Sitting of 30 April 1889

CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGNERS.
Order (15th April) for an Address for a Return relating to Contracts with Foreigners, read, and discharged; and instead thereof,—
Return ordered—
"Of all Contracts for Articles of Home Manufacture made in the United Kingdom by the several Government Departments, between the 1st day of April 1888 and the 31st day of March 1889, with Contractors outside the Kingdom."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)

EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS).
Ordered:—
"Address for Copy of the Contracts entered into by the Secretary of State for India with any Company for the Construction of Railways in India (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers, No. 412, of Session 1882, and No. 450, of Session 1871."—(Sir G. Balfour).

QUESTIONS.

  PRESIDENCY ALLOWANCES IN INDIA.
  MR. KING (Hull): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet caused the inquiry to be made, which was promised in answer to a question in this House on 18th February, 1887, with regard to the grant of Presidency allowances such as are given to the India Public Works Department to officers of the Telegraph Department, as sanctioned by letter 1,000, E. G., July 15, 1876; and, if so, whether he can now state why the sanctioned allowances are not granted?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The inquiry was made, as promised, in February, 1887; and a
  774
  reply was received that the question of granting the same Presidency allowances to the officers of the Telegraph Department as are given to the Public Works Department had been referred to the Finance Committee in India. No further communication has been made by the Government of India to the Secretary of State.

  MAINTENANCE OF MAIN ROADS.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENasked the Secretary of the Local Government Board whether he had received a memorial from the Cheshire Quarter Sessions, showing that the last payment made by the Local Government Board on 20th December, 1888, of £11,514 was in respect of maintaining and repairing roads up to 25th March, 1887; whether this was the final payment that the Board intended to make in respect of roads; whether, as the County Council only took over the county work on 1st April, 1889, the county was now left to find this sum of about £11,500 for the two years between 25th March, 1887, and 1st April, 1889, amounting to £23,000; and whether any opportunity would be given to the House of discussing this and other matters connected with the county finance in respect of grants from the Government, as it now no longer came within the Budget.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. W. LONG,): I have received a memorial from the Cheshire Quarter Sessions with reference to the payment of Government contributions in respect of the maintenance of main roads. The sum of £11,514, which was paid to the county authority during the last financial year, was a Government contribution in aid of the expenditure of that year, although the contribution was necessarily based on an expenditure actually incurred during a period prior to that year. The payment referred to is the last Government contribution which will be made in respect of main roads, as, from the 1st of April last, the county authority have had ceded to them certain licence duties and other revenue in substitution for the Government contributions previously paid. There can be no ground for contending that, while the county is entitled to receive the revenue referred to,

  775
  they are also to receive the contributions for which that revenue has been substituted. If the hon. Member wishes to raise a question with reference to this matter by a Motion, it will, of course, be be open to him to do so.
  MR. M'LAREN: Is it not the case that this payment was for the repair of main roads up to the 25th of March, 1887?
  MR. LONG: No, Sir; certainly not. The payment was made in relief of the rates for the current year 1888, but as the expenditure for the current year could not be ascertained, the payment had to be based on the expenditure of the previous year. The sum was paid, however, in relief of the rates for the current year.
  MR. C. R. SPENCER: Is that in accordance with the statement which has been made by Lord Salisbury?
  MR. LONG: I am unable to say, nor do I know what statement the hon. Member refers to. It is, however, in accordance with the statements that were made in this House.
  MR. C. R. SPENCER: Are we to understand that it is in accordance with the declaration of the President of the Local Government Board?
  MR. LONG: Certainly.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had received notices of objection from the British Dairy Farmers' Association to the proposed schedules of maximum rates of the 26 chief railway companies in the kingdom, chiefly in respect of their proposals regarding the carriage of milk; whether, although almost all milk was carried by passenger trains, there were no genuine proposals in the schedules for a reasonable maximum rate; whether some companies proposed to take power to charge for milk conveyed by passenger trains 2d. per 1b. or 1s. 8d. a gallon for any distance however short; whether all the objections contend that the companies should be asked to state clearly their real proposed rate for the carriage of milk by passenger trains; and, whether he would comply with this request, and order the companies to amend their proposals in the way suggested?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,)said that notices of objection of the kind described in the question had been received by the Board of Trade. They had evidently been drawn up with great care, and contained statements and arguments which were well worthy of consideration; but as he had to form an opinion on the matter after hearing both sides, he could not, of course, say now what his opinion was likely to be.
  MR. M'LAREN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the parties will be heard? Will it be not until after all the notices have been lodged?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hearing will not begin until after that time.

  THE SUGAR CONVENTION.
  Ma. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as the declaration attached to the Sugar Convention provides that
  "Two months at least before the Special Commission meets the Laws put in by the different Powers, as suppressing all Bounties, shall be communicated to the various signatory Governments,"
  will they be laid before Parliament previous to the Second Reading of the Sugar Convention Bill?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR J. FERGUSSON,): The proposed laws, or as we say Bills, are submitted to the International Commission with the view of examining whether they are sufficient to give effect to the Convention, but chiefly for the purpose of affording the bounty-giving Powers the means of ascertaining the measures by which bounties may be most effectually abolished. They will, doubtless, be presented to Parliament in the form in which they have passed their respective Legislatures, but at present as they are to be laid before the Commission, and may be said to be in our possession confidentially, it would be improper to present them.
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether all the signatory powers have sent in Bills or Draft Bills on the subject?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, I believe they have.

  THE INDIAN ARMY.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether all Officers who were appointed to cadetships in the Indian Army after December 1858 were informed that their appointments were conditional, or subject to any alteration that might be decided on: If any Officer was not so informed, wherein do the conditions of his appointment differ from those Officers appointed before December 1858, and who remained local Officers: And whether an Officer (Lieutenant Colonel Chapman, late Madras Army) who had received his nomination under the old conditions, and had never been informed of the contemplated changes, or called upon to signify his consent thereto, had nevertheless been posted to the general list, and subjected to great loss thereby?
  *SIR J. GORST: Many officers appointed to cadetships in the Indian Army after December, 1858, were not called on to sign a note to the effect that they were aware of the conditions then introduced. (2) All these officers were appointed subject to those conditions. Officers appointed before December, 1858 were not. (3) Col. Chapman, received his appointment in March 1859, under the conditions under which it could alone be granted. He was posted to the general list, in common with the other officers in his position.

  ZULULAND—SENTENCES ON NATIVE CHIEFS.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have received official information of the sentences on the Zulu Chiefs; and whether the question will receive the consideration of the Secretary of State?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (BARON H. DE WORMS, Liverpool, East Toxteth): Her Majesty's Government have been officially informed that Undabuko has been sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years, Tshingana to imprisonment for twelve years, and Dinizulu to imprisonment for ten years. These sentences are not to be carried out until the
  778
  Secretary of State has been able to consider the cases.

  COUNTY COUNCIL VOTERS.
  MR. HERMON HODGEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether, in the event of County Councils giving instructions for the preparation of lists of voters in urban districts in street order, town clerks of municipal boroughs who have already issued their precepts will be compelled to issue supplemental instructions in accordance therewith; if not, who are the authorities to give such instructions to town clerks of municipal boroughs?
  MR. LONG: The question, I understand, applies to cases where directions have been given by the County Council that the lists of voters shall be made out according to the order in which the qualifying premises appear in the rate-book. We are advised that unless the directions have been given by the County Council prior to the issue by the town clerk of his precept, the directions will only take effect in connection with the registration for the subsequent year.

  H.M.S. SULTAN.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information as to the prospects of raising the sultan, and when will the Court of Inquiry be held as to whether proper means were adopted immediately after the stranding of the vessel to recover it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The reports received from the officers of the Mediterranean Fleet and the dockyard officials who have inspected the Sultan are not favourable to the prospect of saving the vessel. Their view is confirmed by the salvage company who were engaged by the Admiralty and were working on the spot. Other salvage companies take a more favourable opinion of the position of the ship, and have made offers to attempt to raise her. The damage to the hull is considerable, and the deterioration of the fittings and machinery will be so great that it is very doubtful, from a pecuniary point of view, whether the Sultan is worth raising; but until I know what the claim for salvage will be

  779
  I cannot give a definite opinion upon this point. A further inquiry into the measures taken to save the Sultan after she grounded is necessary. The late Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean, his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, has unfortunately been so seriously indisposed during the last month by an attack of fever as to be wholly unable to transact naval business; until, therefore, he is convalescent it will not be possible to commence the investigation.

  THE TONNAGE BILL.
  MR. DONKINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of the new Tonnage Bill becoming law, the tonnage of those steamers of foreign countries that had practically adopted our system of measurement would be increased for paying dues in foreign ports in the same way as that of English steamers would be under the new Bill?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Assuming that the Tonnage Bill becomes law in the terms in which it is introduced, it will have no effect whatever on the payment of dues by foreign ships in foreign ports. No foreign country that I am aware of has adopted the Isabella decision as part of its tonnage laws. The measurement of tonnage under that decision would be abolished by the Bill in favour of the tonnage of the international arrangement.
  MR. CRAIG: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman will he tell us where we can got a copy o f the Isabella decision?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir, I cannot; because there was no decision at all. The hon. Member is probably aware that the case was listed for hearing, but it was never actually heard. The Board of Trade was advised that it had no case.

  TITHE SALES IN WALES.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the following paragraph in the Echo of Saturday last:
  "Mr. Stevens, the agent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, will next week recommence tithe sales in Wales, in Carmarthenshire and
  780
  Cardiganshire. After communicating with the Home Office the county authorities have decided to place a police force of seventy men to protect Mr. Stevens."
  Whether such communication has in fact been made; and, whether any attempt had been made to come to a peaceful understanding with the tenants, and so render the presence of the police unnecessary, as had been done in other Welsh counties?
  The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,); I have received no communication from the authorities of Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire on the subject to which the paragraph, refers. I have written to the chief constables of the two counties, and until I hear from them I am not in a position to say whether the facts are accurately stated, or what attempts have been made to come to a peaceful understanding.

  THE INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with reference to the petitions for alteration of assessment of Inhabited House Duty, he could place lodging-house keepers and schoolmasters on the same basis as traders?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): view of the fact that additional taxation is necessary in the present year, it is impossible to make modifications of the existing duties which would involve a loss to the Revenue. The alteration which the hon. Member suggests is of this character. Moreover it does not stand alone, and if we are to undertake a revision of the House Duty we must await a time when it is possible to deal with the whole group of questions which would thus be opened up.

  GOLD COAST—THE MURDER OF MR. DALRYMPLE AT TAVIEVE.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government was now in receipt of a Report by the Governor of the Gold Coast, on a petition from the jurymen at Accra, before whom Bella Cobinah and Napad Sebeh were tried last August on a charge of procuring the murder of Assistant Inspector Dalrymple at

  781
  Tavieve; and, if so, what action has been taken thereon; whether the Governor has been called upon to explain the discrepancies between the indictment against those two men for alleged complicity in the murder of Mr. Dalrymple, and the Governor's statement, as reported in the Gold Coast Government Gazette, that they, and also a third prisoner, Akoto Mamlay, an old woman, had been tried, not only for the murder of Mr. Dalrymple last May, but also for certain other murders at an earlier date; and what reply, if any, has been made to the jurymen who, in the petition referred to, urge that the Governor's statements respecting the trial at which, with the concurrence of the Judge, they acquitted the two first named prisoners, is "not only incorrect, but also untrue and unjust and without foundation," and that they have been "greatly wronged by reason of their integrity as jurors having been unjustly impugned by his Excellency and the Legislative Council endeavouring to make scapegoats of them by imputing blame to them for the consequent result of an injudicious policy and the foolish blunders committed by some official or officials?"
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to the first and third paragraphs of my hon. Friend's question, I have to say that the Secretary of State is still awaiting the receipt of the petition through the Governor with his report thereon. The delay probably arises from the fact that he has only recently returned to head quarters from a prolonged tour of inspection. In answer to the second paragraph, it was intended to proceed against these men on both charges; but on their acquittal on the first indictment, the Prosecution decided not to proceed with the second.

  SCHOOL BOARD SUMMONSES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL, asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been drawn to the inconvenience and loss of time suffered by persons resident in Bethnal Green and neighbourhood, owing to School Board summonses being now taken at Dalston Police Court; and whether he would make arrangements by which they could be heard at Worship Street, as formerly?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Magistrate that he has this matter now under his consideration, and will shortly report to me upon it. I will then consider whether any new arrangement can be made by which the grievance in question can be remedied.

  THE PARIS EXHIBITION.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Ambassador to France had been or would be instructed to attend the opening of the Paris Exhibition.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No such instruction has been given to the Ambassador, and as we are not taking part officially in the Exhibition such an instruction will not be necessary.

  WOMEN COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTORS.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENasked the Lord Advocate whether Clause 8 of the Scotch Local Government Bill meant that every County Council elector, including women, would be qualified to be elected to the County Council; and, if not, whether he would introduce words to make it clear that women electors are eligible for election?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): No, Sir; the clause does not purport to state the necessary qualifications of Councillors, but only enacts a disqualification. It leaves standing the general common law as to personal qualifications for holding public offices.
  MR. M'LAREN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state whether the Bill will or will not enable women to vote at County Council elections?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It will not enable them.

  CERTIFICATION OF DEATHS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the secretary of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that according to the last Report of the Registrar General 17,465 deaths occurred in England and Wales during 1887, where the cause of death was not certified by any medical attendant or coroners' inquiry; and whether, taking that fact into consideration, Government will consent to the appointment of a Select

  783
  Committee to inquire into the efficiency of the existing law as to the disposal of the dead, for securing an accurate record of the causes of death in all cases, and especially for detecting them where death may have been due to poison, violence, or criminal neglect.
  MR. LONG: The proportion of deaths, where the cause of death is not certified by any medical attendant or coroner's inquiry, is steadily declining. In 1879 the proportion was 4·7 per cent, while in 1887 it was only 3·3 per cent. The proportion varies from 0·8 per cent in Middlesex (extra metropolitan) to 5·7 in Dublin, and 7·4 in Wales. The Registrar General informs me that the uncertified causes of death (including a considerable majority of cases of infants and young children) may be generally sub-divided into two classes—(1)the cases in which the deceased person has had no medical attendance during his last illness; and (2) the eases in which the attendance has been by an unqualified or unregistered practitioner. As regards the first class of cases, they are most numerous in the sparsely populated districts, where distance places a natural obstacle in the way of procuring medical attendance. The second class of cases may be subdivided. In some instances an unregistered practitioner is working on his own account, in others he is acting as the assistant or quasi partner of a registered practitioner, and in others the practitioner may be duly qualified, but either he is unregistered or has been removed from the register. The Registrar-General has good reason to know that a very large proportion of the cases of uncertified deaths are reported by registrars to coroners prior to their registration, although these officers, in the exercise of their discretion, decide that it is unnecessary to hold inquests. I cannot say that I think the circumstances are such as to require the appointment of a Select Committee as suggested.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to give notice that on the earliest opportunity I shall call attention to the subject, and move a Resolution upon it.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  The hon. Edward Knatchbull-Hugessen, for the Borough of Rochester.
MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (MORNING SITTINGS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet at Two of that clock on Tuesday and Friday, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Morning Sitting on those days."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am sorry that the First Lord of the Treasury is not here to explain the reasons which induced him to place this Motion upon the Paper. Up to the present time the Government have always told us that the business was in arrear, and that it was necessary to appropriate the time set apart for the Motions of private Members. I do not think there is much good to be gained at this time of the Session by protesting on the part of private Members against this taking away of the whole of their time. The Government now propose to take two morning sittings, one on Tuesdays and the other on Fridays, and the Amendment I have put down upon the Paper would give the Government the whole of one night, and would reserve to private Members the whole of another night. I trust that in disposing of the question the Government will not bring in their majority to override the wishes of the House. I think it would be of advantage to private Members that the Government should have the whole of one night, and that they should have the whole of another, because, so far as private Members are concerned, the proposal of the Government in its present form would, practically, ruin two of their evenings. Every Member knows that when the Government takes a morning sitting from 1 till 7, it is almost impossible, unless the question is one of the highest importance, for a private Member to make a House at 9 o'clock. Therefore, to take morning sittings on both of the private Member's nights will he practically to ruin the two evenings devoted to private Members. If my proposal be accepted, the Government will gain something like half an hour in the length of the sitting, and will also gain in the rapidity with which they will be able to dispose of

  785
  business by having the dinner hour available. Hon. Members know very well, that during that hour a vast amount of business is generally done. Therefore, if my proposal be accepted, I believe that both the Government and the House generally will be largely benefited. The other day, when a similar proposal was made, a great objection was taken to the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule, and yet the Government now propose to suspend the 12 o'clock rule on two nights in the week. I believe that the House is disinclined to sit until 1 o'clock in the morning, and would prefer to return to the 12 o'clock rule. except in a case of urgency. I therefore suggest that the Government should take the whole of Tuesday or Friday, and leave the whole of the other day to private Members. It may be urged that it would be creating a precedent for the Government to have three days a week. but I confess that I am one of those who think that the Government ought to have three nights out of the five at its disposal. At present, the Government practically obtain them by infringing the rights of private Members, and I think it would be more convenient to fix permanently that the Government should have three nights a week. I trust that the Government will meet my proposal in a conciliatory spirit. I have proposed that the Government should take Friday, and leave Tuesday to private Members, and I have done so because I find that the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) in reference to the disestablish-meet of the Welsh Church is down for Tuesday next. But as between Tuesday and Friday, I have no strong opinion. I only ask that the Government should respect the rights of private Members for one night, and I believe that if they do this they will get through some business themselves, while they will still leave an opportunity to private Members to bring forward matters in which they are interested. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "order," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Friday."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton).
  786
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DILLWYN: In seconding the Amendment, I sincerely hope the Government will accede to the request of my hon. Friend, yet I have no strong expectation that the Government wilt do so, seeing how recklessly they have used their power already to take away the rights of private Members. I confess I have no great hope that they will alter their course at my solicitation, though I think I have a special claim when I make an interested appeal on behalf of the motion for which I have secured first place 14 days hence. The question I desire to raise in reference to the Established Church in Wales excites the greatest interest throughout the whole Principality, and I make a special appeal to the Government in its favour. In the very first Session of this Parliament, and at an earlier day than I have obtained this year, I succeeded in getting a first place, but afterwards that opportunity was ruthlessly taken away to meet the exigencies of public business. Many times since then I have balloted, but never have I been successful until now, and again I am baulked by the Government taking away Tuesday, leaving but four hours in the evening at the disposal of private Members. Certainly, I think it is a hard fate, and, considering the interest taken throughout Wales in the subject I desire to raise, I think the Government might allow me to use the opportunity that is almost within my grasp.
  *SIR G. CAMPBELL: If we must submit to something of this nature I very much prefer the proposal of the hon. Member for Poplar to that of the Government, while I think it will most conduce to economy of the time of the House and serve the Government purpose best. More business is likely to be done in an whole day than in two half days. The point also I particularly aim at is that the amendment will not trench upon the salutary twelve o'clock rule, and I am sure this wholesome rule is much appreciated. But the form in which the question is put is that the words proposed stand part of the Resolution. I must protest against this

  787
  taking by the Government of the time of private Members thus early in the Session. I know I shall be told that the Government are driven to this course by what is called obstruction, but in anticipation I protest against that, and I can aver that there has been less obstruction this Session than in any Session since I came into the House. Indeed, I think the evil connected with the congestion of business with which the House is afflicted is less unreasonable discussion than to the scamping of business insufficiently discussed. Especially I refer to the way in which Scotch business is scamped. We are continually told that we must accept Scotch Bills as they are presented to us or not at all, for there is not time to discuss them sufficiently. No doubt it is the case that the business of the House, and with it the congestion of business, is increasing. And why is this? For the reason that it is totally impossible that one House sitting as a whole can dispose of the whole legislative work of the three kingdoms, and conduct the affairs of this great Empire, dealing not only with the great principles, but all the details of every Bill, instead of proceeding by a system of delegation of labour and several Committees. I feel this to be especially the case in regard to Scotch Bills. This Session there is a large amount of business relating to Scotland, and our limited arrangements for Grand Committees are such that I am told there is no power to refer any of these Bills to a Grand Committee. We were also told the other day that the rules of the House do not provide for the reference of private Members' Bills to a Grand Committee. I do not know what authority there is for that statement, and for myself I can see no reason why Bills of all classes should not be so referred, including Scotch Bills. When the House is threatened with much Scotch business, English Members would be relieved and Scotch Members would be satisfied by referring these Bills to a Committee composed mainly, I do not say entirely, of Scotch Members. The present Government, however, have refused this concession, which was advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian; hence it is that business generally is congested, and the Govern-
  788
  ment find it necessary, or make it a plea, for laying hands on the time of private Members. I altogether object to the present system, and I think that by a seasonable system of delegation, justice would be done to Scotland, and work generally would be more effective. To take away the time of private Members at this period of the Session cannot be justified. Taking away the whole time it practically is, for it is a delusion for. private Members to hope to secure a proper discussion at nine o'clock.
  *DR. CAMERON: I just wish to say a word or two to show that the feeling in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Poplar is not at all unanimous. For myself, and I can speak for a number of Members near me, I much prefer the Government proposal, for we consider that it practically gives us two chances in the week for bringing on Motions. It may not on each give opportunity for long debate, but at all events, it does allow of discussion and division. I quite admit that for a Motion such as that the hon. Member for Swansea desires to bring forward a full night's debate is required, and in reference to that if the hon. Member will move an amendment to the Government resolution excepting the Tuesday he has succeeded in securing from the operation of the resolution, I shall be happy to support him; but I do not think it is necessary on account of a single exceptional case to adopt a rule that I think would be very injurious to the interests of private Members and which would certainly greatly curtail the opportunities yet remaining for securing discussion of subjects in which we are interested. One word on the general principle of this Government monoply of the time of the House. They do not gain anything by it. They tell us debates in Committee of Supply are unduly protracted. Of course they are, and for the simple reason that private Members cannot bring forward any subject at all unless they take the opportunity of moving a formal reduction of a vote in Committee of Supply. Look at the straits to which hon. Members are driven to obtain discussion of their hobbies. On this very Motion the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy finds an opportunity to discuss the neglect of Scotch business, and his favourite remedy of Grand

  789
  Committees, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee would, had he not been ruled out of order, have found a similar opportunity. As illustrating some of the difficulties of hon. Members who do not secure first place on the orders of the day, I may mention that on to-night's paper stands a Notice in the name of the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), but which he will not be able to move because he has not taken the trouble to put the terms of his Motion on the paper—at least Mr. Speaker, I know that your predecessor was in the habit of voting that unless the specific terms were set down, a Resolution could not be moved on the General Notice to call attention to a subject. I am satisfied that a number of Members are much more favourable to the Government proposal as it stands than to the amendment. I shall vote against both, and I venture to say that if the Government succeed in carrying their resolution they will not advance business one whit, for Members will find opportunities upon Government Bills or in Committee of Supply to call attention to those matters in which they are interested, and the result will be a number of irregular discussions that certainly will not tend to advance business.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): We are warned that the Government will not gain by this proposal, but let me say that we are not only anxious that the Government should gain, but that the House should gain, by having full opportunity for the discussion of the business we are anxious to introduce. The hon. Member who has just spoken has said with justice that Committee of Supply is made the means of ventilating many subjects—hobbies I think he called them, but I should not use that term—subjects in which hon. Members are interested. Well, we wish to get on with Supply, and it is more or less in redemption of the pledge we are under to take Supply early in the Session that we propose this Motion to the House. The House is fully aware of the important business with which we wish to make progress, business in which hon. Members opposite take the greatest interest as well as Members on this side, and apart from progress with
  790
  this business, we wish to give opportunity for discussion on Supply, while avoiding the necessity of protracting the Session or of having recourse to an Autumn Session. It is with the view of facilitating business generally, that we submit this Motion. The hon. Member opposite suggests that it will be better to take the whole of one day, Tuesday or Friday, instead of the morning sittings on both days. We have considered that matter most carefully, both from the point of view of public business and the convenience of private Members; and I believe the view which has been expressed is correct, that by adopting this Motion private Members would possess a greater advantage, having two evenings in the week instead of one. There are some Motions so important, such as that of the hon. Member for Swansea, that they might not be sufficiently discussed in four hours, but on the whole I really believe private Members stand a better chance by accepting the proposal of the Government than by accepting that of the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy protests against the sacrifice of private Members' rights, but if the hon. Member ever has a good field day, it is on Government nights when the House is in Committee of Supply; for then the hon. Member positively revels in all and every subject that can possibly be introduced. I should have thought that if there was any Member who should be grateful to the Government for bringing on Supply early and regularly, it would be the hon. Member who is so extremely industrious in the study of every subject that comes under the cognizance of the Committee. I do not wish to argue this question by any reference to the hon. Member's observation upon obstruction. Let the present discussion be confined simply to the point as to what is best to be done under the circumstances. The Governmant wish to meet the desire of Members to discuss the Estimates early in the year with proper freedom, and in that sense our proposal should commend itself. I may remind the House that yesterday we obtained two votes. (Hear, hear.) Well, if this is to be considered good progress, I should like to know how many nights will he required for Supply. If that is the standard of

  791
  good progress, and the Government are refused Tuesdays and Fridays, and they are to have two days a week for four votes, how are we to be expected to legislate at all? Is it the wish of hon. Members that we should have no legislation at all? Let me call attention to the standard of progress suggested by that cheer just now, namely, that two votes in an evening is a respectable allowance from an indulgent House of Commons. I find that this year we have passed 34 votes in 12 sittings, and that is the slowest progress that has ever been made during any period with which I have been able to compare it. There have been times when 30 votes have been passed in seven days, 22 in five days, while last year 31 votes were passed in four days. This year we have taken 34 votes in 12 days. I think these figures show that the Government have not acted too early in their desire to avert the danger of being forced at the end of the Session to hurry over business in a manner discreditable to our business capacity, and with which private Members as well as the Government have every reason to be dissatisfied. I hope the House will see it is in no spirit of aggression towards the rights and opportunities of private Members that the Government submit this Motion.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am quite desirous, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to keep off the topic of obstruction, but I may be pardoned for one observation. May I suggest that, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not desire to discuss the question of obstruction, the representatives of the Government should drop making charges of obstruction elsewhere. There has, no doubt, been a rather tardy progress with Votes; the figures just quoted show that to some extent; but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are in effect now discussing Votes in Supply which practically we have not had an opportunity of discussing for three years. ["Why?"] Because the time of the House has been so regularly and constantly taken up by the Government for their own, as we think, unfortunate measures that there has been no discussion of Votes in this Parliament until this year.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I beg pardon. Last year these very Votes, the Home Office
  792
  Votes, upon which we spent the whole of yesterday, were taken earlier in the year—April 9—and, under no pressure, were passed after a short discussion.
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is quite true the Home Office Votes have been die. cussed at some length as compared with last year, but they came in for longer discussion owing to the passing of the Commission Bill last year, and in regard to which, rightly or wrongly, the Home Office has taken a certain part which it was the duty of the Committee to discuss this year. I should think the Home Office Vote will always from its importance take considerable time. On the particular question whether private Members would reap more advantage from the proposal of the Government than from that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton), I cannot help feeling that the latter is rather in the nature of a blow at the sanctity of Friday night as a private Members' preserve. It cannot be denied, of course, that private Members would, under the motion of the Government, have two chances against one under the Amendment. Therefore, I should hardly be able to support the proposal of my hon. Friend. I wish to know, however, first, whether it is to be understood that the Government give the House a pledge that on Friday nights Supply will be put down as the first Order; secondly, whether the Government will on this occasion, when the House is meeting them so generously, undertake to make and keep a House at the evening sitting on Friday. This question I put in consequence of something that fell from the First Lord on a former occasion, when he denied, against my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, that it was the practice of Governments to give this undertaking. Thirdly, I think it would be very fair, considering how often my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) has been disappointed, if the Government were to promise to let him have his Tuesday. That would be a concession to a private Member, which would go far to soften the natural disappointment caused by the proposal of the Government.
  MR. W. G. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I put a further question, whether our leaders on the front bench will do

  793
  their best to insure the keeping of a House for a reasonable time at the evening sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays. I have myself in earlier days opposed the break of two hours in our proceedings, for I know how extremely difficult it is for private Members to be in their places again exactly at nine o'clock. It was always an understood thing that the Government should do their best to be represented in sufficient numbers to keep a House for at least half an hour after nine o'clock. I believe at the present moment there are no less than thirty-seven gentlemen, who sit on the front bench, enjoying salaries, which, if they are not too high, are, at all events, extremely good, and it is part of their duty to attend to make a House on Tuesdays and Fridays. It was the opinion of no less a person than Lord Beaconsfield himself. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend, the Member for South West Kent (Sir W. Hart Dyke) is in his place, but I am quite sure he could bear out my statement that there was nothing so repugnant to the late Lord Beaconsfield as a count-out on an evening sitting reserved for private Members, and constantiy, in the days when I had the honour to be a Member of the Government, we received circulars begging of Members of the Government that they would be in attendance to prevent such a scandal. I think also we have a right to ask that on Friday nights the Government should give the House the full rights of Supply—that is to say, that if the first motion should be agreed to, then some one on the Treasury Bench should immediately move, "That the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply," so that Members may have the opportunity of bringing forward their motions. In the days when Lord Ossington was Speaker, I felt it my duty to bring forward this very question, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian being then Leader of the House, and, he having declined to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply after the first Motion had been conceded, I then endeavoured to make the Motion, but was prevented by the Speaker, who said that only a member of the Government could make it. On the point being raised a second time, having regard to the changes made about the year 1860, when the motion for
  794
  adjournment over Saturday was got rid of, Lord Ossington held that it was obligatory on the Government on Friday nights to make the motion. I am quite aware that the late speaker (Lord Hampden) did not altogether assent to that doctrine, and gave opinions somewhat doubtful on the point, but, nevertheless, I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he considers all the antecedents, will agree that something ought to be done, especially when the rights of private Members are cut down to Friday nights at nine o'clock. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry out this plan, and that he will give us an assurance that should the first Motion as an Amendment to the Order of the Day for Supply be carried or agreed to, Supply will again be set up, so that other hon. Members having the next Motion will not be shut out.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I think the sense of the House is against my proposal, I will ask leave to withdraw it.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I have not gathered quite whether a distinct pledge is given, such as was given by the First Lord when he made a similar motion before Easter, that the morning sittings should be, if not wholly devoted to Supply, at all events mainly, only trivial or formal business being taken besides.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: In regard to the suggestion made, I cannot fall in with the proposal to make an exception of the Motion of which the hon. Member for Swansea has given notice in reference to the Established Church in Wales. If we go so far, we shall then be pressed to make further exceptions. We must abide by the general view that in four hours the hon. Member will have an opportunity, not of a long debate, but of obtaining the views of the House on this question, in which he takes so much interest. We will put down Supply as the first thing on Friday nights, exactly the same as if we had not taken a morning sitting. In reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) I must say that the Government cannot pledge themselves as absolutely as my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury did on a former occasion, to take nothing

  795
  but Supply on the days in question. The intention of the Government in asking for these days is in the main to make progress with Supply, but occasions may arise when it will be indispensable to put other business down. With regard to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend as to setting up Supply again on Friday nights, I think the present practice has worked sufficiently well. Each case has been judged upon its merits, but the discussions will proceed exactly upon the same footing as on an ordinary Supply night. As to engaging to make a House, to give absolute pledges on such matters frequently leads to misunderstanding. Disputes arise as to the extent to which the Government has come under any obligation. I am sure that the experience of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will bear me out in saying that sometimes, even when Governments have endeavoured to make a House, they have not always succeeded, and in such circumstances a charge of breach of faith is easily brought. There is sometimes a difficulty in Members of the Government themselves being in the House punctually at 9 o'clock. I have no doubt that when subjects of great interest are brought forward a House will be made, but I can give no pledges.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he has practically given the House the same pledge under the same conditions—that the morning sittings, on Tuesday and Friday, shall be given to Supply—as was given by the First Lord of the Treasury when he made a similar Motion at an early period of the Session, and which the House will allow was honourably kept.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I think I stated that I could not give an absolute pledge, and that though we wish to continue taking Supply on these occasions, circumstances may arise which will compel us to take other business.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I hear with regret, considering the immense concession which the House is making, that the Government will not give a pledge on the subject. I feel that business will not proceed satisfactorily unless the exception to Supply on these two afternoons is very rare indeed; and the same remark will apply to the keeping of a House
  796
  in the evening. The question is whether the Government will sincerely and honourably do their best to keep a House. Everyone is aware that late on in the Session the Government itself cannot always keep a House, but Members are rather distrustful on account of what happened when the Motion of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) fell through, the Government not having even made a pretence to keep a House, but having done their very best to destroy it. I rose principally, however, on account of the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea. Considering what the House is doing, it is not too much to ask the Government to give a whole evening to my hon. Friend's Motion. It is a matter which interests in the highest degree the Members for a great section of this country, who have had little or no attention paid to them during the whole three years of this Parliament. Not only is that the case, but they have been treated with exceptional hardness by the Government and the House. My hon. Friend had an opportunity of raising the question in 1887 on the Address, but he was prevented by the Government using the closure. That was felt in Wales to be very hard treatment indeed, and it would do something to erase that feeling from the memory of Welshmen if the Government were generously to make the concession asked for. I believe I am speaking the mind of the House when I say that it is upon whether the Government make this concession or not to an old and honoured Member and to a great body of Members who certainly have not done anything to obstruct, that it will depend whether on this (the Opposition) side of the House the action of the Government will be received in a spirit of acquiescence in the first place, or, if we are forced by a majority to accept it, whether we shall do our best to work it with the Government in a friendly spirit.
  MR. PICTON: I am extremely surprised at the manner in which the Government have received the suggestion to exempt the Motion of the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) from the operation of the Resolution. More consideration ought to have been shown for the claims of the Welsh people who were writhing under the outrages they are suffering owing

  797
  to the imposition upon them of an alien Church. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, the House knows what has been going on in Wales with regard to the collection of tithes. Is this a time to refuse the Welsh so obvious a concession to their national feelings as a full discussion on a motion in which they take the deepest interest? Such a refusal will have the effect of convincing the Welsh that they have nothing to expect from this House, and of encouraging them to demand Home Rule. It is on account of the claims of the Welsh people that I urge the House not to join in what I am afraid I must call a conspiracy against them, and in order that we may come to a decision on the question I beg to move to insert in the Motion after the word "Friday" the words "except on Tuesday, May 14th."
  Amendment proposed, after the word "Friday," to insert the words "except on Tuesday the 14th May"—(Mr. Picton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS: In seconding the Amendment I desire to urge the just claims of the Welsh people to be considered in this matter. No one can say that the Welsh Members have done anything to obstruct the business of the House; indeed I doubt whether they have adequately discharged their duty in bringing Welsh grievances before the House. But whenever a Welsh question is raised, honourable Members on the other side justify the claim of this House, to legislate for Wales, as well as England, either by leaving the House, or by engaging in conversation as they are now doing. The hon. Member for Swansea has not only been prevented by the application of the closure from bringing on this Motion on one former occasion, but on another occasion, on which he obtained a day by ballot, the Government intervened, and took it away from him. The question is one of great importance, and even if hon. Members regard the question as absurd, one would think they would be desirous of a full debate in order that they may expose its absurdity before a larger House than is likely to be found at an evening sitting
  798
  after a morning sitting. The Government have displayed an entire absence of chivalry in regard to this motion, while the neglect of the question with which it deals has led to scenes distressing to everyone in Wales.
  MR. E. SWETENHAM (Carnarvon, &c.): I confess I feel very strongly on this subject, because I know the deep interest taken by the people of Wales in the Motion which is to be brought forward on the 14th May by the Member for Swansea. I trust that the Government may yet be able to accede to the proposal of the Amendment by giving a longer time for this debate than will be afforded if the rule now proposed is adopted. This is an exceptional case. I am afraid that the Government will reply that they cannot make a concession in this case, because, if they do, equally powerful applications may be made on future occasions, and they would not then be able to resist them. I entirely feel that there is a great deal in that answer, but at the same time I feel that this is not the first occasion on which the Motion of my hon. Friend has met with a premature death, and I therefore hope and trust that the House will allow a full and ample discussion to take place on this important subject. I am sure that not only Wales, but England, will look forward with great interest and anxiety to the result of this discussion, which I trust will be such as to make the people of Wales feel that they have not been dealt harshly with by the House and the Government, but that at all times every subject connected with them will have full and free discussion and ample consideration.
  *SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: I hope that the Government will accede to the Amendment. It is possible that the Government may allege that they cannot make this concession for fear that others will be forced upon them. But before they can make that out they will require to show that there is any other question in the same position as this. In the first place, the Member for Swansea lost his chance and was shut out from the discussion of this question by the application of the closure on the Address. Then he fortunately secured, by the ballot, the first place on a Tuesday; but three days before the Motion could be made, that

  799
  day was taken from him in spite of the appeals of the Welsh Members to the Leader of the House. On that ground alone I do not think the Government can be met by any similar proposal to that now before the House. But, moreover, there are not two Welsh Churches nor two Wales's. There is no other nationality that could appeal to the House to redress its grievances in the same manner as Wales, and therefore there is no possible similar appeal to that which we are now making. Do the Welsh Members obstruct the business of the House? Do they make motions likely to take up the time of the House? Why, their voices are very rarely heard, and surely when they bring forward a question that so vitally affects the Principality, some consideration is due to them. This question moves to the very bottom the feeling of our constituents, and hon. Gentlemen know how, very rarely by the fortune of the ballot, private Members can obtain an opportunity of bringing forward a question, and how hard it is that when they do obtain an opportunity it should be taken from them. Surely the Government will not expose themselves to all that may be said—and indeed has been said—by taking away all the time that Welsh Members have of bringing forward questions so vitally interesting to them. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision and accept this most reasonable Amendment. In their own interest it is important that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should do so. The hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs has just spoken in the sense in which I am speaking. That hon. Member knows the feelings of the Welsh people, and must be accepted as an adviser of the Government in their own interest. The Government cannot suppress and trample upon the feelings of a nation. Wales is a positive nation, and they cannot trample her down, nor is it their interest to do so. In the last Parliament the Conservative Members from Wales could have come down to this House in a hansom cab. Now they would require a four-wheeler. It was not always so, and why is it so now? Because there is a strong feeling running through Wales that it does not sufficiently command the attention of Parliament. If the Government desire
  800
  to act in their own interest they will accept this Amendment.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Government would be much more disposed to accept the Amendment if supported in the spirit of my bon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon than as it was put by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division, who threatens the Government in so many words that if they do not accept the Amendment ["Oh, oh," and Ministerial cheers]—well, he said that if it were not accepted he would not consider the Resolution in a friendly spirit; in other words, that he would not facilitate the business of the House by doing that which the House has resolved to do. It is really too hard to be told that we are trampling on the spirit of a nation because we do not give seven hours instead of four to the discussion of one matter affecting Wales. The Government feel that they are simply precluded from accepting this proposition by the exigencies of the occasion. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said it is impossible not to see that if we were to give a whole sitting to the discussion of the Welsh Church we should be met with similar demands. Only this evening I understand a Motion has been set down with reference to the Disestablishment of the Scotch Church. Will any one say that is less important than the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church? I do not think the importance of a debate is to be measured by the number of hours it occupies. Those who listened to the miserable waste of time in the debate of six hours last night on the salary of my right hon. Friend, may find in this Motion an opportunity for the Welsh Members to set an example to the House, by showing that a really important subject can be properly discussed within reasonable limits of time.
  *MR. T. ELLIS: Sir, this is not at all a case of giving four hours instead of seven. It is a case of giving an opportunity to the Welsh Members of discussing this question, which has been only discussed in this House for four hours on any occasion. In 1886 my hon. Friend obtained first place, but on that occasion the private business continued until eight o'clock, so that there were only four hours for

  801
  the discussion of the question. Take the first hour and a quarter for the mover and seconder of the Resolution, and then another hour and a quarter for the mover and seconder of the Amendment in this case (two English Members, who no doubt feel a very great interest in the Welsh Church) and again take an hour and a quarter for right hon. Gentlemen on this and on that side of the House (and if they compress their remarks into an hour and a quarter it is a feat which they seldom perform), and allow another quarter of an hour for the divisions, the four hours are filled up, after only two Welsh Members have had an opportunity of speaking on the question. Even the hon. Members for the Carnarvon or Denbigh boroughs who wish to say something with regard to the question of the Church in Wales will not have a chance to say a word. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that this question is of first-rate importance, and I should think he will admit further, that, as compared with the motions fixed for various dates during the next month, it has distinct pre-eminence. I will further say, in reply to the argument of two of the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, that the successful Members in respect of motions for the next month sit on this side of the House, and I believe only one hon. Member opposite—the Member for Preston—has a motion standing in his name. It has relation to the rating of machinery, a subject which has been repeatedly before the House of Commons, and for which I should think the hon. Member would gladly accept four hours. In view of the pre-eminence of the subject, and in view of the fact that the Government has on two previous occasions taken from my right hon. Friend the fortunate position which he had obtained by the ballot, and in view of the fact that hon. Members on this side of the House who have Motions for discussion in this month, are willing to forego their claims for seven hours, I again appeal to the Government to grant this privilege to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I think that by this time the Government ought to have arrived at the conclusion that the claim of the Welsh Members should be conceded. The Welsh Members do not trouble the
  802
  House, possibly not as much as they might do, certainly not as much as they will do, if their legitimate requests in future are treated in the same manner as this one is being treated by the Government. They have asked the Government to concede to them three hours on a most important question, which at the present time they are pressing before this House. The Government have declined to let them have the three hours which they ask for. And as an inducement to proceed speedily with Supply, we get a speech from the President of the Board of Trade, who tells us that last night was simply wasted on the Vote for the Home Office. [Sir M. H. BEACH: Hear, hear.] The right hon. Gentleman says "hear, hear." I say that if the Government throw out such insinuations as that they cannot expect to proceed very rapidly with Supply. Now, I was present during the greater part of last night—a longer time than he was—and if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me I will enumerate the questions dealt with on that Vote of the Home Office. First there was a debate, which, perhaps, did not take so long as it ought to have done, with regard to the police stations of London, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green. Will the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade say that that debate was a waste of time, seeing that it involved a question of grave importance to the people of London? Then there was a discussion raised by the junior Member for Northampton with regard to the Truck Question. That was a debate which, but for the candid action of the right hon. Gentleman add his colleague, would have taken longer than it did last night. Then there was the question with regard to Civil Servants and employés at the Home Office. Was that not a question of vital importance? It was dealt with by both Benches as if it were. I simply indicate these as some of the points raised on the Vote of the Home Office—questions which must be dealt with thoroughly whenever the Vote comes forward, and which will be dealt with more thoroughly in the future than ever they have been dealt with in the past. I do hope right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not cast slurs upon hon. Members on this side. It was the only opportunity we had during the twelve months of

  803
  raising questions in connection with the Home Office, and it is a slur upon hon. Members who raise them to say that they are wasting the time of the House. Unless we are to understand that the closure is to be applied before any discussion, we shall, in spite of the slurs, continue these debates. I trust the Government will concede the request of the Welsh Members, so that they shall have full opportunity of discussing the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. Only those conversant with the feeling of the Welsh people can understand how strong a spirit actuates the Welsh people in asking that this subject should be adequately discussed. Is it that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are afraid to vote upon this question? It has been pointed out that a four wheeler will contain the Welsh Conservative Members coming to this House, and if they do not concede to the Welsh Members the request they are now making, possibly only a two and not a four wheeler would bring to the House all the Conservative Welsh Members after the next election.
  The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 188.—(Div. List, No. 86.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes from deciding this Question, but I wish to make my protest, even if it be an unavailing one, against the resolution of the Government to which the House is just about to agree. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now, "The question before the House is what is best to be done under the circumstances of the case," and, for my part, I do not think that to pass this resolution is the best thing to do under the circumstances. I do not complain of the way in which the Government conduct the business of the House, but this resolution is being passed practically in order to give greater facilities for Committee of Supply, and I wish to enter my protest against the way in which the business of Supply is now being conducted. It does not promote public economy or the efficient control of the House over the public expenditure, and, these resolutions which are passed year after year simply as stop-gaps do not facilitate the real settlement of
  804
  this question; they put off the evil day, and do not tend to raise the House of Commons in the public estimation in regard to the matter of public expenditure. Last year a strong Committee was appointed on the motion of the Government for the purpose of considering the procedure in Committee of Supply, and that Committee recommended the House to try an experiment with reference to the Civil Service Estimates which would tend to the economy of time and promote a better control by the House over expenditure. Nothing has been done upon the report of that Committee, and I think we are entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before taking the time of the House in order to make more opportunities for Committee of Supply, they will not give us some indication as to what is their view with regard to this question of procedure in Supply. The proposal of the Committee I refer to was that a Committee should be appointed—a large Committee—for the purpose of dealing with the Civil Service Estimates. I would point out that the time we are asked to place at the disposal of the Government is not for the purpose of getting on with the Military and Naval Votes, but in order that they may make progress with the Civil Service Votes, and perhaps the functions of the House of Commons are less wanted in regard to the Civil Service than in the case of either of the other great spending departments. The House may be, and is, called upon to discuss great questions of policy connected with the Army and Navy, but as far as the Civil Service expenditure is concerned, such questions rarely arise. The House will be surprised to hear that during a period of 21 years all the discussions that have taken place in Committee of Supply have not resulted in a saving of £50,000. I think, therefore, seeing that last Session we spent 38 days in Supply, and this Session after spending 12 days we have hardly more than commenced the Civil Service Votes, we are justified in asking if the time has not arrived when the House should consider whether the principle of devolution should not be applied to the Civil Service Estimates as well as to other matters. It should be remembered that we are not only the guardians of the public purse, but we are

  805
  also the trustees of the public time; and that is a very precious possession. (Several hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") I do not know whether those cheers are intended to be approving or ironical cheers; but I for one am not content to see the time of the House wasted for any purpose whatsoever, and as far as our discussions in Committee of Supply are concerned, I say that—not, perhaps, owing to the fault of any section of the Opposition, but owing to the way in which our business is conducted—we do waste a great deal of valuable time, which might be more beneficially employed in dealing with important public questions that are yet awaiting solution. I am not about to propound any scheme of my own in regard to procedure in Supply, but I do say that the present method does not produce anything like an economical result as far as the public expenditure is concerned; and I want to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they think it is yet too late to consider the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session that they should try the experiment as to whether they cannot improve our present mode of dealing with the Civil Service Estimates. Without saying anything that may be considered satirical in regard to any individual Member, I have known the time of the House to be wasted sometimes for hours in the discussion of a very insignificant item of expenditure, which, if the House of Commons only had confidence in a Committee of its own, might have been settled upstairs in as many minutes. I may add that I am content to accept this proposal of the Government as a stop-gap, but I would warn Her Majesty's Government that this stop-gap will by no means prove a final settlement of the question. The question is not a party one, but it concerns the efficiency of our Parliamentary Government.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I certainly think that some protest is necessary against the general system of the management of business in this House, and especially with regard to the conduct of Committee of Supply. Since the extension of the franchise in 1885 there has been a closer attendance of Members, an increase in the demands of the people, and also in the influence of the National Party in
  806
  Ireland. In order to deal with the difficulty, the attempt must be made in one of several ways—either by enforcing the closure, by prolonging the sittings of the House, by taking the whole of the time of the House as has been proposed to-day, or by the adoption of a system of delegation to Standing Committees upstairs. In the American House of Representatives, with 315 Members, there are something like 40 Standing Committees, and it may become necessary in this country to adopt the same principle. I think it is idle to accuse the legislative machine of failure because the Opposition have criticized the Estimates. So long as Estimates are submitted to the House, it will be, I imagine, the duty of hon, Members to consider and discuss them. I hope that the Government will be able to provide some satisfactory means of meeting the difficulty.
  *SIR J. GOLDSMID: So far as my experience goes, I have noticed that hon. Members, and especially new Members, are nowadays inclined to repeat over and over again the discussions which have taken place in Committee of Supply in former years, without bringing in any new fact or supplying any new information, the only result having been a waste of the time of the House. I believe that in the French Chamber a Committee settles all the Estimates; and I am satisfied that so far as we are concerned the time will come, and come very soon, when we shall have to give up these long and weary discussions of the Estimates in Supply, and shall have to consider them in Committee upstairs. I venture to say that in that case not one-half the time will be spent which is now devoted to the consideration of the Estimates, for I am afraid that a good many Members now discuss them simply for the purpose of showing their activity to their constituents rather than that they possess any special knowledge of the subjects they discuss. If a Committee were selected composed of practical men accustomed to administrative work, they would be able to go through the Civil Service Estimates with care, and there would be no necessity for a discussion in Committee of Supply afterwards. But if hon. Members only desire to amuse themselves upstairs and then to raise the discussion again downstairs, no

  807
  advantage will be gained by referring the Estimates to a Committee. Such discussions are not allowed in the French Chamber, and they ought not to be permitted to take place here. I trust that before next Session the Government will carefully consider whether some new plan cannot be devised.
  SIR J. KENNA WAY: I think we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for bringing this question before the House at the present time. I did not understand him to find any fault with the way in which the Government have conducted Supply, but I do foresee that if we are to go on as we have been doing this Session, we shall find ourselves in this position at the end of July, that it will be necessary to resort to summary measures in August and September, or we shall have to sit again up to Christmas Eve. I may remind the House that last year we passed in one night Estimates which have occupied 12 nights in discussion this year. I would therefore make an earnest appeal to the Government to deal with the matter if it is possible this Session, and at any rate to consider what is to be done in the future.
  *MR. BUCHANAN: I hope it will not be concluded from the remarks which have already been made that the opinion of hon. Members on this side of the House is absolutely unanimous. I was a Member of the Committee of which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) was also a Member, and I was one of the few Members of the Committee who belonged neither to the present nor to the past Government. The Committee was mainly composed of right hon. Gentlemen who regarded the question from the point of view of Members of the Government, either in else or in posse. I ventured to put before the Committee then that there is value to be attached to a discussion of the Estimates in Supply quite apart from the question of a reduction of expenditure. We value it because it sometimes gives us an opportunity of considering questions of policy and administration, together with questions of a social and political character which interest the community generally. It is not fair to take as the only test of the economical value of the discussions the reductions of
  808
  expenditure actually carried in the House of Commons, but rather what the result is so far as subsequent Estimates are affected. For instance, a discussion takes place this year either in regard to the extravagance of a Department or the way in which a money vote is distributed, and you find the result of the discussion not in the Division List, but in the Estimates submitted subsequently to the House of Commons. Above all, we are afforded an opportunity of calling the administration of the various Departments by the Government to account. As a Scotch Member, representing only a small group of Members in this House, I think I am bound to attach particular value to these discussions. It is practically the only opportunity we have for discussing questions connected with the administration of the law, and questions of policy relating to Scottish matters, which cannot be expected to interest the whole body of Members of the House. I am, therefore, perfectly certain that if the Government were to embark in any general scheme to limit discussions in Supply they would receive strenuous opposition from this side of the House, and would not tend to economise either the public time or money.
  *MR. STAVELEY HILL: As a Member of the Committee, I wish to support the views of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan). So far as the amount of a Vote is concerned, it may well be dealt with by a Committee upstairs, but I should altogether deprecate any proposal to hand over to a Committee upstairs any question as to the policy of the Vote. As far as the amount of the Vote is concerned, it may be true, so that during the last 21 years a sum of £50,000 only has been saved as the result of the discussions which have taken place in this House; but though the effect of the discussion has not been shown in the reduction of the Vote, it has been manifested in the course which the Government have taken in preparing subsequent Estimates.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must say that I agree very much with the remarks both of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingswinford and the hon. Member for West Edinburgh. Certainly I can have no prejudice against any attempt

  809
  to lighten the work of the House by referring the Estimates to a Committee upstairs. I myself made that proposal to the Government in 1886 in Committee upon the Procedure Bill. I was unfortunately defeated on that occasion by a majority which consisted principally of right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite, The President of the Board of Trade was the principal opponent of the scheme, and if I remember rightly, the present First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor -of the Exchequer also opposed it. I quite agree that Committee of Supply has not merely or even principally to do with the matter of money. If it were a mere money question it might well be sent to a Committee upstairs; but the various Votes involve questions of principle. I do not think that a Committee sitting upstairs would effect any more than has been accomplished by the efficient public servants we possess or by successive Secretaries to the Treasury, who have worked hard to keep down expenditure. The growth of the Civil Service expenditure is hardly perceptible. When we consider the enormous additions made to public service from year to year in order to meet the demands of the House of Commons, it is amazing what a control is exercised over the Civil Service expenditure. As regards mere expenditure, I do not think the House of Commons can do much in reducing it; and the main use of discussion in Committee of Supply is that it affords opportunity for the examination of administration in all departments; but it is quite impossible -that that could be undertaken by a Committee sitting upstairs, which naturally would be under the control of the Government, who would be sure to have a majority upon it in one form or another. Therefore a decision upon any question affecting administration that would debar the full House from considering it would be deemed to be most inconvenient; nor did the Liberal Government contemplate that there should not be a power of reviewing in the House every item of Civil Service expenditure. I cannot agree with any proposal which would have the effect of depriving the House of Commons of the power of discussing administrative subjects.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman must be grateful to those Members of the Committee who then opposed that to which now he is also opposed.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Not altogether. I should have no objection to a preliminary examination by a Committee upstairs, and I still think that proposal a good one, although I think there should be reserved to the House absolute power to discuss any question arising upon the Estimates. That was my proposal.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It appears to me that the process would be an absolute lengthening of the labours of the House. While, as I understand the desire is by a Committee to relieve the House of some of its functions, the House will see from the perfectly natural and legitimate remarks of the right hon. Gentleman how very difficult it is for the Government to take any steps to withdraw from the House the full consideration of all questions of administration. The Government is deeply indebted to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton for the remarks he has made; I think they are extremely valuable. It is perfectly patent that a financial examination of the Estimates has become subordinate to, and is entirely vanishing in, administrative criticism; and yet the machinery has been devised and maintained with a view to financial rather than administrative criticism. It is on this account that Members may speak several times on the same Vote. Therefore, forms and methods which have been adopted in order to secure financial control are used for purposes for which they were not originally intended, or for which they were intended only in a subordinate sense. As an hon. Member has said, it is not only as custodians of the public purse, but also as critics of the administration and of the policy of the Government that Members speak in Committee of Supply. At the same time it can only be with the full assent and concurrence of the House that the Government can take any step to limit the discussions to the primary object of financial control. I notice that in foreign countries Budgets and Estimates pass with extraordinary rapidity, and that is because the criticism is

  811
  confined to financial questions. If opportunity is to be taken in Committee of Supply to attack every Minister and to devote one or two evenings to the consideration of his conduct, it will be absolutely necessary to take radical measures to keep such discussions within reasonable limits, and to secure the despatch of business. The Government are perfectly disposed, with the assistance of the House, to make any experiment which they think is at all likely to succeed; but they have received information, and it has been corroborated by what has fallen from several hon. Members, that it would not be satisfactory to relegate the discussion of the Estimates to a Committee upstairs, if this in any way limited the privileges of hon. Members as to raising discussions in the House itself. The Government are perfectly sensible that the motion they are proposing is a stopgap and that it is not a satisfactory stopgap, and they will continue to give their full attention to the larger questions, as they invite right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members opposite to do. I quite understand that Ministers and ex-Ministers may differ from those who have not held office; but the views of all must be taken into consideration; and I trust the Government may be able at an early date, possibly next Session, again to submit proposals to remove what all on both sides of the House consider to be the present unsatisfactory state of things.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I must say that from my point of view, the opportunities now afforded to private Members for the discussion of matters which are of importance to their constituents are quite few enough, and if the scheme which has been shadowed out to-night by one or two speakers were adopted, they would find themselves almost entirely extinguished. At present it is only in Committee of Supply that we are able to discuss important questions which deeply concern the welfare of our constituents. I think that every private Member ought to protest emphatically against any attempt to apply a further closure. It is impossible to apply any merely statistical test, but the indirect results of discussions in Committee of Supply in removing abuses and in checking expenditure have been very
  812
  great. As a private Member I have thought it my duty to make these brief remarks.
  The House divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 102. (Div. List, No. 87.)
  "Resolved that, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet at 2 of the clock on Tuesday and Friday, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Morning Sitting on those days."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (REPORT OF SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Reports of the Committees of Supply, and of Ways and Means, may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and. the Proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5. But, after such proceedings are disposed of, no opposed business shall be taken "—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  *SIR W. BARTTELOT: I would like to say a few words before the question is put. I am quite prepared to support the Government, even on this proposal, if they will state clearly and distinctly that it is necessary, in order that they may finish the important business they have in hand before the 15th of August. I am sure the House will do all it can to accelerate business so -as to avoid another mischievous Autumn Session. But I must point out that we are breaking through one of the main conditions imposed by the House when the Rules were altered. We now come down an hour earlier than we did before. We are quite willing to support the Government by every means in our power, but I think they ought to consider the health of hon. Members and give them an opportunity of getting to bed at a reasonable hour. We are now breaking through a Rule which we were promised—and I was the means of extracting that promise —should never be broken through, except on most urgent occasions, that is to say when great debates were going on which it was necessary to finish. I feel somewhat strongly upon this subject; and I think we ought not to agree to this Resolution without a strong protest against the loss of the power to save ourselves from the disgraceful scenes which frequently occur when the House sits after midnight.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think the appropriate and fitting protest which we have just heard comes excessively well from the hon. Baronet. By the Resolution just agreed to, the House has practically extended its sittings up to one o'clock, and by the present Motion it is proposed to extend them to an indefinite period. For my own part I would rather sit a little later in the Session and have an opportunity of going to bed at a decent time than sit up till all hours during the Session in order to obtain a somewhat earlier prorogation.
  MR. COGHILL: I am strongly opposed to this proposed interference with the 12 o'clock rule, which worked admirably last Session. When the House sits after midnight, it is simply a question of physical endurance, and of who can stop out of bed the longest. It is really imposing upon our constituents to take credit for these late sittings, because we cannot legislate properly after 12 o'clock at night. Of the hon. Members who remain in the House after that hour a great part have lost their tempers, and of those who have not the greater number are fast asleep. I do not think we ought to sit after 12 o'clock at all. I do not take the same view with regard to Autumn Sessions as the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Barttelot). I think we ought to have Autumn Sessions—that we ought to rise early in August or even in July, and meet again in the autumn. If we do not do this we have six or seven months in which the House does not sit at all, and the business of the State is then administered not by the Ministers but by the permanent officials, who really govern the country. We may have every confidence in Ministers, and I think we have, but I do not think we have the same confidence in the permanent officials. But, whether we have an Autumn Session or not, I think that in the interest of the health of all who are concerned in the proceedings of this House we ought to resist most strenuously the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to extend the sittings of the House beyond 12 o'clock.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I think there must be some misapprehension in the mind of the last speaker with regard to the scope of this proposal. It is not proposed that we should legislate after 12
  814
  or 1 o'clock, but merely to take report of Supply and report of Ways and Means after that time. There are many occasions when these reports are taken without any debate at all, and, in the case of a repetition of the discussions that have taken place in Committee we propose to take them after the usual hour for adjournment.
  MR. COGHILL: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on one occasion quite recently, on report of Supply, we were kept here till nearly four o'clock in the morning?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; and that may happen again. That was an occasion when it was absolutely necessary to pass a particular vote within the financial year, and the law would have been broken unless the House had been willing to make the sacrifice. It was an isolated case, and it is with a view to such isolated. cases that we put this proposal before the House, and certainly not with any intention that we should frequently sit late. It certainly is not intended that we should have a repetition of the tremendous strain involved in the late hours of previous sessions. I can assure my hon. Friend behind me (Sir W. Barttelot) that we do not intend to put any further strain upon Members of the House than is absolutely necessary. We are deeply grateful to hon. Members on this side of the House for the constant attendance they have given under most arduous and difficult circumstances, and for a length of time such as has never been called. for on previous occasions. We are most anxious to avoid an Autumn Session. There is no class of members who more desire to avoid an Autumn Session than the Ministers of the Crown. We are most anxious to avoid any of those extraordinary occurrences which happened last year and the year before. I may say that the country is not in the hands of the permanent officials during the time that Parliament is in recess, and that it is important that ministers should have some months at their disposal for carrying on the work of their departments in a more consecutive manner than is possible whilst the House is sitting. It is quite proper, as my hen. and gallant Friend has contended, that Ministers should have time for the preparation of their measures. We feel the force of

  815
  that, and we trust that with the cooperation of the House we may be able to avoid that Autumn Session which I know he regrets so much.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Coghill) seemed to be under the misapprehension that he was sitting on the Ministerial instead of on the Opposition Benches. A gentleman who declares his unlimited confidence in Her Majesty's Government would more appropriately find a seat on the Government Benches. It is not the business of an Opposition to have unlimited confidence in the Government, and on the whole I have more confidence in the permanent officials than in Her Majesty's present Administration. I also entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman in condemning the hon. Member for Newcastle-under Lyme for desiring an Autumn Session. There is nothing I less desire than an Autumn Session. I wish that the Ministers will have the longest possible time for considering their measures, and I will do everything to insure that result. But is it necessary that the Government should press the Motion at this moment? No occasion for it has arisen. The Motion applies to Report of Supply, and it will have the effect of breaking through a very valuable rule, which, according to promise, was not to be broken through except in cases of special necessity. The Session is yet young, and I do not think that any special necessity is raised by Report of Supply. If, later on, it should appear that any inconvenience is arising to the Government from their not being able to get Report of Supply, it will be time enough to make this unusual application. The Government ought not to complain that a greater amount of time is taken in Committee of Supply, because two additional Morning Sittings have been granted to them expressly for that purpose.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not know that I can add much to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, but I would point out the difficulty in which the Government will be placed if the proposal is not acceded to. It is suggested that the proposal may he postponed, but the Government do not wish to be continually coming to the House with proposals for altering the rules, or for giving them more
  816
  time in order to make the necessary progress with business. The House has granted additional time for the transaction of proceedings in Committee of Supply, but what may happen under the rule at present? When votes agreed to in Committee are reported to the House the objection of a single Member after 12 o'clock will be sufficient to prevent the consideration of the report. Then it will be necessary that the report should be placed first on the Paper next day, with the result that a fresh discussion may arise, which would never have arisen if it had not been in the power of a single Member to object to the report stage being taken at the previous sitting. The Government would thus be deprived of no inconsiderable part of the time to be devoted to the consideration of Supply. That is the reason which has induced the First Lord of the Treasury to place the Motion on the Paper; and the Government have not the least intention of utilizing the Resolution for the purpose of regularly keeping the House up to an unreasonable hour. Power will be resorted to very rarely for the purpose of any real discussion on the Report of Supply, for there is no desire to get rid of the 12 o'clock rule by its means.
  MR. S. BUXTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can point to any occasion on which one or two Members have practically prevented the Government getting Report of Supply. The objection we find to this proposal is not so much that we may have to sit beyond 12 o'clock, but the state of uncertainty as to when the House will rise on the particular evenings when Report of Supply is put down. The great advantage of the 12 o'clock Rule is not so much that we rise at 12 o'clock, but that it gives hon. Members almost the absolute certainty that at a specified time they will be able to go home. The great drawback of the old system was that even if we went to bed early we did not know that we were really getting to bed early. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give some heed to the protest made on this side of the House against the present proposal. He has himself whittled down the proposal so that at the present moment it seems perfectly unnecessary. It would be only courteous to the general feeling of the House if now, when we

  817
  have given additional time to the Government, they would yield on this small point.
  The House divided: — Ayes 183; Noes 114.—(Div. List, No. 88.)
  Resolved, that the Reports of the Committees of Supply, and of Ways and Means, may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and the proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5. But, after such proceedings are disposed of, no opposed business shall be taken.

  EAST INDIA (ABKARI DEPARTMENT).
  *MR. S. SMITH: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the motion which stands in my name, and of moving the following resolution—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the fiscal system of the Government of India leads to the establishment of spirit distilleries, liquor and opium shops in large numbers of places where till recently they never existed, in defiance of Native opinion and the protests of the inhabitants, and that such increased facilities for drinking produce a steadily increasing consumption, and spread misery and ruin among the industrial classes of India, calling for immediate action on the part of the Government of India with a view to their abatement."
  I make no apology for again calling the attention of the House to this most important question. It will he in the recollection of hon. Members that the question was raised last year in a somewhat confused form. It was raised upon a Motion dealing with another question, and the result was that the House was not able to pass a clear and distinct judgment upon it. I was told by some hon. Members that owing to that fact they were not able to vote for the motion last year, but I hope that they will be able to give their support to the Resolution which I am about to submit tonight. The question is now raised in a distinct form. We challenge the whole policy of the Indian Government in regard to the administration of the Excise laws; and it is now my duty to call attention to a Despatch issued in 1887, which forms the official justification of the Indian Government for the system which now prevails in that country. That Despatch is altogether incorrect and misleading. I believe that I shall be able to show that the figures on
  818
  which it is founded are altogether fallacious, and it will be my duty to traverse the whole of the allegations contained in it. One would be disposed, upon reading the Despatch, to suppose that the Indian Government are a great temperance society, and that their main object has been to diminish as far as possible the evil of intoxication; that the revenue has been quite a secondary consideration, and that what was mainly thought of was the moral condition of the people. The Despatch, which is dated August 8th, 1887, says:—
  "Your Lordship is aware that few subjects connected with Revenue Administration have of recent years obtained greater attention at the hands of the Government than questions relating to Excise Administration. In each of the three larger Governments, Bombay, Madras, and Bengal, the Excise system has, within the last six or seven years, been completely examined in its operation and in its effects. These examinations have been made under the instruction of the Local Governments, and in direct communication with us; and the principles on which they have been based, and which have been unanimously accepted by all the authorities concerned, have been these; that liquor should be taxed and consumption restricted, as far as it is possible to do so without imposing positive hardships upon the people and driving them to illicit manufacture. The facts now placed on record show that in this policy the Local Governments have been completely successful, and that the great increase of Excise Revenue in recent years, which the Congress take as evidence of the spread of drinking habits, really represents a much smaller consumption of liquor, and an infinitely better regulated consumption than the smaller revenue of former years."
  I believe that I shall be able entirely to shatter that statement to pieces. There has been an increase of revenue in recent years from £2,300,000 to £4,200,000, and the contention of the Indian Government is that that increase of revenue is obtained from increased duties and a decreased consumption. These are the things upon which we desire to join issue. The despatch says:—
  "Drunkenness, in the English sense of the term, hardly exists in India. Writers, whose comparisons are based on Orient al experience, describe as drunkenness and as spread of misery and ruin a condition of things which, if it existed in England, would be regarded almost as a millennium of temperance. The average consumption in India is only a bottle or a bottle and a-half of spirits a year for every adult male, and in some provinces is even less than that."
  These two paragraphs will give the

  819
  House some idea of the substance of this despatch. The statements contained in it are utterly unfounded and altogether opposed to universal public opinion in India. Three years ago I travelled there and met all classes and conditions of people, but I never met one who did not lament the rapid spread of the consumption of intoxicating liquors. The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) was there last year, and will be able to confirm all that I say. Every opinion confirms the astonishing increase in the consumption of spirits within the last few years, and the statistics collected by the Government of India itself utterly confute the statements contained in the despatch of 1887. In proof of my allegation I will, first of all, cite the statement of the late Keshub Chunder-Sen, the great social reformer, who said—
  "It is indeed harrowing and painful to contemplate the extent to which sensuality, profligacy, and brutal revels on the one hand, and irreligion, blasphemy, and practical atheism on the other, are making ravages among all classes of the native community in consequence of the spread of drunkenness, and undermining the religious and moral life of the nation …. In short, the use of intoxicating liquor has done more than anything else to degrade the physical, moral, and social condition of my countrymen, and has proved a stupendous obstacle in the path of reformation."
  Contrast that statement with the one made by the Government of India to the effect that drunkenness in a European sense does not exist in India. Let me now quote the opinion of an English gentleman, Mr. Hudson, secretary of the Behar Indigo Planters Association, in evidence which he gave before the Government of Bengal Commission in 1884. He said—
  "The upshot of the inquiries I have made amongst the planters and of my personal observations during a residence of 20 years, is that drunkenness has greatly increased during the last few years. I attribute this principally to the fact that 20 years ago, and up to a few years past, it cost a man four annas to get drunk on spirit; now he can make himself dead drunk, thik nissa, as it has been expressed to me by a ' habitual,' for one anna. Also by the fact that, whereas it used to be most difficult to get spirits anywhere except at the distilleries, it can now be procured within reach of nearly every hamlet."
  One anna represents a penny. This extraordinary cheapening of liquor is one of the main causes of the increase of drunkenness, and is one of the consequences of the policy adopted by the
  820
  Bengal Government. Out of a great number of letters I have received I will read a few extracts. The House knows that the tea industry is now one of the most important in India. The custom is to bring a large number of coolies from other parts of India, and get them to reside in the tea gardens. It is a kind of arrangement that needs great care in order to prevent it from degenerating into a species of servitude. We allow the coolies to be taken from their homes, and surely it is our duty to protect them, as far as possible, from all temptations. I will read to the House an extract from a letter which affords a good specimen of a large number of letters I have received containing complaints as to the condition of these coolies. This letter is from a plantation in which I have some interest myself, and I have therefore the means of knowing that the information it contains is reliable. The writer says:—
  "I regret to state the sad fact that drunkenness among garden coolies has spread to an alarming degree since its promotion and encouragement by this outstill system. Any attempt to abolish, or even lessen, this growing evil will be hailed with pleasure. Since the introduction of this odious system in 1883, the consumption of country spirits has, I am certain, increased sevenfold (possibly more), and. it is increasing yearly, judging from the new stills that periodically spring up here and there all over the districts. The Local Government allow and cherish these stills contiguous to our gardens and bazaars. There are cases on record of proprietors and managers having laid. the matter before the Local Government, clearly demonstrating the injury the industry and the health of the coolies had and. were receiving at their hands from the propagation of such a system, but the said Local Government only lent a deaf ear. There are cases where managers have objected to allowing a still in the grants under their charge, but to no purpose—they were enforced. The manufacturing places are chosen and fixed by the Local Government. These outstills are put up to auction yearly, and. the right to manufacture and sell country spirits knocked down to the highest bidder. They are readily disposed of at high prices to eager competitors, bent on aggrandizement at the expense of our tea gardens and coolies' health, by making and selling them a venomous compound, at four annas per quart bottle-, and termed by the Local Government wholesome country spirit. Before these outstills were created, shops where spirits could be procured by coolies were few and far between, and the said spirits could not be purchased at less than one rupee per bottle. During these times the coolies-had little or no temptation to drink, and were, although earning less money, in a much better pecuniary state than at present. The roadside and bazaar outstill absorbs their surplus

  821
  cash, aye, and more, because food and clothing are often curtailed to provide the grim firewater. Sunday is, of course, the great day for drinking, and driving by I have come across coolies lying literally dead drunk at intervals in the road, covered with mud from head to foot, and have had to have them rolled on one side to clear the way for my trap. One of my best men got leave one day, bought six bottles of country spirits at a shop about four miles away, and, on his way home, fell across the railway line, smashing his bottles, and lying insensible until, luckily, picked up by another coolie. It is needless to say that the drinking leads to rioting and wife beating; eases, however, seldom come before the notice of the Government. Were they to do so, coolies would be constantly absent from the gardens, so the planter, as a rule, settles these matters himself."
  I have collected an immense mass of materials which have accumulated in my hands during the last three years—papers and letters almost without end — and I could quote hundreds expressing views almost identical with these. Perhaps the House will expect me to describe the method by which the Government carry on their liquor policy in India. They farm it out to contractors. [Sir J. GORST: No.] The hon. Gentleman says "No," but I believe I shall be able to prove the truth of my assertion. The system is to farm it out to the men who will pay the largest annual sum for the privilege of supplying the liquor, and the traffic sub-divides itself into two minor heads, one of which is called the Central Distillery System. The distillery belongs to the Government. The contractor goes to the Central Distillery and takes, say, 100,000 gallons, engaging not to charge the public more than a certain price; but he may sell it as cheap as he likes. If he finds that he can only sell 80,000 gallons, he will offer the remaining 20,000 gallons dirt cheap—almost for nothing—rather than have it left on his hands. There is also the outstill system, which is still worse. The contractor receives power not only of selling by retail, but of manufacturing himself. He pays for the outstill a certain fixed sum, and he contracts with the Government to pay a lump sum for the use of the outstill. This outstill system was introduced in Bengal in 1876. Upon the introduction of the outstill system into Bengal in 1876, consumption of drink and revenue there from was nearly doubled in five
  822
  years. An enormous stimulus was given to the manufacture and consumption of strong drink. So terrible were the effects, so loud was the outcry, that the Government were obliged to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the working of the system. Now I must ask the House to listen to one or two quotations on this subject. First, I quote the evidence of Mr. C. S. Metcalfe, Additional Commissioner of Patna, a district which had suffered most from this out-still system.
  SIR J. GORST: What is the date of this?
  *MR. S. SMITH: Mr. Metcalfe's evidence was given before the Bengal Commission in 1883–4. He says:—
  "I have been officially connected with this district since 1879 to 1884 as collector, and from 1874 to 1876 as officiating commissioner. My experience has been as a collector both of the 'sudder distillery' and the 'outstill systems.' The habit of drinking has extended to all classes. The quantity drunk is larger owing to the cheaper price at which it is now sold. Persons who previously were satisfied with a dram, are now able to afford a bottle or two. Among the labouring and artizan classes, drinking has increased to a deplorable extent. I have not noticed any cases among the school boys, but my experience is that domestic servants, day labourers, and women, drink to an extent I never noticed under the distillery system. Under the outstill system the habit of drinking is forcibly brought home by instances such as these. My coachman has tumbled off his box drunk. If I want a mochee to mend the harness I have to arrange that he shall be sober the night before A workman now drinks his bottle of spirits as regularly as he eats his food, and quarrels have become frequent from a man arriving at home having spent all his earnings in drink. I can. speak from personal observation that there are more drunkards in and about this city than I ever observed before."
  Complaints like these poured in upon the Indian Government, petitions were presented by natives and Europeans, and in 1883–4 a Commission of Inquiry was appointed. This Commission collected an immense amount of evidence, through the bulk of which I have gone with much patience. Twice I have gone carefully over the Report. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done the same when he made the statement he did last year supporting the despatch of the Indian Government that there was a marked decrease in the consumption of strong drink, for this Commission came to the conclusion that in the great province of Bengal among 69,000,000 of people

  823
  the consumption had increased in ten years by 135 per cent, or in other words, from an average of 1,600,000 gallons to 3,700,000. The despatch for the Government of India was dated 1887, and scarcely takes the slightest notice of the conclusions of the Bengal Commission, and simply glides over it, touching it so casually that an ordinary reader of the despatch would not know that such a Commission ever sat and arrived at such terrible conclusions. The despatch of 1887, and the Under-Secretary in his speech last year, laid great stress on the fact that less illicit drink was sold and more Government drink. That was the stress of the argument last year, and I suppose it will be repeated to-night. But let me call the attention of the House to the finding of the Bengal Commission. Here is what they say:
  "No matter what view may be taken of the extent of illicit distillation and smuggling under the Control Distillery System, they cannot be held to account for any considerable proportion of this amount and may be excluded from the consideration of the question without the conclusion arrived at being seriously vitiated thereby."
  In other words, the Commissioners say that this gigantic increase as shown in the statistics of drink consumption is not to be accounted for by the transfer of the consumption from illicit to licit manufacture.
  SIR J. GORST: In Bengal?
  *MR. S. SMITH: Yes, in Bengal with its 69 million inhabitants.
  SIR J. GORST: My interruption was intended to remind the hon. Member that my statement was founded on the statistics for the whole of India and was not confined to Bengal.
  *MR. S. SMITH: Then I may take it that 69 millions of people are to be excepted from that general statement.
  SIR J. GORST: I did not say so.
  *MR. S. SMITH: I think I have proved there is this enormous increase of consumption in Bengal, and I shall leave to my hon. Friend behind me to produce statistics as to the rest of India. All the evidence I have been able to collect shows me that this illicit drinking is a mere bugbear, an excuse to salve the consciences of the British people, an easy way to throw dust in the eyes of inquirers. Now, the Bengal Commission reported in favour of a reversal of the outstill policy, and an attempt at reversal was made for a
  824
  year or two; but as the revenue straightway fell off by 10 lakhs, the Government did not like it and they gradually reverted to the old system, 50 outstills at a time being licensed in spite of the vehement protest of the native population, and we have to-day the abominable outstill system going on in spite of the unanimous protests of natives and Europeans. The native Congress of India is an important educated and representative body of some 1,200 Members chosen from all parts of India, and this is a resolution they passed:—
  "That having regard to the fact that a serious increase in the consumption of intoxicants has taken place under the systems of abalkari and excise now prevailing in India, the Government be respectfully urged to adopt some such improved system as shall tend to discourage insobriety."
  I have not, so far, alluded to the opinion of missionaries, the most disinterested Europeans in India, and some of whom have lived 20 or 30 years in India, and there are no more intelligent and honest observers to be found on matters touching the social welfare of India, From these I am almost overwhelmed with evidence. Last year I quoted the Rev. Thomas Evans on the terrible evils of the drink trade. A great conference of British missionaries held in Calcutta last December, condemned the outstill system in the most pronounced manner, and they proposed that the municipalities of India should he permitted to exercise local option on the question of the opening of the drink shops. There is municipal government in many of the large towns such as Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi, and having this in view, the conference included this in their memorial:—
  "That under all these circumstances and for all the reasons specified above, your Memorialists most respectfully but most urgently request that the outstill system, which has proved a curse to the country, may be abolished without delay; and that the privilege of ' local option' in regard to the opening of shops for the sale of liquor may at once be conceded to all rural communities under such arrangements for working it under existing law or under fresh legislation as to the Government may seem best."
  What is required is to bring Local Option to bear on the evil. It is well known that the municipalities would extirpate the system, root and branch. But the Government will not give them

  825
  power to do anything of the kind, because they are afraid of the revenue. Let it be remembered that the native population look upon the liquor trade very differently from ourselves, they look upon drinking as a vice, there is no such thing as a class of moderate drinkers, though there may be a few educated natives who have adopted English habits. A native if he drinks at all drinks to get drunk, and he drives hard bargains with the publicans for the purpose. The Mahomedan and the Hindoo religions are utterly opposed to the use of strong drink. Even to-day the mass of Indians are abstainers. The consumption of drink is confined to a few comparatively, and so the average consumption per head of population appears very small. But whereas ten years ago there were perhaps 10,000,000 of drinkers in India, we have now turned them into 20,000,000, and at the rate we are going on we shall, in time, turn the 20,000,000 into 40,000,000 and the 40,000,000, into 80,000,000. The climate of India and the constitution of the people make liquor little else than poison to them. When taken to excess for a short time it kills them. Then the average income of the people of India is not more than 3d. per head per day for every adult male. That sum is barely sufficient to keep a family alive, and a penny a day spent in drink out of that sum reduces them to starvation. There is no Poor Law in India, but if we make the country a nest of drunkards, we must introduce a Poor Law to keep the people from starvation. The real objection that meets us is the revenue, the £5,000,000 raised from the sale of drink and other intoxicants blinds the eyes of Indian officials. It is a revenue easily raised. The man who sells most drink gets the contract, and the revenue is very easily raised. Every official in India is looked upon with favour more or less in proportion as he increases the revenue contracts. Indian finance is always in an impecunious state, and so it comes about that the best official is the man who collects most revenue, and the bad official is one who allows the revenue to fall off. It is quite natural that that should be so. Having got this vicious system, and having to raise money out of it, the Government of India must employ persons who will best collect
  826
  the revenue. The officials are tied to the system, and we can place no more reliance upon their opinions than on the question of the Abolition of Slavery we could have followed the advice of West India planters as to the moral effects of the system. A wasteful system of finance has brought the Government of India to lean more and more on immoral sources of revenue, and so we go on poisoning the natives of India with drink as we have poisoned the Chinese with opium. But we should not lend ourselves to any such system. We should not consider merely what the exigencies of the Indian Government are. We should insist that the revenue of India should be raised by moral means, by means consistent with the true interests of India. It is a melancholy reflection that a so called Christian Government should outrage the moral sense of the heathens we govern. We have outraged the moral instincts of the natives of India by our conduct in this matter. No one who reads the native newspapers can doubt that, in the view of the natives, the use of liquor was immoral. My Resolution deals with opium as well as drink, for it is included in the Excise Laws, and its sale in India is licensed, though not on so large a scale as drink. We include it in our condemnation, for I know its effect is not less fatal than drink to the natives, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Caine) has visited an opium den in Lucknow, and to him we are indebted for the following description:—
  "We enter with the rest, and find ourselves in a dirty courtyard, round which are ranged 15 small rooms. The stench is sickening, the swarms of flies intolerable, and there is something strange and weird about the faces of those who are coming in from the street. It dawns upon me that I am in yet another and different 'Government' Bazaar, and that, for the first time in my life, I am within the walls 'of an opium den.' At the entrance sits a comely Chinese woman, whose husband is busy showing the arriving customers into the least crowded of the side rooms. Before her is a table, covered with copper coins. She is veritably sitting at the receipt of custom.' About half these copper coins go the Government Treasury at Calcutta, the other half going to the Government tax collector, the opium farmer. I obtain permission to go over the whole premises, and enter the first of the small rooms. In the centre of the room, which has no window, and is very dark, is a small charcoal fire, whose glow casts a lurid light on the faces of nine human beings, men and women, lying in a circle like pigs in a sty. A young

  827
  girl about 15 years of age has charge of each room, fans the fire, lights the opium pipe, and holds it in the mouth of the smoker who has last come rn, till his head falls heavily on the body of his predecessor. Two or three are in various stages of preliminary drunkenness. I have been in East End gin palaces on Saturday nights—I have seen men in various stages of delirium tremens, I have visited many idiot and lunatic asylums, but I have never seen such horrible destruction of God's image in the face of man, as I saw in the Government' opium dens of Lucknow. To my dying day I shall carry the recollection of the face of a handsome young woman of 18 or 19 years, sprawling on the senseless bodies of men, her fine brown eyes flattened and dulled with coming stupor, and her lips drawn back from her glittering white teeth. Another girl of the same age was sitting in a group of newly-arrived smokers, singing some lewd romance as they handed round the pipe. I went from room to room and counted 97 persons of both sexes in various stages of opium stupor. Green hands could get drunk for a penny or less, but by degrees more and more opium is needed, and the callous keeper of this hideous den showed us men whom 180 drops of thick opium, mixed with tobacco, hardly sufficed to intoxicate. I came out staggering and faint with the poison-laden atmosphere."
  I cannot pursue this painful subject further, I fear I have encroached too much on the time of the House. I hope I have not spoken too warmly, but the subject is one of enormous importance. I am advocating the cause of countless millions of our race. I am trying to stop ravages compared to which those of war and pestilence are but lesser evils. This House has long, far-reaching arms, and they can give deliverance to India. I ask the House to use its mighty influence to-night for the protection of myriads of our fellow-creatures. I ask the House, by passing this Resolution to-night, to send a thrill of joy through the vast population of India.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the fiscal system of the Government of India leads to the establishment of spirit distilleries, liquor and opium shops in large numbers of places where till recently they never existed, in defiance of Native opinion and the protests of the inhabit- ants, and that such increased facilities for drinking produce a steadily increasing consumption, and spread misery and ruin among the industrial classes of India, calling for immediate action on the part of the Government of India with a view to their abatement. —(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
  *MR. CAINE: I need not follow my hon. Friend, in seconding his Motion, into a description of the terrible
  828
  social evils of the present vicious system, which I can assure the House my hon. Friend has not exaggerated. The Resolution states that the fiscal system of the Government of India spreads misery and ruin among the industrial classes of India, and I found abundant evidence to sustain that allegation. But first let me deal with the Government argument in support of their policy, and meet them upon their own ground. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India (Sir J. Gorst) evidently wishes that the figures with regard to the whole of India should be quoted and not those relating to sections or districts.
  SIR J. GORST: Not at all. I do not object to any figures being taken as long as it is made clear to the House what figures they are.
  *MR. CAINE: Well, I will be quite clear as to the figures I take, and I will explain, for the sake of simplicity, that all my figures will be in pounds sterling, taking the usual reckoning of ten rupees to the £. I find that, according to the latest available statistics, those of 1887, the total revenue from intoxicating liquors all over India is steadily advancing. I may say that the gallonage of consumption is not given in the Government returns, at all events, until the last two or three years, and I found it very difficult, even in India, to get figures on the subject. I will first show how the revenue from intoxicating liquors and drugs is steadily advancing. The present system has been in existence for about fifty years. It was founded about 1838, and it reached complete perfection about 1878, when the total revenue from intoxicants was £2,458,000. In 1879, the revenue rose to £2,619,000, in 1880 to £2,838,000, in 1881 to £3,135,000, in 1882 to £3,427,000, in 1883 to £3,609,000, in 1884 to £3,837,000, in 1885 to £4,012,000, in 1886 to £4,152,000, and in 1887 to £4,375,000. The revenue has therefore virtually doubled itself in ten years. Now it is urged by the Government that this increase is the result, first of all, of increased taxation, and secondly of the transfer of the consumption from illicit to Government liquor. I would ask my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, whether he means to say that the bulk of the increase of £2,100,000 is a transfer from illicit to

  829
  licit consumption? If so, it reflects very great disgrace on the management of the excise system in former years. With regard to the raising of taxation, that has been very trivial, and nothing at all like the 100 per cent it would have to be, in order to account for the increase. The revenue is derived, not only from spirits, but also from opium and other intoxicating drugs, and the imports show a steady increase, and one that has been much more rapid in recent years. The imports of spirits show an increase of 50 per cent in the last ten years. In 1885, the imports of spirits amounted to 858,000 gallons; in 1886, they amounted to 937,000 gallons, and in 1887 they rose to 1,063,000 gallons—or total increase of 23 per cent. in three years. There was also an increase of 60 per cent. in the imports of malt liquors in the three years, Furthermore, there is, all over India, a steadily increasing manufacture of beer, strong in alcohol, on which no duty is paid. All the increased consumption is native and not English. The English population is more sober and abstemious than in times past, and its consumption of liquor has 'certainly not increased. We have now 15,000 teetotallers in the Indian Army, and the evidence goes to show that a decreasing amount of liquor is consumed by our soldiers. Under these circumstances, the figures I have quoted are calculated to give alarm to every social reformer and every practical politician. I will quote from Paper 166, of June 25th, 1887, in order to show what are the opinions of authorities:—
  ''The principles on which the Excise system of India are based, and which have been unanimously accepted by all the authorities concerned have been these; That liquor should be taxed, and consumption restricted, as far as it has been possible to do so without imposing positive hardships upon the people, and driving them to illicit manufacture. In this policy the local Governments have been completely successful, and the great increase of Excise Revenue in recent years, which have been taken as evidence of the spread of drinking habits, really represents a much smaller consumption of liquor, and an infinitely better regulated consumption than the smaller revenue of former years."
  I at once admit that that is the principle on which the excise laws of India are supposed to be based and intended to be based, as is clearly shown by the following order issued to Revenue Officers in India on September 17th, 1838, when
  830
  the foundations of the present system were laid:—
  "It cannot be too strongly urged upon collectors that the object which Government has in view is to restrain and, if possible, to correct and diminish the total actual consumption of spiritous liquors, whether clandestine or licensed, being fully persuaded that any amount of revenue that may be lost by the efficiency of the system for this end will be repaid one hundredfold in the preservation and advancement of moral feelings and industrious habits among the people."
  I met many of the leading officials in India, and their great cry was, "Don't call our good intentions into question." Of the good intentions of the Government I have no doubt, but I say that those good intentions in the present case have only made the usual pavement. I contend deliberately that the Excise Laws of India, the best and worst of them, directly lead to an increase of drinking facilities, and, as a matter of course, to an increased consumption of liquor, with all its attendant evils. That the various Governments of India, in spite of themselves, are inevitably committed by those laws to a policy of expansion, instead of restriction, and that the sale of liquor and drugs is stimulated all over India, for the sake of the revenue it produces. I am fully aware of the seriousness of this charge. I have had it drummed into me during the three months I have been in India, but I stand by it. Last year, Mr. Westland, Finance Minister for India, used the following language in the Legislative Council:—
  "I look hopefully to a considerable increase in the Excise Revenues, and believe that a great deal might be done in Northern India by the introduction of the methods which in Bombay and Madras, have so powerfully contributed to the increase of revenue under this head."
  In England it is the custom for Finance Ministers to congratulate Parliament upon a diminishing revenue from intoxicants; in India, however, the Finance Minister looks hopefully to a considerable increase in such revenue. I have been censured for saying that such a statement as this coming from such an authority, would certainly be interpreted by his subordinates into a hint to stimulate the sale of Exciseable articles. I repeat the statement, and will presently show how it is being acted upon. Let us, however, now examine for a moment into the operation of the

  831
  methods in Bombay and Madras, which have made such a powerful impression on Mr. Westland and Sir David Barbour. In the Financial Statement for 1887–8, Mr. Westland uses clear enough language about the methods of the two Presidencies. He said:—
  "As regards excise, it will be seen that it is in Madras and Bombay that the Revenue Administration has been most successful, as these two provinces, with a total population of 47,500,000 produce a Revenue nearly as large as that of Bengal with 69,000,000. The whole system of distillation has been brought more thoroughly under control, and stricter and more methodical preventive measures have enabled the Government to greatly enhance the rate of duty, for the question of the rate of duty which it is possible to levy, is simply the question of the prevention of illicit distillation."
  Sir David Barbour commenting on this paragraph in this year's financial statement says—
  "Mr. Westland's expectations was that by the prevention of illicit dealings, it would be possible to raise a large Revenue, the increase of Revenue being accompanied, not by an increase of, but by a check on drinking."
  Well, I want to see how drinking is checked by this system. In Madras there was introduced in October, 1884, a new system which enables the authorities to raise a large Revenue by the prevention of illicit drinking. I admit that the change was a great improvement on the previous system, but it was bad at the best. In 1883–4 the consumption of arrack in the Presidency amounted to 1,204,000 gallons. In 1885, the year of transition it fell to 1,189,000 gallons. We should, however, expect to see a steadily diminishing consumption if the system were all that is claimed for it. In 1886 the consumption goes down a little farther—to 1,055,000 gallons; but in 1887 it rises again to 1,084,000, and in 1888 to 1,270,000, which is more than that of any previous year. We find, therefore, that although the system diminishes the consumption for a year or two the increase invariably comes afterwards. The people have learnt drinking habits, and the Government with a view of raising revenue, push in liquor shops whenever they think there is a ghost of a chance of a customer. Sir David Barbour is wisely silent with regard to Bombay. I will not be silent. While I was in Bombay I had a visit from Lallubhai Gordandas, general assistant in the Abkari Department. I
  832
  had a long conversation with that gentleman. I made careful notes of it, and read them over to him with some care, and he admitted that they accurately represented what he said His statements were (I quote from my notes):—
  "Throughout the Presidency there is no illicit distillation whatever for sale. There may be a little prevalent where there are many toddy or mowra trees, for private consumption only. We have got Mr. Pritchard's system well in hand, and illicit distillation is now reduced to a minimum."
  The system has now been in good working order for ten years, and what are the results? In 1882 the consumption. of ardent spirits in the Bombay Presidency was two millions of gallons, and in 1886 it had risen to 2,750,000 gallons, these being the latest available figures. There was thus a net increase of 40 per cent in four years, which means that it would double itself in 10 years. We are asked to believe that this increase is due to the change from illicit to licit consumption. I entirely fail to understand how such financial authorities as Mr. Westland and Sir David Barbour can commit themselves to statements, the bottom of which can be knocked out by a simple reference to their own Excise Reports. The Financial Report for this year has the audacity to suggest that their principles apply equally to intoxicating drugs as to liquors. It will be found that wherever the consumption of liquor increases, the appetite for drugs appears to be also whetted. I will take the pattern district of the Bombay Presidency, where the system is most perfect, and I will give the revenue from foreign liquor, from country spirits, and from drugs. I wish to show that it has steadily increased right through from the completion of Mr. Pritchard's system in 1877. During the five years ending 1877, the average revenue from. foreign liquors was £1,100; during the five years ending 1882 it was £2,700; in 1883 it was £3,500; in 1884, £3,600; in 1886, £8,300; in 1886, £8,400; in 1887, £9,300; and in 1888, £9,000. Now we take the spirit manufactured at the Government distilleries: During the five years ending 1877, country spirit produced an average revenue of £310,000; during the five years ending 1882 a revenue of £390,000; in 1883, £540,000; in 1884, £590,000; in 1885,

  833
  £640,000; in 1886, £690,000; in 1887, £710,000; and in 1888, £750,000. And now with regard to drugs: We are told it is better for the people to consume what they call "wholesome" spirit than to take opium or other drugs, and that by stimulating the sale of spirits they diminish the consumption of drugs. Well, in the five years ending 1877 the revenue from drugs was £5,400, in the five years ending 1882 it was £5,100, in 1883 it was £8,100, in 1881 it was £9,400, in 1885 it was £10,400, in 1886 it was £10,800, in 1887 it was £11,000, and in 1888 it was £11,700. This is the way they secure a maximum revenue with a minimum of consumption. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the consumption has increased in precisely the same ratio as the revenue, not only in Bombay but all over India alike. This is inevitable so long as the existing system prevails. I admit that some methods in India are better than others; but all are bad, and all are based upon the same principles. My hon. Friend has very fairly described the systems in use. The Government control the manufacture, but they do not control the retail sale. They pretend to; but to all intents and purposes, when the liquor sale has been given to a farmer, he can do whatever he likes. I have had long interviews with liquor farmers. I have talked to one who pays as much as £140,000 a year for the monopoly of certain districts, and he told me he was obliged to take so many gallons a year and to pay duty on it. The Government do not allow him to sell above a certain price, but when he finds himself with liquor on his hands he disposes of it at any price he can get. The fact of the matter is that there are eight or nine different systems prevailing in India, and eight or nine sub-varieties. I am bound to say I did not see a single man in all India, excepting one, who understood it in all its details, or indeed half as well as I did myself. I contend that under this vicious farming system the bias of everyone concerned is in favour of the expansion of the trade and not of its contraction, and that whatever may have been the intentions of the inventors of the system all moral considerations are swamped in the efforts to obtain revenue. The Government is biassed
  834
  in favour of the tax. It may be an unconscious bias, but the bias is there. It furnishes a steady and improving revenue, as I have shown, and it is cheap to collect. This is shown by the figures. The revenues from forests cost 55 per cent to collect; from opium, 25 per cent; from land, 15 per cent; from Customs, 7 per cent; from stamps, 4 per cent; and from Excise only 3 per cent. The bias is naturally in favour of such an admirable and cheap source of revenue as this, and especially as it doubles itself in ten years. As to the officers engaged in the administration, their promotion may not altogether depend upon the revenue obtained, but it does depend upon it to some extent. If you take the last report for Bengal you will find a paragraph commencing thus: "Officers deserving favourable notice for the management of the Excise Department of their various districts." Then follow 16 names of officers in every one of whose districts there has been au increase in the revenue, the average being £2,500 each. I do not blame them for trying to get on in their profession. There are gentlemen opposite who are at the head of their profession, and who would not have got there unless they had done their best to stimulate the revenue in every way. During the three months I spent in India this winter, I found endless instances of the praiseworthy watchfulness of collectors, and of the way in which they act upon the suggestions of the Finance Ministers, who are "looking hopefully to an increase in the Excise revenues." Let me give an instance: In the district of Backergunje, in Bengal, a religious fair is held every year. For some years past a liquor shop has been established there. The agent of one of the excellent and useful associations which are springing up all over India watching the actions of the Government, called upon the Zemindar who owned the land and urged him to refuse to supply land for the liquor shop any longer. He refused accordingly. But the collector, Mr. Clay, of Backergunje, dropped on the Zemindar at once, and wrote to him asking for an explanation. The Zemindar called and explained, and two more letters followed, both of which I will read. The first is addressed to Chunder Das, farmer of corn, spirit and drugs, Lakutia—

  835
  "In accordance with the order of the Collector passed to day you are directed to open your shop as usual at the aforesaid Mela. A copy of this order is sent to the proprietors of that Mela, so that they may present to the Collector any objection, if they have any, to the opening of the aforesaid shop at the Mela.—G. C. D OTT, Excise Deputy Collector."
  The same gentleman, Mr. Dutt, writes to Babu Behari Lal Roy and two other Zemindars—
  "As a person named Parna Chunder Das' for a fee of 75 rupees got a licence for setting up a shop for the sale of wines, Ganga, and opium at your Lakutia Mela, and you did not allow him place to open his shop then, an order was issued on him to open his shop, and a copy of that order served on you that you may present to the Collector your objections, if you have any, to give him land for this purpose. Up to this day you have presented no objection and given him no land for his shop. You are ordered to show cause before the Collector within two days why that shop should not be set up at your Mela."
  What does this mean? These men are anxious to have their religious festival conducted decently and in order, and this Revenue official comes down upon them like a thousand of bricks because of the shop not being opened. Just suppose for one moment a similar case in England. In Liverpool there is an estate with 47,000 people living upon it. It belongs to the Earl of Sefton. There is not a single public-house upon that estate. But supposing anyone got the lease of a house there and had a licence transferred to it the Earl of Sefton would say, "You cannot do this. I have the right to stop you." And suppose the authorities wrote a letter to the Earl such as I have read to ibis House, there would be a pretty row! The bias of a liquor farmer is to sell the quantity of liquor he undertakes to sell, if he is to make any profit out of it. He is abundantly helped by the administration of the Abkar Department, which backs up the efforts of the farmer with all the energy of a working partner. Let me just show you how this works. I will give you a few instances. Take the Bombay Presidency. I read this in the last report, dated 1886–7—
  "There were 102 spirit shops in the Ahmedabad district in the year 1884–5. Out of this number 19 shops were closed in the following year for want of custom. But during the year under report it was found necessary to re-open 11 of them."
  Another paragraph in the same report
  836
  gives the explanation of this remarkable operation,
  "During the three years for which the farms were sold, the farmer was not able to sell the full quantities of spirit removed by him from the distilleries under his minimum guarantee."
  So to enable him to do so, and keep up the Revenue, 11 shops had to be reopened. During these four years under review in these paragraphs the spirit issued from the Ahmedabad distillery to this farmer who required 11 shops to be re-opened, was as follows—48,000 gallons, 57,000 gallons, 63,000 gallons, 69,000 gallons. The maximum of revenue is undoubtedly secured, the minimum of consumption is secured by an increase from 48,000 to 69,000 gallons, an increase of 45 per cent. in four years. I had two hours' interview with the liquor farmer of Ahmedabad. I quote from my notes. He said—
  "How on earth can we get the ideal of the Government, a maximum of Revenue with a minimum of consumption—we must sell the liquor to get the Revenue. Mr. Pritchard is always putting the screw on the farmer, and pushing up the Revenue. How can we do that unless we push the sale of drink?"
  When Mr. Westland so pointedly referred to the North-West provinces as the district from which he looked for an increased revenue from Excise, he was hardly fair to his energetic subordinates in that district. He must have had before him at the time the Excise report for 1886, and read the following leading paragraph:—
  "The revenue from Excise has continued to advance steadily, and the gross receipts for the year under report are the highest on record, showing an increase of 12 per cent on previous years.
  Why? Because the officials had been stimulating the sale of liquor to the uttermost.
  The Report says in one paragraph:—
  "The district Reports contain repeated assurances from all parts of the provinces that drinking is practically unknown."
  What a dreadful state of things from the Government point of view, but what a blessing it would be if we could have it in England, Wales, or Scotland. I suppose this is where Mr. Westland looks for an increased revenue. But the same Report abounds in paragraphs showing how an enlightened Indian Government endeavours at once to get rid of such a happy moral condition,

  837
  and such an unhappy absence of revenue. On page 13 of this Report from the North West Provinces, par. 32, is the following:—
  "Etawah.—The number of shops has increased from 53 to 67. There are five shops in the Municipality, which are reported to be sufficient. In the village tracts the number is still far below Government standard … Efforts are being made to bring the number of shops up to prescribed standard. Besides the 67 shops now opened, licences were granted for others, bnt they were withdrawn when it was found that no liquor was sold at these shops."
  I claim that this Report abundantly proves the contention of the Resolution. Etah is another district:—
  "Etah.—There has been an increase of oue shop; there are now 63. At the last settlement efforts were again made to induce the liquor farmers to open new shops, but, as last year, to no purpose. No one would bid even a nominal price for them. The number of shops is much fewer than the number allowed by Government standard."
  I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will give some explanation of these extreme statements in the Report from the North-West Provinces. This is the last available report; I bring it down to date so far as I am able, though the Government of India are exceedingly slow in getting off their papers. At page 5, Mr. Crook, the Revenue Officer of Etah,
  "draws attention to the impossibility of the labouring class consuming liquor to any considerable extent, when it is sold, as at present, of inferior quality and at an almost prohibitive price."
  He wants to persuade the labouring classes to consume liquor to a considerable extent. Again, in the same report:—
  "At Muttra, it is reported that many new licences had to be withdrawn, as no liquor was sold, and that new shops put up for auction were not bid for."
  At Muttra there were 39 liquor shops 25 years ago, now the number is 59. Yet my right hon. Friend says the larger number of shops have been established recently. "Recently" means a period of 25 years. Here are other paragraphs:—
  "In Sitapur the reduction of 33 shops is reported to have resulted in a loss of more than 2,000 rupees in licence fees, and no further reduction is advisable at present …. In the Jhansi division the number of shops is largely in excess of the Government standard, and, although the Commission of Excise makes no
  838
  remarks thereon, it appears from the district reports that at present it is inexpedient to make any considerable reduction in their number…… We are told that the high rise in consumption at Cawnpore is due to the opening of the new distillery."
  Who was it that opened that distillery? A Limited Liability Company or a private individual? Not at all. It was the Government. In consequence of the opening of the new distillery they raise the consumption. That is the way in which they got the minimum of consumption. I think it is the way in which they get the maximum of revenue. The last paragraph which I will quote is—
  "At Benares the licence fees for the year were very high, and to make their business profitable the retail dealers lowered their prices, and thus largely increased the sale of liquor."
  That paragraph absolutely confirms the statement of my hon. Friend. I could go on ad nauseam, and could give similar instances from all the Provinces of India. These extracts show clearly that where there are no liquor shops and no desire for them, the Excise administration has forced them in, and that where there are avowedly too many they have refused to reduce them. We have had two Bengal Commissions. Read their reports, or study every or any Provincial Excise Report. They show that the liquor farmers are everywhere competing with each other for the possession of a lucrative monopoly; that the authorities encourage it with a view to increased revenue; that the farmers get up rings to defeat the undue pressure of the authorities; that they doctor the liquor; are the chief culprits in illicit distillation; that they cheat the revenue, lower their prices, and, by the help of the Government, double the consumption. The worst and rottenest Excise system in the civilized world is that of India; the worst and rottenest of the various systems of India is that of Bengal. We have heard from my hon. Friend some account of what has taken place in Bengal with regard to the outstill system. I do not refer to that to-night, because it is of no use flogging a dead horse. I have been informed that it is the intention of the Government to estimate for a somewhat less revenue this year, with a view to getting rid of the outstill system. I trust it is really the intention of the Government to get rid of that

  839
  system. The effects of drunkenness on the Indian people are very serious. The nature of the liquor is such that it is prohibited to be sold to the British soldiers. Yet Indian women are allowed to buy it and to drink it with their husbands and children. At Benares three soldiers entered a liquor shop, and having pinned the owner of the shop against the wall by fixing their bayonets through his clothes, they drank the liquor. One fell to the floor of the shop and died, the other two were carried back to barracks. Why should such horrible stuff as this be sold to women and children freely, while prohibited to strong healthy soldiers? The amount of liquor drunk is small compared with the number of the population—my hon. Friend says he does not think it is more than 10 per cent — but it is a fact that drunkenness is increasing. That drunkenness is steadily increasing is a fact which is well affirmed by a large body of public opinion in India, the Government say. It may not be a very serious evil, but it is undoubtedly an increasing one. At one of the meetings at which I was present—a meeting said to have been the largest of its kind ever held in India—this fact was fully confirmed. It was, however, stated by one of the newspapers that the extent of the gathering was due to the desire of the natives to hear a Member of Parliament who was going "on the stump." I thought there might be something in that statement; but it so happened that my friend, Mr. Thomas Evans, a missionary who went alone to a number of meetings held in various towns in the Bombay Presidency, had even a larger amount of success than was achieved on the occasion I have just mentioned, and he found that everywhere public opinion was against the Government, while, taking it as a whole, the Indian Press is also against the Government. I may be asked, "What remedy do you propose?" In reply to that question I would say, in the first place you ought to get rid of the outstill system, and if you turn your attention to the steady increase of the revenue by the steady increase of taxation, you would find that you would not suffer from an increase in the duty on spirits. I see no reason why the import duty should not be raised to 10 rupees for proof spirit,
  840
  which would enable you largely to increase the duties charged in Bombay; because Bombay town and island could pay without difficulty double the amount of duty now charged without the least hardship to anyone or the smallest risk of illicit distillation. I would also venture to suggest that some duty should be put on the heady beer sold in India. I was told, in answer to a question I put some time ago, that no duty is charged on the beer brewed by Messrs. Meakin & Co., and I must confess that I do not see why the Indian drink should be taxed while English beer is sold without duty. I may say that, in discussing this matter with Indian gentlemen, I found that they all entertained the views expressed by the mover of this Resolution. They think that the Indian people ought in some way to be consulted on the subject. I remember on one occasion I saw some 20 natives sitting in a circle outside a building, and I supposed it was a sort of village council. As I did not like to trespass on their deliberations I passed on; but, on coming back again some hours afterwards, I saw the same circle of natives in the same place, and I found that, instead of discussing local matters or British politics, they wore discussing six bottles of native spirits. I am quite sure that the collector of the district, when he opened the liquor shop, did not first consult the head man of the village. Can it be said that this is the sort of thing which ought to be encouraged in the administration of that portion of the Empire? Of course it is not for me to dictate to the Indian Civil Service how they can maintain their financial position with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor; but I do say that while revenue considerations may be allowed to have their full weight, moral considerations ought not to be overlooked or set aside for one moment. India possesses about the finest Civil Service in the world, and it is just as capable as any authority that could be mentioned of carrying out a scheme dealing with this important question. As it is, however, instead of troubling themselves about the maximum of moral considerations they are troubling themselves about the maximum of revenue. The object the Government ought to keep ever in view is to restrain, correct, and diminish the

  841
  consumption of intoxicating liquors and drugs, whether illicit or licensed, and fully persuade themselves that any amount of Revenue that may be lost by the efficiency of their system for this end, will be repaid a hundred-fold in the preservation and advancement of morality, industry and prosperity among the peoples of the Indian Empire.
  *SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid: I do not for one moment believe that the Excise policy of the Government of India, as a whole, is, or has ever been, intentionally or consciously directed to the mere gathering of Revenue, regardless of its effect on the moral well-being or social habits generally of the people of that country. I think, Sir, that every one who has been in any way associated with the work of that Government, as I have been, or who knows anything whatever of its character or traditions, will repudiate any notion of the kind with indignation and with perfect honesty and sincerity. Then too, Sir, in the course of the statements that have been put before the House this evening, there have been several propositions laid down which, in my opinion, will be held in India to be statements that are either inaccuracies or gross exaggerations. When the hon. Member for Flintshire spoke of the high officers of the Government of India being possibly ignorant of the working of the Abkari system, surely he forgot that these very officials, even the very highest of them, have themselves passed through the mill of the lower offices of State. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham, who was himself Finance Minister of India, commenced life in that country, many years before, as an Assistant Magistrate, and rose through every stage of the official ladder. At many stages he himself had charge of the Abkari administration of the districts in which he resided. Well, Sir, the same, of course, holds true of very nearly all the other high members of the Government of India. They know the working of the Abkari system, and to charge them with ignorance, or even to make ignorance the excuse for their policy, is altogether inaccurate. Then again, I must say that I heard with very great regret the attack that was made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness on those Englishmen, Mr.
  842
  Meakin and others, in the hills of India. who are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, serving the cause of Temperance in India, especially amongst our soldiers there, by putting within the reach of those soldiers light, wholesome, English beers, in the place of those horrible concoctions, such as country arrack, of which we have heard such eloquent accounts to-night from hon. Members opposite. And, Sir, the hon. Member for Barrow spoke of the chief of these gentlemen having been decorated because of his being a brewer. I can assure the House, from personal knowledge, that Mr. Whymper, the gentleman of whom he spoke, was decorated for, or, at any rate, might well have been decorated for, his eminent public services to the State and from no connection whatever with his occupation in life. He had served to my knowledge the cause of the Native States, and especially the cause of the Native State of Cashmere, in a way that did him the greatest credit, and I was exceedingly glad when I saw in the newspapers the statement to the effect that he had received from Her Majesty the distinction of the Companionship of the Order of the Indian Empire. That decoration was, in my opinion, highly deserved for his public services, and I greatly regret, therefore, that it should have been stated in this House that he received it merely because of his connection with the brewing industry. For this reason, and many similar ones, I find with regret that I am unable to agree with the Resolution that has been moved by the hon. Member for Flint-shire, though I sympathize very heartily with the spirit and motives of the Resolution. The excellent motives of the hon. Member for Flintshire, and the great services which he has rendered to the welfare and well-being of our fellow subjects in India, are, I am sure, appreciated by the House and by the country, and they certainly are appreciated in India. But, Sir, though I cannot go the full length with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire, there are two propositions that I would venture, as an old resident in India, to submit to the consideration of the House, and on which I would ask leave to make just one or two remarks as grounds for an appeal to Her Majesty's

  843
  Government and to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India to give us, as the result of this debate this evening, some tangible, clear assurance of their determination that temperance reforms, and not Revenue, shall be in the future the key-stone of their Excise policy in India. In the first place, Sir, I maintain it is idle to deny that our Government Abkari, or Excise policy, has at times, in practice at any rate, tended to encourage the spread of drunkenness amongst the people; and, in the second place, I am quite sure that all that is best and most reputable in Native opinion in India is virtually unanimous in demanding from us, and from the Government of India, some stringent measures of restriction. I said, Sir, it is idle to deny that our policy has at times, though contrary, I am certain, to the intentions of the Government, tended to the increase of drunkenness. Those who read the Indian papers will be aware that since the debate last year, in fact only within a very few months, the Government of India, and especially the Government of Bengal, has brought about a very considerable contraction of that very outstill system of which we have heard so much, and which has been so rightly and deservedly denounced by the hon. Member for Barrow. Last year the Under Secretary of State for India protested most eloquently, and I am sure most sincerely, that nothing could be further from the wishes or intentions of the Government of India than to sanction the continuance for a moment of any system that would in any way encourage drunkenness; and yet the very action of the Government of Bengal to which I have referred, shows that at the time my hon. Friend was protesting so eloquently, this system was in full force in many districts in the immediate neighbourhood of the seat of Government at Calcutta. In the second place, I have said that the whole of the Native public opinion is strongly in favour of most stringent restrictions on the sale of intoxicating drinks. I believe that that will be frankly and fully admitted by my hon. Friend and by the Government of India; it is at any rate fully well known to everyone who has ever resided in India, and has ever been brought much into contact with the people of the Empire. I believe that even the extreme measure of the total
  844
  prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors would not only not meet with any resistance from the people of India, but would, in fact, be most popular in that country. That, in my opinion, is the cardinal feature of the situation in India; and it contrasts very strongly with the situation in this country. I ask those who think with me on the Temperance Question, those who earnestly desire to advance the cause of Temperance, and yet who shrink from any too violent interference with personal liberty, what would be our position if all our countrymen in England—not only the classes, but the masses of the people—were all in favour of total prohibition? If there were no such thing as a national beverage, if there were no reality in the cry of robbing a poor man of his beer, if there were no social customs to be destroyed by prohibition, and if in the national conscience the drinking of a dram of spirits or of a glass of beer were held to be a sin, I say I would unhesitatingly vote immediately for total prohibition. But that is the case and these are the circumstances in India. As far as Native opinion is concerned, I say emphatically that the Government have a free hand in the direction of restriction upon the sale of intoxicating liquors. They can do what they like; they can extend those restrictions to any extent they like, with the certainty of obtaining the approval of all classes of the Indians. Therefore the only two considerations that can affect the Government of India in their decision are, first, the fear of illicit distillation, and, secondly, the fear of the loss of revenue. As to illicit distillation, no doubt the facilities are exceptionally great in India, where every jungle yields the raw materials for producing spirits in abundance; and I am free to admit that if they had total prohibition or anything like it, it is possible that the pecuniary inducements to illicit distillation might be very considerable. On the other hand, the strength of public opinion, all the power of caste rules, in fact the whole organisation of Native society, would be on the side of the Excise officers in suppressing illicit distillation, and, therefore, I confess—having some little personal knowledge of the circumstances of the case—I do not think that any great weight need be

  845
  assigned to the bugbear of illicit distillation. The other consideration that should weigh with the Government in deciding this question is, of course, the loss of Revenue; and I confess that I cannot brush that consideration aside so lightly as the Mover and Seconder of the resolution have done. I feel that we are dealing in this matter with other people's money. It is very easy for British Representatives to be virtuous and philanthropic at the cost of the Indian Exchequer, to which their own constituents do not contribute a penny. Still, on the other hand, the Indian taxpayers are willing that some loss should be incurred to the Revenue for the sake of their own good name and the morals of their people. I do not think it is for this House, with its necessarily limited and imperfect information, to force the Government of India hurriedly into reforms that are to be carried out at the cost of the Indian taxpayers; but I think the House may do this much, and do it in the cause of righteousness and of justice to the people of India—we may show that we sympathize with the Government of India whenever it does that which is right in itself and which is also agreeable to the people of India. In conclusion, I trust that Her Majesty's Government may see their way to accept the motion of the hon. Member for Flintshire, provided always that the hon. Member consents to such modifications in its terms as will make it absolutely clear that the House does not and will not impugn the motives of the Government of India.
  *MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member, although at times he seemed to me to waiver between one set of views and another. At any rate, it is satisfactory to find that he cordially agrees with the spirit of this resolution, and that so far as he has any objections to it at all they relate to those terms of it which seem to him to cast doubt on the good intentions and faith of Indian officials. It is particularly encouraging to those who hold our views, that an hon. Gentleman of so much experience in India, should tell the douse he would vote for total, prohibition in a country where drinking was, according to the religious sentiments of the people, considered a sin.
  846
  It is undoubtedly true that a great majority of the religious, moral, and respectable natives of India do hold the view, that drinking intoxicating liquors is sinful, although such a view is being rapidly undermined by the action of the Government. The hon. Member said we must remember that in this matter we are dealing with other people's money. But he must remember that the Indian Government, nearly all of whom are Englishmen, are in this matter dealing with other people's money also; they are not dealing with a country which governs itself. In India there is an English despotic Government who legislate for the people over whom they rule, and in levying this taxation and in forcing this trade upon the people they are dealing with other people's money and moral welfare. The system we protest against is one which in its very essence must work badly, it must inevitably tend to the increase of the drink traffic. The licensee undertakes to pay license duty upon a given amount of liquor whether he can sell it or not, and that gives him a far greater incentive to sell and push the sale than even the English licensing system gives the English publican. The Indian Government contend that their endeavour is to put down illicit stills, but the fact in many cases really is that when a holder of a license finds he has contracted to sell a greater quantity of spirits than he can find an ordinary demand for, he encourages other persons to open illicit stills, in order to enable him to go the Government and say, "Here is an illicit still: it is clear that there is a demand for liquor: give me permission to open a legitimate and legal shop in the village." The man who has opened the illicit shop gets a small sentence, for which he is no doubt recompensed by the owner of the license. The Government can never hope to decrease the consumption so long as they continue to increase the facilities for drinking. Besides, while the Government are forcing on this sale of strong intoxicating spirits they put a very high duty, which is almost prohibitive, upon cocoanut palm toddy, a native liquor which any man can distill, and which is said to be little stronger than ginger beer. And still they wish us to believe that they are actuated by a desire for temperance. We ask them to

  847
  give proof of this by taking off the duty upon the juice of the palm and allowing the people to drink it if they desire it. If the Government will only allow the natives to drink this liquor it will prevent the necessity, if there is necessity, of the natives resorting to the use of the stronger spirituous liquors. I do not desire to throw the slighest doubt upon the good faith of the Under Secretary of State for India. He has already indicated that his desire is to increase temperance. I give him in the fullest and frankest way every credit for that desire, and I trust before his tenure of office expires he will have ample opportunity for putting his good will into practice. But we do not believe in the protestations of the Government of India; the whole facts go against them. I daresay some of the higher officials may be sincere but we do not believe those who have the every day working of the system in the provinces genuinely desire to decrease the system. Mr. Gregson in a pamphlet published last year gives a quotation from the official despatch from the Government of Bombay to the Secretary of State for India. The quotation was to the effect that the question for decision was whether they should sit quiet and allow the temperance movement in the Colaba district to continue and spread, and thereby forfeit a large amount of revenue, or were measures to be adopted which would bring the people to their senses. There are other quotations with which I will not trouble the House, tending to show that the Government through their minor officers are undoubtedly endeavouring to increase the consumption of intoxicating drink. The Government profess to have a standard for the number of drink shops in any given locality, but we find that in some districts where the number of drink shops fell below the standard attempts were made to increase it, while in districts where the number was larger than the standard fixed no attempt whatever was made to decrease it. The protestations of some of the Indian officials as to their desire for temperance are therefore neither more nor less than shams. The system we are attacking was developed in 1877. It was one of the unhappy parts of the policy pursued in India at that time. It was, I presume, felt necessary at that
  848
  time to increase the revenue with a view to providing increased military expenditure, and for paying for the scientific frontier policy which distinguished that period. ["Oh oh."] At any rate the revenue has greatly increased. Within the last ten years the consumption of intoxicating liquor has about doubled. When the Government are, by all their subordinate officials, doing what they can to increase this revenue, and consequently to increase the facilities for drinking, it is useless for them to tell us they are actuated solely by the moral welfare of the people. It is my belief that in this matter the Government have not had the welfare of the people at heart, but have simply had the welfare of the revenue at heart. Their motive has been the same as it was in respect to the opium trade. They have ruined multitudes of people both in India and China by their opium traffic, and yet they are beginning to find their endeavour to keep up the opium revenue is failing because Chinese are now growing their own opium. I only wish some similar falling off in the revenue from the drink traffic could be anticipated. I am persuaded that if you would only allow the native population of India to manage their own concerns, if you would only give anything approaching local option in this matter you would very soon arrive at a proper solution of the drink question. Our responsibility in India is very great and serious. We conquered the country by means which. Englishmen are not too fond of recalling—means which Englishmen would be very sorry to see repeated to-day. [Sir J. GORST: "Oh, oh!"] Although the Under Secretary for India cries "oh," there are few Members in the House of Commons who would like to see a repetition of those means—at any rate I should be very sorry to see it. The fact that we have conquered India by such. means casts upon us serious responsibility for the welfare of the Indian people. The responsibility would be less if we allowed them to govern themselves, because we should then share with them responsibility for their own laws. At present we have that responsibility entirely upon our own shoulders. The Indian people are willing to accept our rule, but they do, demand in this matter, as in every other

  849
  matter, that they should have control over their own destinies subject to the veto of the Secretary of State; and I contend that if the Government were wise enough to submit the matter to any well considered measure of local option they would find that native opinion in India is opposed to the system by which the drinking of intoxicating liquor is rapidly increasing in the Indian empire.
  *SIR. J. GORST: This resolution requires the House to condemn the fiscal policy of the Government of India, with reference to the liquer question, and if the policy of the Government of India, with reference to the liquor question, were anything like that which has been described by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and which was also described by the mover and seconder of the motion, the liquor policy of the Indian Government would indeed most richly deserve the strongest condemnation of the House. I go further and say that if I believed that the men by whom the Indian Government is administered, were such wicked men, as the hon. Member opposite suggests they are, I would not remain a day longer in the position of Under Secretary for India, and I should say that the sooner the British officials cleared out of that country, the better it would be for India. I do not intend to compete with the hon. Member for Crewe in the high moral platitudes in which he has indulged, but I put it to him whether he considers it fair to men who among difficulties and dangers, are administering the affairs of this great country in a distant land, to withhold from them that charity which is accorded in this country to the meanest criminal, and to believe them capable of the horrible wickedness which the hon. Member has attributed to them? I thought it was the duty of a Christian man to extend charity to the action of his fellow-creatures, and to try to believe that they were animated by virtuous motives, and I turn gladly from the harsh, un charitable accusations of the hon. Member to the more kindly spirit in which this question has been approached by the mover and seconder of the Motion, who, although they think the officials are misguided and wrong, at all events have the charity to credit them with the common instincts of humanity. May I call the attention of the House for one
  850
  moment to what is the fiscal policy of the Government of India, with reference to intoxicating drinks? I am not going to quote an old despatch, but it is language recently held by the Secretary of State for India. On March 14 of this year, the Secretary of State, in answer to certain memorials forwarded to the Secretary of State by native associations in Calcutta concerning the outstill system in Bengal, sent a despatch in which he said:—
  "In connection with this subject I desire to remind your Excellency that in my despatch of the 19th of April. 1888, (No. 25, revenue), I laid down the principles (1) that any extension of the habit of drinking among Indian populations is to be discouraged; (2) that the tax on spirits and liquors should be as high as may be possible without giving rise to illicit methods of making and selling liquor; and (3) that subject to these considerations a maximum revenue should be raised from a minimum consumption of intoxicating liquors. In other words, to quote from the report of a Committee appointed by the Government of Madras in the year 1884, It should always be borne in mind that the taxation of the sale of intoxicating liquors is imposed primarily in order to restrain the consumption of such liquors, and not for the purpose of making money out of their sale. I am confident that your Excellency's Government will adhere strictly to these principles in any measures which you may think fit to adopt, and that you will do all that lies in your power to insure that they shall be observed by all who are engaged in the work of the Excise Department."
  I appeal to all hon. Members, except the hon. Member who spoke last, to say whether it is possible to lay down the principles which should govern our Excise administration in India in more clear, more distinct, and more appropriate language than that? I do not appeal to the lion. Member because no doubt he might reply that the Indian officials were actuated by the vilest possible motives.
  *MR. M'LAREN: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that at the outset of my speech I gave him every possible credit for good intentions in this matter, and the hon. Gentleman ought not to make such a charge against me.
  *SIR J. GORST: I decline to accept the adulation of the hon. Member or to be praised at the expense of the Secretary of State and of the honourable men who administer the Government of India. To except me from the common condemnation is an insult, and I decline any reservation on my behalf. I share the fate of the Secretary of State.
  *MR. M'LAREN: This is really too bad. I never made any charge against the Secretary of State. I do complain of the unfairness of the charge made against me.
  *SIR JOHN GORST: At any rate the hon. Member charged those who administer the Government of India in distinct terms, and in such terms as to make every hon. Member who has himself taken part in the Government of India, or who has friends taking part in that Government, most indignant at the unworthy insinuations of the hon. Member. I apologize for being led to use such warm language, but I am here as the representative of men thousands of miles away who cannot speak for themselves. What can a Government do in this matter? It can only lay down sound principles and exercise the utmost vigilance in its power to see that they are carried into effect. How are those principles carried out in the administration? All hon. Members who have spoken, with the exception of the hon. Member for Barrow who has just returned from there, have talked as if this excise system is the administration of the Government of India. It is nothing of the kind; it is the administration of the various provincial Governments of India, for the administration of the excise law is a matter which in India is given over entirely to the Governments of the different provinces. They have a variety of systems, varying according to the population and nature of the country, and various other local circumstances; and it would be absolutely impossible to devise one uniform hard-and-fast system of excise administration to suit the various conflicting circumstances of the different provinces. Yet you are asked to condemn the existing systems as a whole. I could understand the House of Commons being asked to come to the conclusion that the excise system in Assam or in Bengal is bad, but to include in one sweeping condemnation the whole of the various provincial Governments without discrimination, and to argue that because there are defects in one province therefore the system in another province, however differently situated, is bad, seems to me very like the case of a man who because he finds an enormous amount of drunkenness in one European country, say for instance
  852
  Belgium, denounces therefore the Kingdom of Italy for not properly exercising its excise administration. Just to show what a difficult subject this is, and how hard it is to apply the a priori theories of the hon. Member for Flint-shire, let me call attention to one single circumstance. There is one province in India which has not been mentioned in this debate—Lower Burmah—and it is remarkable in this particular. The revenue per head of the population raised from the consumption of spirits and opium there is enormously in excess of that raised in any other province of India. It is double the revenue raised in Assam, more than ten times that of Bengal, and enormously greater than the revenue raised in Bombay. Yet in that part of India which, according to the a priori theories of the hon. Member for Flintshire, should be in the worse excise condition, there are fewer shops open for the consumption of Indian and imported spirits than in any other province of India, with the exception of Assam.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: Do you mean per head?
  *SIR J. GORSTNo.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: You must take into account the fact that the population is smaller.
  *SIR J. GORST: Yes, but the proportion of spirit shops in Burma to the population is about the same, for instance, as that of the Panjab, where there are 1,939 shops open for the sale of spirits, while in Lower Burmah there are only 445, yet the Excise Revenue per head in Burmah is 11 times as high as in the Panjab. In Assam there are 1,067 shops licensed for the sale of opium; in Lower Burmah there are only 16. I refer to these facts just to show how difficult it is to apply the a priori theories of hon. Members to the remarkable and varying circumstances of the different provinces of India. The hon. Member for Barrow has alleged that the system laid down by the Secretary of State, good as it is in theory, is so badly carried out in practice that there is an enormous increase in the consumption of liquor—as, for example, in the province of Bombay. But we have always looked on Bombay as having, perhaps on the whole, the best excise system. The reason why the quantity of liquor is shown to have

  853
  increased in the returns referred to is because those returns show only the liquor consumed in those districts of Bombay in which the central distillery system is in force, and which now constitute 11–12ths of the whole area of the province. But as district after district was brought under the central distillery system, the consumption of those districts was brought into the annual total, and the consumption in Bombay appears to have grown, whereas it is only the central distillery system which has been extended over the whole of the province of Bombay.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: But if you take the financial returns and calculate the amount of duty paid you will find a perfectly steady increase in the consumption even including those districts.
  *SIR J. GORST: Luckily I have an illustration which I think will satisfy even the hon. Member for Barrow, for we have the most accurate returns for many years past of the consumption of drink in the city and island of Bombay. Now if there is one part of India where we might expect the drink traffic to grow it would be in the city and island of Bombay, because there we have a thriving well-to-do population in contact with Europeans, within easy access of those imported spirits to which reference has been made, and having ample employment in factories and other industrial establishments, and where they got far higher wages than in the country districts generally. Therefore we should not have been surprised if, with the great increase of population, there had been some increase in the consumption of intoxicating drinks. But what are the figures? Now, in the year 1872–73 there were consumed in the city and island of Bombay 907,000 gallons of liquor which paid Excise Duty, and from which was raised a revenue of Rx. 72,000; in 1886–87 the consumption was only 621,000 gallons, a reduction of about one-third, while the revenue was Rx. 201,000. And I ought to add that in 1872–73 the liquor was proof, whereas in the latter period it was 25 per cent below proof, so that not only was there a less quantity of a liquor consumed, but this liquor was of less intoxicating character, and yet the revenue was nearly trebled.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: Yes; because here the highest duty in India is imposed; is it not?
  *SIR J. GORST: Now the hon. Member refers to the alteration made in the rates of duty. In the city of Bombay the duty has been gradually raised from one rupee a gallon of proof spirit to 2¾ rupees per gallon of spirit 25 per cent below proof, and in the districts of the Presidency it ranges from I rupee to 3 rupees per gallon. I cannot tell the hon. Member what the duty was in Madras, but at present the Still Head Duty and the License Fee together average 3 1–8 rupees in urban tracts and 2 15–16 rupees in rural tracts on the quantity of excise liquor passed into consumption, and in Madras, as in Bombay, the rates have been and are being steadily raised. I appeal confidently to these illustrations, as showing, in the first place, that the consumption has decreased, with an enormous increase to the revenue, and that the system in Bombay, carrying out as it does the general principles laid down by the Secretary of State, has not been the utter failnre in the direction of temperance which the hon. Member would induce the House to believe it has. I do not know that I could advantageously attempt to deal with the whole excise system in the various provinces of India. I can only tell the House that generally the Government of India 'has, in the most unqualified manner, assented to the doctrine laid down by the Secretary of State, and the various provincial Governments have accepted that policy and have directed their officials to carry it out in practice. Hon. Members have quoted particular instances of abuse as primâ facie evidence in support of their case that the officials have not carried out these general principles. But, Sir, is it astonishing, when you come to consider the enormous extent of territory, and the enormous number of liquor shops and distilleries, that you here and there find abuses, and discover instances in which the general principle is not carried into effect? Are the liquor laws in this country universally so admirably administered that you cannot find places where extensive drunkenness prevails, or where the officials have neglected the duties imposed on them? I do entreat the House not to be led astray by

  855
  isolated instances into one universal and sweeping condemnation of this system as a whole. The hon. Member for Flintshire has quoted observations made years ago by Mr. Hudson on the out-still system of Bengal. Really it is hardly fair to the House to quote evidence given five years ago in Bengal as if it applies to the general fiscal policy of the Government of India. Just as Bombay is the most advanced province, so, I suppose, many people would take Bengal as one of the least advanced; and there has been for the last three or four years an attempt made by the Government of Bengal to reform its fiscal system by substituting the central distillery system for the out-still system, which the hon. Member for Barrow admits having been informed by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province, is doomed. I do not for one moment say that there is not room for other great and radical reforms in many of the provinces of India; but I ask the House to consider that these reforms are actually now in progress, the attention of all the Governments of India has been thoroughly directed to this matter, and I appeal to the House to give these men credit for honesty of intention and intelligence and cleverness in adapting the orders of the Secretary of State to the circumstances of the particular provinces. Well, Sir, the hon. Member for Flint-shire spoke about the liquor traffic in the province of Assam. Now, that is not a province in which there is a great amount of consumption. The amount of duty per head is 6¾ annas, or about 6d. per head of the population. Does not the hon. Member for Cumberland wish that the contributions of the English taxpayer were reduced to anything like 6d. per head? Whereas in this "drunken" India that we are said to be contaminating, the amount per head paid by the population for intoxicating liquors is little over 3d.; in this highly favoured England I believe the rate is 16s. per head. Certainly the hon. Member said that a large section of the population of India do not drink at all, but even if you fix the percentage of the drinking population at 10 per cent of the whole, even then the comparison of 3d. per head, there is very favourable to the 16s. per head in this country. It struck me while hon. Mem-
  856
  bers opposite were speaking, that they might with advantage look nearer home, and apply themselves to the task of putting down drunkenness in this country, rather than seek to interfere with the administration of the Government of India. I think that the general observations which I have made will show that it is better for the House of Commons to take a wide and general view of a question of this kind rather than be led astray by a few of those sensational incidents which hon. Members who travel in India can so easily gather, and which, if they are accepted as general specimens of the way in which the excise system in India is carried out, do not enlighten, but are utterly misleading. The difficulty in a great measure arises from the extraordinary ease with which ardent spirits can be distilled in India. The innocent juice drawn from the palm tree becomes in three or four hours, without any action on the part of man, as strong as the strongest beer. To take one instance, whereas in Bombay a spirit was manufactured 25deg. below proof, at a cost of 8 annas per gallon, the price was raised to 3r. 2a. a gallon, or 600 per cent, by the taxation which hon. Members opposite so strongly condemn. The hon. Member for Flintshire has complained of the Government cheapening liquor, hut, instead of cheapening it, they have raised the price sixfold. What other policy could the Government pursue beyond making by taxation the price of liquor as high as possible, and limiting, as they do limit, the number of places where it is sold, so that the temptation to indulgence should be limited as far as possible, limited to. such shops as will satisfy the wants of the population, and check smuggling, and illicit distillation? The hon. Member for Barrow says, though it is not the opinion of those officials best qualified to judge, and who are in responsible positions in administration of the country, that the effect of allowing local option would be the prohibition of the sale of liquor. But it may be observed that in no native State is total prohibition enforced, and it is self-evident that if the population are debarred from obtaining liquor from licensed houses and legitimate sources, they are sure to obtain it from native States, over which we have no control. I think it is rather a remarkable answer to the sug-

  857
  gestion that the natives of India, if left to themselves, would adopt measures of total prohibition, that there is not, so far as I am aware, a single native State where total prohibition is effected, or indeed attempted to be carried out.
  MR. CAINE: The Gaikwar of Baroda would do so to-morrow if he were permitted. He told me so.
  *SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member says the Gaikwar of Baroda told him so; and knowing that the hon. Member was visiting India and what his tenets are on this question, I have no doubt the Gaikwar of Baroda told him so out of politeness. But I do not know whether the Gaikwar is also willing to stop the growth of poppies. Did he tell the hon. Member he would do that and that he derived a considerable revenue from the cultivation? I think the hon. Member, while he held an extraordinary influence over the Gaikwar of Baroda should have used it to put a stop to this most pernicious opium traffic from which the Gaikwar derives a large profit. But I must apologise, for I am detaining the House too long. In conclusion, let me summarize the objections the Government have to this Resolution. In the first place the Resolution speaks of the multiplication of distilleries. Now outside the district in which outstills are still licensed—and I ask the House to remember this is a decreasing area, and outstills are suppressed as soon as they can be replaced by central distilleries—outside this small area not more than a twelfth of the area of Bombay—and perhaps one-sixth of the area of British India—outside this area, the number of distilleries is much smaller than it was 25 years ago. Spirit is now made in licensed distilleries, and pays an excise duty according to its strength. Formerly contractors had as many stills as they liked. Gallon for gallon, spirit now pays a higher duty, and a larger revenue is obtained than under the old system. There is also a great reduction in the number of shops, and instructions have been given by the different Governments to reduce the number as far as possible. Officers are instructed not to allow shops to be opened merely to increase the Revenue. This is the very order that hon. Members opposite say ought to be given, and this order has been given.
  MR. CAINE: And is disobeyed everywhere.
  *SIR GORST: The hon. Member says the order is disobeyed everywhere, but I do not think his experience has been sufficient to justify him in making such a sweeping assertion. The Government will take care that these orders are not disobeyed, and the Secretary of State will carefully consider any instance of such disobedience that is brought to his notice. The hon. Member for Flintshire might have done ma the justice of telling the House, with regard to the very Assam tea gardens to which he has referred, that, in consequence of the hon. 'Member having shown me the letters referred to, a despatch was sent to India ordering an investigation. Sufficient time has not elapsed for an answer to be received. But in justice I think the hon. Member might have mentioned that I acted immediately on the allegations coming to my notice. I cannot admit that the increase of Revenue is in itself an evil. I have shown in the instance of Bombay how an increase in the Revenue is compatible with a decrease of drunkenness. I do not find evidences of that increase of drunkenness which hon. Members say cannot be denied. I suppose the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth would bear me out in saying that an increase of drunkenness would be shown in an increase in the number of persons in prison. Now, what are the facts? In 1870 there were 87,248 prisoners in English gaols in India. In 1878, which was a year of famine and naturally of increased crime, there were 126,111 as a daily average. In 1882 the number had sunk to 84,324, and in 1886, the last year for which I can obtain statistics, they had further gone down to 76,676. This is in spite of an increase of 10 per cent in the population, and this last number was swelled by about 2,000 of quasi-political prisoners from Burmah. Does this look like an increase in drunkenness and the demoralization of the people? Nor do I find evidence in the impoverishment of the people; but on the contrary the poverty in the country is less, the condition of the population is improving, and the wealth of India is increasing. I do not find the facts which the hon. Member describes as having resulted from an increased

  859
  consumption of drink are supported by reliable evidence, but he makes his statement on the testimony of certain irresponsible persons whose statements he chooses to accept without verification. I have extended my remarks longer than I intended; may I in conclusion quote one witness whose evidence some will accept as being entitled to considerable weight. In 1888 the Provincial Government of Bengal, anxious to improve the Excise system which they were well aware was defective and unsatisfactory, deputed a most eminent Civil servant, Mr. Buckland, to visit the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay, for the purpose of inspecting and reporting upon the results of the Excise system. This was an experienced witness, well acquainted with the defects of the Bengal system, who had been sent to report on the systems prevailing elsewhere. Mr. Buck-land reported to his own Government that the Bombay system was far more efficient than that of Bengal. He said that the local officers of Bombay had been repeatedly ordered "to restrain and, if possible, diminish the total actual consumption of spiritous liquors." He added—
  "The whole action of the Bombay Government in their excise administration in recent years has been in the direction of (1) raising the price of licit liquor; (2) checking the consumption of illicit liquor; (3) restriction of manufacture to certain centres; and(4)diminishing the number of liquor shops. It has been possible to carry out the first effectively by the constant raising of the stillhead duty, and by increasing the tree-tapping tax in toddy-producing districts. The distillation and smuggling of illicit liquor has been met by increasing considerably the strength of the Abkari inspecting and preventive establishments and enlisting the sympathies of the contractors on the side of the Government, as well as by leasing from native States, from which formerly liquor was supplied into British territory, the control of their Abkari arrangements. As far as possible the manufacture of spirit has been restricted and permitted under departmental supervision at a few central places, generally at the Sudder station of each district. The figures also show that the number of shops for the sale of country spirits and stills has been considerably reduced since the constitution of the Abkari Department, and a new shop is now only opened after careful inquiry to meet a local demand or prevent the use of illicit liquor. In constantly raising the stillhead duty, the Local Government have designedly followed the principle laid down by the Government of India after the passing of the Tariff Act of 1875."
  Such, is the testimony of a Bengal
  860
  officer to the efficiency of the system in Bombay, and it is testimony to which I think the House will attach considerable importance. I do not for a moment say that the Excise system in any of the Provinces of India is not capable of still further amelioration. I do not say that any of the Provincial Governments should rest content with the improvements made; let them institute any other reforms that the ingenuity of man can suggest; but I do ask the House to reject with scorn the insinuations of the hon. Member for Cheshire and to reject this Resolution, which, instead of recognizing the liberal efforts the Government of India have made to carry out reforms, would visit these attempts with undeserved, unmerited censure.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I think that whatever may be the result of the division, which I hope we may have by-and-bye, my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution may be congratulated on the result that everybody, including the hon. Gentleman himself, have, so far as I can understand, denounced this outstill system. I do not understand why the Under-Secretary for India should be so much opposed to this Resolution, because, as the hon. Gentleman went on with his speech, he seemed to agree very much with the policy of my hon. Friend, which was to reduce the temptations to drink among the people of India. If that is so, what better course could be taken than to pass this Resolution to do what the Government say is right and proper to do? To-night we have not any Irishmen present, and I do not know that we could employ our time better than by discussing a question which affects 200 millions of our fellow-subjects in India. In the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman asked why, when we had so many horrible things to look to in England, we should turn our attention to India. The reason is because the state of things is so horrible in England that we should take care not to allow it to be extended to India. As was once said by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian the duty of the Government should be to make it easy for the people to do right and difficult for them to do wrong. But we are re-

  861
  versing that system. In England the question of temperance has been discussed, I might almost say, ad nauseam, and every effort has been made by its advocates to remove the degradation and stigma of intemperance. But, nevertheless, in spite of every attempt, every sort of system. every sort of provision, the demon of intemperance holds the field. As Baron Dowse said not long since, the measure of the degradation of a district is to be found in the facilities for drink which it affords. All our efforts to advance the cause of civilization will fail so long as the Government put temptation in the way of the people of England or India. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day manages to get a revenue of many millions by promoting the consumption of drink among the people; he arranges the temptations that he may get the revenue. When the time comes for adding up the balance sheet the right hon. Gentleman rejoices greatly over the large sum he has got, and then, as Mr. Disraeli said, "With a face arranged for the occasion," he makes a few perfunctory remarks as to the regret he feels at the immorality of people indulging in the temptations placed before them. This is what takes place here. The money is raised at the expense of the degradation and ruin of the nation. The hon. Member for Barrow said that the worst system in the world was the system of excise in India. But in England we are doing the same thing. It is worse in India in this way, because the educated public opinion of India is against it. Here educated public opinion is not against it; the condemnation comes from the lower orders. Every drinking shop in this country is licensed not by the working people, but by the gentry, and the guilt lies as much at their door as at the door of those who take the drink. The tempter is as guilty as the tempted. The Prime Minister said, "I will speak no evil of public-houses," and, of course, he did not. The question raised by my hon. Friend's Motion to-night is, are we to bring about the same state of things in India as we have in England—are we to make it a drunken country? I forget who it was that said that if we came away from India the epitaph of our rule there would be— "England found India sober and left it drunk." The Under Secretary says that the state of things is
  862
  not so bad as we think, and that the amount spent in drink is only equal to sixpence per head of the population; but it is bad enough, and the alarming feature is that year by year it is growing worse, and no evidence has been adduced against that of my hon. Friend's, that the increase in the consumption of drink is going on all over India as a whole. Why do I say it is, if possible, worse to go on in this manner in India than we do in England? First of all, because we are forcing a new custom upon the people. It is not the custom of India to drink beer and such things. Next, it is absolutely against their religion. The hon. Member for Marylebone, who was recently over in India, told me that there was a regiment of soldiers quartered there, two-thirds of whom were teetotallers, and the greatest order prevailed amongst them. A native of India, talking to the hon. Member about this regiment, asked of what religion they were. "They are Christians," was the answer. "Impossible," said the Hindoo, "they behave so well." Well, Sir, everybody would behave well, I believe, if you could only keep drink from them. Not only, I say, are we flying in the face of the customs of the natives of India and of their religion, but as the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) pointed out, we are forcing these drink shops upon a population perhaps the poorest in the world, and who will suffer even more if led into drinking habits than our own people do at home. It seems to me very surprising that this House should hesitate at all as to the necessity of passing this Resolution, because what did we do just a year ago? Last year we passed a Resolution, which I have carried about in my pocket ever since, because it is about the best thing that has been done in this Parliament. It gives hope for the future, and encourages every friend of temperance throughout the kingdom. The resolution, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, was supported in an eloquent speech by the sugar-bounty man, the right hon. Member for Liverpool (Baron de Worms) and not a single speech was made against it. The resolution was—
  "That this House having regard to the disastrous physical and moral effects of the liquor traffic among uncivilized races, as well

  863
  as the injury it inflicts upon legitimate commerce, will cordially support the Imperial and Colonial Governments in their endeavours to suppress the traffic in spirituous liquors with natives in native territories."
  ["Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear that the House still supports that Resolution. But I want to know why natives should be protected above everybody else. I have asked at public meetings whether we are not all natives of some place or other; and I cannot see why this House should be kind and charitable to Zulus, Hottentots and savages, and not extend its kindness to the people of this country, and in this case to the people of India. If any one speaks on the Ministerial Bench again to-day, I hope he will tell us what has been done with regard to this resolution. It is all very well to pass resolutions, but I should like to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir J. Fergusson) what has been done to carry them out. Has he written any despatch or formulated any Statute to carry out the Resolution we unanimously passed with such delight a year ago? But whether he has done anything or not, here we have an opportunty to-night of re-enforcing that Resolution and doing something which will give still greater encouragement to people out of doors. Though a Resolution in itself is not much, it is a promise of good, and will encourage all those who are working to benefit the people. All we want is to stop the practice of forcing this temptation on the people of India. I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir R. Lethbridge). That hon. Member played the part of Baalam, and blessed us all round; and I trust his speech will give as much satisfaction to the people of India as it did to hon. Members on this side of the House. With regard to the views of the natives of India themselves, I remember, in the time of the late Mr. Fawcett, on a Committee inquiring into questions affecting India, getting from a witness a statement to the effect that the natives were dead against the drink shops, and would get rid of them altogether if they had the power to do so. I sincerely trust the House will pass this Resolution. It is no light matter. Did not the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the House of Lords a short time ago,
  864
  declare that the drink traffic is about as injurious as slavery itself? Well, I hope the House will pass this Resolution by a good majority, because it will strengthen the hands of the Government in dealing with the liquor question in India, promote temperance, and show that this country does not look upon the people of India merely as machines to produce revenue.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Once more I lay my tribute of flowers of speech on the benign altars of my old antagonists, the hon. Mover and the hon. Seconder of this Resolution. It appears that once more the ancient soil of India has been trodden for several weeks by the classic feet of the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine). I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Flintshire has recently renewed his acquaintance with India, but the hon. Member has been there; and those two Members may say, with reference to their visits to India, "Veni, vidi, vici—I went to India and observed her wrongs and her evils and shortcomings, and lo! I have triumphed over them all by my eloquent tongue and glowing pen." Both these hon. Members, as the House will recollect, have flung very freely a charge of bias across to the occupants of these benches. I beg the House to be kind enough to recollect how forcibly they made out their case that all of us who have had the honour of serving our Queen and country in our Eastern Empire are biassed on this question and all other cognate questions. But if this charge of bias may be made in this manner, it can be rebuked in the same way. I venture to say that this particular imputation, mild as it is, will recoil on the heads of both these hon. Members. I desire to speak with the greatest respect and regard of the hon. Member for Flintshire, who is as true a humanitarian as exists inside or outside of this House; but I appeal to the recollection of the House, as to whether it is not a fact that the hon. Gentleman paints in the darkest and gloomiest colours every case which he presents for our consideration. I venture to say, therefore, that his statements are highly overcharged and exaggerated, and that in this case he has filled up the goblet to overflowing, and has poured out the vials of his indignation over the heads of the Indian

  865
  officials, just as he did on a former occasion over the heads of the educational authorities in the principal towns of England. We may imagine, if the hon. Member who seconded the Resolution were to paint in the colours which he has used to-night the social condition in reference to intemperance in the metropolitan area, what a case he would make of it. The House can, therefore, judge what sort of case he is making out for India, and if they will not accept the hon. Member's statement without some sort of mental reservation regarding England, neither will they accept it regarding India. I should like to say a word regarding the Government of India. Both these hon. Members read out a despatch from the Viceroy in Council, and they seemed to imply that that despatch was written in ignorance—in ignorance almost verging on insincerity. I would ask the House whether the great machine set up by Parliament and this very Legislature that I have now the honour of addressing, and presided over by one of the greatest statesmen and most eminent noblemen of the day, deserves to be described in these terms. I would ask the House whether it believes that those responsible for the administration of Her Majesty's Government in India, with all its mighty interests, would have written a despatch which could be justly described by the words used by those hon. Members. If the servants of the Crown are to blame in this matter, I am one of them. I am as much answerable as anybody, because it has been my lot to govern more than half of the great Dependency at different times. The various populations under my Government have numbered at least a hundred and five millions, and I declare on my honour before you, Sir, and this House, that throughout my career I have acted on those principles which were set forth by the Viceroy in his Despatch, and by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, as quoted by the Under-Secretary this evening. One of the hon. Members opposite was good enough to say that we who have risen to the top of the ladder, or to the uppermost branches of the tree, have risen solely by increasing and augmenting the revenue. I am quite unaware that I owe my rise in life to anything of the kind. If I were to attribute it to any particular cause I should attribute it
  866
  rather to services on the frontier, to pushing on the railways, to saving life from famine, and to the management of difficult diplomatic missions, and also no doubt to the management of finances, although not to matters connected with fiscal administration. The hon. Member may say that I may have attempted to repress drinking by means of taxation, but that my endeavours were not supported by my subordinates. I ask the House whether I look the sort of man (laughter); I repeat do I look the sort of man likely to give orders and not see them carried out? There are some hon. Members present who have served under me, and there are many others more or less cognizant of my career, and I would ask them to tell the House whether my orders could be safely disobeyed. I am no better than those who have gone before me, or than my brother officers who are administering India. I am only a specimen of the class to which I belong. The House must remember that India is a country abounding with materials for the manufacture of liquor. Liquor can be distilled from every kind of grain, and has been so distilled for thousands of years. The bark of its trees, the sap of its leaves, and the flowers of its shrubs, supply India with materials for the distillation of liquor; and therefore I imagine that the amount of illicit manufacture which would go on unless repressive processes were applied would be enormous. I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir R. Lethbridge), for whose opinion I have the greatest respect, say that illicit manufacture is a bogey. I say it is a reality, and I ask the House of Commons whether it is likely that a population who has understood the art of brewing from time immemorial, and who has a passion for strong drink, would leave untouched and unused all those materials of which I have spoken. Hon. Members opposite, and some even on this side of the House have spoken of local option and total prohibition, and have recommended that powers to deal with those questions should be made over to the new municipalities, or perhaps even to those native congresses which have recently assembled. Local option may be of some use in this country, where the majority cannot tyrannize over the minority. Un-

  867
  doubtedly, the majority of the people of India are in favour of total abstinence, but a certain minority is of the other way of thinking and practising. If local option were allowed, the majority would undoubtedly stop the liquor shops, and, mark this, what would be the consequence? The majority having no means of stopping illicit practices, any amount of unlicensed distillation would go on. If we had total prohibition, who is to enforce it? I confess that not even I, myself, with all my administrative power, would undertake such a task as to stop every still that might be set up from one end of India to the other. Every grove of palm trees, every cottage, every field, every outlying jungle, would teem with stills and shops under no check. What police would be required for such a purpose, and what odious inquisition, and what manifold evils and corruption would arise from that inquisition ! Even if we did succeed in enforcing total abstinence and total prohibition in British India, we could not do so in the native States. The argument that native opinion is against drink is refuted by the fact that every native State has its drink establishments. There was more smuggling of opium from the Gaikwar's territory than any other place under my control in Bombay. Had native opinion been against that system, the native Government which preceded us would have abolished it. Was there not drinking, and was there not an excess of taxation of every kind and sort found by us when we conquered India, and are not those systems as old as the history of India itself? My hon. Friend, the Member for Cumberland, has said that drinking is opposed to the religion of the people of India. Now, luckily, I have fortified myself with what I conceive to be the very best Native opinion to be obtained on that matter. I refer to Rajêndra Lala Mitra, who is, I believe, one of the most learned and accomplished Hindus of this generation. He is profoundly versed in all the ancient religious beliefs of his country, and is a master not only of the Indian classics, but also of our Western tongue. In his elaborate work on the Indo-Aryans he has a chapter on "The Spirituous Drinks of Ancient India;" and he writes without bias either way—without any theory to sustain or to overthrow—and merely with the intent
  868
  to portray Hindu manners by citations from authoritative writings. After some discussion, he goes on to say—
  "Elders, anchorites, sages, and learned men, forming· the bulk of the priestly class, doubt- less abstained from them (spirituous drinks), as they do now; so did a good number of thousand respectable householders; but they constituted only a fraction of the sum total of the community. And Sanscrit literature, both ancient and mediaeval, leaves no room for doubt as to wine having been very extensively used in this country at all times and by all classes."
  A quotation from classical poetry runs thus—
  "How will you, dear one, of wine-reddened eye, who have quaffed delightful liquor, drink the mist-befouled water which I offer with my tears?"
  In one of the Sacred Books, a goddess, girding herself to prepare for combat with a demon, says, "Roar, roar, ye fool, for a moment only, till I finish my drinking." After adverting to the authority of the Tantra Books in modern Hinduism, our author cites several passages, from which I select one, thus: Siva, the god, says—
  "O sweet-speaking goddess, the salvation of Brahmins depends on drinking wine. I impart to you a truth, oh mountain born, when I say that the Brahmin who attends to drinking forthwith becomes a god. True knowledge can never be acquired, goddess dear, without drinking wine. Therefore should Brahmins always drink."
  And again—
  "Whoever after being initiated in the salvation-giving spell, fails to drink wine is a fallen man in this iron age."
  Lastly, our author after describing the supposed effects of the Soma beer upon the Celestials, adds that —
  "The effect of this liquor upon the gods could only have been assumed from the knowledge of what it was upon the worshippers."
  I have only culled just a few of these flowers out of many in order to show the House what a fallacy it is to suppose that the use of liquor is abhorent to native sentiment or native religion. Now, as regards the system of which the hon. Member (Mr. Caine) complains. He spoke of it as instituted in 1830. It is as old as the Indian history. Does he suppose that the word Abkar is Anglo-Indian? Not at all. It is good old Persian, and is as old as the word "Mogul" itself. One system after another of distillation has been done away with. We adopted the central distillation system, and the hon. ' Member has denounced that. Then we

  869
  go to the outstill system, and he denounced that. He attacks them in detail. He reminds me of the gim boy, for whom the strokes of punishment were either too high or too low, until he was not struck at all. No system whatever would suit the hon. Gentleman, so that we would have the people using liquor unchecked from one end of the country to the other. But this distillery system has this great advantage. It brings the manufacturer and the retailer of spirits under absolute supervision. We know exactly what liquor is or is not made, and how much has been consumed. We can carefully regulate and calculate the quantities according to the demand of the various localities; we are able to ascertain that so much liquor is required, and so much and no more is issued and sold to the people. On the whole, that is the very best system you could have, if you are to have any system at all, and not to leave the people unchecked. I admit, of course, in this, as in all other respects, there are dangers, because you may have a farmer who tells you he wants the liquor, and he may push the sale. Still, if you are to have a system at all, it is hardly possible to devise a better one than that, provided always it can be carried out in a judicious and prudent manner. Then we come to the question of outstills. I found that, during the time I was at Bengal, the central distillery system was in operation, but in those days it was being discovered that in certain outlying parts of the country the liquor was got from the central distillery, and so we had to regulate the consumption and bring it under control. I am shocked to bear that my successor has adopted the outstill system for many of the most densely populated parts. I have read some reports of what happened, and, though I must say they are greatly exaggerated, nevertheless more harm than good has been done by that attempt. A great source of error in exaggeration are misleading terms. It was complained to the Government that men are becoming drunkards who were once sober. It turns out that they misunderstood the English "drunk" and the English "sober." By "drunk" they meant that a man took a moderate amount of liquor, and by sober "they meant a man who never touched liquor at all. So the House will readily see that there was great exaggeration. I am not
  870
  at all prepared to defend the outstill system. My impression is that it should be restricted as it was in my time, and in the time of my hon. predecessor, and that it should gradually be withdrawn. I hope I understand the Under Secretary correctly that it is being or has been withdrawn, though the withdrawal is rather late. It is doubtless true that in some cases where they substitute a cheap and diluted liquor for pure liquor the impression is raised that more liquor is being drunk than was the case before; but if the duty is increased the only effect will be that you will get, I will not say a maximum of revenue with a maximum of consumption, but a larger revenue without an increase of consumption. With regard to the question of increase of outstills, I admit that I am not prepared to defend that system in Bengal. In my own time, and in the time of my predecessors, in the Government of Bengal it was considerably restricted, and my impression is that it ought now to be entirely withdrawn. I have no figures with me in regard to the alleged increased consumption of drink in Bombay, but I do happen to have brought with me some figures with regard to the state of things in Madras; and I will just quote some facts from the appendix to the able Report of Mr. John Buckland. What does that gentleman show? He shows that in the year 1882–83 there were 1,200,000 gallons of under-proof spirit consumed in that Presidency. while in the year 1887–88, the consumption had risen to 1,350,000 gallons, or an increase of 150,000 gallons, which is, after all, only a very small increase during a period of six years, especially when we consider the freedom from famine that has prevailed during that period, and the marked increase that has taken place in the population, the result really being that the consumption has been kept down although the revenue has been rising. Some remarks have been made about the Bombay system, and it has been stated that the consumption has increased in seven years from two to two and three-quarter millions. I think that this is a remarkably infinitesimal increase when we have regard to the enormous growth of the population and the increase of wealth especially among the working classes. After all, from the figures quoted by

  871
  the Under Secretary of State for India, the increased consumption only amounts to about 600,000 gallons among a population of 650,000, which is less than 8 pints per bead per annum, and an almost homœopathic increase per diem. With regard to what has been said about Assam, I would remark that that is one of those places in which, as there is a tendency to drink among the class of labourers on the tea plantations, it is desirable that great care should be taken. But with regard to the allegation that drunkenness is increasing in India, I for one entirely disbelieve it. It is some years since I left that country, but from my knowledge of the people up to that time I venture emphatically to deny the charge, and I speak from a knowledge that I do not think can be easily controverted. Moreover, I firmly believe that the people of India still continue to deserve, as they have done for ages, the character of being upon the whole, a sober and temperate people. I hope before the debate closes we shall hear the evidence which can be furnished by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Colonel Hill) who has travelled from one end of India to the other, and who can tell the House what he saw and heard during his investigations. Not only do I feel certain that drunkenness is not on the increase in India, but I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to furnish a single fact drawn from the authentic statistics of the country or from private information that can be sustained by examination and inquiry which will confirm the theory or allegation that drunkenness is increasing in that portion of the British Empire. Remember that in England any grocer who can get a licence may sell spirituous drink, and in recent years there has been legislation which has fostered private brewing by exempting these small brewers from taxation. The result is that even in my own country there are many thousands of these private brewers. 'What would be the result if you adopted a like policy in India? I maintain that we have been far more careful of the moral interests of our people in India than we have been of the people in our own country. The mover and the seconder of the Motion have depicted the evils in the most exaggerated manner and through the dark green spectacles of the teetotal cause. As far as I can remember, the
  872
  mover of the Motion made no suggestion either in the direction of total prohibition or local option, but the hon. Member for Barrow suggested that the taxation of European spirits imported into India should be raised. That is a mild proposal which I should not object to, and we may as well make that suggestion an acceptable present to the Under Secretary. Further, the hon. Member also recommends the doing away with the outstill system in Bengal. But nowhere except in Bengal does the outstill system exist to any appreciable extent. It has been condemned by the Government of India, and it is in course of being abolished.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: It still exists in Bombay.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Only in very remote parts of the province, and it is being done away with. Remember, this is not the first time it has been condemned in this House. It is, after all, only the old, old story. Thus the hon. Members who have spoken have in reality thrown no fresh light on this subject. I do agree, however, that some inquiry should be made as to the opium dens mentioned by the hon. Member for Barrow. Either the evidence of the hon. Member should be taken, or a report of his speech should be sent to the Government of India in order that inquiry should be made as to whether a stop could not be put to these places. I deny, however, that the Indian Government have anything to do with those dens beyond taxing them. And finally I come to the question of prohibition. I do not think that is possible, and I do not believe that the missionaries advocate it. I admit that these missionaries' reports deserve careful attention; and when I lived in India I was always ready to investigate thoroughly any matters which they brought before me, because I know how well informed they are. I do deprecate most strongly the over strong language of the resolution. What possible good can come from flinging such charges at the head of a high authority like the Viceroy? If this House wishes to evince a high sense of public policy and national morality, let it strengthen the hands of the Government of India by declaring its approval of the despatches of the Viceroy and of the Secretary of State, which accurately lay down the fiscal and moral principles involved in the case. Let it content itself with affirming those noble

  873
  and judicious principles so well set forth, and thus strengthen the hands of the Government of India in the performance of a very difficult task. We would not then lay ourselves open to misconstruction and misconception, and I believe we would far better perform our duty to England and to her mighty Empire in the East by agreeing to a judicious modification of my hon. Friend's resolution.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have listened with great interest and instruction to the speech of the hon. Member, who always speaks with such authority on matters relating to Indian administration, but I have failed to gather from the speech of the hon. Gentleman or that of the Under Secretary any argument against the Resolution. I do not understand either of those hon. Gentlemen to deny that there is great room for improvement in the fiscal system in India with reference to the liquor traffic. Now this is a subject common to both sides of the House, and the question is whether it is well or whether it is not that the House of Commons should pronounce an opinion in that direction which may both strengthen the hands of the Government at home and stimulate the action of the Government of India. That I conceive to be the position we are in to-day. The last speaker has told us that if there were Local Option in India the liquor shops would be shut up. What does that mean except that the great majority of the people of India are against that traffic? In that respect they seem to be superior to their own gods and goddesses, and to the teaching of the Brahmins which the hon. Baronet has expounded with such learning to the House. The great majority of the people of India now appear not only to be abstainers themselves, but wish the system of abstinence to be general. The responsibility of England in this matter is therefore very great. We are the absolute governors of India, and the people of India have no representative institution in which this question can be fought out between the majority and the minority. The hon. Member for Evesham has said that if we did not have this traffic we should have illicit distillation; but I imagine that where the sentiment of the great mass of the population is adverse to the traffic you would have the greatest
  874
  security against illicit distillation-Remember that illicit distillation generally exists where the sympathy of the people is with the drink, and not where it is against it. I should like to know how you stop it now. The Under Secretary for India tells us we have a tax of 600 per cent on liquor. Now that is a great temptation to distillation, and, if people want to drink, illicit distillation must be expected to exist with such a tax as that. The methods by which you prevent it now may be used to prevent it under a different system. The hon. Member for Evesham has, I think, done injustice to his own administrative ability when he declares that to stop illicit distillation is an impossibility. He has said that drinking might be introduced into Assam. Now that is a practical illustration of what is being done under the English Government. We have conferred great blessings upon India. No doubt we have given her a just administration to which she was not accustomed. Still we are in danger of bringing to her also evils and vices which are unfortunately the effects of our civilization. Therefore, we are especially bound to be very careful in this matter. The Under Secretary has endeavoured rather to minimize the matter than to argue against this Resolution. He has said that the amount of the expenditure per head of the whole population averages only 3d.
  SIR J. GORST: That is the amount of the duty paid.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The fallacy of that argument has already been pointed out, because, although only a small part of the population drinks, you spread the amount over the whole population. We are, however, dealing with an extremely poor people, who live on a handful of rice, and whose clothing is a single rag; and 3d. per head to them is probably more than 3s. to an English labourer. You must be careful lest you introduce and encourage a system which creates habits of drinking that do not now exist among them. I have listened to what has fallen from the Under Secretary and the hon. Member for Evesham, and I am not satisfied that there is not more drinking in India now than there was previous to English rule there. I was a little surprised that the Under Secretary was only able to give us the figures as to the Island of Bombay. With all their

  875
  knowledge and authority, the Government in a debate of this character ought to have laid before the House figures showing whether drinking is actually greater or less than it was, and we had a right to expect a statement of that nature from the Government.
  SIR J. GORST: The right hon. Gentleman's Government did not collect the statistics which would be requisite for a comparison.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What is the use of a miserable tu quoque like that? The present Government have been three years in office, and this question has been debated in the House before.
  SIR J. GORST: The Government have statistics for the last two years, but not the figures of earlier years to compare with them.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am sorry that the Under Secretary should have endeavoured to bring the debate to a miserable retort of this kind. I had myself been trying to argue the question in a different tone. I had said nothing against the Government, but I was speaking of the responsibilities of England towards India. I desired to introduce nothing in the way of Party recrimination. I asked, and again I ask, is drinking increasing among the native populations of India or is it not? We have no information on that point, which lies at the root of the whole subject. What are we asked by this Resolution to do? The hon. Member who has just sat down says there is advantage in the present fiscal system, and that the Government can regulate the amount of liquor imported. That is a curious statement, but I want to know on what basis the Government of India act in determining how much liquor shall be drunk. Does the hon. Member for Evesham with all his experience say that the matter is satisfactory as it stands at present? He admitted that it is not satisfactory in Bengal. The Resolution is in no way an attack upon the Indian Government, but simply a warning to them to be extremely careful on the subject of the liquor traffic. The object of the Resolution is to induce the Government of Bombay to move faster in effecting those reforms which the hon. Member for Evesham admits to be necessary. Therefore having listened to this debate I regard the Resolution not as an attack on the Government but rather as a declaration on the part of the
  876
  House of Commons that nothing should be done by the Government of India which would in any way tend to increase habits of intemperance among the native population. Regarding it in that sense, and convinced of the necessity for such a Resolution more by the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Evesham and of the Under Secretary than by those of the Mover and Seconder, I shall give my vote in favour of it.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAS. FERGUSSON,): I hope the House will allow me, in the few moments left to us, to reply to the somewhat extraordinary speech to which we have just listened. I should be the first to recognize the good intentions and philanthropic efforts of the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, but their assertions have been met by most remarkable disproof on the part of the Under Secretary for India. My hon. Friend has shown that in a most remarkable degree a check has been put upon the consumption of liquor by the control of Government, and that the system, which has led in some districts to an increased consumption, has been altered. He has shown that in the best districts of India there have been such measures taken as have resulted in an increase of the revenue simultaneously with a great reduction in the consumption of spirits, notably in Bombay. I may also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the same result, though in a less remarkable degree, has taken place in Calcutta. I have only the return for two successive years, 1886–87 and 1887–88. The consumption in the first year was 200,000 gallons, and the revenue 669,000 rupees; and in the second year the consumption had fallen to 180,000 gallons, while the revenue had gone up to 748,000 rupees. It has been shown that the Government of Bengal are amending the system of outstills—the system which alone would justify the remarks of the hon. Member for Flint-shire. The District Revenue Officers have jealously objected to an increase of the drink shops, and there is an earnest desire on their part to raise the moral and material condition of the people in every particular. In face of these facts, ought the House to pass the vote of censure on the Government of India

  877
  which is contained in the resolution? The hon. Member for Flintshire would not further a good cause by ignoring all the good intentions and effects exhibited in recent years. I think the House will see it would do a great injustice by passing the resolution, and, instead of thus condemning the Government, would it not be worthier to give it encouragement and support in the performance of its difficult and responsible duties?
  The House divided: —Ayes, 113; Noes, 103.—(Division List, No. 89).
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the fiscal system of the Government of India leads to the establishment of spirit distilleries, liquor and opium shops in large numbers of places where till recently they never existed, in defiance of Native opinion and the protests of the inhabitants, and that such increased facilities for drinking produce a steadily increasing consumption, and spread misery and ruin among the industrial classes of India, calling for immediate action on the part of the Government of India with a view to their abatement.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES.
  Resolutions [29th April] reported.

  CLASS II.
  (1.) "That a sum, not exceeding £48,751 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, and also the Expenses of the Statute Law and State Trials Reports Committees."
  Resolution agreed to.
  (2.) "That a sum, not exceeding £79,668, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Sectetary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
  Question proposed, "That the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  *MR. B. COLERIDGE: In consequence of my not moving my amendment on this Vote yesterday, the House was enabled to pass the Vote, and practically some time was saved. I now desire to move the amendment, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secre-
  878
  tary (Mr. Matthews), as it is a matter that must take some time, and as we were not aware what would be the result of the motion moved to-day with reference to the taking of report of supply after twelve o'clock, to allow the Vote to be postponed. As the right hon. Gentleman does not indicate his views on the subject, I must move the Amendment that stands in my name—namely, to reduce the salary of the Inspector under the Vivisection Act of 1876 by the sum of £50. The Act of 1876, which was passed in consequence of a feeling that some restriction should be placed on operations on living animals, was really a compromise, and did not meet the views of either one side or the other on the question of vivisection. The object of the opponents of vivisection is that the Act should be thoroughly efficient, and in order to do that, we maintain that the Inspector should be a man who has a real desire to limit as far as the Act permits operations upon living animals. The present Inspector is not such a person. Under any circumstances the reports which he submits must be entirely framed on the reports of the persons who perform the operations. Since this gentleman has been appointed, the object and aim has obviously been to accept those reports as gospel truth, without inquiry and investigation as to whether or not they can be depended upon. When Sir Erasmus Wilson left a handsome bequest for the furtherance of science, a number of gentlemen signed a round robin to the Royal College of Surgeons, who were intrusted with the disposal of the money, desiring that the money should be devoted to the purpose of providing a nation al physiological laboratory, and one of the clauses of this round robin contained this re-mark:—
  "It is a national discredit that we have nothing in London like the splendid laboratories which exist not only in the capital cities of Europe, but in comparatively small towns such as Bonn, Strasburg, and Leipsic."
  I will give the House some indications of the character of laboratories which these gentlemen thinks it a national discredit we do not possess. This is the sort of thing which the Inspector under the Act is anxious to see repeated in this country. I quote a document which describes what is going on in

  879
  Strasburg. In that town there lives a Professor Goltz, and I find he
  "introduced a new method by which larger portions of the brain were torn away and washed out by means of heated spring water, after the skull had been pierced in several places. The crater-shaped cavities thus formed were washed out. A dog with five holes bored in the head, and with the loss of nearly half a brain lived from February 14th to March 15th. Only young dogs are suitable for these experiments, and he says No one has succeeded in destroying the brain so extensively and handling it so roughly, while still preserving the creature's life as myself. In the case of several mutilated dogs, I decided to put out the left sound eye, in order to estimate correctly the functions of the eye maimed by the loss of the brain.' On the 8th November, 1875, two holes bored in the head of a bull dog, and the brain washed away. The animal becomes blind with the right eye. On December 11th, I took the left eye·ball out. Fresh disturbance of the brain on the 5th of February, this time on the right side; dies on February 15th."
  Then we have an account of
  "a very clever, lively, young female dog which had learnt to shake hands with both fore paws,"
  and which
  "had the left side of the brain washed out through two holes on the 1st of December, 1875."
  Here is Professor Goltz again—
  "After I had laid bare the bone behind the ear of the pigeon. I bored out bit by bit, with the help of a sharp hollow chisel, the ear labyrinths on both sides of the head. In those cases where I endeavoured to destroy entirely both labyrinths, the birds died soon after the operation, with violent rolling movements or somersaults."
  Describing another operation on a dog, he says:—
  "The sanguinary part of the operation begins with the insertion of the cannula to supply artificial respiration."
  The insertion of the cannula proves that the drug curare, which destroys all movement, while leaving sensation absolutely unimpaired, was administered.
  "Then the right carotid artery is dissected out. Afterwards, while artificial respiration is being set up, a square opening is made in the left wall of the chest with a knife and the bone scissors. The opening is extended far into the right pleural cavity, and widened downwards, till it reaches the diaphragm, which is severed from the ribs. After this the catheter is introduced from the right carotis into the aorta, and from thence to the left ventricle of the heart. We have repeated this experiment six times."
  This is the class of experiments that goes On in Strasburg. The operations at Leipsic are still more horrible. I find
  880
  that the spinal cords of two dogs were severed, and after some weeks they were scalded. The animals survived the scalding for six or ten days, and then. after a continual fall of temperature died from putrefaction. Three other dogs whose spinal cords had been cut through, survived the subsequent scalding three days, one week, and three weeks respectively. A large sheep dog succumbed 36 hours after having its hind quarters immersed three times in scalding water. A young, active, and very lively dog, which had survived the infusion of blood from a scalded dog 31 days previously, was scalded for 45 seconds in water at 100 degrees centigrade (boiling point), up to the middle of its body. Experiment 21—rabbit scalded. The animal groans. Is bled to death after one hour and ten minutes. Experiment 31—a dog burnt for 30 seconds in boiling water. On the next day morose, very dejected, no appetite. Died 44 hours after the burning. Then we have a young, active dog, subjected to transfusion of the blood of a scalded dog. Four days afterwards it was much exhausted, staggered on its feet, perhaps from hunger, and was killed. Violent scalding of a dog. It died after eight hours. Young active dog killed on the fourth day after the injection of overheated blood. These are only instances of numberless cases of the same character. Well, Sir, we say that any man who says it is a national discredit that England does not possess laboratories similar to those at Strasburg and Leipsic, is absolutely unfit to be an Inspector under an Act, the object of which is to prevent cruelty to animals. Now, Sir, will it be believed that this Gentleman who has been appointed to be not a partizan but a judge, is an old vivisector himself? He was one of the Royal Commission, and. no one who reads his evidence can fail to see that his whole object was to reexamine from the point of view of the vivisectors all the witnesses who had been pulled to pieces in cross- examination. I find that in connection with. Dr. Sharping the Inspector conducted some experiments regarding asphyxia—which means seeing how long animals will live before they they are finally choked. I am aware that it is exceedingly difficult to find out whether the reports of experiments are or are not. to be believed. We have been refused

  881
  permission by the Home Office to see who does and who does not hold licences under the Act. We have asked to be allowed to inspect the places that are licensed under the Act for the performance of experiments, and we have again been refused. Lately the gentlemen who make these experiments have ingeniously refrained from giving the dates, nor do they as a rule give the places. I take the report of the Inspector for 1888, and I find that Dr. John A. McWilliam is put down as having operated upon 12 animals. He holds a simple licence. He has only operated in this last year because this is the only year in which he has held a license. In the Journal of Physiology of this year—Vol. IX.—I find a report given by this gentleman of his operations. He begins by saying: "The following investigation was conducted on the hearts of various mammals—cats, dogs, rabbits, hedgehogs, guinea-pigs, and rats." He says the experiments were performed "partly on the excised heart" and "partly on the heart in situ." Any experiments on the heart in situ must be conducted while the animal is alive. Then he say "artificial respiration was employed." This speaks volumes to us, because artificial respiration is only necessary where the drug curare is employed. This drug, as I have already said, does not destroy sensation though it takes away all motive power. What we say is that curare, when employed with any other drug, renders the anæsthetic absolutely valueless. It is impossible to say when the effect of the anæsthetic has passed. What these gentlemen do is to strap the animal down, give it a whiff of chloroform and administer curare, after which it remains motionless till the end of the operation. Well, he says: "The chest was laid open; in some cases the pericardial sac was left intact, but in most of my experiments it was opened and the heart fully exposed." Then, he says: "As the result of a large number of experiments on the mammalian heart, I find," so and so. Another of his statements is: "In the second series of experiments the heart was examined in situ, with the normal circulation going on;" and another: "My observations on the action of the mammalian heart as seen after the thorax has been opened lead me to conclude," &c. Then, he says: "In mammals (cat and rabbit) I
  882
  have made a considerable number of experiments on this point." The House may take it from me that in that case the heart was in situ. Speaking of another experiment, he says: "I have on several occasions performed such experiments." Well, I say that no reasonable man could read all this and come to the conclusion that they represent experiments upon 12 animals and 12 animals only. Sir, these experiments involve practically the turning of animals inside out. And in view of the facts which I have quoted to the Committee, I venture to submit that unless you have an Inspector, who is, so to speak, a suspicious Inspector and who will not take these gentlemen's reports as prima facie evidence without investigation, you are not doing your duty and carrying out the spirit of the Act. I have gone carefully into this matter, and I believe that at present the Act is doing more harm than good, because it has lulled public suspicion, and prevented people from believing the things which are going on. You have made them think that these things do not occur. I have very nearly come to an end of what I have to say, but there are just one or two matters further, which I should like to touch upon. I must again refer to this Report. It is an extraordinary document, and I ask the attention of the Home Secretary to it with a view to explaining its terms. In the first place, it divides the certificates held by each licencee under five heads, which are numbered respectively, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. But in another part of the report you have six divisions headed respectively, a, b, c, d, e, and f, and I have tried to find out what f is supposed to represent. It does seem to me most curious that having divided one part of the Report under five heads represented by numerals, you should in another part have six heads represented by letters. But now, Sir, I come to the language of the Report itself. This gentleman has been an inspector who does not inspect, although usually the first function of an inspector is to inspect. Well he has this year, and I hope not for the last time, although it is the first, inspected. But there is not much use in his inspecting a laboratory if it is known beforehand that he intends to do so, and still less is it of any use to inspect it when there is nothing going on, because a mere inspection of the

  883
  place of experimenting, and of the elaborate and carefully prepared instruments which are devised with the horrid ingenuity of man for the carrying out of these experiments is not what was contemplated by the Act. He says:—
  "In table 1 will be found the list of places registered in different buildings, and all these places have been visited by me during the past year and found to be well adapted for the purpose for which they were licensed."
  Does he mean they are airy, light, or what? Does he mean that the instruments are efficient and the knives sharp, and that they were well adapted for the purpose of the licencee? And then he adds:
  "The arrangements for the comfort of the animals were in every way satisfactory."
  Did any one ever hear such language? Does he mean that the animals are comfortable when being operated upon? Does he mean that they are comfortable before dying or after the operation? That they are comfortable before the operation is not at all unsual, because one of the leading lights in the vivisection world has recommended vivisectors to carefully prepare their patients, to take young and active animals and feed them well before they are operated upon. because the more lively and vigorous they are at the time of the operation, the better the scientific result. Therefore, no doubt, these gentlemen treat the animals well before they op rate upon them. I do ask any fair minded man whether such a statement in what is supposed to be an unbiassed Report is not a public outrage and a matter calling for comment on the spirit which actuates an official who is appointed for the purpose of pev enting cruelty to these animals. Now the inspector continues in his report:—
  "One of the main objects of the Act was to secure the avoidance of pain being inflicted on living animals that were the subject of experiment, and my attention has been especially directed to the efficient carrying out of this provision of the Act."
  Sir, I wish to ask in what way has the attention of the inspector been specially directed to this matter. He says:—
  "It is important to observe that comparatively few vivisections properly so-called, that is to say experiments involving a distinct surgical operation on a living animal, have been practised during the past year."
  Now, Sir, we say that we have good reason to doubt the correctness of this part of the Report. The Report should
  884
  be unbiassed, and the man who is an inspector under the Act ought, if anything, to sympathize with the animals whom he is placed there to guard and see that they are not in any way unnecessarily operated upon. I do not propose now, Sir, to enter into the main question of vivisection. It is not material to this debate. I have only directed attention to facts connected with this Report, and I think that the facts which I have laid before this House justify me in saying that we ought now to take a stand and insist that the Act shall be properly carried out. We believe that the only safeguard—the only way in which it can be properly carried into effect, is by having as an inspector, a man who is not the creature and the chosen inspector of those whom he is appointed to inspect. He ought to be, rather, out of harmony with their desires, and in harmony with those who take the part of the animals. My point is that he is not the right man for the post, because at heart he is a friend of vivisectors.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£79,668" in order to insert "£79,618."—(Mr. Bernard Coleridge.)
  Question proposed, "That '£79,668 ' stand part of the Resolution."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have rarely heard the privileges of the House more entirely abused than by the personal attack which the hon. and learned Member has thought fit to make upon a scientific man of great eminence who has for ten or twelve years discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of successive Secretaries of State. The hon. and learned Gentleman has based his attack as far as I can gather on a statement by the inspector that he thinks a laboratory of vivisection in this country would assist in scientific research, and therefore be a desirable thing, and in order to give venom to that charge he referred to a number of things which Professor Erichsen has no more to do with than the hon. and learned Member himself. I venture to say that the Professor is no more connected with the experiments which have been conducted at Strasbourg than is the hon. and learned Member. He has had nothing to do with those cruel and unjustifiable experiments. The hon. and learned

  885
  Member has suppressed entirely the fact that, under the Vivisection Act, the things he mentioned are impossible in this country. He did not tell the House that curare is not allowed as an anæsthetic in this country, and he describes experiments which are absolutely prohibited in this country.
  *MR. B. COLERIDGE: They are not.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Home Office never grants certificates for experiments on cats and dogs except certain certificates of fitness are forthcoming, and the Act declares that curare shall not be an anæsthetic. Therefore, these experiments are illegal and may be followed by penal consequences, and I assure the hon. Member I should not hesitate to prosecute any man detected in carrying them out in this country. The hon. and learned Member will find that Dr. J. A. McWilliam does not hold Certificate E, and therefore he could not have performed these experiments in this country.
  *MR. B. COLERIDGE: Dr. McWilliam tens us himself that these experiments were made in the University of Aberdeen.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes the twelve were, but the hon. Member himself read from the article accounts that apparently related to many more than twelve experiments. Dr. McWilliam only went by Certificate C, which does not enable a man to perform an experiment on a dog or a cat. In England, under the Vivisection Act, a man cannot perform such an experiment without having Certificate E, and if he does so he does an illegal act, and undoubtedly would be prosecuted.
  *MR. B. COLERIDGE: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me. Any man who holds a simple license can vivisect a dog or cat under an anæsthetic.
  MR. MATTHEWS: But the licenses are not given by the Horne Office, except upon the production of the certificate required by the Statute. That is the invariable practice. I never give Certificate E, which licenses an experiment on a dog or a cat, unless it is accompanied by Certificate B, which states that insensibility cannot be brought about without necessarily frustrating the object of experiment. Therefore it really seems to me the hon. and learned Member's charge is based upon
  886
  foundations that have given way. The hon. and learned Member finds fault with Professor Erichsen because in his Report he refers to the condition of the places where the experiments are performed. I may say that of his own motive Professor Erichsen has introduced improvements in the system. He has advised me against licensing private houses for the performance of these experiments, and as a result of his advice the places where they are now performed are public institutions where a certain publicity attaches to them, and where persons are present who understand the subject, and can see that the thing is done in accordance with the law. This I belive to be one of the greatest and most valuable checks and safeguards that could be introduced. Of course, if an experiment is performed in a private house or private room, it is liable to abuse, but in public places such as the Brown Institution, Owen's College, the University of Aberdeen, and so on, there is always an intelligent and enlightened audience at hand, able and ready to check anything like abuse. It is part of the Inspector's duty to report on these places. Professor Erichsen, who is certainly about as eminent a scientific man as we have in this country, as far as he possibly can superintends and is present at the experiments performed. The hon. and learned Gentleman says Professor Erichsen has not time to inspect enough. It is no doubt impossible for him to inspect all these places, and to view all the experiments, and, therefore, I obtained, this year, the sanction of the Treasury to give him an assistant who shall be present while these experiments are being performed, and judge whether the conditions on which the licenses are granted are properly carried out. In consequence of the curious reticence of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the House may not be aware that the provisions of the Act are express, that experiments likely to cause pain must be performed under the influence of an anæsthetic, and that when the influence of the anæsthetic is exhausted the animal must be killed to prevent its suffering pain. In order to obtain exemption from these very stringent conditions, certificates must be obtained from very eminent persons in the

  887
  country, the President of the Royal Society, for instance, that it is absolutely necessary that anæsthetics must be used and that the animal must be killed the moment the effect of the anæthetic has worn off. It is, of course, impossible that these experiments in vivisection can always be conducted without pain, according to the testimony of medical men. I am not myself enamoured of this system of physical research. The whole of my instincts are opposed to it. But Parliament has sanctioned it, and what we have to do is to see that the experiments are conducted in the best way possible upon the conditions prescribed ' by the Act. As far as I have had an opportunity of observing Professor Erichsen's conduct, he does most conscientiously and jealously endeavour to carry out the provisions of the Act. At his instance many prosecutions have been initiated, and in some cases we have proceeded to great lengths. Certain experiments or operations were undertaken in Cheshire and in the Welsh counties with a view to discovering a cure for foot and mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia. I myself was of opinion that they ought not to be regarded as experiments that came under the Vivisection Act, but Professor Erichsen took a more stringent view and prosecutions were instituted, I own a little to my regret, against a gentleman who has since, I believe, established a means of curing these dangerous and fatal diseases among cattle by what he called the experiments he conducted, but which I regarded as an experimental method of treatment. I believe Professor Erichsen is not only a humane man but a man of considerable eminence in his walk of life, and that he discharges his duty in a manner worthy of the commendation and not of the blame of the House. I trust the amendment will be negatived.
  *MR. J. E. ELLIS: I regret that the Government did not accede at once to the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. B. Coleridge) that the matter should be postponed. We are now witnessing ore of the evil effects of the new rule passed this afternoon. It certainly was never was intended that we should be kept here after one o'clock discussing a matter of great interest to a large number of Members. The
  888
  promise of the Board of Trade was specifically that the rule would only be rarely put in force. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate. The almost hysterical speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) has in no way disposed of the calm and well reasoned address of my hon. and learned Friend. The question has come suddenly upon most of us, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consent to the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made and Question proposed "That the debate be now adjourned"—(Mr. E. J. Ellis).
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Of course I had not forgotten the conversation which took place when the new rule was discussed this afternoon, when a feeling was expressed on our own side of the House as well as on the opposite side, that no great strain should be put upon hon. Members in consequence of the passing of the Resolution. When the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Coleridge) rose, I did not observe that any objection was expressed in any part of the House to going on, and I certainly did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to raise the whole Question of vivisection. I regret exceedingly that so lengthy a discussion should have taken place, because it is not the intention of the Government to have prolonged sittings at this period of the Session. Under the circumstances, I cannot resist the Motion for Adjournment.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, viz., Mr. Firth; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Lawson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after One o'clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Earl of Lucan a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Earl of Portarlington, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that Her Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Earl of Morley Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor: The said Commission was read.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added The Earl Brownlow and the Lord Ker (Marquess of Lothian) to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., for the consideration of the Reformatory Schools Bill [H.L.]; That the Committee have added the Lord Stratheden to the Standing Committee for General Bills, for the consideration of the Smoke Nuisance Abatement Metropolis Bill [H.L.]; And the Lord Chaworth (Earl of Meath) for the consideration of the Indecent Advertisements Bill [H.L.]; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
REMOVAL OF WRECKS ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 46).
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Earl of Milltown).
COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL (No. 47).
A Bill to enable women to be elected and to act as County Councillors—Was presented by The Lord Chaworth (E. Meath); read 1a; and to be printed.
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS BILL (No. 6).
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LARCENY ACT, 1861, AMENDMENT (USE OF FIREARMS) BILL (No. 30).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to move "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.," said: My Lords, before making the Motion which stands in my name I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that we are at present a good deal in the dark with regard to the Standing Committees. We are ignorant of when they are to meet or where they are to meet. We de not know exactly whether they are to be public or private, and we are completely in the dark as to by what standard we should be guided in making the Motion to refer a Bill to either the Standing Committee on Law, or that for General Bills. I am moving to refer this Bill and the Town Police Clauses Act Amendment Bill to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, not for any particular reason, because so far as I can see they might just as well be referred to the Standing Committee for General Bills. As my noble Friend opposite pointed out, there is nothing in the Bill now under your Lordships' notice which requires particularly the acumen or education of lawyers to unravel or dissect. But I propose to refer it to the Law Committee, partly because it was suggested to me that that was the

771
proper thing to do, and partly because it so happens that I am myself a Member of that Committee. It has struck me that perhaps it might be as well that when the Chairmen of the Committees are elected there should be a direction to which of the two Committees the several Bills should eventually be referred. I shall be glad to hear from the Chairman of Committees what are his views upon the matter.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: I propose to call a meeting for the election of Chairmen as soon as possible. I believe that is the first step to be taken. I think the earliest moment at which this can be done will be Friday next. At all events, it will be done at the earliest possible date, so that the Standing Committees may get to work in the course of next week.
LORD HERSCHELL: There is one matter to which the noble Lord alluded, as to which I would like to say a word—as to whether the proceedings of the Standing Committees should be public. That is the practice in the case of the House of Commons Standing Committees, and I cannot see any reason why it should not be so in the case of the Standing Committees of this House. The advantage seems to me to be altogether in that direction. With reference to the time of meeting, no doubt that will be a matter of subsequent consideration. It is obvious that if work is done to the extent to which it will be done by these Standing Committees, this House will be so far relieved of its work, and it would be practicable, therefore, for the Committees to meet at or after the hour the House now sits for public business. It would, of course, be very difficult, without some arrangement of this kind, to obtain the attendance upon the Standing Committees of the legal Members of this House.
LORD BRABOURNE: I think it would be very satisfactory if we could have some definition from those who proposed these Standing Committees of the standard by which it is to be determined which Committee a particular Bill is to be referred to. I see I am placed on the Committee for Law; that is, I suppose, for the satisfactory reason that I do not happen to be a lawyer. When the
772
proposal to establish these Committees was before your Lordships, it was pointed out that hardships might arise in the case of a noble Lord, who might be interested in a certain measure, but would be excluded from the discussion upon it because he did not happen to be a Member of the Committee to which the Bill was referred. Your Lordships having come to the conclusion to establish Standing Committees, I, of course, loyally submit; but I do think that we who objected to their appointment altogether should at least be informed whether there is any standard by which any particular measure is referred to the one Committee or the other.
LORD HERSCHELL: I might ask your Lordships' indulgence to point out, in reference to what the noble Lord has just said, that there is power under the Standing Orders to add to either Standing Committee ten Peers in respect of any particular Bill. There is no doubt that if a noble Lord who was on one Committee were interested in a Bill before another Committee, and wished to take part in its discussion, he would readily obtain a seat upon the Committee which had to deal with that measure.
Ordered, that the Standing Committee to which the Bill stands committed be the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. (No. 34).
Ordered, that the Standing Committee to which the Bill stands committed be the Standing Committee for General Bills.

TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 38.)
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: In moving to refer this Bill to the Standing Committee for Law, I would like to say that I entirely agree with my noble Friend (Lord Herschell) that the proceedings of these Standing Committees should be public, unless the Committee otherwise decide. It would be extremely hard upon your Lordships, as well as upon the general public, if, when important alterations are made in Bills before the Standing Committees, there are no means of ascertaining the reasons and arguments which guided

773
noble Lords in coming to their conclusions.
Bill committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.