and applied an effectual remedy. The Government of India was plainly determined to repress intemperance, and, in his opinion, subject to occasional shortcomings and failures, it had done its duty well in that respect. With regard to the statement that the people of India continuously lived upon the verge of famine, and that any failure of the crops brought them into immediate danger of starvation, he ventured to assure the House from his own experience that the very reverse was the case. It had been his lot to command in the field the largest operations of famine relief ever undertaken in India. He consequently knew that the people of that country always had a considerable reserve of food, generally lying buried in the dry earth beneath the floors of their dwellings. If the crops were destroyed, the wages of the people ceased, and their em-

  949
  ployment was subverted, Nevertheless, it would take three or four months after the commencement of famine before these stores were exhausted or any stage approaching starvation was reached. He doubted whether the working classes of England, with their many artificial needs, could hold out as long, were a similar calamity to overtake them. He appealed to hon. Members who know the condition of our working classes whether in this respect the comparison was not in favour of the people of India, with their few and simple needs? With regard to finance, the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had made out a seemingly strong case against the Government by dexterously handling figures taken at comparative periods suiting his argument. But if they took the period from the last Russo-Turkish War they would see that since that time the Government of India, acting on behalf of the people of India, had succeeded in paying out of current revenue a very large sum for famine relief and almost all their share of the last Afghan War, and after that war was over had enjoyed several years of surplus which had been beneficently expended on the construction of railways and canals to safeguard against famine. After this cycle of successful years the Government of India had, he admitted, fallen into an unfavourable position financially, which, however, he hoped, was but a passing cloud. The causes of that had been in part explained by the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment. The troubles in Burmah and the frontier defences had been mentioned; but he (Sir Richard Temple) thought that there were two other reasons for these difficulties which had not been alluded to. One consisted in this—that a certain trouble had arisen from the Cheefoo Convention, by which the Chinese were able to levy import duties on the opium, whereby about £1,000,000 of revenue was lost to India. The second reason was the peculiar loss which are se from the fact that, owing to the very low price of wheat prevalent in England, the exportation from India had been considerably diminished, thus bringing a loss upon the traffic receipts of the State railways. But all these losses would have been but a feather's-weight for India had it not been for the loss by exchange,
  950
  a grave circumstance, wholly beyond the control of the Government. The hon. Seconder of the Amendment (Mr. Slagg) said that the Afghans were sighing for a release from their yoke by the intervention of the Russians; but that he (Sir Richard Temple) did not regard as at all likely, because the Ameer was an Afghan of the Afghans, and if the people prayed to be delivered from his yoke, they were praying to be delivered from their own yoke. And naturally the Afghans preferred their own dominion to that of any Foreign Power. He could assure the House that the people of India had no wish to exchange British for Russian rule, and an evidence of the spirit that animated the country was recently afforded by the loyal offer of the Native Princes of funds for the defence of the frontier. They said—We give you our money now, but in the day of danger you may count upon our sword. The hon. Seconder alluded to our obligations to defend Afghanistan against Russia, and seemingly regarded this obligation as impossible of fulfilment. He (Sir Richard Temple) would not, in the absence of official Papers, like to say whether we did precisely incur any such obligation; but if we had incurred it morally, he quite agreed that it would be very unwise for England to attempt to meet Russia in arms upon the Central Asian frontier. England would appoint her own battle-field; she would fight where she chose, and would not let her enemy select the site he pleased. Russia would be struck in the Baltic, the Black Sea, and perhaps in the China Seas; thus, heavily wounded and stricken, Russia would have to relax her grip on the frontiers of Afghanistan. As regarded the Salt Tax—which was the proper subject of this Amendment, though the Mover and Seconder had strayed widely from it, and he had been obliged to follow them—he must remind the House that the words "raising this tax," as set forth in the Amendment, were somewhat misleading. Five years ago the Salt Tax was lowered very considerably. Of course, the well-wishers of India were very thankful to see it lowered, if the Government could afford it. But many long-headed men shook their heads at the time, and now it turned out that they had to go back to the standard from which they departed some years ago.

  951
  He was positive that if inquiries were made in the markets of India it would be found that even this addition of one-fifth—[Mr. S. SMITH: One-fourth.]—he would correct himself, one-fourth—would still leave the price of salt cheaper than it was 10 years ago. The Salt Tax was, of course, a tax on the poor; but if the labouring poor were protected by the arm of British power from plunder and devastation, and to be secured in reaping the fruits of their labour, they must pay something to their protectors. And what else did they pay, or could they pay, but the Salt Tax? They smoked indeed; but there was no tobacco tax. They paid nothing to the Excise, for they did not drink. According to calculations of totals of revenue and of population, the Salt Tax was now only 1s. per head per annum to an adult. The very poorest peasant, of whom one of his hon. Friends had spoken as being able to support himself, his wife, and family on 1s. 6d. per week, represented an extreme case. A peasant and his wife would probably earn about 120s. a-year, and the Salt Tax upon them would come to It. per annum. If the tax were raised it would amount to 2s. 6d. per annum; and, although he would deprecate the raising of the tax as much as the hon. Member, still he would remind him that it would not be very sensibly felt. He found by statistics that when the tax was lowered five years ago there was no considerable increase in the consumption of that article, as would probably have been the case had the tax been oppressive. Therefore, if it were raised, the people of India would probably not lessen their consumption. It had been said that the Salt Tax was the sole remaining resource of taxation for the country. That was not so, as there remained the Income Tax, which was now only 2½ per cent, or 6d. in the pound, as a further resource. Then it had been proposed that, instead of raising the Salt Tax, they should revive the old import duties and tax the British manufactures imported into India. This proposal ought to be exposed, as being one simply for transferring a part of the Indian burden from the Indian peasant to the British working man. To that course he could not assent, believing the British Empire to be for British industry. With respect to the hon. Mover's proposal for some Parliamentary in-
  952
  quiry, he would submit that any inquiry ought to be strictly limited in its scope, or otherwise the field would be too wide for any practical result to be arrived at. He remembered an inquiry into Indian finance by a Committee of that House some years ago, which sat for more than one Session, which ranged over a vast variety of subjects and never made a Report. A Commission of Inquiry embracing all the subjects dealt with in the speeches of the hon. Mover and Seconder would occupy the time of several Sessions of Parliament. If it were granted, he should recommend that its scope should be closely confined to some three points, otherwise its duties would never be completed, owing to the immense range of the subjects which would inevitably present themselves. Those points should be—first, the general question as to whether any money could be saved in the administration of the government of India—and he believed economy could be effected; secondly, whether any representative institutions could be devised for the country—and he, for one, said certainly they could; and, thirdly, the question of substituting, in some degree, Native for European agency. On the last-named measure, he would say let that be done so far as was consistent with the safety of the Empire. It was our duty to make the Natives fit to manage their own affairs, to make them feel the responsibilities of action, and teach them how to hold the highest offices. These were the ultimate objects of truly national education. To this grand goal we should make gentle and gradual approaches; but in all the offices in which absolute firmness and energy, and all the higher attributes of human nature were required, the position should be held by officials of British nationality. If we arranged otherwise we should drift into peril. He recollected hearing an hon. Member opposite—the hon. Member for Cardiff—descanting last Session on the ability of British iron-clads to enter hostile harbours and fight under severe conditions. That which an iron-clad was above all other ships, a British officer was above all other men in Eastern countries. His armour-plating was courage, his barbette was firmness, his turret was tenacity, and his cannon was enterprize.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, he wished to advert to one or two points touched on by his

  953
  hon. Friend who had spoken on the subject of the reduction of the Salt Tax (Mr. Slagg). He did not think it was quite fair to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the Address (Mr. S. Smith) that the hon. Member had not explained accurately the present position of the Salt Duty. The hon. Gentleman seemed to put forward the fact that the Salt Duty had been reduced as the argument against raising it now; but their complaint was not that it was reduced in former years, but that it was now to be increased. He (Sir William Plowden) had been one of the officers of the Legislative Council when the Salt Duty was reduced, and he was aware that the Viceroy expressed his opinion that we should in future look to that tax as a possible resource in financial difficulties, and that we might raise it again; but the question was whether they should raise it now, and there he thought he might join issue with the hon. Gentleman. They considered that the part of the hon. Member's Amendment referring to economical administration was a matter which they should have before them as a means of dealing with the practical difficulties which surrounded them in India. It was admitted that we could economize, and to his mind there could be no doubt about the matter. Then, with regard to meeting the wishes of the country, it was certain that we must go forward in that direction, and meet the desires of the Natives to be more closely associated with us in the administration of their own affairs. He was surprised, with the long experience of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that he should feel able to express himself as he had on our relying entirely upon British valour and intellect. Those who, like himself, had been associated in the troublous times of 1857 with the Natives, could not share entirely the view put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple). He had been associated with the people of India when their lives had been in great danger, and when there were no Europeans with him; and he felt that it was owing to the good faith and gallantry of his Native friends that he was able to encounter the difficulty in which he was placed. In his opinion, they could rely on the good faith, loyalty, and courage of our Native fellow-subjects quite as
  954
  much as upon that of our own people. We had had proof of the good feeling which animated the Native Princes; and he had been greatly gratified with the terms in which the hon. Gentleman had referred to the manner in which they had shown their loyalty. With regard to the economy of their administration, when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) came to deal with that Amendment, he might, perhaps, turn his attention to the question of economy of our Indian administration; but, taking the Revenue and Expenditure of our great Indian Empire, he found that they were now in receipt of £77,000,000, and an expenditure of the same amount. That great Revenue was made up of six main heads, and the charges were likewise made up under four or five main heads. He would turn briefly to two points, on which they had recently had an expression of opinion from men who were quite capable of giving good advice. With regard, first, to the Army Service; the Army Charges for the last year of which they had the figures before them amounted to over £20,000,000, while the Civil charges amounted to £21,000,000. A very able Committee sat in 1878 or 1879 under the Presidency of a Gentleman who held high Office in India—whose death they had since to deplore—assisted among others by the present Commander-in-Chief (Sir Frederick Roberts), and that Committee, sitting with every possible means of information before them, came to very definite conclusions as to the manner in which the Army administration might be largely economized; and he would ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the opinions expressed in their Report, whether up to the present time they had been acted upon? There were undoubtedly several definite methods by which economy in the Army Service might be effected. Then in the Civil administration there was plenty of room for large reductions and economies; while with regard to the Local Governments of Madras and Bombay, he asked why they should not be upon the same footing as the Local Government of Bengal? There seemed to him to be no reason why these economies should not be effected. He would not refer to the second portion of the Amendment;

  955
  but he sincerely trusted that some active measures would be taken in the direction of the view of the hon. Member.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he thought it was to be regretted that the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) should have thought it necessary to include within the terms of his Amendment a specific condemnation of the increase of the Salt Tax as the means adopted by the Government of India for meeting the existing deficit; and it was also to be regretted that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment should have introduced into their speeches references to such controverted topics as the Burmah Annexation and the Afghan War; because if that condemnation of the Salt Tax had been omitted, he felt very certain that the hon. Member would have obtained a far larger amount of support for the really substantial part of his Amendment, not only from his own side of the House, but from those Benches, than he was aware of. For his own part, he entirely agreed with the remainder of the Amendment. He was altogether of opinion that the recurring deficits of which the hon. Member spoke, perhaps in too sombre terms, were to be regarded by that House and the country with very serious anxiety. He did not think that the hon. Member was merely a philanthropic pessimist, as had been suggested, but he did believe there was great reason for anxiety with regard to the finances of India. He thought also that the Government ought to be urged to study wiser and more intelligent economy in their administration, and endeavour to meet Native public opinion both in matters of finance and administration, so far as prudence and sound policy permitted; and he would add that prudence and sound policy would permit and demand that the Government should go a great deal farther than it had gone in that direction. Above all, he thought that the pledges of the Government should be fairly, fully, and honourably carried out, and that a real inquiry should be instituted into the administration of Indian affairs generally, and not a sham inquiry such as they had seen hitherto generally proposed. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment in objecting to the increase of the Salt Tax; but he must say that he considered that if they were
  956
  to have an increase of taxation, there was no other tax that could be imposed which would be so little oppressive to the people of India, or that would so closely meet their own wishes on the subject. The hon. Member had mentioned another tax, which he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) admitted would be preferred by the great majority of the people of India; but, whatever might be their own private opinion as to the desirability of re-imposing the duty on cotton goods imported from England, he thought that as practical men hon. Members would not consider the proposal of the hon. Member as feasible. He believed it was absolutely impossible that public opinion in this country would sanction any return to the Protectionist theories which formerly dominated the taxation of India. He did not think it would be possible for the Government of India to re-impose those duties, seeing that they were not only opposed to the sacred principles of Free Trade, but also to the just and legitimate interests of the English and Scotch cotton manufacturers. He objected to the Salt Tax being raised; but he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple) that its incidence was infinitesimal, and the only alternative would be, in his opinion, direct taxation. But every person who had a knowledge of the wants and habits of the Native people would, he thought, agree with him in saying that direct taxation was utterly unsuitable to them, for the obvious reason that for every rupee raised by direct taxation that reached the Treasury, two, five, or even 10 rupees would stick to the fingers and fall into the pockets of the underling extortioners who had to collect them. He would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) that he should withdraw that portion of his Amendment which referred to the Salt Tax, in order that he might emphasize his resistance to the increase of taxation at all—in order to insist on what really was the true alternative—namely, retrenchment in the expenditure of the Government. It was no use for the hon. Member to demand retrenchment by the old-fashioned method of Departmental inquiries. The hon. Member evidently appreciated that fact when he asked for a Royal Commission. A Committee of officials, they

  957
  all knew, would recommend a ruthless cutting down of the salaries of messengers and doorkeepers and such small deer as that. They would abolish a few offices here and there, giving to the incumbents of those offices pensions, and increasing the pay of the survivors. But what happened with the next swing of the pendulum. The abolished offices came back, but the special pensions and increased pay continued, and the result was a larger expenditure than before. To be real, an attempt at retrenchment must be carried out by the inquiries of a Royal Commission, or some such independent body, which would inquire on the spot in the full light of publicity and without fear or favour. And so, too, in the matter of meeting the wishes of the Native population. He asked those hon. Members who were acquainted with the circumstances of the appointment of the Public Service Commission of last year to say whether there could be any greater sham than that Commission, which was intended to meet the desire of the educated Natives for increased admission to the Civil Service? He was quite sure, and the House would appreciate the fact, that Lord Dufferin was anxious that that inquiry should be a full and impartial one. He believed that Lord Dufferin's advisers nominated the Members of that Committee with the view of making it a Committee for full and impartial inquiry; but the Committee sat, inquired into a certain number of details of administration, and the result, so far as he could learn, was simply nil. The same thing had happened with regard to the Committees of Inquiry here in England, in full light of English public opinion. Of all the Indian Secretaries of State within his memory, the one who had enjoyed the greatest amount of popularity with all classes in India, European as well as Native, official as well as non-official, was undoubtedly the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). Now, why was that? It was very largely due to the fact that the noble Lord stood forward boldly as the exponent of a policy of full and thorough inquiry. Unfortunately, as he (Sir Roper Lethbridge), and as many others, especially in India, thought, the noble Lord's tenure of Office was a short-lived one, and since his retirement from the India Office
  958
  both Parties had had a spell of power. Both of the Front Benches had seemed to him to enter into a sort of conspiracy to shirk an inquiry altogether. Of course, he did not accuse right hon. Gentlemen of anything approaching a criminal conspiracy in the matter, but he could not help thinking that, in the interest of India, the agreement of the two Front Benches in the matter of an inquiry was much to be regretted. When the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington left the India Office and the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) came into power, what did they do in regard to this matter? They proposed to return to the old state of things. They proposed a Parliamentary Committee which was to sit upstairs in the dim religious light of one of the Committee Rooms. It was to consist mostly of present or past officials—Gentlemen of whom he would not speak except in terms of the highest respect—but he could not but remember that those Gentlemen would, to a large extent, be reviewing their own proceedings. Surely it was not likely that they would ask many awkward or inconvenient questions with regard to their own achievements. At that time he felt it his duty, as an independent Member of the House, to block the proposal of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian by an Amendment, declaring that no inquiry would be satisfactory to the people of India that did not provide for a full and impartial investigation on the spot by an independent authority. And if he felt bound to urge those views on the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he felt doubly bound to urge them upon the present Government. He knew he should be told that Parliamentary inquiries were of great efficacy in the olden times of the India Company, when the House of Commons used to overhaul the administration of the Company for 20 years, on the occasion of the renewal of the Charter. Quite true, these inquiries did bring about an immense amount of good in the way of reform, but it should never be forgotten that in those days both the Ministry and Parliament were exceedingly jealous of the extraordinary privileges and immunities of the Company, and they narrowly scanned the administration of the

  959
  Company. The examination of Parliament was very often not very just. It certainly was often not very intelligible, but it was, at any rate, rigorous. At the present time, under the circumstances he had detailed to the House, the examination by a Parliamentary Committee of the kind that was intended would certainly be anything but rigorous. The official Gentlemen certainly would, in reviewing their own achievements, be likely to be to their faults a little blind, and be to their virtues very kind. The fatal objection, in his opinion, to a Parliamentary inquiry here in England was that there was no possibility of getting any Native evidence that was worth having. Notwithstanding the recent revolt against old prejudices in India, which had spread to a considerable extent, it was perfectly true that at the present moment nearly all that was most worthy and that was most reputable in Indian society absolutely refused to cross the black water and to come to England or elsewhere. They objected to come here on social and religious grounds, and he appealed to the House to say—frankly to say—what moral value could attach to an inquiry from which all reputable Native evidence was absolutely and necessarily excluded? He maintained, notwithstanding the disclaimer of his hon. Friend the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester, that there was great and urgent need of full and impartial inquiry not only in the interest of India, but for our own credit, for the credit of our own administration, and for the honour of England. He believed that the more the administration of India by Englishmen was fully and impartially inquired into, the more favourably would that administration be judged by the whole world. Ever since the Crown had taken over the administration of India from the Company there could be no doubt that charges had been accumulating against the Government that we ought for our own credit to have investigated and inquired into. Grievances—many of them, he believed, exaggerated, but some doubtless true—had accumulated, and those, too, should be looked into. Why, there was not a community in India—English, European, or Native, official or non-official—that had not its own special grievances, and many of them of a specially damag-
  960
  ing character to the Government. Now, of those grievances many had found no tongue in England. They found their way into the Press of India; and those who, like himself, followed that Press from week to week, could understand what the grievances were. But otherwise they were not heard unless they affected what he called—although he did not use the phrase in an offensive oonse—the ruling clique of India. When a grievance affected that clique it was very quickly redressed, but that clique usually sat up aloft in the Himalayan heights, like the Olympian gods of old, far removed from all sublunary cares; and even when that clique retired from India and came home to England it was to obtain a further apotheosis in the venerable Council of the Secretary of State. With rare exceptions those gentlemen who followed this official career were the enemies of these reforms. In perfect good faith, and in the full belief that reforms were not needed, they considered that ex-Lieutenant Governors and ex-Chief Commissioners should be above the captious criticisms of Committees or Royal Commissions; and so for 30 years they had succeeded in averting this inquiry, and the House of Commons had consented to this burking of the inquiry. Year after year the House of Commons consented to allow the Government not only to shirk the inquiry for which the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) had pleaded this evening, but also to burke anything that was more than a mere sham and simulated debate on Indian affairs. What could be more unreal than the debate on the Indian Budget, which came on usually at the end of the dog-days in August or September, when a few hon. Members, jaded with a long Session, came to listen to a few speeches on matters which concerned the highest interests of 200,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects? He contended that the dismissal of the debate on Indian affairs to such a period of the Session not only hid all knowledge of contemporaneous Indian events from the House of Commons, but was really a disgrace to the Government and the House of Commons. It is true that the enterprize of The Times newspaper on every Monday morning, in the singularly able and interesting telegrams that were received from their Calcutta correspondent, put

  961
  before the public an account of current Indian history, and of the wants and aspirations of the Indian peoples. But, he asked, who amongst the English people, who even amongst hon. Members of the House, recognized when he read these telegrams that they were the record of a vast Continent occupied by something like 100 different races? But did he realize when he was told of this movement in Bengal, or of that movement in the North-West Provinces, that just two or three lines were obliged to suffice as a description of a popular movement that might be convulsing a population as large as that of France or Germany, and nearly as highly organized? The echoes of all these things reached us through the columns of The Times, but they reached us in a condition that was altogether faint and insufficient. The cry of those people went up to Heaven that they were unheard in this House—that they were unheard in England at all to any practical extent. If he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) were not wearying the House, he would like to mention without comment one or two cries raised by the people of India. He did not wish to attempt to comment upon them, but he would say that these cries deserved the attention of the House of Commons. He did not know—he could not know—whether they were true, but he said this, that the Government ought to enable him, and ought to enable every Member of the House of Commons, to say that the cries were not founded upon real grievances. First, there was a cry that was almost universal as to the Home charges. That cry was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Mover, and also by the hon. Gentleman the Seconder, of the Amendment, but he found that only in the present week the leader of the independent Members of the Viceroy's Council (Mr. Evans) had drawn the attention of India and the world to this point of the Homo charges. These were charges, of course, for the cost of the India Office, for stores, for troops, for the interest on debt, and so forth. Now there was hardly one item of these charges that was not impugned in some way not only by the Native Press in India, and by the less reputable of the English Press, but by some of the leading papers and by some men of the highest authority in India. This very week he had been much impressed
  962
  by an article in The Calcutta Englishman which was undoubtedly the first newspaper in India. The article was upon the Hindoo and European Telegraphic Department, and in it it was asked—
  "How many persons in India know that the head-quarters of a purely Indian Department are fixed permanently in England, and that a considerable staff are employed there in assisting the Director in Chief to delay the publication of the annual report until it has lost all human interest? All the office work of the Department is done at Kurrachee, and a report is drawn up there every year, a report which is afterwards sent home to the Director in Chief to be returned to the Government of India at Simla, to be again sent to the Secretary of State in London, and again finally to be sent out to India to be immortalized in the pages of the Official Gazette, Anything more absurd it would be impossible to imagine. It is circumlocution run mad. It is not only circumlocution that is the gravamen of the charge. It is unjust to the staff, who are exposed to the rigours of a fierce climate in the Persian Gulf to keep a nest of drones in London on high pay."
  Then there was the outcry—which he thought was universal in the Native Press—against the temper and even sometimes against the honesty of our relations with the Native States, against the gentlemen who, as Residents or as Political Agents, were bound to control those Native States. There was one State that had been treated, it seemed to him, with considerable harshness—having its Native ruling family set aside during the minority of its Princes and subordinated to an English official placed in charge there. He believed the facts were undisputed, and when he asked for information in the House he understood that the Indian Office had heard nothing of the transaction. Then we unhappily snubbed or treated with something like indignity those Maharajahs and great Nobles who happened to belong to our own territories and to be subjects of the Queen, who was Empress of India, and this merely because they were subjects of the Queen as distinguished from petty Chiefs who had their dominions in what was called Feudatory India. We did not allow to the greatest of those Maharajahs even the small civility of a salute which was a privilege enjoyed by the petty Chiefs in other parts of India. The classes to whom we imparted our English education and Western civilization, and of whom my hon. Friend the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester spoke just now had their demands to make, and

  963
  he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) thought that many of them were just demands. They demanded, for instance, to have representation in the Legislative Councils of the various Provinces, and he thought many of them were admirably qualified for seats on those Councils. They demanded increased employment in the Civil Service generally; and the Government, in replying to this demand, simply appointed such a Commission as the Public Service Commission, of which he had already spoken. Turning to the European communities in India, he found that all the various Uncovenanted Departments of the Civil Service, those Departments which dealt with the scientific and technical affairs of the Government and so forth, were absolutely excluded from the Olympian clique at Simla. These Departments were only kept from almost open revolt by a most stringent system of rules against combination. No two men were allowed to sign the same Petition, and no Petition could be sent to England except through the Government of India, a prohibition with regard to Petitions to this House which he regarded as somewhat unconstitutional. Those of the Education Department of the North-West Provinces and of the Postal Department of the Punjaub declared that they were grossly ill-treated by the Government of India in regard to the headships of their Departments, and with regard to promotion being taken away by the imposition over their heads of members of the Covenanted Services. Then, with regard to their furlough, pay, and pensions when they retired to England, they complained that their pay and pensions were not only calculated on a scale 50 per cent less favourable than that which was given to the Covenanted Civil servant, but that, in addition, these pensions were calculated in rupees in a fluctuating standard. The House would appreciate what that meant when he mentioned that an officer who 10 years ago retired on a pension of £200 per annum—which he thought at the time would be a bare subsistence for himself and his family—had, owing to the depreciation of the rupee since then, received in lieu of that pension a pension of £135 per annum on which he and his family had to starve. Then he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) turned to the Army—English and Native. He found
  964
  that those officers who were on what was termed the General List complained in a very recent number of The Civil and Military Gazette, a first-class English paper published at Lahore, of grievances that were quite as hard as those of Uncovenanted civilians. He also found it stated that the whole Native Army was in a ferment at a trick which they considered had been played upon them by the Government, and this in direct opposition to the expressed wish of their distinguished Commander-in-Chief, Sir Frederick Roberts. It was said that an amnesty was offered to all deserters on account of the Jubilee, and that afterwards all the deserters who came in and confessed were actually punished. Such a thing seemed incredible; but the authority of The Civil and Military Gazette was a very high one. Then the whole unofficial community protested against the annual retirement of the Government to Simla in the Hills; and the Native community almost universally protested against our Excise policy by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Evesham Division (Sir Richard Temple). The Natives complained that it increased the liquor traffic; and he was very glad to see—though he expressed no opinion upon it, for he thought that at present they were in want of further information—that the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Caine) intended to raise the question upon a subsequent occasion. Again, the planters complained that the Government had set up experimental farms and such like institutions, and then turned round and competed with private enterprize by making a profit out of the sale of cinchona. There was a complaint that the Government would not extend railways. In fact, there was not a single corner of the administration that was not the subject of some complaint or other. He did not say, for one moment, that all, or anything like all, of these charges could be sustained. On the contrary, he hoped and believed that a thorough inquiry would show that none of them could be sustained in the odious sense in which they were often brought; but he held that the English administration in India should be, like Cæsar's wife, above suspicion; and he thought that the mere fact that these charges were made and were reiterated so often was amply sufficient ground for demanding

  965
  a full and searching inquiry. In conclusion, he implored the House to remember that in neglecting the interests of India, and in ignoring the just wants and aspirations of her people, we were not only neglecting our duty to the teeming millions of India, but we were also wronging the working classes of this country. It had been well pointed out that a very large percentage of the English working classes depended entirely for their subsistence on the trade with India; and he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) was very certain that the whole of the working classes of this country would receive a very great injury alike to their work and wages by any injury done to our connection with India.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, he did not think that the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) would consider it disrespectful of him if he declined at that extremely late period of the evening to follow him into the many topics which he had submitted to the consideration of the House. No doubt, many of the subjects which he had enumerated might be very advantageously discussed in the House at a convenient season. He was rejoiced to find that there was a healthy public opinion springing up in India on those subjects, and that the Government of India was subjected to a full and efficient criticism of its administration of that Empire. On the whole, however, it might be best if the Government were to reserve its opinion on these matters until they were formally and properly brought under the consideration of the House, when some action on the part of the Government might become necessary. He would, therefore, confine himself in the remarks he intended to make almost exclusively to the case made out by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. They were entitled to an official answer to the allegations made, and though he must endeavour to make that official answer as brief and as concise as he could, he would, at the same time, endeavour to meet fully the various statements made. He understood the complaints of the Mover of the Amendment against the administration of India to be practically three—(1)the deficit in the Revenues of India; (2) the particular mode in which the Government of India were going to meet
  966
  that deficit; and (3) a general complaint of a want of regard for the wishes of what the hon. Member called the people of India, and a demand for the fulfilment of the pledges which had been given by the Government for a Parliamentary inquiry. In regard to the deficit, he wished to call the attention of the House to this extremely important fact—that the deficit was caused by a concurrence of circumstances over which the present Government had had no control whatever, and most of which had been entirely independent of any action on the part of any Government that had preceded the present one. If it had not been for a combination of those financial misfortunes which had fallen upon the Government of India, there would be no deficit of which to complain. The first cause of the deficit was, no doubt, the expenditure in Upper Burmah. He would not attempt to defend the policy of the annexation of Upper Burmah. It was a policy for which the present Government were not responsible; but it was a policy which had been approved by the two preceding Governments, and on more than one occasion by more than one House of Commons. One fact connected with the annexation of Upper Burmah he had frankly admitted, and that was that a very insufficient estimate was originally made of the expenditure which this annexation would, in the course of the next few years, cause. But the present Government, after a review of the whole policy of that annexation, was strongly of opinion that it was prudent and necessary, and that, even if the full cost which would be incurred during this and the next few years had been known to those by whom that policy was initiated, they would have been justified in the annexation. Though he frankly admitted that the charges in the last two years and in the present year were much greater than was expected, he must not be understood to be giving up the estimate which the Government of India had made of the ultimate results of that annexation. There was no reason to doubt that ultimately the Revenue of Upper Burmah would repay all that had boon spent on that country, and that, so far from being a burden, it might become one of the most valuable Provinces of our Indian Empire. The next cause which

  967
  had produced the present deficit was the increased Army charges. For those increased charges the present Government was not responsible. They were the result of a policy which had been long pursued by successive Governments of this country and by successive Viceroys of India. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir William Plowden) had found fault with the administration of India because economies had not been made in the Army expenditure. But he would remind the hon. Gentleman that economies had been made in the Army expenditure and administration of India. If it had not been for those economies the increase of Army expenditure would have been much greater than it actually was. The expenditure had increased, as a whole, in consequence of the additions which it had been thought necessary to make to the numerical strength of the Army, and in consequence of certain improvements which had been effected in the Native regiments. The increase shown in Sir Auckland Colvin's estimate was in 1886–7 Rx.1,126,900, whereas, owing to the economies, a reduction was made in other parts of that expenditure, so that the actual increase of expenditure in 1886–7 was only Rx.465,200, showing that a very considerable saving would have been effected in the total military expenditure had it not been for the necessary increase of the Army. He did not understand that the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), or the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, or any of those who complained of the increased expenditure, would challenge the policy which led to that increased expenditure. Would they say that it was not the duty of the Government of India to make the people of India secure from the danger and disaster of foreign invasion? He thought that at a time when the independent Chiefs of India were coming forward and voluntarily offering to subscribe to the defence of the North-West Frontier, it certainly would be inopportune if the British Government were either to reduce their military expenditure or to abandon a policy which was deliberately adopted by previous Governments, not for the purpose of aggression, but for the purpose of making the North-West Frontier secure against invasion. Then a third cause which had co-operated in producing this deficit was
  968
  the falling-off in the opium revenue. That was a cause which the Government of India was absolutely impotent to prevent. It had been the result of the general Imperial policy of this country. It had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Richard Temple) that it was the direct result of the Chefoo Convention with China. In the last few years the price of Indian opium had fallen considerably, and the loss thereby occasioned—which fell exclusively upon the Indian Revenue—had amounted to about Rx.1,500,000. The next reason was the falling-off in the amount of the railway receipts, which, although showing a great increase over those of three years ago, had fallen below the Budget Estimate by, in round numbers, Rx.550,000. There need, however, be no real apprehension about the future receipts of Indian railways, or their profitable working. But all the various financial misfortunes which had befallen India would have been powerless to produce the present result, had it not been for the fall in exchange. Neither the present nor any Government could be blamed for the fall in exchange. The fall in the value of silver was a phenomenon which no one had ever expected would occur. Since 1883–4, when there was a surplus, the exchange had become worse year by year. In 1885 the charge was greater than in 1883–4 by Rx.1,840,000; in 1886, by Rx.2,197,000; in 1887, by Rx.2,289,000; and in 1889 the estimated increase was Rx.2,989,000, or, in round numbers, Rx. 3,000,000. That was a dead loss for which the Government was not responsible, and which alone would amply account for the present unfortunate position of Indian finance. He hoped he had said enough to convince the House that the present Government—he would go as far as to say the Government which preceded them—was not responsible for the deficit of which the hon. Member complained. To put the position of the Government clearly before the House, he must point out that these recurring deficits which were complained of were not really any cause of anxiety with reference to the finances of India. He did not wish, however, to disguise the fact that in the present financial year their position was not very satis-

  969
  tory. After the observations which had been made as to the customary optimism of officials at that Table, he would state the facts about this matter that hon. Members might judge them for themselves. During the last 13 years there had been six years of surplus, showing altogether a surplus of Rx.10,123,118. During the same period there had been seven years of deficit, showing a total deficit of Rx. 18,993,675. So that during the last 13 years the deficits had amounted to Rx.8,870,557, or a little more than the figures given by the hon. Member. But in considering that deficit it should be remembered what exceptional charges had been paid by the Indian Government out of revenue during that period. In the first place, Rx.15,338,960 had been paid out of revenue for military operations. Then they had paid for famine relief and famine insurance no less a sum than Rx.16,589,055. Of that sum Rx.8,664,463 had been spent in actual relief of famine, and Rx. 4,259,747 in construction of protective works, and Rx. 3,664,845 in reduction of debt. It was not correct, therefore, to say that during the period of prosperity no provision had been made by the Government of India against famine. Provision had been made by the Government in the shape of insurance against famine, so long as it did not involve additional taxation to do so. It was only last year that the Government found it impossible to make such insurance without laying additional taxation on the people—an expedient they would not have recourse to. The Government had constructed out of revenue further railways to the amount of Rx. 6,582,744. On special defence works they had spent Rx. 1,045,200. They had also spent a sum of Rx. 1,140,000 in converting the Four per Cent India Stock into Three-and-a Half per Cent—an operation performed last year under the authority of the House, and the effect of which would be a great and permanent saving to the Revenue of India. The total sum which they had thus spent was Rx. 40,695,959; and but for this exceptional expenditure made out of revenue, the 13 years, instead of showing a deficit, would have shown a surplus of Rx. 31,825,402. That was a very good account. But that was not all. If it had not been for the alteration in the rate of exchange these figures
  970
  would have been enormously increased. In 1875–6, before the fall in the value of the rupee began to take place, the net charge for exchange on expenditure in England was Rx. 1,434,486. In 1887–8 it was estimated at Rx. 5,779,400. If the exchange had remained at the same rate as it was in 1875–6, the charge on the revenue during the remaining 12 years would have been less by Rx. 23,301,608, and the net deficit of Rx. 8,870,557 would have been converted into a net surplus of Rx. 14,431,051. Then, again, if they reckoned the normal expenditure and excluded the extraordinary fall in exchange and the exceptional expenditure of Rx. 40,695,959, the surplus of the 13 years would have been Rx. 55,127,010. These were hard figures, and he thought that the consideration of them showed that we had no right to complain of our financial position in India. There was one thing more which he wished to refer to, and that was the debt. During the 13 years of which so much complaint had been made, the ordinary debt of the Government of India had been enormously reduced. He said the ordinary debt, because the debt might be divided into two parts—one, the debt for military expenditure, famine, and the other purposes for which all civilized Governments incurred debt; the other, the productive debt, which was incurred for railways and public works, which was not, properly speaking, a burden to the State at all, but which was invested at a profit so as to assist the revenue. Although the whole debt of India had increased enormously, that part which was not profitably invested had greatly decreased. In 1875–6 the ordinary debt was Rx. 102,224,000, and the productive debt was Rx. 16,223,000. In 1887 the ordinary debt had fallen to Rx. 74,888,000, and the public works debt had increased to Rx. 102,061,000, so that the reduction of the ordinary debt for the 13 years was Rx. 27,336,000. The cause of the burden of debt to a country was the interest it had to pay. For her ordinary debt India used to pay Rx. 4,442,300 in 1875–6; in 1887–8 she paid Rx. 4,025,100, making a reduction of Rx. 417,200 for the charge of the ordinary debt. For public works in 1875–6 the charge was Rx. 973,100; in 1887–8 it grew to Rx. 4,343,300, or an increase in the charge for the productive debt of Rx. 3,370,200. The result of

  971
  the investment of this large sum in public works was that for the railways the net charge in 1875–6 was Rx. 1,558,760, and in 1887–8 it was Rx. 1,589,400, showing an increase of Rx. 30,640. But had it not been for exchange, on which there was an. increase of Rx. 1,485,800, the railway account would have shown an improvement of Rx. 1,455,200. For irrigation the net charge in 1875–6 was Rx. 1,147,000; in 1887–8 it was Rx. 753,300, showing an improvement of Rx. 393,700. Thus, interest on ordinary debt gave an improvement of Rx. 417,200, the result of irrigation gave Rx. 393,700—total, Rx. 810,900, against which were to be set railways worse by Rx. 30,600, leaving a net improvement of Rx. 780,300. It appeared, then, that there was a relief in the burden of the debt of India of Rx. 3,000,000 if exchange was omitted. Therefore, though there was an unhappy deficit in the revenue of the present year, the gloomy views of the hon. Member for Flintshire were not borne out by the facts of the case. It was said that one of the expedients of the Government for meeting the deficit was the exhaustion of the Famine Fund. As the House knew, it was determined some years ago that out of the Revenue of India the Government should set aside £1,500,000 as a kind of insurance fund against famine. But railways were calculated to prevent famine and pay off the debt. The provision made for the Famine Fund was an extremely wise one; but would the hon. Member go so far as to say that the Government of India should raise this £1,500,000 by putting on additional taxation? The hon. Member found fault with the Salt Tax, and he said the only alternative to that tax would be an import duty on manufactured goods. He doubted whether the House would be disposed to agree to an import duty on manufactured goods. That would certainly be an expedient which could only be resorted to in the last extremity, and one which he did not anticipate that the state of the Revenues of India would ever render necessary. The Salt Tax had been the subject of a good deal of what he might term ignorant opposition. It was to be noted that the Vernacular Press, which the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this
  972
  subject regarded as expressing the voice of the people of India, was, on the whole, in favour of this proposal to raise the Salt Tax. It had struck him that possibly an explanation of this might be found in the fact that the editors and proprietors of the Vernacular Press belonged to the educated class, who recognized that the only alternative to the increase of the Salt Tax was an increase in the Income Tax. It should be borne in mind that the present proposal was only to restore the tax to the figure which existed prior to March, 1882, when it was two and a-half rupees throughout India, having in some Provinces been higher than that previously. It was reduced to two rupees in March, 1882, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who was a Member of Council when that was done, had given an explanation of the circumstances under which that reduction took place. Sir Evelyn Baring, in his Financial Statement in 1882, gave the following important explanation, which he should like to read to the House. He said—
  "In answering, therefore, the question of how far we may safely take off taxes in reliance on the opium revenue, a great deal depends on the nature of the tax we take off. If we abandon a source of revenue which involves a permanent and absolute loss of money, and which, moreover, from whatsoever reason, it would he difficult, in the event of the opium revenue failing, to restore to its former position, then the course would he open to great objection. If, on the other hand, we reduce a duty with a fair hope that the reduction will increase consumption, and thus, after a while, recoup us for any loss, and if, moreover, the duty can, without any great fiscal disturbance, be re-imposed in the event of the opium revenue falling off, then the reduction of taxation would be unobjectionable. The Salt Duty falls within the latter of these two categories. I have said that, by reducing the Salt Duty, the general financial position will be strengthened. We hope that we shall he able to maintain the duty at two rupees a maund, and we have at present no reason to suppose that we shall be unable to do so. By a return to a higher rate we should, of course, to some extent at all events, sacrifice the main object we have in view—namely, to afford some relief from taxation to the poorest classes. At the same time, I should observe that if any unforeseen circumstance, such as a heavy fall in the value of silver, takes place, and if, at the same time, the reduction in the Salt Duty does not result in any considerable increase in the consumption of salt, it would be open to us to return temporarily to a higher rate. This is an expedient to which the Government would have recourse with great reluctance. I allude, however, to the possibility of its adoption, for it is clear that, should an emergency arise of a nature to

  973
  diminish our other sources of revenue or to increase our expenditure, we shall he in a better position to meet it if the Salt Duty is two rupees a maund than if it were levied at a higher rate."
  It was clear, therefore, that had Sir Evelyn Baring foreseen that there would be not only a heavy fall in silver, but also that the opium revenue, in reliance upon which the Salt Tax had been diminished, would itself fall off, he would have agreed in the expediency of a temporary rise in the Salt Tax. It must not be supposed that he (Sir John Gorst) appeared as an enthusiastic defender of the Salt Tax. That tax had been increased by the Government of India as the only expedient to meet the difficulties of the moment, with the assent of the Secretary of State, and on the unanimous advice of his Council. At the same time, it had been increased with the greatest reluctance. The Secretary of State was fully conscious of the necessity of strengthening the position and powers of the Finance Department, and long before it was decided to increase the tax on salt steps had been taken to bring the whole subject under the consideration of the Government of India with a view to strengthening the control over the finances. It was right, he thought, that an exaggerated view of this increase of taxation should not be allowed to get current, and it should not be supposed that a tax had been imposed that would grind the inhabitants of India to the dust. The increase in the tax was equal to about one-eighth of 1d. Per lb., and as the average consumption per head was about 101b. in the year, it really came to a tax of about 1½d. per head in the year. It might be a tax one would gladly abolish; but it was one that could safely be adopted as a temporary expedient without being condemned in the strong language which some of those who were little acquainted with the difficulties of the Government of India made use of. There remained only one other point, and that was the question of an inquiry into the Administration of India. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, in describing what he wanted, seemed to him to describe almost exactly the Public Service Commission of last year. The hon. Member for North Kensington; was pleased to find great fault with that Commission. That Com-
  974
  mission consisted of six Covenanted servants, one Uncovenanted, six Natives, of whom one was a Judge of the High Court, and three independent persons. That seemed to him a Commission which really answered the description which the hon. Member for Flintshire gave of what he required. That Commission sat in all the principal parts of India and heard evidence, and their Report had just been presented and would be immediately considered by the Secretary of State in Council. In these circumstances he, of course, could not as yet express any opinion upon the contents of the Report. Whether it would be expedient to have any inquiry in this country was a matter for consideration. Instead of neglecting the wishes of India, the Government had been taking the best stops to arrive at a knowledge of the wishes of the people. The Mover of the Amendment appeared to think that in the Speech from the Throne two years ago a promise was made to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of India. This, however, was an error on the hon. Member's part, for the Speech contained no such promise. It was true that the late Government proposed to appoint a Committee, and when they came into Office the present Government would have been quite willing to carry the proposal into execution. But just before the late Government left Office they ordered the appointment of the Public Service Commission, and the present Secretary of State felt that while a Commission of that kind was sitting it would be idle to ask a Royal Commission or a Committee in this country to inquire simultaneously into Indian affairs. He trusted that the hon. Member for Flintshire would not press his Amendment to a Division. Even if the Amendment were carried the interests of the people of India would not in any way be furthered, and the vote would not be a Vote of Censure upon the present Government, but upon the last and last but one.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, hon. Members need not be afraid that at that late hour of the night (1 o'clock) he should trouble them with many observations. But one or two points had been raised in the course of the debate in respect to which he felt bound to say a word or two. Perhaps, he might in

  975
  the first place, be allowed to say that he thought the House felt thankful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) for the spirit in which he had addressed himself to the subject of his Amendment. He sympathized strongly with the spirit which animated the hon. Gentleman's speech, and he was sure many Members of the House would feel that it was well for the future of India that the grievances and complaints of certain sections of the Native population of India should find kindly and sympathetic expression from such Members of the House as the late Mr. Fawcett, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg). The House would always listen with attention to such advocates of the feelings of any section of the Native population of India. After the debate of that night it must be quite evident to the millions of our fellow-subjects in India that there was no fear that that House or this country would ever regard India merely as a mine of wealth, or merely as a source of trade and profit to England. He might also congratulate his hon. Friend on the interesting statement he had elicited from the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst); but he hoped that after the debate and after the statement of the hon. Gentleman his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) did not intend to dwell long upon the question of the deficit and the Salt Tax. The House would have observed that the Under Secretary guarded very carefully what he said about the Salt Tax. He had told them that the Government did not regard the Salt Tax with enthusiasm. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) was cot surprised at that statement. But he doubted whether the Government were yet in possession of all the views of the Government of India for raising the Salt Tax, or of the views of the Natives on the subject. When the time came for the introduction of the Indian Budget they would have very much fuller information, and it would be much more useful to take a discussion on the question at that time. At the present moment, in the absence of full information, it would not be proper for the
  976
  House to agree to an Amendment to the Address which might be read in India as a condemnation of the policy of the present Viceroy, Lord Dufferin. Lord Dufferin had great claims upon the consideration of the House—every Viceroy had such claims; but he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) urged the special claims of Lord Dufferin as an able and popular Viceroy of India, and one who had served Ms country with great distinction in various parts of the world. He would not go through the various causes of the deficit which had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire (Sir Richard Temple); but there was one point which was referred to by the Under Secretary for India (Sir John Gorst) to which he must allude. Amongst the causes of the deficits, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase of the Army charges, and said that successive Governments were responsible. He was not quite sure that that was a fair statement; because he did not understand that the late Government, whose views it might be supposed that he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) in some measure represented, were in any degree responsible for the large increase in the Army charges. The late Secretary of State for India (Lord Kimberley) more than doubted the expediency of the action of his Predecessor in augmenting the European Forces in India to the large number of 70,000 men; therefore, he must utter one word of protest against any attempt to make all Governments responsible for the increase in the Army charges. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) was mainly, perhaps wholly, responsible for the increase of the Army charges. He would pass on to say one word about the Salt Tax. As a matter of fact, the onus probandi of justifying any increase of the Salt Tax, rested with the Government of India. He said this, for the reason that it had always been the recognized policy of the Government of India to regard the increase of the Salt Tax as a reserve for great emergencies. The hon. Gentleman opposite had quoted the words of Sir Evelyn Baring, which pointed to the possibility of recourse to the Salt Tax

  977
  in case of a diminution of the opium revenue, and in case of a largely increased charge in respect of exchange; but he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) reminded the House that it had been held by the Government of India in times past that besides an increase of the Salt Tax there was no other financial recourse for great emergencies except loans. It was a very serious step, in times of peace, to have recourse to an increase of the Salt Tax, which had always been regarded as a reserve to which the Government might have recourse in case of great emergency—in case of war or famine. Therefore, he joined in the regret expressed by his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) in respect to the increase of the Salt Tax, although he would not go so far as to vote for the Amendment, which seemed to condemn, without full information, a step taken by the Government of Lord Dufferin. In regard to the proposal to institute an inquiry, he noticed that the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gorst), although he had before him the Report of the Public Service Commission—and there he had an advantage over the House generally—guarded himself from promising on behalf of the present Government to have an inquiry like that which was proposed by the late Government and its predecessor. He did not know that he was called upon at that moment to express any opinion upon that hesitation on the part of the present Government; but he would say that if there was to be an inquiry, he sympathized with the objections which were urged against a Commission as compared with a Parliamentary inquiry. All the precedents were in favour of a Parliamentary inquiry. All the inquiries which had been held at the successive epochs, when the Charter to the East India Company was renewed, were Parliamentary inquiries. It was a question, not of inquiry into the Civil Service, which had already been inquired into by the Commission to which reference had been made, but an inquiry into other large parts of the subject. It was a question of inquiry into the machinery of government. That was a Parliamentary question, and it did seem to him that such an inquiry should be held here in Parliament. He observed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Leth-
  978
  bridge) condemned the proposals which had been submitted to the House in the past—he supposed the proposal he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) had to submit two years ago was included in the condemnation—as proposals for inquiries by present and past officials only. [Sir ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Chiefly.] That was a very different allegation, but he was not quite sure that the hon. Gentleman was correct even there, because he had before him the Notice which he gave in the House. From that Notice he found that the part of the Joint Committee nominated by the House of Commons was to consist of 16 Members, seven or eight of whom were not official Members, eight of whom never held office in India, and seven of whom never held office at all. Therefore the hon. Gentleman's statement was misleading, so far as the proposal he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) had intended to make if he had had an opportunity. He could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) that he and many of those who had responsibilities in the late Government sympathized with the general spirit of the Amendment, but they could not support it, because it might appear to reflect upon the present Viceroy of India, and upon the Government of India, and might be taken to condemn the policy of the Viceroy and his Government. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not divide the House, but be content with the interesting debate he had raised, and the interesting statement he had elicited from the Under Secretary of State for India.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, that while sympathizing with the object the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) had in view he could not support the Amendment, for the reasons which had been already mentioned. It seemed to him that the Amendment, as it stood on the Paper, would be regarded as a censure upon that illustrious man, Lord Dufferin, a man to whom, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) had said, this country was very deeply indebted. He rose simply to express the earnest hope that though the Government of India found it necessary to raise the tax on salt, the next Viceroy, Lord Lansdowne, and his Government, would take the earliest opportunity of reducing the impost. The Salt Tax was a tax on the food of

  979
  the people. It was a tax which weighed heavily on the poorer classes of the population. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India (Sir John Gorst) said that the extra tax only amounted to1½d. per head; but 1½d. was a large amount for some of the people to pay. He therefore hoped the Government would take the earliest opportunity of reducing the tax to its former level of two rupees.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and must express his gratification at the debate. He also begged to thank the Under Secretary for India (Sir John Gorst) for the courtesy of his reply, though he wished the hon. Gentleman had gone a little further and had granted a Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Dr. Cameron,)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877, so far as relates to certain Judges, and to the office of the Accountant General; and for other purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should make some statement in connection with this measure. In his opinion, if this was the measure of last year, it would fall entirely short of what was required. He submitted to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden), who, he knew, understood the matter, that some of the Judges might well be employed in settling law points in connection with land cases. They had three and sometimes four Judges sitting on motions; but if a man was going to be tried for his life there was only one Judge. It was easy to state a case in which, under present circumstances, the settlement of a law point was
    980
    delayed for years. There were four Judges each receiving £3,500 a-year, sitting, as he had said, on motions. He submitted that where they had a great run of land cases the Government ought to divert some of the strength of the Judicial Bench to enable law points to be decided summarily. While he was in favour, to some extent, of some of the reform which he gathered was to be effected by the Bill, he considered there was sufficient judicial work in connection with land cases at the present time—it might only be of a temporary character—to employ the Judges, if the strength of the Bench was properly divided. The Irish Land Commission sat in Dublin only two days a-week, sometimes only two days a fortnight, and then they went off to the counties. At such times there were no means of having law points in land cases decided, because the Commissioners were away in the country. When they had a large judicial staff it might be so arranged that some of the Judges should be employed in deciding preliminary law points. Of course, the Judges knew no more about the value of land than the majority of people, but law points could be referred to them, and thus a Land Court could always be sitting. Under the circumstances, he trusted the Government would be able to see their way to provide some machinery to effect this object. He submitted that some little time should be given for the consideration of the point he had raised.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that any observations from the hon. and learned Gentleman upon legal points well deserved the consideration of the Government, but he was very unwilling to extend unnecessarily the scope of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained of a block in the Land Court. He was perfectly aware there had been a delay in the fixing of judicial rents; but he was not aware of any block in respect to the settlement of legal points. If that was so, there was clearly nothing to be gained by extending the legal part of the Land Court. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman would communicate further with him, either by putting down Amendments to the Bill or otherwise, he would be glad.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, his experience was that on Tuesdays and Fridays there were lists of 40 cases, many of which cases were never reached. Undoubtedly there was a block in the Land Court in respect to legal points.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, and Colonel King-Harman.
    "Bill presented, and read the first time [Bill 131.]

  CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the hon. and learned Attorney General if he intends to apply this Bill to Ireland?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Yes.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In spite of the pledge of last year?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: There was no pledge given last year.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Solicitor General.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 132.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. King, Bill to amend "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," ordered to be brought in by Mr. King, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. White, Sir John Puleston, Lord Claud Hamilton, Admiral Field, and Mr. Bond.
  Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 133.]

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER (INDIA) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir William Plowden, Bill to alter and amend the Law as to Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister in British India, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Plowden, Dr. Farquharson, and Viscount Baring.
  Bill presented,and read the first time, [Bill 184.]

  PAUPER LUNATICS' ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Johnston, Bill to amend the Law relating to the superannuation of officers and servants of Pauper Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Johnston and Mr. Chance.
  Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 135.]

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
  Return ordered,, "of Correspondence on the subject of Lighthouse Illuminants (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 282, of Session 1887.— (Mr. T. W, Russell.)
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock,

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the constitution of the Office of Works and Public Buildings, and to the unsatisfactory state of the public buildings of the Metropolis, said, he brought the subject forward thus early in the Session because of his great disappointment, which no doubt their Lordships shared, at finding that not one of the public improvements connected with the
842
Office of Works had been carried out during the Recess. Whether it was the new Admiralty and War Office, the alterations to be made in Parliament Street, or the new buildings of the National Portrait Gallery, nothing had been done. The facts in reference to the former of these promised buildings constituted a history which read very like a romance. In 1866–22 years ago—the matter was brought before Parliament, and it was decided that new buildings must be constructed. Nothing was done, however. In 1869 a Bill was brought in giving power for the acquisition of a site. In 1872 the question was again brought before Parliament, and in 1877 another Committee was appointed, and the Report which it issued deprecated in strong terms the continuance of the existing state of things. Nothing, however, was done, and nothing material had been done up to the present day. The Government having acquired the Spring Gardens site for £490,000 in 1882, designs for the new buildings were asked for in 1884. No further practical steps were taken, and in 1887 the condition of things remained the same. It should be borne in mind that all this time we were paying £33,000 for the hire of buildings,representing£1,000,000. Only last week a Report on the Civil Establishments was issued, which called attention to the miserably inadequate accommodation and the multiplicity of small rooms in the War Office and Admiralty, as shown by the fact that there were comprised in the War Office 19 houses and 289 rooms occupied by 805 persons. The Report continued—
"We strongly recommend, in the interest of economy and efficiency alike, the new War Office should not be delayed; nor is the consideration to be neglected that work is at present done under conditions which are not favourable from any point of view, sanitary or otherwise, to its being well done. These observations apply with equal force to the Admiralty buildings, and in both offices we believe that a considerable reduction in expenditure and great improvement in efficiency would follow a concentration of work."
A similar story could be told of the action of the authorities in the case of the National Portrait Gallery. When the pictures were removed to Bethnal Green Museum a promise was given by Mr. Gladstone that a Vote should be taken and a permanent gallery erected.

843
Nothing, however, was done, and he now asked whether there was to be still further delay? He did not wish by his observations to reflect upon the management of the Office of Works. It was the system that was at fault. How could it be thought that any special great work would be done when our system was such that in a period of 30 years there had been 18 First Commissioners? He would appoint two eminent architects, men of high cultivation, as permanent officers of the Department of Works, to act with the First Commissioner for the time being, and to this Board should be intrusted the discussion and determination of the plans. Under their supervision we might expect something like continuity in the work of the Department. It was hopeless to look for such continuity under First Commissioners who were changed with every change of Government. At any rate, the present ridiculous way of conducting important works ought not to be allowed to continue any longer, and arrangements ought to be made to obviate present inconvenience and to secure public buildings that should be worthy of the country. He left the question with the Government.
LORD HENNIKERsaid, their Lord-ships would be glad to have heard the noble Lord speak upon a subject in which he had taken great interest for many years past. The noble Lord had suggested very great changes in the constitution of the Office of Works. Personally, in the position he occupied, as only answering for the Department in that House, he could hardly give an opinion on the noble Lord's plan, which appeared to involve so much change in the present arrangements as to raise a question for the Cabinet rather than for the Department. The noble Lord had been rather severe upon the Office of Works; but, from his own short experience, he thought the Department hardly deserved the criticisms of the noble Lord. No doubt there had been failures in the Office, as there had been in others. But he must remind their Lordships what were the functions of the Office of Works. They were, first of all, to maintain all public buildings that were at present erected; and, secondly, to provide new ones when they were required. In this way only the Department was an important agency
844
as to architecture; even then in only a few cases, as a great deal they had to do was of a purely utilitarian character. There really was no scope for architectural fancy. With regard to the architecture of important public buildings such as the Royal Courts of Justice, plans and designs were usually obtained by competition, and the successful architect was intrusted with the execution of the work. In these circumstances he felt that the Department might be considered fairly competent to deal with the work it had to undertake. If the Department had the additional officers suggested by the noble Lord, men of high technical and artistic qualifications, it would not be strengthened in any way for the ordinary work of the Office. On what might be regarded as extraordinary occasions every scheme which was put before the Office of Works for new buildings was submitted to Parliament; and, in the opinion of the First Commissioner as well as himself, it was doubtful whether an increase in the number of tastes, if he might so call it, upon the Board would improve the schemes or advance their progress. It was possible that there might be greater activity in the Office, and more schemes might be put forward; but then that raised the question whether Parliament would grant money to carry out these new schemes. In this practical age there was some difficulty in persuading Parliament to spend public money on fine buildings. Therefore, he could not see that there would be any great advantage in increasing the staff of the Office in the way proposed, increasing the expense of the Office, and making it of more importance. With regard to the Admiralty and the War Office, the noble Lord had stated what had happened. A good many plans had been under consideration. The plan of Messrs. Leeming and Leeming was adopted. It was put up to competition as usual, and the work was actually begun. There had been several plans thought of from time to time; at last this plan had been adopted. He might mention that the judges of the plans were Mr. W. H. Smith, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and two architects—Mr. Christian and Mr. Hardwick; but it was stopped on the appointment of a Committee by the House of Commons in 1885. This Committee did not sit, on account of the dissolution of Parliament; but another Committee was

845
appointed last year, which reported against the plans. The noble Lord could hardly blame the Office of Works for the delay resulting from the action of Parliament. In obedience to the Report of the last Committee, the Office was having plans prepared to carry out that Committee's recommendations. With respect to the National Portrait Gallery, their Lordships would recollect that in 1885 the galleries were pronounced to be unsafe, and nothing could be done but remove the portraits for safety to Bethnal Green, where they had been greatly appreciated. Three or four times as many people had seen the pictures as visited South Kensington Gallery in the same time. It was only proposed that the pictures should stay at Bethnal Green until a permanent home could be provided; and the provision of that home depended upon the necessary grant being made by Parliament. There had been no delay on the part of the Office of Works, whose plans would be ready directly the money was granted. Moreover, the Chief Commissioner had given no pledge that a new building would be erected at once; but he said he would be very glad if a permanent home could be found for this collection. He had, therefore, committed no breach of faith in the matter. The pictures were only on loan where they were. That was distinctly understood. With regard to Parliament Street improvements, the delay had arisen not in consequence of any action of the Office of Works, but because the Company had not as yet complied with the condition which Parliament imposed in the Private Bill before allowing the work to be commenced—namely, that £500,000 should be subscribed before the work was begun. That provision had, no doubt, rendered it difficult for the Company to raise money; but the money would be forthcomig, although it would, perhaps, come in slower than would otherwise have been the case. The Office had no power to pull down houses in Parliament Street. It was purely a matter for the Company to deal with under their Private Act. Meanwhile, they might congratulate themselves that the Office of Works had secured a scheme for pulling down the old buildings in Parliament Street before any other work was begun. This and other advantages his right honourable Friend the First Commissioner had
846
secured for the public. He thought that he had answered the Questions of his noble Friend, and that he had justified the action taken by the Office of Works.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYwished to say a word or two upon this subject, as he had once occupied the position of First Commissioner of Works. He did not think that in calling attention to the condition of Government offices, and in laying to some extent censure on the First Commissioner of Works, the noble Lord had quite laid the saddle on the right horse. Neither was he quite certain that the alterations suggested by the noble Lord were such as to bring about a remedy for the state of things of which he complained. One, at least, of the questions which the noble Lord had dealt with was due to what many of them had cause to regret—namely, the constant change in the Administrations of the country in the last two years. This brought about a change of policy in many respects, and in other offices than the Department of Works. With regard, for instance, to the question of the Admiralty and War Offices, the Government of which he had the honour to be a Member had a policy in which he confessed that it was not very enthusiastic. But it was a policy—the design of Messrs. Leeming & Co. It was a distinct and intelligible policy, and the Government which next came into Office reversed that policy and dismissed the project to the limbo of many other projects. That was the cause not merely of delay in the proper organization of the Admiralty and War Office buildings, but it was also the cause of a very considerable sum of money being expended in the shape of a fine to the architects. He did not think that the First Commissioner who was his Successor could properly be blamed for the change in Imperial policy on the part of successive Governments. As to Parliament Street, that was a very important question, but he thought that his noble Friend who spoke last had amply answered the coble Lord who introduced the subject. The question was not one which was in any degree dependent upon the action of the First Commissioner of Works. The question really depended upon a clause which was inserted in the Bill last year, which stipulated that no part of the buildings should be pulled down until a certain portion of the subscribed capital

847
had been raised. Parliament Street was one of the great permanent questions of the Office of Works. There was the question of the Burlington House Colonnade, but the question of Parliament street was more important than that, and it would always beset the Office of Works until some scheme was brought forward by a solvent company which enabled a profit to be made out of a process of a most expensive kind. There he thought again, that the blame ought to be laid upon the First Commissioner. If the noble Lord had made a practical proposal, founded on the instances he had cited, it would have been a matter of vast importance. If they once let loose a board of architects, as he had suggested, a very strong supervision and control would be required. While such a Board would be going one way, the Board of Treasury would be going another, and he ventured to suggest to the noble Lord that unless his project was sustained by a Board of Treasury, such as he had had no experience of in his short official career—a board of a most blind, lavish, and inconsiderate description—it would be impossible that such a plan could be successful.
LORD HENNIKERwished to say, with regard to the remark of the noble Earl, that the scheme of Messrs. Leeming was thrown over in consequence of the change of Government, that the Committee appointed by the late Government, of which the noble Earl was a member, was re-appointed last year, and he thought that he had stated that the change of scheme was entirely in consequence of Parliamentary action and not because of any action on the part of the Board of Works.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYadmitted that that was so, but said had the late Government remained in Office, and been supported by a majority, they could have carried out their policy with regard to the new Admiralty and War Office.
LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl as to the danger of introducing what might be called a Board of Consulting Architects. He believed he was present when the plan of the new Law Courts was discussed more or less by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and he was very much struck with what the
848
President of that day said. He said that he was far from approving the plan, and that probably most of his audience would agree with him; but, inasmuch as Mr. Street had been selected to carry out the plan, it was the duty of the British nation to submit themselves to Mr. Street. He had some dealings himself many years ago with several Commissioners of Works while the Westminster Clock was being constructed. Some of them were extremely capable of carrying on the business, a great deal more so than any architect. He was bound to say that the best of them all was Sir Benjamin Hall, little as he agreed with his political opinions. He could say the same of Mr. Ayrton, who introduced the new form of agreements with architects which prevented the increase in Estimates to which the noble Lord had referred. During the construction of the Westminster clock the solicitors of the Office asked him about a form of contract which was generally made with builders. He told him that form would never enable the Office to control the architects, or prevent the enormous increase upon the estimates which the noble Lord had truly spoken of. And Mr. Ayrton adopted a new one. He suspected, from something he had heard since, that form had been departed from, but to what extent he did not know. He mentioned this as a warning, and urged that Mr. Ayrton's arrangement should substantially be reverted to when any great works were to be carried out. With regard to the new Law Courts, Mr. Street was appointed architect by Lord John Manners, and the competition might as well never have taken place. Although it was given out that convenience was the chief thing to be attended to, Mr. Street's plans were notoriously defective therein, and, architecturally, it was considered the worst great public building in the world, and in the matter of convenience it unquestionably was the worst. Mr. Street was determined to sacrifice everything to his Gothic and ecclesiastical prejudices; and the great hall was made simply to gratify his vanity, that he might say he had made the widest vaulted hall in England, and yet it looks the narrowest, and is utterly useless besides. All this he was afraid he must say was the result of the present system; but he must add that the noble

849
Lord's suggestion for improving the system would, he feared, make it worse. Appointing a strong permanent secretary who would control architects and direct his masters as permanent officials sometimes did, might be an improvement, but that he would not then discuss. As to the plans for the new Admiralty and War Office, he had read the Report of the Committee of last year, and, as far as he could judge, he agreed with it. Perhaps he might be allowed to mention a very humble matter connected with that Office. Some 20 years ago, when he had to come down to that House daily, he used to come down the steps near the Duke of York's Column. He never did so in frosty weather without fear of falling. Somebody persuaded the Commissioner of Works to put up an iron railing on each side in order that people going up and down the stops might be able to lay hold of it; but so simple a thing could not be left to an ironmonger, but some architect must be called in, and, accordingly, a railing as thick as his arm, supported on large square pillars, was put up at some distance from the wall. Thereupon the boys found the railings the most convenient place in all London to slide down, and the rails became useless for everybody else. That might easily have been stopped by putting in a few spikes, which any ironmonger in London could have done in two days. But the ingenuity of the Office and the architect were not equal to that, and so the railings were entirely swept away and had not been replaced to this day. Therefore, in slippery weather he went round another way to avoid those steps. There were steps in various other parts of London, and particularly under Charing Cross station, where the Metropolitan Board of Works had done what was wanted by a simple thin rail, which made the steps quite safe. He hoped, therefore, that the Commissioner of Works would condescend to employ an ironmonger to enable people to go down the steps of the Duke of York's Column safely in frosty weather, and to help infirm people to get up in all weathers.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I wish to make two observations—one in which I quite concur with the noble Lord who has brought the Notice forward (Lord Lamington);
850
one in which I may appear to differ from something he has mentioned incidentally. I much approve the course he has adopted in pointing to the imperfection of our public buildings and of the Board of Works, to which they are in some degree to be attributed. On the whole of that subject, Mr. White, the secretary to the Institute of Architects, not long ago produced a volume which abounds in luminous materials to support the general position of my noble Friend this evening. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, in an amusing speech, referred to his own protest against the scheme of the New Law Courts. It is curious that the late Mr. Fergusson—so great an architectural authority—when he became for a short time the regular adviser of the Board, was forced to leave it, because upon that scheme his counsel was entirely disregarded. However, the point on which I cannot go with my noble Friend who opened the debate is as to censure of the Government for not having carried out the Public Offices Site Act and the plan of Messrs. Leeming for a new construction in Spring Gardens. On the contrary, the Government appear to me to merit praise for having left that Act, which is entirely optional, unexecuted. The arguments against proceeding on it have been so often stated that it would be improper to repeat them. They have been given in a number of deRates, and in a Protest which was signed by many of your Lordships. They were repeated often by our lamented Friend the former Chairman of Committees. Beyond that, a deputation of the architects impressed them on the late Lord Iddesleigh when he was First Lord of the Treasury. Last of all, a Committee of the House of Commons has decisively adopted them. If, therefore, anything is said in favour of reverting to that plan, it is necessary to remind the House under what circumstances it has been discarded, so that we may guard to some extent the equilibrium of the Government.
LORD LAMINGTONexplained that he had not suggested that there should be a consulting board of architects, but that there should be a board, two Members of which should be permanent, to assist the First Commissioner in carrying out works which had been determined upon, and for which the House

851
of Commons had voted the money. What he complained of was that under the present system nothing was ever done at all, and decisions made 20 years ago were still unexecuted. He wanted the Government to keep a permanent control over that Office.

ARMY—ROYAL BARRACKS, DUBLIN— INSANITARY CONDITION.

  RESOLUTION.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in rising to move—
  "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Return of all cases of febrile disease in the Dublin Garrison since January 1881, ordered by this House to be printed 9th September 1887, be continued to 31st December 1887"—
  said, the matter to which that Return referred was a very serious one. There had been constant complaints for many years, yet nothing had been done by the War Office to improve the sanitary condition of the garrison which the Return disclosed. Within the last few weeks three very grave cases had occurred among the officers of the garrison; and their Lordships must see that whatever affected the health of the officers must also affect that of the men. If the officers were living under insanitary conditions, much more must the men composing the rank and file of the garrison be doing so. The unwholesome conditions in which the Dublin Garrison were placed were a source of serious expense and loss to the Army. The Army Medical Report for 1884 was presented only in 1886, and he thought it was a great pity that statistics of that description should be submitted to Parliament so long after date, as it prevented their being turned to as useful account as they otherwise might be. Taking, however, the Return for 1884, he found in regard to enteric fever that Dublin showed the greatest number of cases. Again, he found in the same Report in respect to invaliding that the highest ratio of admissions to hospital per 1,000 men occurred in the Dublin district. He urged Her Majesty's Government to remedy this serious injury which was being done to the troops. It might be said that the question of expense stood in the way, but he was quite sure that no one would grudge any expense which was incurred in maintaining Her Majesty's Army in health and strength.
  852
  Moved, "That a Return of all cases of febrile disease in the Dublin Garrison since January 1881, ordered to be printed 9th September 1887, be continued to 31st December 1887."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he wished to add a word to the remarks of the noble Earl, and to point out to the Under Secretary of State for War the extreme urgency and importance of this question. He had studied the Returns, and it was really appalling to consider the number of cases of fever which had occurred, enteric and otherwise. The Return for the first half of 1887 pointed to the same conclusion as the Returns for the whole of 1886. From what he had personally heard, he had reason to believe that matters were not in the slightest degree better during the last part of 1887 than they were during the earlier part of the year. It was not right to subject our troops to insanitary conditions which could be avoided by attention, and even, if necessary, by the expenditure of money. The fact that the remedy would be costly was no sort of justification or excuse for sending men to a place where they must contract a serious and dangerous disease.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said a Report had been received as to the state of Dublin Barracks from Dr. Grimshaw, Registrar General of Births and Deaths, and Sir A. Cameron, Medical Officer of Health for Dublin. Her Majesty's Government had not the slightest desire or intention of shutting their eyes to the serious condition of the barracks in Dublin. The Report pointed out several unhealthy conditions about the barracks, and he would suggest to the noble Earl that this Report should be laid on the Table of the House and the Motion of the noble Earl for the continuation of the Return of febrile cases withdrawn. The Report would strengthen the case of the noble Earl as to the insanitary condition of the barracks without the continuation of that voluminous Report. The Secretary of State for War was prepared to lay the Report on the Table; it showed conclusively in what an insanitary condition the barracks were, especially the Royal Barracks. In the first place the Committee recommended an alteration of the subsoil drainage and removal of the inequalities of the ground. The

  853
  most important part of that undertaking was now in hand. The removal of a considerable portion of the present buildings was recommended; but with that recommendation they could not deal at present, because the troops could not be removed and placed under canvas at this time of the year. Last year he mentioned that there were legal difficulties in the way of going on quickly with the now Cavalry barracks. Those difficulties had now been removed. £15,000 from last year's Estimates would be expended upon the work. The land had been bought and about £3,000 had been spent in laying the foundations. £35,000 had been taken this year, and he was informed that the whole of that sum would be spent in the ensuing year. The Committee recommended the removal of the timber and renewing the floor. This work would be undertaken as soon as possible. The doctors also recommended that certain ventilation tubes should be used, but he understood that the military medical officers took exception to that recommendation. A re-arrangement of the hospital drainage was also recommended, as well as a disinfection of the sewage from the hospital, together with a suggestion that it should be diverted from the rest of the sewage system. This work had been ordered and was being carried out at the present time. A reconstruction of certain closets and an examination of their connection was recommended, and this work was also being carried out. The Committee recommended that a certain alteration should be made as regarded ash pits and receptacles of that kind. The attention of the local Military Authorities had been called to the matter, and the work was now in hand. An improved system of ventilating the main sewers was recommended, and the work was also in hand. The isolation of infectious disease was recommended. There had been some difficulty in providing a hospital for these cases, but that difficulty had been removed and was now arranged for. The medical officers, however, pointed out that cases of enteric fever were not always easy to diagnose as such until some time had elapsed, when it was too late to remove the patient. The Committee further recommended that care should be taken with regard to the supply of milk, which they seemed to think was suspicious. This question
  854
  had been referred to the local Military Authorities. As to the officers, he pointed out that one of the cases was that of an officer who had been in lodgings. Another case was that of an officer who, although in quarters, had been a great deal with his friends; and there appeared to be an idea prevalent that this officer might have contracted the disease in lodgings, as his friend did. The Government did not conceal the condition of the barracks, and they had every intention of carrying out the alterations recommended.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, as he had some peculiar means of knowing a few of the facts connected with this question when he was in Dublin, he should like to offer a few observations. While in Dublin he was in constant communication with some of the officers who were quartered in those barracks. While in Dublin on the last occasion nearly all those barracks had cases of illness of an enteric character in them. The Royal Barracks, however, was the place whence the officers came with whom he was in constant communication. During the time he was in Dublin one officer died in that barracks, and the other officers felt that they were in daily danger of catching typhoid fever owing to its condition. This was not a new question. He believed the question of illness in the Royal Barracks was a very old-standing grievance. He thought the evil had been going on for 25 years, and at different times there had been deaths not only among the officers but among the rank and file as well. He hoped the Government would seriously take this matter into consideration. It required to be dealt with immediately. He was glad to hear the noble Lord say that the immediate difficulty with regard to the site of the new barracks had been overcome. He should like to know whether the Government had consulted what were known as sanitary engineers, independently of the Military or Civil Authorities. He believed a question of this kind could only be dealt with by specialists who thoroughly understood the subject.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: All I can say, my Lords, is that if this barracks is not healthy I lived in it for seven years, two years in the House where one of the officers has, unfortunately,

  855
  died, and five years in the Royal Square. There has been a large increase in the number of cases of enteric fever among British troops all over the world, and therefore the spread of that disease among the troops stationed in the Royal Barracks in the City of Dublin is not by any means extraordinary. Throughout the whole of Ireland there has been more fever than usual, and no doubt the Royal Barracks have had their share in the increase of that disease. It must be borne in mind that when a large number of men are brought together there is great danger that diseases of this class will spread among them. The spread of the disease among the troops in Dublin may further be accounted for by the fact that the Royal Barracks are situated in the neighbourhood of a very low class of houses, which, however, are not specially connected with fever, although they are inhabited by a very low class of persons. The condition of the Liffey is certainly not all that could be desired. The difficulty which we have to face at the present moment is how we are to provide accommodation for the troops if we were to remove them from the Royal Barracks. We certainly could not place them under canvas at this time of the year; and the only other way to deal with the matter would be to hire large accommodation premises, which would be difficult to find, and, even if found, would be very expensive. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War has assured us that the recommendations of the several Commissions which have sat to consider the question of the sanitary condition of our troops are being largely carried out at the present moment, and that any other suggestions that may be made in the same direction will receive very careful consideration. If it were decided to pull down any portion of the Royal Barracks in Dublin, considerable troop accommodation would be lost, and new barracks would have to be built somewhere else at great expense. All these points to which I have referred involve very serious questions, and naturally anyone occupying my position must take all the difficulties to which those questions give rise into consideration. I feel as strongly as the noble Lord who brought this subject under the consideration of the House how desirable it would be to ascertain absolutely what is the cause
  856
  of the Royal Barracks being so unhealthy, and whether there is any necessity for pulling even a part of them down. The Local Authorities, who ought to know more about the matter than we do, do not advocate pulling down the barracks, even although that course had been recommended by the Commissioners. Then we come to the other question, as to new barracks being built. Of course, when such barracks are built, it will enable us to reduce considerably the number of men now in the Royal Barracks; but it will take some two or three years to build these new barracks. I think that in the meanwhile something may be done to make the Royal Barracks more healthy by opening up the passages on both sides of the Royal Square and by pulling down a portion of the gable ends of the barracks. I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State for War is anxious to effect all necessary improvements in these buildings; and I believe that no endeavour will be spared to put these barracks into the best possible condition.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he would remind the Under Secretary for War that it was not only the Royal Barracks that were unhealthy, and he was very glad to hear the assurances of the Illustrious Duke. He trusted that any financial difficulties would now be overcome. The time for consideration had gone by, and the time for action had arrived. He might add that while he was desirous of having the medical Report which had been referred to by the Under Secretary for War, he was also anxious for the Return for which he had asked.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the noble Lord if he could give them any information as to the condition of the Richmond Barracks at Dublin. In cases of this kind the truest economy would be to place the troops in healthy barracks. The question of the sanitary condition of the barracks ought to be referred to experts, and he trusted that such persons would soon be able to point out the cause of the unhealthy condition of these buildings.
  LORD HARRISsaid he would obtain full information with regard to the state of the Richmond Barracks. He quite agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) that the question of

  857
  the sanitary condition of these barracks was one for experts. He should like to point out that if Dublin Barracks were in the insanitary condition of which the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) had spoken, it was a pity that he did not interfere when he was in Office in Ireland.
  EARL SPENCER: A report on the subject was sent in.
  LORD HARRISsaid, that notwithstanding that, the Government of the day did not accede to the representations made to them. All he could say was that the present Government had now the information from experts which they desired last year upon the matter, and they had no intention of delaying the work.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.