Sitting of 27 August 1889

QUESTIONS.

  THE PADDY TAX IN CEYLON.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office propose to instruct the new Governor of Ceylon, Sir Arthur Havelock, to investigate the incidence of the Paddy Tax upon the food supplies of Ceylon, and to report how far the statements that the people of the country are on "half-rations "of food, and that evictions by the Government have led to starvation of the people and to disease and death, are well founded, and to suggest any remedy?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de Worms,): The Secretary of State will certainly direct Sir A. Havelock's particular attention to this serious matter, although it is hoped that the results of a very careful investigation will have been received before he assumes the Government.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will cause an immediate inspection to be made of the present condition of the roof of Westminster Hall, as the bolts that hold the slates are falling into Westminster Hall?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,): The roof of Westminster Hall has been recently inspected and is in good condition, with some exceptions round the dormers on the eastern side. It is, however, proposed to remove these dormers shortly, and to make good any defects. There are no bolts holding the slates on the roof, the old slating having been held on by very small oak pins weighing under an ounce each, some of which, displaced at the time of the explosion, may possibly have fallen. The remainder of the slates, which were fixed after the explosion, are secured in the usual way with copper nails.

  IRELAND—LAND COMMISSION -LISBLAKE FARM.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if an application has been made to the Land Commission by John M'Manus for the purchase-money of his farm at Lisblake, near Killesher, County Fermanagh, of Mrs. Brackenridge, the landlady of this farm; have the Land Commission satisfied themselves that Mrs. Brackenridge has a satisfactory title to this farm; is he aware that M'Manus defeated her claim to a title in respect to this holding on two occasions in Court; and that this decision was reversed on a third trial in consequence of M'Manus's legal adviser not appearing to look after his interests; have the Land Commission advanced the money for the purchase, or is it their intention to advance it in this case; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds; and what communications have passed between Mrs. Brackenridge and the Land Commission?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Land Commission report that no application has been received by them, nor is there any record of any
  580
  communication having passed between them and Mrs. Brackenridge on the subject.

  THE BELFAST TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether several telegraphists who were connected with the Belfast Office have lately left the service, owing to the inactive state of promotion in that office; whether the Postmaster was petitioned some 12 months ago with regard to an increase in the number of first-class appointments; whether the memorialists have yet received a reply; whether Belfast has fewer higher appointments in proportion to the numerical strength of its staff than any other office; and, whether steps will be taken with a view to redress this grievance?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I am authorised by the Postmaster General to say that during the past 15 months no resignations have occurred in the first class of telegraphists at Belfast. Five resignations occurred in the second class. The Postmaster General received some time ago a memorial from the telegraphists asking him to create a number of first-class appointments in order to give them promotion. This memorial he carefully considered, and came to the conclusion that there were no duties to be performed that would justify additional superior appointments at that time, and he caused a reply in this sense to be sent to the memorialists. The question will shortly come again under his consideration, when he will see if there is any change in the circumstances.
  MR. SEXTON: Unless there is some improvement in the service I shall certainly call attention to the matter next Session. May I ask whether a vacancy in the Belfast Telegraph Office in the first class has been filled by the appointment of a gentleman who has for years held, and stills holds, the position of Telegraphic Instructor in the Midland Division of Ireland; whether this official has been absent from the Belfast office some eight years, and whether during this period he was connected with the surveyor s office in Dublin, and under the immediate control of the authorities there; and, if so, whether it is in accordance with usage to appoint to a first class post in the Belfast office an official

  581
  who continues to perform a specific duty in another section; and, whether, in view of the stagnation of promotion existing in Belfast, this appointment will be made redundant?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I have to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that the facts, so far as they are stated in his question, are substantially correct. It should, however, be added that the Inspecting Telegraphist referred to is a member of the Belfast staff, and was the senior officer on his class qualified for promotion. The question of making an additional first class appointment, which would, in effect, give a promotion, is under the consideration of the Postmaster General.

  BAIL FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General fur Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the blouse before next Session a Return showing the cases in Ireland, since the passing of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, where persons have been required to give bail for good conduct under the Statute of Edward III, showing the names, dates, and cause of summons, whether bail was given, and where not given what length of imprisonment was awarded?
  MR. MADDEN: A Return showing the cases in Ireland, since the passing of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, where persons have been required to give bail for good conduct under the Statute of Edward III, will not be opposed by the Government. Steps have been already taken to collect the information necessary for its preparation; but the time available will, I fear, hardly admit of the Return being laid upon the Table before the expiration of the present Session.

  THE DECCAN MINES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is now the position of the Deccan Mines question; whether the concession of mining privileges in the Nizam's dominions is still in force; and, whether there is still a question of extending those privileges?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The concession of mining
  582
  rights to the Descan Company has never ceased to be in force. The Secretary of State has offered, in the event of certain conditions being agreed to by the concessionaires— one of which is the provision of£ 150,000 additional capital—to concur with the Government of India's approval of the extension by the Nizam to 31st December, 1891, of the right of selection by the Company of certain coal mines which are specified in Clause 3a of the concession. To this offer no reply has yet been received. Except as above the Secretary of State has declined to approve of the extension by the Nizam of any further privileges to the Company.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is the further concession confined to the coal mines?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes; to the coal mines only.

  BRITISH GULANA.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the serious allegations contained in the Report of the Medical Inspector of British Guiana for the year 1886, as to the insanitary and otherwise defective condition of the coolie hospitals and villages in that Colony, also to the high death rate prevailing amongst the indentured labourers which that Report revealed; and, if so, whether any steps have yet been, or are about to be, taken to remedy the evils complained of; and, whether a copy of the Medical Inspector's Report for 1886, together with any Correspondence relating thereto, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Report of the Medical Inspector of British Guiana pointed out the existence of sanitary and other defects in the coolie hospitals and the dwellirgs of the coolies on some of the estates, and contained comments on the death rate of the indentured immigrants, which, however, was not shown to be excessive. The attention of the Governor was called to the Report; some of the defects had been remedied before the date of the Report, and steps have been taken to improve the sanitary crndition of the coolies by the issue of new regu-

  583
  lations as to the estates, hospitals, and the dwellings of the indentured emigrants. It is not proposed to lay the Report and Correspondence on the Table, as the matter has been practically dealt with.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the delay in the extension of telegraphic communication to Kinloch-bervie and Scourie, in the County of Sutherland, and when he proposes to proceed with the work?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I understand that the Postmaster General caused the hon. Member to be informed by letter on the 12th ultimo of the reason why the extension could not take place, namely, that as the extension of the telegraphs to Kinlockbervie and Scourie would not be remunerative, it could not, in the absence of any special arrangement between the Scotch Office and the Treasury, be made except under guarantee. No such special arrangement has been made, and the Postmaster General has no power to proceed.

  THE TREASURY MINUTE ON CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state approximately the date at which the Order in Council, embodying the provisions of the Treasury Minute on Civil Establishments, will be published in the Gazette; and whether the changes made in the various Departments of the Public Service will or will not be retrospective as and from 1st April last?
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDSasked a similar question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am not in a position to state when the Order in Council, embodying the provisions of the Treasury Minute on Civil Establishments, will be issued. Any changes it may introduce will take effect from the date of the Order, and will not be retrospective.

  IPSWICH GAOL-TREATMENT OF UNCONVICTED PRISONERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Commissioners are aware of the instructions which have been given by the Governor of Ipswich Gaol as to the treatment of unconvicted prisoners; whether there are any other prisons in England and Wales where similar instructions are in force; and whether he will take effectual steps to protect unconvicted prisoners and secure compliance with the law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The Prison Commissioners became aware of the instructions referred to when the Governor was called upon to report in the recent case of "Flanagan v. Hulme." As soon as they became aware of them they immediately directed the Governor to issue amended instructions in. accordance with the Prison Rules. The Commissioners are not aware that any instructions not supported by the Rules are in force in any other prison. The hon. Member was informed, in the Debate on the Report stage of the Prison Vote, that the Inspectors at their monthly inspections would be directed to ascertain that in every prison the instructions of the Governor should be brought into conformity with the law.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Has not Ipswich Gaol been the subject of inspection by the Prison Commissioners, and, notwithstanding that inspection, are not illegal practices being constantly carried out there?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Undoubtedly the Inspectors have been to some degree to blame in not having seen that the orders given by the Governor were in accordance with the Prison Regulations.

  PROCEDURE IN THE METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the observations made by Mr. Sheil at Wandsworth Police Court on Friday last, condemning the system under which "at that Court a case first came before A, was remanded and taken

  585
  before B, and was finally heard and adjudicated upon by C; "to how many cases do the observations of the learned Magistrate apply; and, what was the name of the defendant, and the result, in each case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no information at present on this subject; but I have referred the question to the learned Magistrate. I will cause the hon. Member to be informed of the result. It is, no doubt, desirable that, if possible, the same Magistrate should adjudicate on a case in all its stages; but under existing arrangements, and under any possible arrangement of the Rota, it will sometimes happen that the same Magistrate does not preside at every stage of a protracted case.
  In reply to a farther question by Mr. PICKERSGILL,
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid: No Magistrate ever adjudicates until he has heard the whole of the evidence.

  THE SOUDAN.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has noticed lately statements in the public prints attributing much of the anarchy, raiding, and distress in the Soudan to starvation, and particularly a telegram in the Times of 26th August, asserting that famine prevails throughout the Soudan, that many deaths occur daily from starvation at Tokar and other places, and that the Hadendowas are broken up through famine; whether the blockade against the importation of food is still maintained; and whether they will raise the blockade as regards food and articles of peaceful merchandise, and insist that the policy of peace, conciliation, and free trade shall be tried?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Accounts of the internal condition of the Soudan cannot be accepted as authentic; but the continued action of predatory bands and of slave-dealing must cause extensive suffering, and the interruption of the means of livelihood. Trade is encouraged through the ports which are under the control of the Egyptian and Italian Governments, but is interfered with if carried on directly with the "hostile tribes, Seeing that it is largely
  586
  connected with the Slave Trade. I have already said that arms have only been given to certain friendly tribes in order to assist them in defending themselves, and in recovering their property, which has been carried off. The policy pursued is to restore trade and peaceful pursuits; but it is vain to attempt to deal with fanatical leaders who are constantly invading Egyptian territory, and who prevent the revival of commercial intercourse.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask if Her Majesty's ships are employed in a blockade in order to starve these people?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  FACTORY RULES.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a decision of the Halifax Borough Magistrates on the 16th instant, whereby four women, who were found by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories working in a worsted mill during a meal time, were each fined 10s., with 6s. 6d. costs; and whether this decision is consistent with "The Factory and Workshop Act, 1878?"
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this case, and I am now in communication with the Justices with regard to it. Pending their Report I am not in a position to give an opinion on the case.

  THE CINQUE PORTS VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the command of the 3rd Volunteer (Kent) Brigade, Cinque Ports Division, Royal Artillery, about to become vacant, has been offered to and accepted by a gentleman not residing in the county; whether representations have reached him which show that such appointments may have the effect of deterring gentlemen resident in the county from accepting commissions in the corps; and, whether, before it is decided to bring in a gentleman nonresident in the county, he will consider the advisability of offering the appointment to other gentlemen resident in the county?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The brigade has two lieutenant-colonels, of whom the senior has resigned. The junior, residing, I believe, in the county, has succeeded to the command. The recommendation of an officer as second lieutenant-colonel rests with the general commanding the district, from whom none has as yet been received. I have received the representation referred to in my noble Friend's question, and it shall have full attention.

  THE RIFLE BRIGADE.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is true that the 4th Battalion Rifle Brigade has been in the East Indies longer than any other battalion now serving there, having landed at Bombay in November, 1873; whether other battalions that went abroad later have not already come home; and why the return of this battalion, which has been 16 years abroad, and recently on active service in Burmah, has been postponed from the beginning to near the end of the ensuing trooping season?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The battalion referred to has been the longest in India, and will come home during the ensuing trooping season. The relief of battalions under the localisation system of territorial regiments must depend in some degree on the going abroad of the other battalions of the same regiments.

  IRISH PIERS AND HARBOURS.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland when it is intended to take up the question of piers and harbours in the fishing districts on the Irish coast, as recommended by the late Royal Commission; whether it is a fact that the loading of one steamer with cured mackerel at Garnish, Castletown Bere, County Cork, costs about £16; whether he has had any Report from the Board of Works or the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries showing the absolute necessity of a pier at Garnish in consequence of the number of steamers calling there; and whether he will, on an early day, endeavour to get some-
  588
  thing done for Garnish rather than put the Irish merchants to such expense?
  MR. MADDEN: The Irish Government have obtained the views of the Board of Works and of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries as a proposal submitted to them for the construction of a pier at Garnish, but inasmuch as the Board of Works advised that there are no available funds for the purpose, the consideration of the matter was not further proceeded with. The Government have been dealing with those of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works which relate to drainage and light railways. Upon these matters being disposed of, the Government hope to bring certain proposals before Parliament in regard to the Royal Commission's recommendations on the subject of piers and harbours.

  PILOTAGE CERTIFICATES.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what course the Government intend to pursue as regards compensation to the pilots of this country whose incomes will be seriously diminished by the issue of pilotage certificates to foreigners under Clause I of the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I think this question has been framed under a very exaggerated apprehension of the operation of Clause 1 of the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill. As it would at the most involve a return to the practice which prevailed for more than 30 years before 1886, I cannot see how any claim to compensation could arise.

  THE CHURCH WARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF GATESHEAD.
  MR. ADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a correspondence between five churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Gateshead and the Local Government Board as to certain acts, among others, of the minority of three— namely, altering the banking account of the churchwardens and overseers; removing rate books from the assistant overseer's office; also the refusal of the collectors to perform the duties laid

  589
  down in the Local Government Board orders; and, if so, what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter, the parish business being now practically at a dead lock?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am aware of the correspondence to which the question refers. I regret the differences which have arisen between the persons holding office as churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Gates-head. An Inspector of the Local Government Board has had an interview with them with the view of assisting in bringing about harmonious working, but apparently the interview has had no satisfactory result. One question at issue is whether the churchwardens are legally entitled to act as overseers of the parish, and the Board have stated that this is a question which they have no jurisdiction to determine. They have at the same time impressed upon the parochial officers the personal responsibility which attaches to them with regard to the making and collection of the rates which are required for the purposes of the parish.
  MR. SEXTON: Has not the Department the power of suspending the Local Authority in a case of this kind?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Government have power to dissolve the Local Authority if it does not perform its duty, but I imagine that in this case there is a question of law, and there would be some difficulty in taking that course.

  FAMINE IN THE SOUDAN.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the reports of famine and misery throughout the Soudan are confirmed; and whether it is true that at Khartoum and Kassala the people who die are being eaten; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, in regard to this state of affairs?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have received no such information; but, as I have just now stated, the action of the predatory bands must be causing much suffering; that action is in no way due to the conduct of the Egyptian Government or of Her
  590
  Majesty's Government. The prosperity of the Soudan can only revive by the cessation of the tribes from rapine and warfare.

  BEHRING SEA FISHERIES.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many sealing or other British vessels have been captured by American cruisers in Behring's Straits or the neighbourhood; and what steps have been taken in regard to them, so far as this question can be answered without detriment to the Public Service?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have no authentic information. We have reason to believe that two or three vessels have been formally captured this year, but have been suffered to return to Canadian ports.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Are not the United States the successors in title to Russia in the Alaskan waters, and did not Russia always insist on enforcing similar regulations to those now enforced by the American cruisers?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of that question, and at the same time, if I might so far presume, I would deprecate any discussion in this House on the subject.

  FOREIGN PILOTS.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade from what date it is intended to license Foreign Pilots under the Bill read the third time on Saturday evening; and whether it is intended that there shall be any limit to the number of foreigners so to be licensed as pilots for entering British ports?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As I read the Bill to which the hon. Member refers, the proper way to give effect to the intention of Parliament will be to maintain the status, quo until the date at which the new Act is to come into operation. Clause 1 is an enabling Clause, and does not take away the discretionary powers at present enjoyed by the Pilotage Authorities and the Board of Trade.

  THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, inasmuch as all the most important duties in the various departments of the

  591
  Post Office are at the present time discharged by the old establishment, in preparing the Return classifying the officers of the Department, in accordance with the terms of the Treasury Minute, the claims of those officers to be considered, de facto, officers of the Upper Division of the Service will be recognised?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The question of the hon. Member is somewhat premature, inasmuch as the Postmaster General has not been called upon to prepare any such Return as that alluded to, but I have no doubt that the point indicated by the hon. Member will receive the attention of the Government.

  HANSARD'S DEBATES.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, considering the saving which is likely to be effected by the new method of supplying certain Blue Books and Papers only to Members of Parliament who sign the forms of demand, and also the advantage to Members of giving them an Opportunity of studying the proceedings of this House, he will take into consideration the desirability of supplying Hansard's Reports to Members who may apply for them?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I have not heard that any difficulty in obtaining copies of Hansard from the contractors has been experienced by hon. Members who wish to have the advantage of studying the proceedings of this House; but if, as I suppose, the hon. Member's question points to a gratuitous distribution of Hansard, I may point out that this question was considered by the Joint Committee appointed to consider the arrangements as to Hansard, and that Committee, I believe, were unanimous against the suggestion.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the fact that, though a large number of Civil Service Writers have been recommended by the heads of their departments as in every respect worthy of promotion under the Treasury Minute of 1886, the great majority of such recommendations have been ignored by the Treasury; and, if so, whether it
  592
  is proposed to deal with these Writers of admitted merit under the new regulations, and in what manner?
  MR. JACKSON: Every case in which a copyist was recommended by the head of his Department for promotion to the Lower Division was most carefully examined by the Treasury in accordance with the intention of the Minute of December, 1886, and it is not proposed to re-open the question.

  THE STRIKES IN LONDON.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the organised system of intimidation which prevails in connection with the wharves on the Thames; and, whether he will direct the police to give protection to those who are engaged there in legitimate business?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not prepared to admit that there is anything which can properly be described as an organised system of intimidation. There is, however, a considerable amount of pressure exercised, which in some cases passes into acts of intimidation, but of a nature very difficult for the police to interfere with. A large body of Metropolitan Police is on duty in the neighbourhood of the docks; a steam launch has been directed to patrol the river; and the police have orders to render all the assistance in their power when applied to. I wish to take this opportunity of expressing an earnest hope that both the parties to this dispute, which is causing great in convenience and damage to the trade of London and to many persons wholly unconnected with the docks, may be induced to compose their differences by some rational and satisfactory mode of settlement.

  MRS. MAYBRICK.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is true, as stated in the Standard of Saturday, that the first intimation of the reprieve granted to Mrs. May brick was conveyed to Liverpool in an unofficial newspaper telegram at seven o'clock on Thursday evening, but that—
  "Nothing was received at Walton Gaol until the small "hours of Friday morning, When a

  593
  Queen's messenger knocked up the Governor, and delivered his message;"
  whether it was originally intended that the decision should first be communicated to the Governor of the gaol; why this arrangement was departed from; and, if he will explain why an official telegram was not sent to the Governor announcing the commutation of the sentence, and the fact that a messenger was following with the formal document?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no information as to the newspaper telegram referred to, which was not of official origin. It is the fact that the Queen's messenger bearing the reprieve arrived at the prison at midnight. It is the practice that the official intimation of a reprieve shall reach the Government in the first instance. This practice was not departed from on this occasion. I thought it preferable that the information should be conveyed in a written form by a Queen's messenger, and not by means of a telegram.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may be expected to give a decision on the Christ's Hospital Scheme which has been for so many years in abeyance; and, whether he will undertake that, so soon as the decision is given, it shall, as a Parliamentary Paper, be sent to Members?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I understand that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have adjourned for the Long Vacation, and that they propose to give their decision immediately after they meet again. The Education Department has no power whatever to order the production of Parliamentary Papers.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (PILOTAGE) BILL.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade in reference to the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill, read the third time on Saturday evening, whether his attention has been called to a memorandum by the Pilotage Authorities of the Trinity Corporation, who state that they con-
  594
  sider that the above Bill will, "in the event of pilotage certificates being held by the whole of the regular traders through the North Channel, render it impossible to maintain cruising (by British pilot boats) in that channel in wintertime;" and, what steps he proposes to adopt to avoid the risk to life and property that would in that case be incurred?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The memorandum to which the hon. Member refers has not been received by the Board of Trade, but it was apparently considered by the Select Committee on Pilotage last year, and they recommended the grant of pilotage certificates to masters and mates of foreign ships, in spite of the opinion expressed by the Trinity House. As I do not think the event anticipated by the Trinity House is likely to occur, I do not think it necessary to consider what steps should be taken.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to secure for the masters and mates of Britsh ships entering foreign ports privileges similar to those intended to be conferred by this Bill on the masters and mates of foreign ships entering British ports; and, whether it will, under any circumstance, be possible for British vessels to enter foreign ports without being compelled to employ foreign pilots?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As the hon. Member is aware, there are some foreign ports into which British ships can now enter on the same terms as ships belonging to the country where those ports are situated. With regard to the other countries where those facilities do not exist, I can assure the hon. Member that the matter will not be lost sight of, and that every effort will be made to secure for British ships privileges similar to those which are enjoyed by the vessels of such countries.
  SIR H. TYLER: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the manner in which this Bill was forced through the House on Saturday.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: After what has fallen from the hon. Member, it is necessary that I should say a word. It was well known that the Pilotage

  595
  Bill would come on last Saturday, but the hon. Member, who was in the House for some time on that day, did not take the trouble to be in his place when the Bill was taken.
  SIR H. TYLER: I had been waiting all day. I only left the House for five minutes, and when I returned I found that the Bill had been read a third time.

  IRELAND—TRALEE TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, in the case of the three telegraphists removed from Tralee, whether any charge was made against any one of them before removal, or any cause assigned at the time, or whether the charge that they kept objectionable company in Tralee was the first intimation they or any of them received of the cause for which the transfer was made; and, whether one or more of these men objected to or protested against this transfer at the time; and, if so, what was the nature of the reply to such objection?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I must ask the hon. Member to repeat this question. There has not been time to obtain the information.

  CASE OF MICHAEL CONNELL.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if it is true that Michael Connell, over 70 years of age, was, at the last O'Dorney (County Kerry) Petty Sessions, sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment without the option of a fine for having arms in a proclaimed district; whether the arms in question consisted of a rusty gun barrel and a broken stock which did not match it, which were alleged to have been found concealed in an outhouse of Connell's; whether the police who gave evidence in the case as well as the Magistrate presiding expressed their belief that the old man never knew of their existence; and, if, under the circumstances, he would advise the Lord Lieutenant to order Connell's discharge?
  MR. MADDEN: I have not yet received the information which would enable me to answer this question.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Has not the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman been called to this case in the public Press? It is the case of an old
  596
  man 70 years of age, who appears to have acted innocently, and will not the hon. and learned Gentleman request the Lord Lieutenant to discharge him?
  MR. MADDEN: As a matter of fact, I have not received any Report of the case. I will make inquiries.
  MR. SEXTON: This man is more than 70 years of age, and he was merely in possession of a rusty gun barrel and with only a broken stock that did not belong to it. It is quite evident that he could have had no criminal intent.
  MR. MADDEN: I have said that I will make inquiries, and that is all I can say.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Has the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman been called to the Report of the case in the local Conservative paper, in which it is stated that the police sergeant said he did not believe this old man knew that the things were in the house? The Magistrate also said, addressing the prisoner—
  "You are a very old man, and we do not think you knew the ammunition was there; somebody else did, and, therefore, you must go to gaol."
  Further, did not a witness come forward and say that he had known the old man for 18 years, and that he was incapable of enduring imprisonment?
  MR. MADDEN: I can only say that inquiry shall be made without a moment's delay.

  DERRY GAOL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether instructions have yet been given for the production of the Derry Prison Hospital books at the Coroner's inquest in the case of John M'Gee?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir; the books referred to will be produced at the inquest and every light thrown on the matter.

  FICTITIOUS ADDRESSES.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that advertisements constantly appear in sporting and other newspapers, inviting communications under fictitious or assumed names at Post Offices; whether he is aware that some Post Offices do not return to the writers letters so addressed; and, whether, inasmuch as

  597
  the Postal Guide states that letters so addressed will be returned, he will put the regulation in force?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The rule is that letters addressed to initials, or to fictitious names at Post Offices, are not to be taken in, but are to be sent at once to the Returned Letter Offices for return to the writers, if possible. I am not aware that the rule is not adhered to in such cases as the hon. Member refers to. But if he will give me particulars of any case which has come under his notice, I will have it inquired into.

  RESCUE FROM DROWNING.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a report in the Sheffield Independent of 20th August of a gallant case of rescue from drowning at Boston on Sunday, 18th instant, by a Sheffield lad named Heath; and, whether he can bring the matter under the notice of the proper authority, in order that some suitable recognition may be bestowed upon him?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this case, but after consideration it does not appear to me to be one which I should be justified in submitting to Her Majesty with a view to the award of an Albert Medal. I have, however, caused a letter to be written to the lad, recognising the bravery shown by him and expressing my high appreciation of his gallant conduct.

  IRELAND—THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.

    THE WITNESSES MULLETT AND NALLY.
    DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he can now say if the prisoners James Mullett and Patrick Nally were visited by Mr. Thompson, Mr. Shannon, Mr. Walker, or any other agent on behalf of the Times, some time before their removal, as witnesses for the Times at the Royal Commission; whether each prisoner was brought into the presence of such agent without having been told the name of the agent or the object of his visit; whether his agent promised Mullett and Nally that each
    "Would have his liberty, and would be put into a good position besides, if lie consented to serve the Times;"
    598
    whether he told Nally that his parents were
    "Growing very old, and that they desired to see him before they died,"
    and that Nally replied that
    "They (his parents) would rather see him a corpse than to know of him swearing falsely against anyone;"
    whether he is aware that the agent for the Times afterwards, in February last, went to Mrs. Mullett, wife of James Mullet, and asked her to use her influence with her husband, whom he had seen,
    "To swear what would be beneficial for the Times, that it would be of great benefit to her and to him, and that his (Mullett's) imprisonment would then cease at once;"
    and whether, considering the nature of these allegations, he will grant an independent inquiry by a Committee of Members of this House into all the circumstances in connection with these visits of agents of the Times to persons undergoing terms of imprisonment?
    MR. MADDEN: No doubt some explanation is required as to the reason why I have not been supplied with a Report. As a matter of fact it has miscarried, but if the hon. Member will put down the question for to-morrow I think I shall be able to answer it.

  SALMON PASS ON THE SHANNON.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the salmon pass, erected by the Board of Works in the weir-wall on the Shannon at Killaloe, has been approved of by the Irish Fishery Inspectors; whether before its erection the Fishery Inspectors were consulted as to the site of the pass; and whether instructions will be given to Sir Thomas F. Brady and Mr. Allan Hornsby, who are at present engaged in an inspection of the tributary rivers falling into Lough Derg, to inspect said salmon pass at Killaloe, and report to the Government as to its utility or otherwise, and if it has been put down in conformity with the Act of Parliament regulating such matters, and as to the cost of its erection?
  MR. JACKSON: I have just received a telegram which states that the salmon pass is strictly in accordance with the design made by the Engineer of the Irish Fisheries, and approved of by the Fishery Board.

  THE TRADES UNIONS ACTS.
  MAJOR RESCH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state whether the Government will next Session enlarge the reference of the Friendly Societies Committee, so as to bring within its purview the Trades Unions Acts?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is impossible for me, on behalf of the Government, to give any pledge in the matter.

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will, during the Recess, consider and mature a scheme for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal, and will introduce into this House, and do their utmost to carry through Parliament, next Session, a measure dealing with the subject?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The question of establishing a Court of Criminal Appeal is an important one, and will not be lost sight of in the Recess; but I have no authority to give the specific pledge which the hon. Gentlemen desires.

  THE STATUTE OF EDWARD III.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Government inquire into the question of the jurisdiction exercised by the Resident Magistrates in Ireland under the Statute of Edward III.? The Lord Chief Baron of Ireland has described this jurisdiction as an anomaly, inasmuch as no opportunity is given of showing cause against an order made under the Statutes.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will communicate the question to the First Lord of the Treasury; but I can give no pledge upon the subject myself.

  GRANTS IN AID OF LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the 41st section of "The City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883," prohibiting the application of any charity moneys in aid of the Poor Bate in the City, the order of the Local Government Board of 15th May last, directing that the income of Consols, amounting to upwards of £50,000, the property of certain City parishes therein named, should be applied in aid of the Poor Rate in those parishes, is a
  600
  breach of the above Statute and ought to be rescinded, and the fund handed over to the Charity Commissioners to deal with?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Order of the Local Government Board has made no difference in the application of the income of the fund to which the question refers, its object being merely to provide that the Two-and-Three-Quarters per Cent Stock into which the Three per Cent Consols previously held by the Guardians had been converted should be held by them on the same trusts as those on which the Stock was held before the conversion. The Consols were the proceeds of the sale of two union workhouses which were erected so recently as 1852 and 1863, at the cost of the rates, and under orders of the Board, by the East and West London Unions, these workhouses having been sold when the unions were dissolved in 1869 and added to the City of London Union. It does not appear to the Board that such property was intended to be dealt with under the Parochial Charities Act.

  BOOK-STALL IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider, before next Session, the feasibility of providing, in some convenient lobby or corridor of the House, a book-stall, for the sale of newspapers, &c, such as is now provided at most railway stations?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone this question because I have not the least idea what view the First Commissioner takes of the matter.

  MALTA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any date has yet been fixed for the holding of the general election for the Council of Government of Malta; and whether such election will be held within three months of the date of the dissolution of the late Council?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The exact date has not yet been fixed; but, it must be within three months after the, date of dissolution.

  MAILS TO CHINA AND JAPAN.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state in round numbers the quantities of mail matter despatched from this country to Hong Kong, Shanghai, other Chinese ports, and Japan respectively; and the routes by which the respective quantities are despatched?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The weight of mails despatched by the respective routes may be taken approximately as follows:—

  BY SUEZ CANAL, WEEKLY—

  For

  Letters

  Printed matter, &c.

  lbs.

  lbs.

  Hong Kong

  100

  1,000

  Shanghai

  70

  600

  Other parts of China

  14

  150

  Japan

  43

  600

  OFFICE OF CHIEF PAYMASTER IN THE ARMY.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the selection of Officers to fill the post of Chief Paymaster, some Officers who were entitled to such promotion have been passed over; and, if so, for what cause; and whether he is aware that recent selections for this post have caused great dissatisfaction in the Service?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction. The Royal Warrant requires that promotion in the Army Pay Department shall
  "Be solely by selection on the ground of ability and merit, due consideration being given to length of efficient service."
  Under this system of promotion, which is essential for efficiency, some Officers
  602
  of fair qualification will be passed over for the highest posts who will naturally feel aggrieved; but I accept the responsibility for the selections being made with great care and complete impartiality.

  H.M.S. SULTAN.
  SIR H. TYLER: May I ask whether Her Majesty's ship Sultan has yet been towed into harbour?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have received two telegrams on the subject, the first of which states that the Sultan had been towed from the place where she was raised. The contractors, Messrs. Baghino, also telegraph—" Admiral took consignment of Her Majesty's ship Sultan this morning," which means that the contractors have fulfilled their undertaking to raise the vessel. Great credit is due to them for their successful exertions, and the raising of the Sultan is a distinct advance upon any salvage operations hitherto attempted and attended with success.

  THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Officers engaged in the Naval Manœuvres are claiming to have "laid towns in ashes "and are exacting indemnities from them; and whether he will take steps to introduce into the rules of maritime warfare the more merciful rules that appertain to land warfare?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have read of no attempt to lay towns in ashes, or to destroy any property except under the conditions recognised by the Declaration of Paris. But I have noticed that in some cases when a town has been captured an attempt has been made to secure a war indemnity under threats. While I think that such a course may not be desirable, I may point out to the hon. Member that after every great war a large indemnity has been levied by the victor.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Does the noble Lord know that Aberdeen, Peterhead, and Leith have been told to consider themselves laid in ashes?

  IRELAND—THE CASE OF MR. W. O'BRIEN.
  MR.SEXTON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary two or three urgent

  603
  questions in connection with the sentence passed on Mr. W. O'Brien the day before. With the permission of the House, I will prefix to the questions a brief statement of facts, which is absolutely necessary to make the matter clear. In the first place, with regard to the evidence of a constable named Garvey, this constable swore that he had not consulted a newspaper report before he made his oath. It was proved that he had done so, and also that he was not able to take a coherent shorthand note of anything dictated to him, and the Court, in giving judgment, declared that no Court would be jus tified in acting upon his evidence. I have, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that constable will be prosecuted; whether he will be continued in the police service; and whether he will continue to act as reporter and witness in prosecutions? My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork has been sentenced to two months' imprisonment for his speech, and to two months' further in default of giving bail for good behaviour. I wish to ask whether it is at the instance or with the consent of the Irish Executive that the Magistrates continue to apply the glaring anomaly of the jurisdiction conferred by the Statute of Edward III. in the case of a distinguished public man for the purpose of inflicting an additional sentence to that imposed under the Crimes Act? In the case of my hon. Friend's last imprisonment in Galway Gaol, which terminated in June, it was found necessary, for the preservation of his mental and physical health, to order that he should be allowed the use of books and of writing materials. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is like my hon. Friend, a literary man, and I will ask him this question. I understand that the theory of the Irish Government is that imprisonment should not be heavier on one man than another, but should press equally upon all. I would ask the Chief Secretary, then, whether he will submit my hon. Friend, who has to sit for 22 hours out of 24 in a gloomy and narrow cell, to the special punishment and torture of keeping a man accustomed to daily study and the constant use of his faculties in literary work all that time in his cell without occupation for his mind? I have had no communication from my hon. Friend, and I believe
  604
  that my hon. Friend would not authorise me to ask these questions in the House. But I feel it to be my duty to submit the case to the right hon. Gentleman, and to ask him to make an order which will secure that the same treatment which was given to my hon. Friend in the last weeks of his stay in Galway Gaol shall be continued, so that he shall not be subjected to a heavier punishment than would fall in a like case on an ordinary criminal.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman has asked me three questions. The first relates to the policeman Garvey. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that every inquiry will be made into that case. I understand there is some idea that one of the counsel has suggested that steps should be taken to institute a prosecution for perjury, and, whether that course will be taken or not, a very critical examination will be made into the whole circumstances attending the evidence given by that policeman. With regard to the second question, namely, whether the Executive directed the Judges in this case—
  MR. SEXTON: Do they approve?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that it is the business of the Executive to express approval or disapproval of sentences passed by a competent Court of Law on cases brought before them. Of course, I will not say that no suggestion has been made by the Executive in the matter one way or the other. With regard to the third question, namely, as to the prison treatment of the Member for North-East Cork, I have to say that he was permitted on medical grounds to have the use of books in one of his previous terms of imprisonment. Should there be any medical grounds for a similar relaxation it will at once be made. If there is any ground to anticipate that the hon. Gentleman is likely to suffer materially in health from the deprivation of books or writing materials the doctor of the prison will interfere, as he interfered on the previous occasion.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to the Prisons Board calling the attention of the prison doctor to the fact that during the last few weeks of my hon. Friend's

  605
  last imprisonment this relaxation was afforded on the ground of health?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know in what prison the hon. Member will serve his sentence; but the Prisons Board, of course, will take care that every material fact connected with the hon. Gentleman shall be brought under the notice of the doctor responsible for his care.

  MR. CONYBEARE.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether ha has noticed in this morning's papers a letter from the hon. Member for Camborne directly controverting a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in the Debate on Friday last—namely, that the hon. Member had refused the attention of the prison doctor, and that he was cured of the illness from which he had been suffering? I have received direct information that my hon. Friend has been receiving the attention of the prison doctor for three weeks, and is very grateful, I believe, to the doctor, and that the doctor has certified so late as yesterday that my hon. Friend is still suffering from the illness which has been brought to the notice of the House. In these circumstances, I would make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to release my hon. Friend.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has not been called to this letter. The statement to which I think the hon. Member refers must be one to the effect that the hon. Member for Camborne declined to be treated in hospital for the lumbago from which he was suffering. It did not relate to the other malady to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I understand from the Report which I have seen to-day that practically that particular affection was cured; and I may say that the hon. Member for Camborne has expressed great reluctance to be removed from Derry Gaol, where he states that he is well treated by the officials, and where he likes the cell in which he is confined. In these circumstances, I do not think it would be proper for the Government to insist upon the hon. Member's removal.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: From whom has the right hon. Gentleman obtained his information? Does the statement
  606
  he has made come from the Prisons Board or from the Prison Authorities?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must distinguish between the various statements which I have made. The statement that the hon. Member for Camborne has declined to be treated in the hospital for lumbago comes, I have no doubt, from the Prison Authorities. The statement that the hon. Member is anxious not to be removed from Derry Gaol comes from Dr. O'Farrell, who has just visited him.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. COSSHAM: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Order No. 7, for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Instruction to the Committee of the Occupiers' Disqualification Removal Bill, will be included in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman for suspending the Standing Orders?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; we propose to stop when we shall have concluded the first six Orders of the Day, except some Amendments of the Lords which will have to be considered.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing whether and in what respects the Recommendations of the Committee of 1883 on the Royal Irish Constabulary have teen adopted."—(Mr. Henry J. Wilson.)

MOTION.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Government Business be not interrupted, this night, under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be begun at any hour though opposed."—[Mr. Chanerllor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I do not dispute on general grounds the reasonableness of this proposal at this period of the Session. But I think the Third Order—the Technical Instruction Bill—ought to be excluded from the Motion. I say nothing of the merits or demerits of the Bill, though I would call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the remarks made this morning in the principal organ which supports the Government, but a

  607
  measure of this kind ought not to be forced through the House after 12 o'clock. The Indian Budget, which stands as the Second Order will alone afford ample material for a whole Sitting, and I do not think the House desires the unseemliness of an all-night Sitting. I scarcely think the Government would reap much advantage from continuing to support the attitude taken by the Vice President, or that they will succeed in hectoring the Bill through the House. I beg to move after the word "business" to insert the words "except the Technical Instruction Bill."
  MR. DILLWYN: I beg to second the Amendment. I think it would be most unfair to ask hon. Members to sit up all night when the House will sit again to-morrow at noon. I would impress upon the Government the desirability of not carrying this very objectionable Bill further.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "business," to insert the words "except the Technical Instruction Bill."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, because he must have perceived last night that there is a large preponderance of opinion in this House in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member has called attention to the views which have been expressed in the Press of this morning; but as far as I can see, the hon. Member has wrongly interpreted those views, which appear to me to be in favour of the Bill being passed in its present form. In my opinion the country generally is also in favour of the Bill, which in reality is only opposed by a very small minority in this House. Allusion was made yesterday by hon. Members opposite to what they called the "tyrannical majority," but I have rather to complain of the action of the "tyrannical minority" who seek to prevent the desire of the great majority from being carried into effect. If the Bill is not passed I hope that the responsibility for its loss will be thrown upon those who are opposing it. The Government cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. PICTON: The question turns on the phrase" con-
  608
  tentious measures." Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not say that it is quite fair to take a contentious measure after 12 o'clock at night. He says it is not a contentious measure because in a very small House very few Members opposed it. I do not dispute that fact, but I say that there is a strong feeling in the country against the Bill as manifested by letters from the Chairmen of various important School Boards, and there has been a Memorial presented against it from a representative body in one of the largest towns in England. Indeed, there is sufficiently strong opposition to the measure to justify us in calling it contentious. We do not say that if the whole country were polled we should be found to have a majority; but what we do say is that there is a sufficiently strong feeling against the Bill to justify us in calling it a contentious measure, and asking that it shall not be forced upon the House at this period of the Session by means of an all-night Sitting.
  MR. CHANNING: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the country is in favour of proceeding with the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury made it clear yesterday that he would not condescend to inquire as to the feeling of the local bodies which are mainly concerned. "We take two objections against proceeding with the Bill. First, that the places and persons concernsd have not been consulted by the Government in any reasonable manner; and, secondly, that it is unfair to hon. Members after a wearisome and exhausting Session to ask them to remain here in the last week in August in order to discuss a Bill that is full of contentious matter, and must be strongly opposed unless the Government are prepared to make great concessions. To take such a Bill after 12 o'clock at night would be a monstrous breach of that fair play which the minority of the House ought to receive from the majority. As doubts were thrown most discourteously by the First Lord of the Treasury yesterday upon the authenticity of the letter of the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), which appeared in a morning paper, I have to state that I have this morning received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman,

  609
  from which I will read a brief extract. It is as follows:—
  "Aix les Bains,
  "25th August.
  "My dear Channing,
  "I have been watching the Technical Bill with interest and anxiety, and my misgivings have rather increased than diminished since I left London.
  "Your letter reached me only this morning. I telegraphed a short communication to the Daily News expressing the hope that the Bill would he abandoned."
  I think I am perfectly entitled to make that statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend after the doubt thrown upon the former letter by the First Lord of the Treasury. I think it will be a great scandal if the Government insist on forcing the Bill through the House at this period of the Session, and I trust that my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
  The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 81.—(Div. List, No. 349.)
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Government Business be no interrupted, this night, under Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be begun at any hour though opposed.

ORDERS OF THE BAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. PICTON: May I ask a question as to procedure in Committee on this Bill? Many of us have not had an opportunity of discussing questions in which we are interested, and I wish to know whether, in going through the clauses and schedules, we may be able to refer to any matter of public interest to which they relate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is a well established rule that that is not possible.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Mr. Courtney, I am very glad that the House of Commons at last has an opportunity of considering the finances of India as a whole, because the fragmentary discussion of Indian questions in this House is exceedingly dangerous to the financial stability of that country. I may remind the Committee that we have already had three definite proposals relating to India placed before the House of Commons during the present Session. The first and second were two successive attacks upon great items of revenue, inviting the Government of India to reduce the salt duty and to surrender the opium revenue in order to meet the sentimental views of Members of this House; and the third definite proposal was that the Government of India should increase its expenditure in a direction which the friends of India have always said is obnoxious to the people of India—namely, on its home charges. The only proposition made this Session in the direction of economy was that made by the Secretary of State for effecting a small economy in the home charges by a reduction of the number of members of the Council of India. That proposal was met in this House by the "friends of India "with the most determined opposition, and nothing but what I may call the phenomenal courtesy of hon. Members opposite allowed that very small measure to become law. Now, Mr. Courtney, I must begin by calling attention to the "Explanatory Memorandum" which has been already in the hands of Members for some six weeks, and in which statement I have to make certain corrections in consequence of the receipt of more recent intelligence. The Committee will bear in mind that in the discussion of this evening we have three years to deal with. First, we have the year ending March 31, 1888, which is the immediate object of the Resolution to be moved from the Chair, and as to which the accounts are closed and completed and now laid before Parliament. Then there is the year ending March 31, 1889, as to which we have the

  611
  revised Estimates; and although I shall be able to-night to inform the House with a tolerable approach to accuracy how the accounts of that year precisely stand, yet they are not finally closed. Lastly, we have the year ending March 31, 1890, as to which the state of the accounts is more or less a matter of conjecture. In regard to the first year I have little to add to what is found in my Memorandum. There is a deficit of Rx.2,028,832. That deficit, I may observe, only differs by Rx.68,032 from the deficit I predicted when I made my statement to the House a little more than 12 months ago. There have been criticisms in the public Press, asking why, when the accounts are closed on March 31, it is not possible by the middle or end of August to make a statement of account which should be absolutely accurate, and I have more than once explained to the Committee why that is impossible. There are a great number of local Treasury accounts, railway accounts, and other accounts, which are not audited till November or December; and consequently the accounts cannot be absolutely and finally made up till then. Therefore, it is not possible in August to describe the final accounts of the Government of India with absolute accuracy. But last year the variation of the expenditure was less than one-fourth per cent, and the variation in the net revenue less than one-tenth per cent. I should like also to remind the Committee that I fully explained last year the causes of the deficit in 1887–88, and I should like to remind the Committee that of the deficit of Rx.2,000,000, more than half was not a deficit at all. A sum of more than a million came into course of payment during that particular year, in consequence of the carrying out of the extremely useful conversion scheme, by which upwards of £50,000,000 were converted from 4 per cent into 3½ per cent stock; and therefore the real deficit of 1887–8 that we have to regret is somewhat less than Rx.1,000,000. We now come to the year ending March 31, 1889. The Budget Estimates for the year 1888–9 showed a deficit of Rx.698,000. But when I came to make my statement to the Committee last August, gloomy as was the prospect, I was obliged to draw a still blacker picture of the future of
  612
  Indian Finance. I predicted that there would be a deficit in the year ending March 31, 1889, of no less than Rx.1,540,000. I am happy to say, however, that my gloomy prognostications have not been verified. In March last the Government of India were able to announce that the deficit would only be Rx.201,700. The real cause of the great discrepancy between my prophecy in August last and its realisation was that the rupee, which we were afraid would fall to 16d., only fell to 16⅜. That is a very good illustration of what I may call the gambling character at the present day of Indian finance. It is impossible for any person, however experienced, to have the slightest real knowledge of the vagaries of the exchange, which may entirely upset all calculations. I am very happy to be able to announce that even the moderate deficit expected in March will not be realised, because the telegrams received from India show an improvement since then in the Revenue of Rx.17,700, and a diminution in the expenditure of Rx. 194,300, making a total financial improvement of Rx.212,000, which turns the estimated deficiency of Rx.201,700 into a little surplus of Rx.10,300, so that what was estimated in August last to end in a deficiency of Rx. 1,500,000 turns out to produce a surplus. I come now to the current year 1889–90 for which the Budget Estimate was made, and the Committee will see from the "Explanatory Memorandum "which I have circulated that the surplus at the time when the Budget statement was made in Calcutta was estimated at Rx. 106,300. Now, some financial critics find fault with my Memorandum because in it I take the figures as they were known to the Government of India in March last, when the Budget statement was made; while the figures have now to be corrected by experience gained since. When I prepared my Memorandum early in July, it was accurate according to the knowledge we had at that time; but it necessitated another correction to be made when I should come to make my present oral statement to the Committee. I hold that it was better not to issue a further printed statement, but to make the correction once for all in my vivâ voce statement. No doubt it would have been a good thing to have a

  613
  more accurate printed statement, but the difficulty is to know when the printed statement will be taken into consideration by the House. My Memorandum was circulated on the 15th of July, when we ail expected the Session to close on the 31st of July. [Laughter.] There was a very wide feeling, indeed, among Members that the Session would come to an early close in the last week in that month. But now we are in the last week in August, six weeks after the statement was issued, and two months since it was prepared, so I shall have to make the corrections to which I have referred. I know that these Indian figures are extremely perplexing when Members have several sets of figures to carry in their minds, but if it was the wish of the Committee to have a double set of corrections, I have no doubt they could b9 prepared. Now, the estimated surplus for 1889–90, according to the more recent figures we have received by telegraph from India, becomes one of Rx.693,300. I am sorry to say I have made a mistake, and the proper surplus is Rx.414,000.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not think the figures now work out.
  SIR J. GORST: I am comparing the Budget Estimate for 1889–90 with the Revised Estimate for 1888–9, which gives an improvement not of Rx.414,000, but of Rx.308,000, when increases of expenditure are set against increases of revenue. As to these latter the chief increase has been in salt, which is taken at Rx.313,200 more than in 1888–9; in Provincial rates, Rx.240,100; inland revenue, Rx.99,200; and under other heads, Rx. 1,600. Hon. Members cheered when I referred to the salt revenue. I think they might have waited to hear the cause of this increase, because the increase is occasioned owing to the dealers having expected at the end of the financial year that there would be a diminution of the tax; and they therefore allowed their stocks to run low. Their expectation was not realised, and therefore they had to take out large stocks of salt, and so enhance the salt revenue. It is in consequence of this that the revenue is greater than it otherwise would have been. I do not know that I need refer to any other subject in connection with this part of the Budget estimate. [After a pause.] I am afraid
  614
  that even now I have not given the figures quite clearly. According to the figures recently received by telegraph there is a net improvement in the Accounts of Rx.587,000, as compared with the figures given in the Explanatory Memorandum; which makes the total surplus, as now estimated, Rx.693,300, the amount I stated at first. The improvements on the figures in the Explanatory Memorandum are under Land Revenue, Stamps, Customs and Opium; in respect of which latter there is both an increase in revenue and a decrease in expenditure. There is also, however, a variation in the exchange, which must be taken at 1s. 6 3/16d., instead of 1s. 3⅜d., which brings out the total net improvement at Rx.587,000.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: How much is due to the exchange?
  SIR J. GORST: Over Rx.250,000; and the surplus now estimated is Rx.693,300. A sum of no less than Rx. 1,102,900 has been spent upon special defence works, and if it were not for this expenditure the surplus of the year would be Rx.1,796,200. I do not think that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I do not see the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy who has a Resolution on the Paper in his place; but, perhaps, some Friend will tell him that the position of Indian finance is not so extremely unsatisfactory as that gentleman would like the House to infer. I think when you find that, in spite of the expenditure on special defence, in spite of the falls of the rupee, and in spite of the burden which has been imposed on India by the expenditure in Upper Burma—when you find that, in spite of all these adverse influences, in the year just closed there is a small surplus, and that there is a surplus of Rx. 693,300 anticipated during the current year, you cannot call that a very unsatisfactory financial position. Now, having printed my statement for the use of the Committee, and having made these supplementary statements, I do not want and I should not be justified in wearying the Committee with any further exposition of figures, but I dare say the Committee will allow me before I sit down to make one or two general observations upon some of the great items of Revenue and Expenditure, which may be useful in the discussion which is likely to ensue. The first thing I want to say a word about

  615
  is salt. Now, in the financial statement made by Sir D. Barbour in March last he anticipated a possible falling off in the consumption of salt in 1888–9. The statistics, however, prove that in India proper the consumption of salt in the year when the tax was put on was as nearly as possible the same as in the previous year, and that neither the expectations of Sir D. Barbour nor the startling anticipations of some hon. Members of this House have been realised in the falling off in the salt consumption. The actual figures are these—in the whole of India, excluding Burmab, the consumption in the year 1887–8 was 31,186,000 maunds; in 1888–9 the consumption was 31,184,000 maunds, there being a reduction in 1888–9 of 2,000 maunds only. In Burma, on the other hand, the reduction was very great indeed. The reduction there was from 1,931,000 to 314,000 maunds, which was, no doubt, an enormous reduction; but then the hon. Member who cheers that, must remember that in Burma the duty was raised from three annas to a rupee, and that there is no doubt that, the import of salt fish being duty free, the consumption of salt fish has largely displaced the consumption of salt. The Burmese peasant has consumed the duty free salt fish instead of British salt, which has caused an extreme falling off in the consumption of salt without any hardship whatever to the consumer. There is nothing shocks me more than the extraordinary statements made by people who ought to know better about this salt duty in India. I admit it is a matter of regret having to raise the duty on salt at all, but it is not the gigantic and enormous evil which sensational newspapers and sensational Members of Parliament describe. The fact is the operations of the Government in India during the past 10 or 15 years have reduced the price of salt to the consumers, and particularly the poor consumers, far more than taxation has increased it. Turning to the book published at Calcutta by the Department of Finance and Commerce, referring to prices and wages in India, I find that the purchasing power of the rupee in relation to salt is very much greater now than in 1877. A much larger quantity of salt can be bought for a rupee now than was the case in 1877,
  616
  showing that the Government of India, by its railways, by its canals, by opening up new resources in the interior of the country, has lowered the price of salt very much more than taxation has raised it; and that if you take the Government of India, with its advantages and disadvantages, it has on the whole not increased the price of salt to the unhappy ryot, but greatly diminished it. I should like also to remind the Committee that Bengal and Burma derive the greater part of their salt, not from India but from Liverpool, and that any increase of the price of salt in either Burma or Bengal may be in some part attributed to the salt ring, which raised the export price from 7s. to 14s. per ton, and that possibly some of the opprobrium which is heaped on the Government of India might be more justly applied to the combination referred to. The next subject is the cost of the Civil Departments. One hears a good deal of general declamation about the extravagance of the Government of India, accompanied by general exhortations to economy and retrenchment. Now, I do not think people ever reflect that in every civilised State there are always two antagonistic operations going on. On the one hand there is always a cry for revision of establishments and for reduction of expenditure; and on the other there is always a tendency to increase Government, expenditure and Government establishments in consequence of the demand that Government should do more work tor the people. The Finance Committee in India has gone carefully over the different kinds of Civil expenditure, and has recommended a vast number of reductions under various heads. I could give the House some examples of these recommendations—the Public Works Department, Rx.275,700; the Ecclesiastical Establishment, Rx.31,000; and various Civil Departments, Rx.42,220; the Army Department, Rx.161,050; political charges, Rx.48,945; and miscellaneous, Rx.10,795. These are illustrations of the minute criticism to which the expenditure of the various Departments has been submitted, and of the reductions which the Finance Committee recommend. It may, perhaps, in the course of the Debate, be asked whether these reductions have been carried out. I A great number of them have, but of

  617
  course it is in many cases impossible to carry out a contemplated reform at once. A despatch, however, has been sent by the Secretary of State asking that a statement may be submitted to him showing which of the recommendations have been carried out and which not, and setting forth the reasons why these latter have not been taken in hand. If any hon. Member, therefore, requires any information on this point next Session, I shall probably be in a position to give it to him in the fullest detail. When complaints are made of the large expenditure of the Government of India I should like hon. Members to reflect on the wide range and the immense extensions of the functions of that Government. There are the railways, which are largely increasing year by year; there are the telegraph and post office services, which are being largely extended; schools are being established everywhere; there are reforms in the police, and a great increase in the expenditure on law and justice and in the Agricultural and other Departments. It must also be borne in mind that the population of India is increasing by a million per annum. In view of this large increase of population and of the increasing demands upon the Government to do more and more for the people, it is ridiculous for the House to expect that an increase of expenditure can be avoided. Paraphrasing what was once a watchword of the Liberal Party, I would say—such expenditure has increased, is increasing, and ought not to be diminished. I now desire to say a word or two regarding what is known as the Famine Insurance Fund. Ever since I have had the honour of filling the position of Under Secretary for India, I have struggled and striven in vain to explain to the House what this Famine Insurance Fund is, but apparently with little effect, for I have found hon. Gentlemen as well informed as the hon. Member for Northampton getting up and speaking of it as if the Fund consisted of an immense sum of money of which the Secretary of State was the absolute treasurer, and which he had embezzled. As I have over and over again explained, the Fund is the result of a scheme to maintain a certain surplus to be devoted to the reduction of debt and to the construction of rail-
  618
  way and irrigation works likely to prevent the recurrence of famine, and to secure its mitigation should it occur. We have been able for a number of years to obtain this surplus, and during each of those years every penny of that surplus has been properly and justly expended in accordance with the scheme. [MR. MAC NEILL: Oh!] Yes, the money has each year been expended, and a Return showing this has been laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. MAC NEILL: It was never spent in the year of the Afghan War at all.
  SIR J. GORST: In 1881, the surplus of £1,567,000 was expended; in 1881–2, £1,495,000; in 1883, £1,522,000; and in 1884, £1,548,000; and in 1885, £1,529,000. Whenever there has been a surplus it has been expended. But when the time comes as it has now when there is no excess of Revenue over Expenditure, then the only way of obtaining a surplus is to reduce expenditure —which I have shown is not feasible in India—or to increase the Revenue by taxation. I shall be very glad if any other course can be pointed out to us. With regard to the expenditure on Army services, I desire to point out that the increase is in one respect only apparent owing to the increase in the exchange. There has, however, been a real increase, and this has been due to the fact that the Army in India was four years ago increased. There is one more subject I should like to mention. The special defence works have been a great drain on the resources of India. It must be borne in mind that they are of very great importance to the country. These special defence works were proposed at the close of the year 1884, and they were then estimated to be likely to cost Rx.6,000,000, exclusive of other charges. A comprehensive plan was prepared in 1884, by which it was proposed to make a network of frontier railways and frontier roads, and to expend Rx.6,000,000 on roads and fortifications and other defence works exclusive of railways. Up to the present time the frontier railways have cost Rx.10,500,000, and the special defence works Rx. 3,000,000. There remains, to complete the plan, an expenditure of Rx.750,000 on railways, and Rx.2,500,000 on special defence works. There has also been

  619
  spent on defensive military roads, as part of the ordinary public works expenditure, Rx.750,000. The Committee will therefore see that although large sums have already been spent upon defence works, we shall have to expend at least two and a half millions more before they are complete. I do not know that this is the proper occasion to discuss the policy of works of this kind; but I may perhaps remind the Committee that the works have been approved by successive Governments belonging to both parties in the House; and that the expenditure on these works is regarded by the Government of India as one of the most necessary and valuable outlays of public money that can take place, because it is above all things essential that India should have security and peace, and the object of this expenditure is to make India, as far as fortifications and railways and roads can do so, a place where the maintenance of peace shall be secure. The last subject in connection with the accounts on which I want to say a word is that of a Provincial finance. It is a subject which hardly comes under the notice of the Committee in the same way as Imperial finance; but really Provincial finance is by far the more important element in the prosperity of the people of India. It is rather a remarkable thing that the efforts of the Party opposite in this House are generally directed, as far as Indian politics are concerned, towards a system of the greatest possible centralisation ["No"] as distinguished from local administration. It is very remarkable that in these days, when both Parties profess the greatest desire for local self-government, and when the zeal for local self-government is carried so far as, in our opinion, to threaten the dismemberment of the Empire—it is very odd that in this House hon. Members like the hon. Member for Northampton, who claims to be the representative of the millions in India, should rather aim at the construction of a great centralised Indian nation ["No"] than at the separation of India into its natural component parts, and at the creation of a great number of separate and distinct nations in the several Provinces of India. But the course of events is too strong for them. There is no chance, as far as one can judge, of anything like a centralised Indian nation. There
  620
  is every probability of a great number of distinct and varied communities being formed, and, so far as finance goes, of a very thorough decentralisation. The Provinces of India now receive 26½ per cent of the whole revenue of India, and they spend 36½ per cent of the Indian expenditure. The Central Imperial Government restricts its expenditure to such matters as interest on debt, the Army, opium, Post Office, Telegraph Office, the greater part of the railways, and all the military works. The Provincial Governments have, generally speaking, the whole of the domestic expenditure in their hands. They have the whole duty of collecting the revenue, except the revenue from salt and opium; they control the expenditure on the administration of justice, and on schools, gaols, and medical sanitary works; and the greater part of the irrigation works, and the whole of the civil roads and bridges all over the country, are in their hands. In order to enable the Provincial Governments to carry out these works there is concluded with them what is called the Provincial contract, which is a five years' arrangement, under which the Provincial Governments collect the whole of the revenue, except that derived from opium and salt, and hand a fixed portion over to the Imperial Government, keeping the rest for defraying the expenditure to which I have alluded. Every Province keeps, for example, three-quarters of the whole Stamp Revenue, a quarter of the Excise Revenue, the whole of its Provincial rates, a half of the revenue derived from assessed taxes, forests, and registration; and they also have a percentage of the Land Revenue, which varies from Province to Province according to the amount required to make up the sum for additional expenditure. The Land Revenue retained by the North-West Provinces is 22 per cent, Madras 27 per cent, British Burma 34 per cent, Bengal 38 per cent, Punjab 43 per cent, the Central Provinces 48 per cent, Assam 50 per cent, and Bombay 58½ per cent. It will be quite apparent to the Committee that ail the comfort of the people, all the liberty and prosperity of the people of India, depend upon the good administration of the Provincial finances. The greater Imperial questions are under the control of the Central Govern-

  621
  ment, but all that which relates to the personal happiness, the private life, and the individual prosperity of the various peoples of India depends upon the efficient administration of the local finances. It is the settled policy of the Government of India to encourage as much as possible independence on the part of the various Provincial Governments. The wants and the necessities of the people vary from Province to Province. It is impossible to administer the affairs of India on one hard and uniform rule; and the policy of the Government for many years past has been to encourage as much as possible the legislative and administrative independence of the different Provinces, so that the Government may bo shaped and framed in accordance with the necessities of the people. In conclusion, I will refer to the transactions in regard to the debt of India which were carried out during the past year. The conversion of £53,261,820 Four per Cent Stock is now complete. It is reduced to 3½ per cent. The whole cost of the operation is now paid for, and the saving henceforth to the revenues of India by the operation will be £266,300 per annum. The Government of India has also just converted Rx. 1,787,540 from 4½ per cent to 4 per cent. The operation was carried out with the greatest possible success. Less than Rx.200,000 were demanded in cash; and there is a saving to the Indian Exchequer of about Rx.89,000 per annum. The usual loan for public works in India has taken two crores of rupees. It was negotiated at 99·93, compared with 99·79 last year. In this country, under the Act which Parliament passed last year, 3½ millions was borrowed to lend to the Railway Companies. That sum was borrowed at 3 per cent at a rate little over 101. The money was lent to the companies at 3¼ per cent, and thus the Government reaped a small profit of £8,750 a year. With regard to the prosperity of the country, the Committee will observe from the statistics contained in my printed Memorandum that the exports were 6½ millions over those of the previous year, which exports were the largest up to that time; and the imports 4½ millions over those of the previous year, which were, till then, the largest on record. That is satisfactory evidence of the material prosperity of the
  622
  country; and I think I may invite the Committee respectfully but very firmly to reject the gloomy view foreshadowed in the Resolution which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has given notice of his intention to move, and to take the more sanguine view which I have ventured to lay before the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1888, was Rx.78,759,744; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged to Revenue was Rx.80,788,576; that there was an excess of Expenditure over Revenue of Rx.2,028,832; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.2,781,824."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I have placed on the Paper notice of my intention to move an Amendment expressive of the deep regret of the House that the accounts have not been laid before it at a period when they could be properly debated. I do not propose to move that Amendment, because the state of the House is such that no Division on it could accurately represent the feeling of the House upon it; and if I did divide, it might go forth to the people of India that a very large number of Members had no regard whatever for the Indian people, and that a very small number of Members of this House thought their affairs ought to come before Parliament for discussion. Therefore, while making as I do a most earnest protest—a protest which, I believe, would be joined in by Members on the other side of the House as well as by Members on this side, if it were not for Party exigencies at this late period of the Session—I desire to give it especial emphasis because of the fact that the modification in the new Rules of Procedure during the last two years has deprived those who desire to present to this House any statement or criticism of any opportunity whatever of doing so, unless such opportunity is furnished by the action of the Ballot. Even if a Member happens to be fortunate enough, as I was early this Session, of obtaining first place for a Motion dealing with the affairs of India, it may be that the Government will take away the opportunity which the Ballot has given him. India stands here in an entirely different position from any other part of the dependencies of this

  623
  great Empire. There is no colony, however small, but that upon the Estimates we have afforded one or more opportunities of raising any question which any Member thinks ought to be brought before this House in relation to it; but the same thing cannot be said with regard to India, with the enormous population, to which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has referred, of something like 210 millions of actual subjects of the Imperial Crown, and another 65 millions of people more or less subject to its influence. I think the present system is one which any person taking any interest whatever, however remote, in the honour of Britain ought to deplore and endeavour to have changed. I would venture to appeal—it seems rather a mockery to say to the Government, with only the Under Secretary for India, able Representative of the Government as he is, present in the House. It seems also a mockery to appeal to the leaders of the Party on this side of the House, none of them being present. I deem it right to say that if the Government are deaf to our appeal, and if they will not so modify the new Rule as to enable us to raise questions which we cannot now raise during this Debate, I shall take the one opportunity which I have never taken since I have been a Member of this House, and shall take care that the question is raised by an Amendment to the Address. At any rate, the Government cannot deprive me of that opportunity as they have twice this Session deprived me of the opportunity I had obtained by means of the Ballot. While I admired the good-humoured and able speech to which we have just listened, I could not help being struck with the marvellous coolness—I suppose I must not say audacity—which characterised some of the statements of the Under Secretary for India. He was good enough to tell us that the only proposal of economy had come from the Government, but he coolly ignored the fact that he and his Government had taken away from me the opportunity I had obtained of submitting to the House proposals which I thought would have tended in that direction. He had the frank audacity to inform the Committee that the Council of India Bill had been hindered on this side of the House and had only got through with great diffi-
  624
  culty, when he knows as well as any other Member of the Committee that the Government never put it down earlier than the ninth Order of the Day—I think that one night I saw it the 19th— and when he knows it was in the power of the Government to have put it down as the first or second Order of any day they pleased, and so have tested the question whether there was any real opposition to it. Surely the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged that on the first appeal made to me by the Leader of the House to the effect that if I kept on the Paper a notice of Amendment I had to the Second Reading of the Bill he would be obliged to withdraw it, I at once withdrew the notice, although I regarded the Bill as wretchedly small and exceedingly ineffective, and although I regarded it as being more effective in words than it would be in reality. If I had pressed my Amendment on the attention of the Committee I should have pointed out that any discussion of the Indian Budget with the Benches as they are now is utterly impossible. It is impossible to take the sense of the Committee on any proposition which may be submitted to it without a shameful and disgraceful exhibition of the utter neglect by so many Members of Parliament of the interests of so many millions of our fellow-subjects. I cannot say I quite followed the right hon. Gentleman's first figures. It seems to me that they do not quite agree; but on this point it may be that I did not pay sufficient attention to his corrections, and I shall confine myself more especially to the figures which I have in print, and which at any rate are capable of being more clearly examined. The hon. Gentleman complained that he was met by ironical cheers when he referred to the chief increase in the income of India this year as resulting from the Salt Tax; and he went to the length of saying that he was shocked by the statements made by people who ought to know better as to the effect of the increase of the Salt Duty on the consumption of salt. Well, he managed to shock me because, with the almost blind reliance that I have on the accuracy of everything told me by the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding that I have occasionally found that he has been misled by those who instruct him to reply in this House, I had

  625
  thought that the Blue Book circulated under his authority amongst the Members of the House, only within the last few days, has told us expressly that the consumption of salt had fallen off in consequence of high prices, which, I propose to show, were the result of the increase of duty. I do not understand why he should be shocked at our entertaining an opinion which the Government of India officially puts to us. The hon. Gentleman complains also that we have spoken of the "Famine Insurance Fund." Well, that is how his own Government have spoken of it and has described it. They have now spent the whole of the fund, and do not like to acknowledge that such a fund existed. In a marvellously emphatic tone the hon. Gentleman appealed to the Committee, and said—
  "We have spent the surplus we had; if a larger surplus is wanted for this purpose do Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House advocate increased taxation, which is the only way of getting a larger surplus?"
  Our answer is that we have had increased taxation for the purpose of raising a specific sum which you pledged yourselves never to apply to any other purpose, that you have applied it to many other purposes, that you have seldom applied it to the purposes for which it was intended. Before examining the Memorandum of the Under Secretary, which was issued later this year than last, I will very briefly draw the attention of the Committee, in view of the fall in silver, to the impolicy of maintaining even the slightest hindrances to the consumption of silver for manufacturing purposes. As was most fully pointed out in a Debate on this question in another place about a month ago, the duty of 1s. 6d. per ounce and the requirement of hall marking were practically prohibitive of the importation for trade purposes of Indian manufactured silver articles and the exportation of English manufactured silver for the Indian market. I appeal specially to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question, which is of high importance to India, and vitally affects our silver trade with many foreign countries. I now come to that branch of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India, which has occupied so prominent a position in this evening's Debate. I allude to
  626
  that portion of it which relates to the provision for famine relief and insurance, or, as I prefer to call it, to the Famine Insurance Fund. I ask the Committee to turn to the Famine Relief and Insurance item, on page 50, in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Under Secretary. But, in the first place, I desire to say a word or two as to what has been urged by the hon. Gentleman with reference to the correction of figures which appear in that Memorandum. I would point out that it would have been quite possible for the Government to have taken the discussion on the Indian Budget a week or a fortnight after the Indian Budget Statement had been circulated, and had the hon. Gentleman taken that course there could not then have been any necessity for the corrections he now makes. The hon. Gentleman has taken credit for the fact that the Memorandum has been circulated for a period of more than six weeks; but I would point out that it was published later this year than last year, and, therefore, it might have been criticised at an earlier date, as the financial year ends at the same date in one year as in another. I think that, considering the matter is one which affects the welfare of 275 millions of Her Majesty's subjects, the Government ought to recognise it as being one of sufficient importance to be discussed in this House at a period of the year when it can be freely and fairly debated, and nearer to the end of the financial year. It is quite possible that every explanation the hon. Gentleman has given has been comprehended by every Member of this House except myself; but I certainly do find it difficult to follow a set of figures as to which the hon. Gentleman himself is not quite sure, and which even in their corrected form do not commend themselves to us as matters about which there is a possibility of our all being in agreement. Well, the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Famine Insurance Return, which I myself moved for, and which has been laid on the Table of this House. He referred to it as a document of which the Government might fairly be proud. Now, Sir, I should say that if it were possible to imagine any man holding the position of a Minister being capable of shame— and I believe such a phenomenon has never been known in the history of

  627
  Parliament—I should have thought that I that Return was a document of which any Minister ought to be heartily ashamed; and although I do not put it personally to the hon. Gentleman as being any ground for shame on his part, yet I think he might reasonably feel a sort of vicarious shame in finding that promises which have been so solemnly made have, nevertheless, been so deliberately broken, and that a large sum of money collected for a particular purpose has been just as deliberately misapplied. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India referred to the origin of the Famine Relief Fund, but he did so in the vaguest of all fashions. The first reference I will make is to the financial Statement for 1878–9, to the Financial Resolution of the Government of India, dated 18th March, 1878, and to a Minute by the Viceroy of India, dated 12th March, 1878, for a detailed explanation of the principles on which it was proposed to make a systematic provision against periodical famines and deaths from starvation. In the Parliamentary Paper, No. 37, dated 1878, page 5, the speech of the Finance Minister in the Legislative Council of the Government of India proposes to raise an additional £1,500,000 a year "on account of famine alone," and he says that this is done because of the
  "Recognition of Her Majestys' Government of the duty of making definite provision for the cost of famine."
  On page 24 of that Paper he further says—
  "It is the firm intention of the present Government to apply the funds now to be provided for this special purpose strictly to the exclusive objects which they were designed to secure;"
  and he also goes on to say—
  "The Government of India intends to keep this million and a half as insurance against famine alone."
  Now, there have been 12 years during which that sum of a million and a half has been collected, making a total of £18,000,000 sterling, and I shall presently show that that money has not been kept, as was promised, and also how little of it has been spent for the purposes it was intended to serve. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has told us that it has been religiously disbursed. For my part, I cannot imagine in what sense the ton. Gentleman uses that expression;
  628
  but I can say that it was certainly not honestly disbursed nor truly disbursed. Well, in the same speech the Finance Minister says—
  "We consider that the Estimates of every year ought to make provision for religiously applying the sum I have mentioned to this sole purpose; and I hope that no desire to carry out any administrative improvement, however urgent, or any fiscal reform, however wise, will tempt the Government to neglect this sacred trust."
  They imposed a specific tax of £1,500,000, and promised that it should be devoted to famine, and to famine alone, and hoped that no Government would be able to make away with it. Indeed, the then Viceroy, Lord Lytton, used language so strong that I feel bound to refer to it, and to show that this "sacred trust" was neglected by Lord Lytton himself for the purposes of war; while when the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, Lord E. Churchill, was Secretary for India the same "sacred trust" was abandoned for purpose of annexation. Well, as I have said, Lord Lytton, the then Viceroy, used very remarkable language on the 27th December, 1877, which is to be found on page 36 of the Paper I am referring to. He anticipated that objectors might say, "Your good intentions are possibly sincere; but the path to the nethermost pit is already paved with good intentions." I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary was thinking of that downward path when he spoke of the money having been religiously disbursed; but Lord Lytton proceeds with what the objectors might say as follows:—
  "Promise is a good dog, but Performance is a better; we have often heard the bowwow of the first; we have yet to see the tail of the second. We have been told over and over again by the highest authorities that India is to be insured against famine in this way, or in that; but when famines come upon us we find that the promised way is still wanting."
  Lord Lytton then solemnly declared—
  "We promise nothing which we have not, after long and anxious consideration, provided ourselves with the means of performing. I must have very imperfectly explained myself thus far if I have failed to make it clearly understood that I am not now speaking of what we ought to do, or would do, to insure this country against the worst effects of future famine had we only the means of doing it; but of what we can do, and will do, with the means already provided for, in the measures now before the Council."

  629
  In the Debate on the 16th January, 1878, in the Legislative Council, in Parliamentary Paper No. 118 of 1878, page 5, a native Member of the Legislative Council, speaking of this Famine Insurance, suggests
  "That it should be formed into a separate fund with a separate account, so that it may satisfy the people that it is what it in reality is intended to be—a separate famine fund."
  And, on page 44, Lord Lytton says—
  "The necessity of a Famine Insurance Fund and the duty of the Government to provide such a fund, has been generally acknowledged."
  And yet this Session the Under Secretary denies that it ought to be called a fund, and admits that that duty has never been fulfilled. These are not mere empty words, for the hon. Gentleman said he did not know whether his trusted Indian Councillors had been dead or alive.
  SIR J. GORST: I did not say that I did not know whether they were dead or alive; but that the hon. Gentleman did not ask the question whether they were dead or alive.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Whether we were told that he did not know whether they were dead or alive, or that I did not ask the question whether it was a Council composed of living or dead men, is a matter as to which it is not easy to make a distinction. At any rate, in order to raise that £1,500,000 it was necessary to levy increased taxes on the natives of India. Well, what does the Finance Minister say upon this? In 1878–9 the Finance Minister observed, by way of justifying the increased taxation—
  "I feel confident that I shall be able to satisfy the Council and the public that the resolution which the Government has proclaimed will be faithfully carried out, and that the proceeds of these new taxes will be expended for the purpose of providing what I nave called an insurance against famine, land for no other purpose whatsoever."
  If words have any meaning at all Lord Lytton and his Finance Minister say—
  "We impose a special tax—a new tax—for the purpose of raising a special sum of money, and pledge the honour of ourselves and our councillors that that money shall never be applied to any other object."
  If hon. Members will refer to the Return moved for by myself they will see that this promise was never kept, except when Lord Ripon was Viceroy. That I
  630
  am not stating the case unfairly may be seen from the Minute of the Viceroy, dated 12th March, 1878. The Viceroy then wrote—
  "The sole justification for the increased taxation which has just been imposed upon the people of India for the purpose of ensuring this Empire against the worse calamities of future famine, so far as such an insurance can now be practically provided, is the pledge we have given that a sum not less than a million and a half sterling, which exceeds the amount of the additional contributions obtained from the people for this purpose, shall be annually applied to it."
  And here I would ask how have you applied the £18,000,000, and I repeat that I will show that except when the Marquess of Ripon was Viceroy you never applied it to the purpose for which it was intended, and that if you have not got it now it is because you have devoted it, as I have already said, to purposes of war and annexation and the erection of costly buildings at Simla, and for similar purposes, while the people of India have been starving. The Viceroy's Minute goes on to say—
  "We have explained to the people of this country that the additional revenue raised by the new taxes is required, not for the luxuries but for the necessities of the State, not for general purposes, but for the construction of a particular class of public works; and we have pledged ourselves not to spend one rupee of the special resources thus created upon works of a different character."
  The English language has very little value if this can be so translated from the Ministerial Benches as to explain away its plain and direct meaning; and surely in such a case we ought not to be treated with what I must call a miserable farce of arithmetic like that I hold in my hand. But there were people who doubted whether this £1,500,000 would be applied to its intended purpose; and when the British Indian Association later on hinted at the possible breach of faith on the part of the Government, Lord Lytton openly rebuked them in these memorable words—
  "You have entirely failed to recognise the fact that the sole purpose of this additional taxation you complain of was the preservation of the lives of the people from the effects of famine. To insinuate the contrary is to insinuate a calumny."
  After the 11 years' experience we have had I not only insinuate the contrary, but I say that that which Lord Lytton

  631
  characterises as a calumny has been proved up to the hilt. I now proceed to complain of and criticise the Return. The tax was first imposed in 1878, but the Return commences with 1879–80. Why is the year 1878–9 omitted? Surely £1,500,000 is a sum worthy of being accounted for. Probably the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary will tell us what was the intention of the Indian Government in omitting that year. He might also tell us what was the amount applied in 1878–9 to the prevention of famine, that being a year so close to Lord Lytton's solemn promise. I refer again to the summary of the 12 years contained on page 4 of the Return. There ought to have been £18,000,000 sterling raised by additional taxation for famine relief alone during those 12 years. How is that sum accounted for? It is only alleged that 9,900,737 tens of rupees, or much less than £10,000,000, has been so applied; and I ask what, in that case, has become of the remaining amount of over £8,000,000 sterling? The only years in which Lord Lytton's promises were kept were the years 1881–2, 1882–3, 1883–4, 1884–5, and 1885–6, during which years Lord Ripon was Viceroy. In those years the promise which Lord Ripon did not make was kept; but the promise which Lord Lytton did make has never been kept at all, and since Lord Ripon's time no one appears to have been in a position to keep it. I may here say that I am going to make the Under Secretary and the Secretary of State himself both responsible for what has been going on. Reverting to Lord Lytton's specific declaration that the "sole purpose of the additional taxation" was the "preservation of the lives of the people from the effects of famine," I will ask the Committee to refer to page 2 of the Returns. I would remind the Committee of the questions I have felt it my duty to put, sometimes, I fear, in a way that must have been somewhat wearisome to the House, and for which I invariably laid myself open to rebuke; and I would point out that since last October it was certainly known to the Government of India that famine was approaching in Madras and Bengal and was also threatening in Bombay. This was known, as far as a great portion of India was concerned, by the partial failure of the South-Western monsoon of 1888, which was due in June
  632
  and July. The effect of this was aggravated by the almost complete failure of the North-East monsoon which was due in October. The Government must have known that the natural result of these things, without any other cause, would have been higher prices for food, great pressure, possible hunger, and even probable famine. Well, what is the estimated provision made by the Government out of the earmarked £1,500,000? It is of no use your saying you have not got it. You have spent it. You took it, and promised to keep it for the purpose of saving life in case of famine. See what a mockery you have made of it. This Return shows that £20,500 was devoted for relief—namely, £500 for charitable relief in Madras and £20,000 for charitable relief in Bengal. No provision was made by the present Government for the relief works, for want of which hundreds of people certainly, many thousands probably, died of starvation before the works were commenced. I beg pardon; I was wrong in saying the Government made no provision. In 1888–9 they actually wrote off as irrecoverable the sum of £200, which was the amount of debt due from some wretched Madras agriculturists whose lands were producing nothing, and who were themselves famine-stricken. The general result is that in 11 years' real famine relief has been given to the extent of 2,631,750 tens of rupees only; and on page 5 of the Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress of India we are told that "no surplus was available as a reserve against famine in future years." This £18,000,000 has been extracted from the peasantry of India on the solemn promise that it should only be applied for the purpose of making provision against times of famine, and that promise has never at any time been kept. In 1877–8 the Government found itself unable to make provision against famine, but at least it did something for the promotion of starvation. I trust I shall not shock the Under Secretary in what I am about to state. I know that his feelings are generally shocked, especially by any statement made from this side of the House with regard to legal questions, which may be accounted for by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has been sitting for so many years on the same Bench with the Law Officers

  633
  of the Grown. Well, what did the Government do? On the 19th January, 1888, they actually raised the Salt Duty 25 per cent, namely, from two rupees per maund of 82 1bs. to 2½ rupees per maund; and the Government themselves, in their own statement, say that the effect of this was to reduce the consumption of salt. Less salt means less food, and the official declaration is that in 1888 the consumption of salt fell off markedly in the District of Ganjam. Page 75 of the Statement— and a very explicit Statement it is— shows that the consumption of salt in Ganjam fell from 12·31 lbs. per head to 8·27 1bs. per head owing, as the Government say, partly to high prices, or, as I say, almost wholly to the high prices resulting from the increased duty. No wonder there has been famine and starvation in Ganjam. If I possessed the cool freedom of speech which characterises the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India when attacking Members on this side of the House, I should be inclined to use exceedingly hard words against a Government which takes credit for its high officials going into a district where it had been pointed out that famine existed, and where they must have known that it was going on eight or nine months before (for it had been pointed out in this House), having previously extorted some Rx.180,000 to make provision for such contingency. It is one of the misfortunes of only one Debate in the year taking place on the finances of India that a Member is obliged to be exceedingly wearisome in the length of the matter he addresses to the House. But I must ask the Committee to note on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum a most extraordinary difference between gross and net revenue and expenditure—the gross being swollen by matters of account, and clearly in some instances creating a false impression. For example, railway receipts go to make up gross totals. From page 12 it will be seen that in the three years 1887–90,railways impose a burden upon the taxpayer of Rx.7,502,780, though the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin) urges the Government to spend £100,000,000 on more railways. In the Official Statement, page 14, it is admitted that—
  634
  "Though the dividend on the total railway capital is apparently more than 5 per cent, and though the Government is not liable for more than 5 per cent on any guaranteed capital, or for more than 4 per cent on State Railway capital; still the Indian Treasury lost on its current railway transactions Rx.2,267,800 in 1887–8, and estimated to lose Rx.2,115,000 in 1838–9."
  The actual loss turned out to be more than half a million of rupees larger than the estimated loss. I am sure the Under Secretary did not purposely omit it, but I should have liked an explanation of the fact that the actual loss was more than half a million of rupees greater than the estimate.
  SIR E. WATKIN: The hon. Member has referred to me. I should like to ask whether he is not aware that it has been proved that the advantage to the people of India of Indian railways is, year by year, greater than the whole gross millions of the annual receipts of the whole of the railways of India?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of following me. I do not see how his interruption is to the point. There is one matter as to which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has told us nothing in his Explanatory Memorandum, and I am rather surprised that he has not, because it is a matter upon which I have felt it my duty to ask him several questions already. He has not in the Memorandum under the head of "Railways" given any information as to the change of policy with reference to the projected railway to Chittagong, as to which a concession of 3,000 square miles of waste land with the right to prospect for coal and petroleum has cither been actually granted, or is under consideration. If this be a wise policy there is no necessity for concealment, nor ought Members of this House to be driven to obtain information from private sources. I do not suggest that such a concession would be bad or good, but the House is entitled to know what are the views of the Department and of the Viceroy. What is the reason of this entire change of policy; on what conditions are these rights of prospecting to be conceded? The hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question the other day, said that if all railway enterprise was to wait until Parliament had expressed an opinion there would be no railways in India at all. I admired the clever-

  635
  ness and ingenuity of the reply, but unless the Secretary of State is the master of Parliament as well as of India, it was his duty in making his annual statement to tell us if such a change of policy has been made or is contemplated, to give the House information on this point, so as to enable the House to form a judgment upon it. Referring to irrigation works on page 13, I wish to ask as to table 2 which in column I states the total cost to 1886–7 as Rx.23,770,346, from what date the commencement of cost is taken? And whether the two tables mean that a total expenditure to the present date of Rx.25,332,935 shows an estimated loss for the year of Rx.725,400 and whether, as a higher loss still is shown in the two other years given, he will state the deficit for the preceding years. I also ask the Under Secretary, as he states the total capital outlay to date on the irrigation works, first, to state the total deficit of all the years covered by the capital outlay. I ask whether the Rx.629,400 mentioned in column 3, table 1, page 13, is the portion of the Land Revenue from new works only, or does it include receipts from old works? And I ask whether, to give the Committee an opportunity of comparing, he can state the amount credited to Land Eevenue from irrigation in 1858? Further, I would ask him if he will state the net addition to the food production of the Empire which has accrued from the total expenditure of £25,000,000? In the statement of assets and liabilities on page 20 I would ask are the railway and irrigation works set down at their full cost? Is any allowance made for depreciation? Is any Sinking Fund provided? Referring to page 10, on Burma, I would ask the Committee to note that while the cost of annexation was originally estimated in November, 1885, at some £270,000, it has already cost some £8,000,000, and it is impossible to limit the further expenditure required to carry out what the Under Secretary of State has called the pacification of the country. I note that in relation to the Burma Ruby Mines Parliament has never had submitted to it the particulars, with names and amounts of the various tenders. I would ask the Under Secretary to state the cost of and incidental to the sending out of Mr. Barrington Browne
  636
  as Government expert? What kind of valuation he made, and the general nature of his Report, and how many higher tenders—and to what amount— were received than the one accepted, with the names of the persons tendering?
  SIR J. GORST: I can answer that at once; there were no higher tenders.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman attaches any subtle meaning to the word "tender," and whether there are not offers in writing within the knowledge of the Viceroy of India?
  SIR J. GORST: The tender for the Burma Ruby Mines was settled in this country by public advertisement in the newspapers. Tenders were received at the India Office, and they were opened in my presence. I can vouch for the fact that no other tenders were received.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I cannot think that I and the hon. Gentleman mean the same thing in the words we are using. I should be glad, however, if the hon. Gentleman would oblige the Committee with the names and particulars of the various tenders, together with the replies, so that the Committee may be enabled to form a judgment as to the higher or lower tenders. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee why it is stated on page 17 of the Government statement dealing with the moral and material progress of India, that a lease of the Burma Ruby Mines was granted to a British Company in 1887–8, when the hon. Member more than once in the most express terms has stated in the House that no such lease has been granted? The company is to pay a rental of £40,000 a year and one-sixth of the profits, and I should like to know why it is that in the estimated receipts for 1888–9 and 1890, there is no sum whatever even entered in the Estimates as likely to be received? If the hon. Member tells me that this statement as to the rental to be paid is not true, I will not press him further, but he must not wonder if I am a little shocked—electrified—in dealing with such matters. And now, I have only to apologise to the Committee for the length of my remarks. I hope, however, that what I have said will show that there is some need for effective financial control in India, and that if it be possible—as I believe it to

  637
  be—to exercise that effective financial control in this House, even supposing more than one day in the year is devoted to the work, something will be done to enlarge the Legislative Councils in the various Provinces, and to increase their powers, so that they may have a better opportunity of interpellating in relation to these matters of finance. I would assure the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State that it is not our desire to destroy Provincial activity in India. On the contrary, we desire to enlarge and develop it. I should like to see the Government carry out their promises in this respect. I should like, to use the words of Lord Lytton, "having heard their bow-wow of promise, to see at least the tail of the performance." We hope that there may be enlarged Councils strengthened by a Committee of this House, or a Joint Standing Committee of both Houses, to which may be addressed questions on which it is necessary that some expression of opinion should be obtained as to the advisability of bringing matters in dispute before Parliament. Although, in the present scanty House, it seems a mockery to do so, I would venture to appeal to hon. Members, and, if necessary, I will go from this House to Parliament, and from Parliament to the people—that some opportunity of bringing forward their grievances may be given to those who are connected with the movement for reform in India. I agree that they are only a small body, but small as they are sufficiently important to have some attention paid to them. There assembled at Allahabad some 1,200 delegates, representing some millions of people. I appeal to the English people for reasonable attention to the wants of India, especially as its grievances are now finding constitutional expression in the great Congress movement, of which Lord Dufferin said that he regarded with feelings—
  "of approval and goodwill their natural ambition to be more extensively associated with their English rulers in the administration of their own domestic affairs."
  From the Report of that Convention, it is evident that the natives are inspired with a laudable ambition to be more closely associated with their English rulers in the administration of their own affairs. It is, of course, impossible to
  638
  hope that within these walls any criticism or complaint made under existing circumstances will have any very great effect, but I do hope that the protest now made and concurred in, as it seemed to me at the beginning of the speech with which I have troubled the Committee, by Members sitting on the Conservative Benches—that the protest now made against the late period of the Session at which this subject is brought forward will not be without effect. The House is wearied with the labours of a long Session, and the bulk of the Members have gone away. I do not make this protest from Party motives, as I acknowledge that the Party with whom I vote are as amenable to every kind of blame in the matter as the Party opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now in his place, and I appeal to him, during the Recess, to give effect to words which I hope I have not wrongly understood— and I am only dealing with words uttered across the floor of this House— which have come from the Leader of the House, that it is only due to the vast mass of our Indian fellow-subjects that at some time they may be able to approach this House in a Constitutional way, with the Speaker in the Chair, and not be driven to bring forward their grievances at a time when a question of finance is under discussion, and they are not susceptible of radical and effective debate.
  SIR E. TEMPLE: Once more the hon. Member for Northampton has been on the oratorical rampage. I am aware that the hon. Member is nothing if he is not querulous; his voice seemed to quiver with emotion when he mentioned even so light a subject as the filagree silver work from India. He seems to have a mission to complain of India all round. But I demur to the censure passed by him on the English Parliament for postponing this Budget Statement so long. I challenge him to point to a single evening that has been wasted, and on which the Indian Budget could have been taken. I also deny that the House of Commons has not devoted any time to the consideration of India this Session. There have been three full-dress Debates on the condition of India.
  Mr. MACNEILL: No, no.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: The truth is, that the House of Commons knows its duty perfectly well. It has constituted by legislation a proper Government for India, and, having done this, it thinks that the less we meddle with the subject the better it will be for India and ourselves. The hon. Member has referred to the Native Congresses, and while we are precluded by the rules of the Committee from entering further on that subject, I may just say that I have long thought that elective Members might be substituted for the appointed Members on the various Legislative Councils. I shall be prepared to bring forward a moderate and practical scheme to give effect to that principle on the proper occasion. Meanwhile out of the numerous topics of the hon. Member's speech I will select three only. The points I desire to touch upon are the railways, the irrigation works, and the Famine Insurance Fund. The hon. Member cannot deny that the railways are now paying 5 per cent, and in this respect they will undoubtedly compare favourably, if not to better advantage, with the railways of Europe or America. Nevertheless, the hon. Member seems surprised that a yearly charge should be debited against these railways. But that was on account of the years while they were under construction and before they were fully opened. The hon. Member inquired anxiously about the concessions. It is quite true that valuable concessions of land have been made to the Indian Railway Companies, but had they not been made the companies could not have raised the necessary capital and the railways could not have been constructed. The same thing was experienced in the railway development of the North-West of Canada. The same observation applies with equal force to the irrigation works, which are now paying 5 per cent interest on their capital, which had been borrowed at 4 per cent interest, and which, therefore, are earning 1 per cent per annum, which is available for paying off the charge on which the hon. Member animadverted, and which relates to the years that passed before the network of subsidiary channels was completed. The hon. Member opposite asks for statistics as to the additional amount of food supply for the people of India, which is the result of the construction of these
  640
  irrigation works. It is quite possible to furnish those statistics, although they would have to be of a very elaborate character, seeing that it would have to be calculated how much additional produce is derived from irrigated land which had already been in cultivation before the works were constructed, but which has been immensely benefited by them since their construction. The hon. Member referred to the Famine Insurance Fund, the idea of which was first conceived in 1878–9, just after India had passed through one of its periodical famines. But no such insurance represented the provision which the people of India had against death by starvation. That provision consisted of the whole might of the Government, which had several times been magnificently exerted, and, despite inevitable disasters, had worked wonders. No fund of that kind has ever actually been raised. The hon. Member quoted two instances which proved that the Natives knew quite well that no fund really existed. But it was resolved by the Government of India to set aside a portion of the revenue amounting to about one and a half million sterling, which was to be expended on public works in the event of a recurrence of famine. The additional revenue required for this purpose had been raised, not by the imposition of new taxes, but by a development of old ones—that is, of License and Income Taxes with which the people had long been familiar. For some five out of the ten years which have since elapsed, the Government have scrupulously expended the money as intended. But during the other five years the Government had to find the means for warlike operations. Therefore, it was deemed preferable to suspend the appropriation of this portion of the revenue for this purpose rather than to raise the sum required by new taxation. Of the two alternatives before the Government, the Native taxpayers preferred the one that had been adopted. If it be asked what had been done with the remaining half, the other half having been spent on railways and canals, the answer is that it has gone for the defence of the North-Western Frontier. Lord Lytton tried as far as he could to act up to the resolutions he had formed. But there were war and pestilence, and it was extremely difficult

  641
  to make both ends meet under those trying circumstances. In fact, it was impossible for him to carry his resolutions into effect during the closing year of his administration. After him Lord Lytton had a peaceful time, and the million and a half was spent yearly on the public works as originally intended. There was no promise as the hon. Member supposes—except to ourselves—no contract, for there were no two personal parties. We formed the one party, and our national conscience was the other party. When Russia assumed a menacing attitude in 1885, Lord Dufferin had to undertake frontier defence, and found himself obliged to spend all the revenue he had got, so that he was unable to carry out the academic resolutions which had been formed seven years before. I shall conclude with the briefest résumé of what appears to me to be the financial condition of the Government of India, of which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy wrote in rather doleful terms. Considering the sorrow and disapprobation indicated by the hon. Member's Motion on the Paper, the House will perhaps be surprised to hear that the condition of the finances of India is as follows: — For several years past India has paid her way. Sometimes there has been a deficit, sometimes a surplus; but, one year taken with another, she has paid her way, and she appears now at the Bar of this House with a surplus in her hand. During this period she has paid, without incurring any debt, for one great war and two great famines. She has defended her frontier, or placed it in a state of impregnable defence. She has munificently administered the newly-conquered Province of Upper Burma. Nor has she neglected her internal administration. She has spent millions on education, hundreds of thousands on science and art, and she has devoted millions again to sanitation and preventive and curative measures for the health of the people. She has done all this in face of a most damaging fall in exchange that entirely upset the calculations of financiers and landed them in a deficit when they least expected it. What has been her public debt all this time? Is the financial condition of any other country, except Holland and Prussia, so favourable? The whole debt only amounts to a little
  642
  more than two years' revenue, and of that one-half has been expended not on productive operations, but on measures destined for the material welfare of the people. And how about the Revenue of India? I will say nothing now about Excise or opium, as I have made two speeches this Session on the subject, but I will add one word of congratulation on the able and satisfactory statement of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State regarding the statistics of the consumption of salt in its relation to recent taxation. The natives of India have the lightest taxation of any people on the face of the earth. The poor man in India pays a tax on one article only, and that is salt, for the people, as a rule, are temperate, and only a small fraction of them consume spirituous liquors. A whole host of various kinds of oppressive assessed taxes which prevailed under native rule have been remitted under the British Government. Our taxation is immeasurably lighter than that of the Native Governments. Though we own territories broader than those of the Great Mogul, yet historians know that our revenues are less than his were. Take, again, the case of the land. It is the Land Tax which has been the basis of some of the greatest measures for the improvement of the country that have ever been designed in India or in any other country in the world. By means of the Land Tax we have been able to undertake a cadastral survey equal to the best in England—field upon field, holding upon holding. It extends over an area containing not much less than a million and a half square miles, from the base of the Himalayas to Cape Comorin, in the Southern Sea. Following this survey and the consequent recognition of property, there has been a registration of all mutations of property, thereby settling many questions which we have not been able to settle in England this Session in spite of all the efforts made in another place. These property rights were ancient. But the modern recognition is such as to amount to a fresh recognition of property—superior, subordinate, and collateral. To secure this property Courts of Justice have been set up which are above the Government. The smallest Court may give orders which we Governors,

  643
  though masters of many legions and of many millions of population, are bound to obey. We should speak of India with triumph instead of complaining. In stead of talking of the sorrows of the people of India I would rather talk of their happiness—a happiness unknown in their previous history. The people are growing in numbers, and their agriculture and trade are spreading. Their moral, social, and intellectual status is rising rapidly every year, under the beneficent influence of the civilisation which we are introducing into the country. And now, as I conclude, I will advert to that frontier, the defensive cost of which has been at the bottom of the indictment by the hon. Member for Northampton, and has largely figured in the Financial Statement of the Under Secretary of State. We are seen to be spending one and a half to two millions a year now. The items presented by the Under Secretary of State of part expenditure, if totalled, would amount to seven, perhaps to eight, millions. Now, I know that frontier through its many hundreds of miles, having governed one half myself, and having been once Secretary to those who governed the other half. And I apprehend that the eight millions will rise to 12 or 13 before the great defence is completed. What, then, should we have for all this cost? Let us look. We may one day be invaded. Well, if we are, then let the invaders come now while we are in the zenith of our strength; the sooner the better, if come they must. Let us, indeed, stand in imagination on the fertile plain round Peshawur and observe the dark jaws of the Khyber Pass. Let us peer into that gloomy defile, and think that the invaders must penetrate that in order to meet the serried array of England around Peshawur. Then behind that historic and romantic city is the Indus, flowing smoothly but with fearful rapidity, and spanned by a mighty railway bridge, a model of constructive engineering and a monument of British science. Thence, down the left bank of the mighty river run the new railways southwards till we reach Sukkur, in Scinde. There, again, it is bridged by a structure which is one of the wonders of the world. Thence runs the railway across the Sibi desert, scaling the steep flanks of what is called the Khorassan
  644
  plateau to Pishin and the Amran range—Let us stand on the summit of that range and contemplate the matchless view, so-full of political and military, as well as financial, significance. At our feet is the stony plain running towards Candahar. On our left is the desert, with, the clouds of sand ascending. On the horizon to our full front is the group of turret-like rocks overlooking Candahar itself. Around the city we may dimly discern the blue lines indicating that supurb cultivation that can furnish supplies for armies-There we behold the possible battlefield between the Russian invader and the British defender. On that dread day the value of this costly frontier defence will be tested. I trust that the defence will answer that extreme test, and that the invader will be defeated, never to return. Then, after that crowning victory, a cry of joy and thanks will arise to heaven from the whole earth of India. The native Princes will rejoice to seethe triumph of that British suzerain that protects their territories. The old man will be glad when he remembers the ancestral stories of the revolutions stopped by that benign Power that preserved the Pax Britannica. The thoughtful man will be thankful who reflects on the moral and material blessings we have-showered on his country. The poor man will be grateful for the victory-of that Power that guards his crops from devastation, his home from plunder, his family from captivity. And all classes, rich and poor, will unite in a chorus of thanksgiving for the safety of that Government whose force rests not only on India itself, but also on a distant basis beyond the sea, on the land of the free and the brave, on the moral strength of Western opinion, and on the confidence of that Parliament which is the centre of Imperial authority and holds the keys of the Eastern Empire.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am not one of those who desire to complain of the lateness of the Session at which the Indian Budget is brought on for Debate. I am rather inclined to take the view that the less this House hears of India the better; that we had better abrogate the management of it to a competent authority. I think we may as well be content to take the chance of talking on the subject whenever it occurs. Now, Sir, to-night

  645
  I propose to confine myself to the prosaic region of finance, and I am sorry to say, in regard to this particular subject, that I am inclined to take a somewhat unfavourable view of the present position of Indian finance and the methods on which it is conducted. We are accustomed to hear the Under Secretary for India, in introducing the Budget, talking of what would have occurred in regard to finance if something had not happened. But something does happen every year which upsets the calculations of the best financiers. With regard to the present Budget, I should have thought that the statement of the Under Secretary was extremely gratifying, for he told us that an estimated small surplus had been turned into a considerable surplus. But I fear that one remark which the hon. and learned Gentleman made will suffice to entirely destroy the favourable impression that the rest of his speech produced upon me. I understood him to say that one of the items on which there had been a considerable saving within the last few months was that in the cost of opium, and that that cost had decreased by no less a sum than £600,000. If that is true, the whole gratifying fabric -set up by the Under Secretary falls to the ground, for everyone knows that a decrease in the cost of opium production means a very considerable decrease in the proceeds from the sale of the opium crop, and that one item would more than counterbalance any improvement which has been achieved in the matter of Indian finance. Now, I maintain that Indian finance is in an unfortunate position. There has been a considerable loss on silver exchange, and we have been told, time after time, that if it had not been for that loss, Indian finance would have been in a much better condition. I fear that we cannot look for any improvement in the direction of the silver question. On the contrary, there seems to be a reasonable probability that things will go from bad to worse, and the result of the investigation I have made into this matter is not hopeful. I confess, after having long been a bi-metallist, now that I learn that silver has appreciated instead of depreciated, I have grave doubts as to whether any measure which would raise the price of silver would really have any beneficial effect on
  646
  India, because every debtor in India would suffer. I also know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, the Leader of the Opposition, has, in a letter, declared himself almost fanatically opposed to bi-metallic ideas. Under these circumstances, seeing that, in addition to no hope of improvement in this direction, we have the prospect of a grave decrease in opium revenue, I hold that appearances are far from satisfactory. I look upon the expenditure in Burma and on the North-West frontier as part of ourtrouble. I am afraid we are pursuing a clumsy policy, and I believe also that we must accept the annexation of Upper Burma as a financial disaster, and as regards the North-West frontier, the expense will not be limited to three or four millions sterling. There is no prospect of a large revenue from there; but our expenses are enormous. My belief is that the further we advance the further we require to go. The hon. and gallant Member for Evesham has looked upon Candahar with covetous eyes; but it strikes me that this is a miserable district. It is not a food-producing country, and if we attempted to take it over we should find it a very bad bargain. We ought, in fact, to place a decided check upon our advance in this direction. These scientific military frontiers entail not only enormous expense in creating them, but they are still mere expensive to defend and occupy with a garrison. Now, the Under Secretary in his Memorandum has given us a very useful statement, showing the net revenue and the net expenditure. The net revenue, according to this statement, is 47,108,000 tens of rupees, and deducting from this 3,624,000 tens of rupees, the interest paid upon debt, we have available for expenditure 43,484,000 tens of rupees. Now of that 23½ millions is expended for military purposes, and should the time come when we have those battles on which my hon. and gallant Friend has so eloquently descanted, I hope we may reap all the glory he anticipates, although I fear it is certain that we shall also reap financial disaster. Seeing what heavy expenses we necessarily incur there now, I cannot hold that the taxation in India is excessively heavy; indeed, I think my hon. Friend is right when he says it is not too great to be borne by the people of India. But

  647
  what I do complain of is that we have, when we have been compelled to resort to an increase of taxation, put the additional burden on a necessary of life. I do maintain that the Salt Tax is a most unfortunate tax, and it is only the direct and worst necessity should compel us to impose it. It is one of the worst forms of taxation; the burden is an unjust and impolitic one; it is a capitation tax, which falls equally on the poor with the rich; and it is injurious to health in its effects, for it prevents the salting of fish, which Nature provides so abundantly in India, and it drives the natives to eat stinking fish dried in the sun. I very much regret the increase of the Salt Tax in India, and I think that the enormous comparative increase of that tax in Burma is still more dangerous. What has happened in Burma? Formerly there was in that country an almost nominal tax upon salt, but you have suddenly raised the tax to a very considerable sum. The Under Secretary of State has told us there has been an enormous decrease in the consumption of salt in Burma. That is a very injurious state of things, and I believe it is politically dangerous. At a time when you are trying to pacify that country, there is nothing more dangerous than suddenly to raise the price of salt. We must have additional taxation, but we ought not to tax things most necessary for the health of the people. We must extend our area of taxation; we must find new subjects of taxation; and I would recommend the Government to tax tobacco, which is a luxury, rather than salt, which is a necessary of life. As regards the question of Excise, I am free to admit that in the greater part of India the Government of India are honestly endeavouring to carry out the policy of raising the largest amount of revenue from the smallest amount of consumption. But there is a Province with which I am intimately acquainted in which that policy has not been carried out. While in other parts of India a gradual return is being made to the Still-head Duty, the out-still system largely prevails in Bengal. But we are only making a gradual return to the old civilised system. My belief is it is simply and solely on financial grounds that you do not make that sweeping return to the old civilised system which ought never
  648
  to have been departed from. No doubt the Government of Bengal are anxious to return to that system, but for financial reasons the Government of India will not allow them the revenue necessary for the purpose. If there is any other reason, I hope the Under Secretary will reveal it. Then, I must express regret at the abandonment of the fund to provide for the famines which periodically occur in India. These famines cost many millions of pounds sterling, and the revenue of the year is not sufficient to meet the expenditure. Some years ago the Government of India very wisely and prudently came to the conclusion that to meet the great expense consequent on famines it was necessary and desirable to provide a fund. It was decided that £1,500,000 should be set aside annually for this purpose. It was permitted that some part of the money should be spent on works likely to avert famines, but the main object was to meet the cost of the periodical famines in the country. There is reason to fear that the future famines will be more extensive than those which have occurred hitherto. The population yearly becomes denser, and therefore the disaster is more difficult to deal with. No doubt railways are very useful in the way of bringing food to the people, but railways do not bring to the people money to pay for the food. The Government must find the money, and, therefore, I maintain it is only right and prudent that they should put into the account a specific sum—say £1,500,000 per annum—as a Famine Insurance Fund. It is most unfortunate that the Government have abandoned the provision of this fund. The result will be that this year, or next year, or the year after, when there is a great famine costing, perhaps, eight or ten millions sterling, you will not have the means to meet it, but you will have to borrow the money. We are bound to assist the people of India in time of famine, and if the population continues to increase at the present pace we may be called upon to assist them in many ways. I hope we shall do our best to encourage the industrial arts in India. I hope that even if it be that Indian artisans are allowed to rival those of Lancashire we shall not throw obstacles in the way. I am a little suspicious of the kind interest taken by the representatives of Lancashire in the

  649
  welfare of the Indian operatives. I hope, too, that something may be done in the direction of State colonisation— that the people of India may be encouraged to resort to the tropical parts of Her Majesty's dominions. [The Chairman: Order, order!] I will not pursue that subject, but will turn to the question of public works. I object, as I say in the Motion of which I have given notice, to
  "The grant of large and unnecessary railway guarantees to London syndicates while the more economical construction of light local lines by means of cheap money borrowed by Government for the purpose is neglected."
  It seems to me it would be very much better that we should avoid the working of these syndicates, and I very much regret the reversion of the Government to the old system of guarantee which it was supposed we had abandoned. We were led to believe that the deficit in regard to Indian railways had disappeared, and that we had indeed reached a period of surplusage. Now we learn that that is an entire mistake, and that upwards of £2,000,000 is the deficit on the railways. I cannot understand the policy of the Government in regard to these guarantees to railways. The Government are continually granting fresh railways at a time when they are buying back the old guaranteed railways at an enormous premium. I suppose the Government consider it is advantageous that the State should control those railways and be possessed of them. If that is their policy why are they continually guaranteeing new railways? Excessive terms are given to the London syndicates, with the result that a great burden is thrown on the Indian taxpayers. It seems that new Secretaries of State on coming into office are always filled with enthusiasm for the promotion of public works, but are not strong enough to resist the city syndicates. What is the result? It is that two great trunk lines of railway have been made in recent years to compete with two Government lines already existing. The Government have been forced by the persistency of railway syndicates in London to give liberal guarantees to additional trunk lines which are to compete with old lines. The policy of the Government in this respect is unfortunate. It shows a want of strength in the India Office to
  650
  resist pressure brought to bear upon them by great financial syndicates in the City of London. I believe that India wants more railways, but it is regrettable that the Government submit to the terms imposed by London financiers who always act on the principle "Heads I win, tails you lose." My opinion is it would be very much better that instead of guaranteeing great lines which compete with their own lines the Government should borrow cheap money and make small local lines which are really required. India is a flat country, metal is very scarce, roads are very expensive, and light railways can be cheaply made. The Government should settle the lines required for the benefit of India, and then borrow cheap money with which to pay for the con struction of those lines. At one time the Government had not the necessary experience in railway matters. They have since acquired that experience; they have competent officers, and I do not think they would find any difficulty in making the lines I recommend. While upon the question of railways I desire to ask the Under Secretary two questions. The first is in respect to the Delhi and Umballa Railway. This line is amongst the recently sanctioned lines. I should like to know on what terms that railway has been sanctioned, and who is to make it. I earnestly hope the line is either to be made by private people without guarantees or by the Government. Then I should like some statement from the Under Secretary as to what is proposed in regard to the proposed Chittagong and Assam Railway. I desire to see the line made, but at the same time I am extremely suspicious as to land grants. I do not object to land grants if they can be fairly given, but I know the country extremely well, and I confess I do not know where you are to find land where there are no native claims and rights and where it would pay syndicates to make railways by means of grants of land. I have only one word to say in regard to the irrigation works. I am rather surprised the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple) did not allude to the disastrous results of the great irrigation works made in the Province of Bengal, where the Government were forced by persistent clamour to take over works of private companies, works

  651
  which did riot pay their working expenses. That is one of the things we ought to accept as a warning not to rush too hurriedly, as a warning not to give too readily guarantees and concessions to promoters. I have confined my remarks to the prosaic region of finance. I cannot regard the financial position of India as favourable. We only approach equilibrium by additional taxation and by abandoning the famine fund. The situation cannot safely be described in glowing colours, and the problem must be faced by some method of taxing the rich, or the luxuries, not the necessaries, of the poor.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: Before I proceed to make a few remarks upon the exceedingly interesting and very lucid statement of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, I should like to be allowed to express my keen regret that the recent alteration in the Rules of Procedure precludes us from discussing in this Committee some of the most important current events in India. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Evesham Division (Sir R. Temple) have referred to the movement which is going on in India under the name of the National Congress Movement. Into the merits of that movement you, Sir, will not permit me to enter any more than you would permit those hon. Members, further than to say that though we sympathise with some or most of the points of that movement, in other respects we regard it as a dangerous movement. I cannot help thinking that it is a movement of such a character that this House is peculiarly qualified to express an opinion upon it, and I think it would be well if the House were afforded an opportunity of discussing it and of stretching out, as it were, a hand to our fellow-subjects in India and of preventing them falling altogether into the hands of interested agitators. Then, with regard to the period of the Session at which this discussion takes place, I hope my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India, or some other Member of the Government, will offer some tangible defence of the practice of putting off the Indian Budget until this period of the Session, or else give us a pledge that next Session the Government will endeavour to take the
  652
  Indian Budget at an earlier period. It is little less than a scandal that during the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Q. Campbell), an hon. Member who speaks with very great knowledge of the subject, there was for a large period not a single Member of the House upon the opposite Benches. Let me turn for a moment to the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for the Evesham Division on the question of what is known as the Famine Insurance Fund. That dispute is now a matter of ancient history. The quarrel was settled years ago; it was determined to be simply a dispute about words. There never was any such thing as a permanent Famine Insurance Fund, and it never was intended there should be any such permanent fund. All that was attempted was—and that has been done as far as has been compatible with the circumstances of each year— that a certain sum should be allocated— ear-marked as it were—for the purpose of providing against famine, and should be set apart for public works, railways, irrigation works, and so forth. Turning to the subject-matter of my hon. Friend's statement, the finance of India generally, no one can fail to be struck with that part of the statement which refers especially to the railways of India and to very great expansion of those railways of late. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has brought up the question of the comparative merits of the plan of constructing light local lines by State effort and that of the Government guaranteeing the construction of railways by companies. I think there is very much to be said on both sides of the argument. With the command of skilled labour which the Public Works Department of India possesses, the construction of light local railways might be advantageously undertaken by the Government of India; but, on the other hand, it must be remembered that State control of enterprises of this kind is always somewhat expensive. The State always must pay its servants on a higher scale than private companies pay their servants. The organisation must always be more elaborate, and, therefore, I do not think Her Majesty's Government can be blamed that, in the case of the Delhi and Umballa railway and other railways they have entrusted

  653
  the construction to companies, aiding those companies by a certain amount of guarantee. Another point dwelt upon by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, in which I cannot agree with him, is the comparative recovery of the finances of Upper Burma. He quite forgets that in Upper Burma we have been passing through a transition stage, from a state bordering on war to a condition of peace. There is still a great deal of dacoity and robbery going on. I do think, Sir, that the figures which have been presented to us as to the expansion of the revenue of Burma are, on the whole, exceedingly satisfactory. I should like, whilst on this subject, to refer to the question of the working of the magnificent teak forests by the Bombay-Burma Corporation. The Government say they cannot do otherwise than confirm the monopoly, because it was given by King Theebaw. But a monopoly under King Theebaw is a very different thing from a monopoly guaranteed by the might of Great Britain. All the Corporation had a right to expect was that they should be put in a position of equal value with that in which they were before, and some compensating advantages might, I think, have been secured by the Government of India. I agree with much that fell from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in reference to the shortcomings of the Government of India and the India Office in commercial matters generally. They have, somehow or other, been unfortunate whenever they have interfered in such things, as, for example, in the case of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Mining Company. We had a Committee sitting on the subject, and it reported unfavourably to the system, but not much has come from it. I would suggest that for the safeguarding of the interests of the finances of India in such matters, it would be worth the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether we might not have attached to the Government of India something like a Board of Trade Department. I am glad to learn that Her Majesty's Government have recommended the Government of India to take steps for the cultivation of sericulture in Bengal. The silk industry is likely to be not only of great advantage to the Presidency, but most useful to our own manufacturers in Macclesfield and else-
  654
  where in supplying them with raw material. In Mr. Wardell the British Sericulture Society possesses an adviser who has devoted himself to this subject in a remarkable degree, and has carried on investigations into the silkworm cultivation of Bengal such as will afford to the Government the best data for founding any experiments of this kind upon. On one other point the Secretary of State deserves the thanks both of Indian producers and English consumers. I refer to the persistence with which he has encouraged efforts to promote the purity of Indian wheat, and to provide wheat for this country of the best possible quality. I turn now to the Excise policy of the Government. Hints have been thrown out that the Government are thinking of imposing a tax upon a very promising young industry which has been growing up for many years, and which many of us who are interested in India have watched with much care —namely, the brewing of light beer in the hill stations for the consumption of English soldiers. Now, Sir, this beer is brewed simply to supply to our English troops in India. It is not intended for, and will not go to the natives of the country. If the Government put taxation on the more or less injurious and poisonous native spirits which are consumed by the native population, even if they imposed almost prohibitory duties upon them, they would be acting in entire harmony with public opinion in India. I believe that actual prohibition would not be objected to by public opinion in India, and it would certainly have a great effect upon the morals of the native population. But with regard to these hill brewers of light beer, I maintain that the cause of temperance is really served by them. They put light and wholesome beer within the reach of the British soldier, and if he does not get that he drinks those atrocious country spirits. I think it would therefore be a great mistake if the Government throttled that industry by putting any excessive or even moderately light taxation upon it. I had intended to speak in some detail on the alarming state of affairs disclosed by the Report lately presented to us respecting the Crawford case in Bombay, but I will not dwell on it further than to say that it is a matter of great importance

  655
  which deserves the attention of Parliament. I merely allude to it to point out to the Committee that the time has come when, in order to clear up all these points, and to rehabilitate the character of our civilisation in India, we ought to have at length the long promised Royal Commission to inquire into the affairs of India. My hon. Friend (Sir J. Gorst) says the Financial Committee has done all that is necessary, as far as the finances are concerned. I maintain that that Committee was really a departmental committee in India, and one of the worst type. One of the results of its inquiry was the appointment for a considerable period of a Financial Commissioner, drawing a salary of five or six hundred a year, and of some smaller officials. The appointment of such a set of officials was clearly not the suitable outcome of the proceedings of a Committee appointed to cut down the expenditure of India, and to establish something like equilibrium in the finances. The Army Commission of 1879 reported strongly in favour of certain financial retrenchments, and the military Sub-Committee of that Committee took it upon itself, if I am not mistaken, really to reverse a large number of the recommendations of the Army Commission, in the direction of greater extravagance. I think the recommendations of the Army Commission, headed by Sir F. Roberts and some of the first authorities of the day on these subjects, might fairly have been taken into account. I was very glad to hear from my hon. Friend (Sir J. Gorst) that some of the recommendations of the Finance Committee with regard to the expenses of the annual picnics of the Provincial Governments of India to the hills in the summer will be carried out by the Government of India. I should be glad to hear further details on that subject, because the question is one which interests public opinion in every one of the Presidential towns of India. Every year a large unnecessary expenditure is still incurred in these picnics, which do no good to anybody whatever. I would point out to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that the cost of any one of these picnics would be sufficient to meet all the demands which have been brought before the Committee for turning the silver pensions of the Un-
  656
  covenanted servants of India into sterling pensions. I think justice clearly demands that the voice of such a large body of officials as those of the Uncovenanted Service should be listened to, and those demands could be carried out at the cost of one of these picnics. The general question of silver pensions has been debated once this Session, and I shall not now attempt to go into it. I will merely refer to the payments made to the Cooper's Hill Civil Engineers, who went out in the years 1871 and 1872. Those pensions are henceforward to be paid in sterling and not in silver. And why, Sir? Simply because in the prospectus of that particular year there was a statement to the effect that the rupee would be valued at 2s.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: As I see I am wandering beyond the Financial Statement, I will not further dwell upon that subject. My hon. Friend has taken a great deal of credit to the Government for the reduction in the number of the Council of India. He has told us that the Government will save no less a sum than £6,000 a year to the taxpayers of India by the reduction in the numbers of the Consultative Body which advises, and checks, and to a certain extent controls the action of the Secretary of State. Now, Sir, I submit that this is one of those fiddling and cheeseparing reductions of which my hon. Friend so justly speaks with a good deal of contempt. The reduction has been sanctioned by this House, but it has been condemned in the strongest manner by the whole of the Press of India. It is condemned by papers like the Pioneer of Allahabad, which says it is a device to increase the despotic power of the Secretary of State; and papers like the Englishman of Calcutta, which speaks of it in the same way. The very organ of the taxpayers, of whom my hon. Friend (Sir J. Gorst) has constituted himself the champion— the Indian Mirror—has spoken in the strongest terms of this pettifogging reduction, because it objects to anything which will enable the Secretary of State to diminish the effectiveness of the control or check upon his despotic authority. [A laugh.] My hon. Friend laughs, but the powers of the Secretary of State are necessarily despotic, and are necessarily unchecked by any public opinion in this

  657
  country. The only check exercised on his despotic power is that furnished by the Council, and I think the Press is right in deprecating any diminution of the numbers of that Assembly. I think the plea which has often been advanced by the hon. Member for Northampton, that a full Parliamentary inquiry into all these affairs is necessary, is really one which the Government cannot afford any longer to reject. The contention is founded on the promises of the Government itself. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), when Secretary for India, gave the strongest assurances that it was the intention of the Government to carry on such inquiry; and I must say that I myself, as a very humble supporter of the Government, thought I could fairly pledge myself that the Government would carry out its promises. I did so pledge myself; and I shall never cease, whilst I am in this House, to indicate that fact, and to support any movement for carrying out the pledges which were given by the Government, and especially by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, for a full inquiry into the Indian administration generally.
  MR. SCHWANN: I should not have been inclined to take part in this discussion were it not for the fact that the Government of India seem inclined to look on further railway extension in India as a sealed book. I am afraid I shall have to trouble the Committee with a number of figures; but it is necessary for me to do this, in order to prove my contention that the progress of India to a considerable extent depends upon the extension of her railways. I do not say it exclusively depends on railway extension, for; no doubt, irrigation works demand attention; but I hold that the prosperity of the Indian portion of the Empire depends in a large measure upon railways, and as there is an impression in certain quarters that the era of railway building in that country has closed, I desire to encourage the Government to push on the work. I am glad to say that the new Viceroy, Lord Lansdowne, before setting out to India, spoke in very encouraging terms on this subject, and on arriving in India his language was not less
  658
  satisfactory. In November last, at Lansdowne House, he said:—
  "I observe in the conversation I have had with gentlemen familiar with India that, in spite of apprehensions which they may feel as to financial difficulties consequent upon the fall of the exchange, they are all of them disposed to look forward with sanguine expectations to the improvement in the general position of the country, which the attribute very much to the manner the railways in India have been expanded during the last few years."
  At the end he said:—
  "Hence, as regards railways, I think we may say that everybody is agreed, and it is merely a question of the rate at which the system can be developed."
  On arriving in India Lord Lansdowne said:—
  "I feel that at the present time all proposals involving an increase of the public expenditure require the closest examination and scrutiny. There is, nevertheless, I am convinced no duty more incumbent upon the Government than that of extending the railway communication of the country and of bringing to light and rendering available for human use the wealth which is latent within it."
  It is quite clear that Lord Lansdowne, before settling down to such an important charge as that which he had undertaken, would have consulted those authorities best qualified to advise him, and so far nothing has taken place to induce him to change his opinions of which we have any information. Of course, it would not be right to-put on his words a stronger meaning than he intended, but the Committee will have gathered his views from what I have quoted, and we may expect that he will use his best efforts to bring about the fulfilment of them. There can be no doubt that the commercial railways in India have proved of great advantage to the Indian Empire, leaving out of account the strategic railways which open up a large question, one which I do not feel called upon to go into. It has been stated that the total net profit on Indian railways during the past year was 5·12 per cent on the capital outlay, and I think that is a fair profit in a country new to railways. That this will increase in time I have very little doubt. If we look at the statistics which have been given we shall find that in 1888 the passenger traffic in India increased 8·12 per cent over that of 1887, and that the ton mileage of

  659
  goods increased 11·94 per cent. It was foreseen when the Government entered into this system of railway construction that for some years there would be no return, but that a return would be reaped in later years. Hear Sir Auckland Colvin's testimony on this point—
  "The loss will probably be progressively greater for the next three or four years, not because the lines which are open to traffic are not paying, but, on the contrary, because, in spite of their increasing receipts, all they can yield, and far more, is swallowed up in the interest on capital on other lines under construction."
  I, therefore, feel that on so important a subject I need not apologise for troubling the Committee. Feeling as I do that railway extension is the real need of our Indian Empire, I would draw attention to one or two salient facts bearing on the question. In the first place, although India has a population of some 270,000,000, it has only 17,000 miles of railway, which it will be admitted is a very small amount for so large a population, and for a territory of—including Burma—1,570,000 square miles, which is 27 times larger than England and Wales, and 13 times larger than the United Kingdom. It has been said by Dr. George Watt, C.I.E., in a Paper read before the Society of Arts, that according to the most recent survey one hundred millions of acres of land suitable for cultivation in India have not as yet been ploughed. It seems to me that with such an extent of land cultivable, and such a growth and progress as India is making under British rule we may look forward to a time when her railways will be one of the most paying institutions, producing the best results in that great Empire. Last year the Commercial State Railways made a very fair profit indeed, and have occasioned an increase in the revenue of the whole country, though, on the other hand, there was a net loss on the Military Railways opened and unopened. The development of trade in India has, I maintain, been commensurate with the development of the railway system, though I do not attribute the whole increase to the railways. India's foreign trade in 1852–3, with 21½ miles of opened railway, was 385 millions of rupees; in 1859–60, with 336 miles, it was 695 millions; in 1869–70, with 4,766 miles, it was 1,003 millions; in 1885–6, with 12,376
  660
  miles, it was 1,520 millions of rupees respectively. Therefore, with increased facilities for transport the whole trade of India has increased to a large extent. Whilst India has benefited, there is not the slightest doubt that our own country, and Lancashire in particular, has enjoyed an extension of trade. I do not for a moment believe that the people of Lancashire desire to advocate an expenditure of Indian money merely in their own interests, but the fact that the interests of the two countries run on parallel lines in this respect is, I think, a forcible argument in favour of the view I am advocating. If we turn to an article which appeared in 1887 in the Journal of the Manchester Geographical Society we find the following statement: —
  "The Board of Trade returns show that the export of cloth in 1886 exceeded that of 1881 to the extent of 73 million yards, but during this time the exports to India increased 479 millions, showing an actual decrease to other parts of the world to the amount of 406 million yards. This shows very clearly our great dependence upon India as a customer for our cotton manufactures."
  Between the end of March 1877–87 the import of Lancashire piece goods into India increased from 1,186,418,810 yards to 2,155,713,385 yards, or by 82 per cent. The same thing will be found to be true of many other trades I have no doubt —hardware manufactures and so on. India, it will be found, is taking the place of other countries, which in the past were large consumers of English manufactures. I would venture to point out that the custom of India is a matter of life and death to Lancashire, and depends upon railway extension in India upon which depends also the progress of India. Our Continental trade is diminishing, and it is only right that Her Majesty's Government, in view of the large and growing populations in our manufacturing districts, should do what they can to increase the means of transport which encourage the consumption of our goods by Eastern populations. We do not wish in any way to play the dog in the manger, but at the same time we do not wish to fall behind our neighbours in these large branches of trade and commerce. I am glad to think that the revenues of India have been improved by the great railway undertakings that have been carried out. Lord Cross, at Ashton-under-Lyne, in 1877, said—

  661
  "If it had not been for the railways in India there is no doubt that the Government Revenue would have been in a very awkward condition. In 1857 India, with 151 miles of railway, had a revenue of £32,000,000 (rupee pounds); in 1887, with nearly 14,000 miles of railway, its revenue had increased to upwards of £77,000,000, and according to Sir John Strachey, the growth of the revenue had not been due to an increase of taxation. In 1857, the foreign trade of India amounted to £55,000,000; in 1887, it was 163 millions. Between 1877 and 1887 the gross revenue of India, excluding railway receipts, increased by £8,130,624. In 1880, the ordinary debt of India was 106,000,000 tens of rupees; by 1887 it had been reduced to 74,000,000 tens of rupees; or, in seven years, by more than one-fourth."
  I have been told by friends who know India more intimately than I do that the effect of establishing a station on one of the lines in India is almost magical, and that immediately on its installation the district bursts into a scene of new life and progress. It may be said that the Government has done enough, that they have carried out to a large extent the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House which sat in 1884. They have carried out nearly all the railways in Schedule A of the Committee's Report, and it may be thought that they have done their share of the work, and that it must be left to private enterprise to make the smaller lines or feeders of the large trunk railways. But I am not certain that this is the real solution of the railway question. Colonel Conway-Gordon, the Director General of Indian Railways, in his evidence before the Committee of 1884, said—
  "The whole history of Indian railways is one long and unsuccessful attempt to get railways constructed with a State guarantee."
  The prospect of profit from the feeder lines is remote. In India, as in other countries, the branch lines have little and a non-paying traffic, the trunk lines being those which benefit most by the larger amount of traffic. An accident on a small feeder line puts a stop to dividends for two or three years; and the result is that a very few business men are inclined to put their money in these lines. Where feeder lines are likely to be profitable there is no doubt the Government will make them themselves. The Government, as we all know, is the great landowner of India, and it is the Government who would
  662
  reap the greatest benefit from new branch lines. Great changes of policy, however, take place on the part of Indian Governments from time to time, which also renders railway building more difficult, as the policy changes frequently. At one time the policy is to guarantee railways, at another to construct State railways, and at another to rely on private enterprise. Moreover, there is no permanent body in India to settle railway disputes. The Bengal and North-Western Railway has been more than four and a half years negotiating with the Secretary of State for the transfer to the company of the Tirhoot S. R., and the matter is still unsettled; and the Rohilkund and Kumaon Railway Company has been three years negotiating for the completion of a section of line 60 miles in length, between Sitapur and Philibit, and the matter has only just been settled. Then there is much opposition on the part of the State Department to new railways on the part of engineers and officials who magnify their office. The subject of private enterprise was well dealt with by General Trevor, Chairman of the Bombay and Baroda Railway Company, in his speech at a meeting of shareholders, when he said—
  "I am not one of those who believe that private enterprise unaided can do much to provide India with railways. The country is too vast, too poor, and too conservative to have its wants for communication met by capitalists, who require an early and fair return for their invested capital. The State must, either directly, or by guarantees, or by subsidies, build the greater part of the railways that are required to open out the country. What private enterprise can do is here and there to construct some lines that from their low initial cost cannot fail to be directly remunerative, and that will be of great value to Government, both by setting free their funds for the larger and more expensive works, and by bringing to railways, already the property of the state, traffic that will swell their revenues. Within this limited sphere private enterprise can, if judiciously carried out, be of service both to investors and to the State; but for the four or five thousand miles of new railway that ought now to be built to open out Assam, the east coast of the Bay of Bengal, the northern part of H. H. the Nizam's territories, the central Rajputana and Malwa States, and the north-western parts of the Bengal Presidency … the State must step in if anything is to he done."
  I do not wish in any way to detain the Committee beyond reasonable limits as there are other hon. Members who wish to address the House. I would only

  663
  say that I hope that the time when the natives of India will be entrusted with a greater share in the government of their own country is fast approaching. It would be a mistake to repeat in India the experience we have had in Ireland, where the neglect of the opinions of the representatives of the people has naturally brought about very regrettable consequences.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I agree that it is very inconvenient for the Indian Budget to be brought forward for discussion at this late period of the Session. The practice of the Government in this respect fits in very well with the doctrine laid down not long ago by the Under Secretary of State that Parliament had divested itself of its authority to interfere in the administration of Indian finance and had delegated the power to the Government of India. I noticed in the course of the Debate that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy agreed with the hon. Member for Evesham in thinking that this was an ideal state of things. It is natural that they should take that line, both of them having held Office in India, but I think most of us in this House will be of opinion that public servants, however wise and good they may be, are the better for a little free criticism, and that it is just as well now and then to open the window and let the free breath of public opinion sweep away some of the official cobwebs. I fancy that when the Under Secretary of State for India laid down that doctrine as to the delegation of authority he intended in that mocking humour of his to suggest what would be the effect if this Parliament were to delegate to local Legislatures in different parts of the Empire the authority which it now wields. If a Dependency is no sooner established than it sets up a remonstrance against the interference of Parliament, what would be the result of establishing independent Legislatures in other parts of the Empire not so submissive as India is? I would venture to suggest that there is one way in which Parliament may exercise its power more directly than it has done in times past. I think the Under Secretary was a little ungrateful in speaking of the way in which that Bill has been received by the House of Commons. It is the only Bill
  664
  I can recollect which has been read a third time in this House without the Minister in charge of it having given a word of explanation as to its meaning. The Under Secretary for India stated in his speech that Lord Cross is extremely anxious to make other reforms in the India Office at Westminster, besides that which he has accomplished by means of the Council of India Bill. Would it not be a good thing if the establishment of the office at Westminster were put upon the Estimates which are submitted to this House for all the Ministerial Offices in this country? The amount could be recouped afterwards out of the revenue of India. But at present we have the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary in a curiously anomalous position. Every other Minister draws his salary from the Imperial Exchequer, and is responsible to Parliament, but the Under Secretary is perfectly independent of this House so far as the payment of his salary is concerned. So is the Secretary of State, and they are both virtually free from the control of Parliament, and at the same time they cannot have their responsibility enforced by the Government of India, which is strictly subordinate to them. Therefore, we have the India Office a practically irresponponsible office, and that is one reason, perhaps, for the enormous amount of money spent upon that establishment at Westminster. I think it would be a good thing if the House passed a resolution placing the establishment at Westminster upon the Civil Service Estimates, in order that when a Minister or private Member wishes to bring forward any reforms they can be properly discussed. In the statement of the moral and material progress made by India reference is made to the new postal contract and the saving to Indian revenues, but I am sorry to say that, in my opinion, the Indian Government have made themselves entirely subservient to the English Treasury, and no country could be treated more shabbily in the matter of postage than India. An amount of £100,000 was saved on the new contract for India and China, and yet the postage is kept at the same rate, neither the people of India nor of England getting any benefit from the saving, and the saving is actually taken to subsidise a new Postal Service

  665
  to Australia and a new and ridiculous I contract between Canada and Japan and China. It is really a scandalous thing that this money should be diverted in this way from the Indian Postal Service. The English Treasury, I think, must have been overcome by the persistent clamours of our Colonial friends. Our Colonial cousins are keen hands at a bargain; while we talk sentiment they mean business, and so they get the better of us. Next Session I hope we may hear of a reduction of the extravagant rate of postage between this country and India. Our material interest is concerned with India more than with all our Colonies put together. India is our best customer; with her we have a perfectly free trade. We derive from our possession of India far more advantage than people generally believe. As a Lancashire Member, I can confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Manchester that Lancashire does not desire to push her claims against India in any way to the disadvantage of India, but Lancashire asks fair play from India in return. We are perfectly willing to vote for the repeal of the duty on silver plate, but, on the other hand, we demand consideration in the cotton twist and yarn trades. There has been a remarkable development in India in the manufacture of cotton twists and yarn; this trade is worth five and a half millions a year, more than the value of all the twist and yarn imported into India. Then the value of machinery and mill-work imported into India, which in 1887 was £1,370,000, now reaches £2,316,000. New mills are being erected in India, and trade is rapidly developing, but under conditions of labour that are exciting strong feeling in Lancashire. With the extraordinary hours of labour in Indian mills the competition is not fair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: These are matters not connected with the finances of India.
  MR. MACLEAN: I bow to your ruling, but I think this is a matter connected with the administration of India, and, as I understood fom the statement, of moral and material progress, could be brought under inquiry; but I will simply express regret that no answer has been returned to the Despatch of Lord Cross suggesting an equalisation
  666
  of the hours of labour in India to those in this country. Other commercial matters I should like to touch upon; for instance, the want of attention shown by the Government of India of late to the introduction of cotton in the country. Time was, I remember, when my hon. Friend (Sir R. Temple) was Governor of the Central Provinces, when energetic efforts were made to improve the cultivation of cotton in India, but that cultivation has not been conducted with anything like the same zeal of late years in India.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. MACLEAN: It is difficult to avoid these subjects, which really do affect the finances of India, but I may say I wish Lord Cross had done as much to encourage the cultivation of cotton as he has to obtain large supplies of wheat to compete with American wheat. I join in the congratulations to the Under Secretary on the favourable statement he has been able to make. I wonder that the hon. Member for Northampton, usually so clear-headed, does not see that what he calls the "Famine Insurance Fund" is really a revival of the old Sinking Fund fallacy. The fact is, there is no fund out of which the Government can form an insurance against famine; it can only do so by raising taxation. The hon. Member has referred to Lord Lytton's promises that the fund should only be used for famine purposes, but Lord Lytton's promises are like those of Benedict—
  "When I said I would die a bachelor,
  I never thought to lire to be married."
  Lord Lytton did not think that a war was at hand and that the requirements for the protection of India would override all other considerations. It is not generally recognised what a large expenditure India has had to incur of late years for warlike and defensive purposes. The total expenditure on the frontiers has been close on 19 millions, and the conquest of Burma, including the railway, has cost about nine millions. Then the subsidy to the Ameer of Cabul must have amounted to another million. It shows, therefore, the elasticity of Indian finances that there is now a surplus. The hon. Member for Manchester has spoken at some length on railways. I agree that nothing

  667
  can be more beneficial to India than the extension of the railway system. The Government are apt to take a too narrow view of this question. No doubt it is a good argument to say, "Oh, you have only 16,000 or 17,000 miles of railways in India, and in America they make as many miles a year"; but it must be borne in mind that in America the people are spending their own money, whilst in India they are spending the money of other people and creating discontent and possibly mutiny. The Government are apt to take a too narrow view of this question; and I believe that the railways of India are really more profitable to that country than is generally supposed. The bugbear as to loss by exchange, the effects of which are often very much exaggerated, has been removed altogether by the natural expansion of the revenue of India. How has that expansion been brought about? Simply by the construction of railways, which have developed the country, increased the land revenue, and greatly stimulated trade in all parts of the country; they have not only brought in a large return to the Government, but have immensely improved the general condition of the people. That has been the result of the construction of railways in India. The hon. Member for North Manchester has shown that in the last year the railways of India paid an average percentage of 5·12 on the whole capital invested, but on some of these commercial railways a larger dividend than that has been paid, reaching in one or two cases to nearly per cent. Ought not the Government, therefore, to do everything in its power to encourage the formation of lines of railways like these? There is plenty of room for new railways to be made in India, and I should say that the credit of the Government never stood so high as it does at the present time. It would be a good thing for the Government of India to expend a large sum on some new and well-considered expansions of the railway systems there. That would be one of the best means the Government could take for increasing the prosperity of the country and the contentment of the people.
  MR. M'LAREN: The speeches of hon. Members opposite have shown how widely changed has
  668
  been the Rule which relates to Debate on these matters when you, Mr. Courtney, are in the Chair; but that is a small matter compared with the great inconvenience and want of consideration to the people of India in having the Indian Budget postponed to so late a period of the Session. I see no reason why we should not have had this Debate a month ago, when, I am sure, the time would have been much better spent than has been a good portion of the days that have been given1 to other and less important matters. I cannot but regret that the Under Secretary, in alluding to the two previous Indian Debates of this Session—namely,, that on the opium traffic and that on the Abkari question—should have stated that those subjects were brought forward to satisfy the sentimental feelings of certain, hon. Members; and I may say that I think it a pity that a Member of the Government should sneer at the action of those Representatives who take an interest in the welfare of the Indian people. It is, however, not unnatural that the hon. Gentleman should feel somewhat sore on these points, seeing that one of those Debates resulted in the defeat of the Government. With regard to the question of expenditure, there are many Members on this side of the House who have constantly protested against increased expenditure, especially military expenditure, such as that taking place in Burma, and a large number of us protested against the annexation of that country, which was brought about by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill.) It is not, therefore, for the Under Secretary to taunt us with not being in favour of economy; and even in the Civil Establishments we regret tha the Government should not allow the doctrine that the expenditure ought to be diminished.
  SIR J. GORST: What I said was that, it required extension in such matters as schools, police, sanitary matters, and law and justice.
  MR. M'LAREN: If I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, I am very sorry to have done so. I think with regard to Home Charges there are certain items which are always charged to India which ought to be thrown on the British Exchequer, such as those for the Persian Mission and the Diplo-

  669
  matic and Consular Charges in China. I believe that the people of this country would be prepared to pay legitimate charges of this kind. I should like to know why the charges for the Home Administration of the Indian Government have increased. In 1887–8 the sum was £137,600, in the present year it is £136,900, and next year it will be £139,400. There is a considerable increase in other portions of the Home Charges, and it is to be regretted that while we are making efforts to economise the charges in India, the sum required for the Home Charges should be increased by such a large sum as a quarter of a million. I rejoice to hear that it is the settled policy of the Government to encourage as much as possible not merely the financial, but the legislative and administrative independence of each province. In addition to that, however, the Indian reformers desire that the people of India should have some voice in their affairs. I earnestly hope that some steps may be taken to carry out the policy advocated by the Congress Party in India.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I am glad to hear the announcement of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that he intends to return to the subject of India on the next Debate on the Address, for although it is inconvenient to have prolonged Debates on the Address, yet when we find how the time of private Members is taken up by the Government, so that they have little or no opportunity of raising discussions on important matters in which they are interested, I do not think the Government can complain that a question of so much importance as the Administration of India should be raised on the Address. I remember one remark of the late Mr. Fawcett which deeply impressed me, and that was that no responsibility weighed more heavily upon him than the responsibility he owed to the people of India; and I really do hope that next year, and in future years, we shall have better opportunities than hitherto of discussing Indian affairs in this House. I am glad to find that although in this Debate some hon. Members have taken a rather doleful view of the state of things in India, my hon. Friend near me (Sir R. Temple), who speaks with great authority on these matters, has regarded them
  670
  from a more hopeful point of view. It is very natural for my hon. Friend to vindicate the state of affairs in that country; and we cannot help feeling that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to him as well as to other eminent men, who have devoted a great part of their lives to the service of the people of India in the administration of that country's affairs. At the same time, there are things in that part of the world which we cannot but regret, and among them I would mention the Land Duty, the Opium Revenue, and the Salt Duty. I have already given my opinion on the opium question in a previous Debate, and will not now repeat what I then said; but with regard to the Land Revenue, I cannot but feel that it is a large tax on the people of India. I was somewhat surprised that this question was passed over in the able speech of the hon. Member for Northampton. The Under Secretary has said this is only what it was in the days of the Moguls; that, in fact, the revenue is less now than it was then; but, at the same time, I think it would be a satisfactory thing to every Member of this House if we could see our way to reduce this revenue, although, of course, in the present state of things, we cannot do so. We know that in the Presidency of Madras, where this revenue is raised directly from the ryots, it is a heavy incubus on the people; but in Bengal, under the permanent settlement of Lord Cornwallis, a less amount is raised from this source than in other parts of the country. I think it hardly satisfactory that there should be a difference in the incidence of this tax in different parts of India, and I shall be glad when the time comes that will enable a general reduction to be made. As to the Salt Duty, although it is said that that is the only way in which the bulk of the Indian people contribute to the taxation of the country, it should be remembered that the lower class of the Indian population are very poor, so poor that my hon. Friend near me, in a pamphlet he gave me when I visited him as Governor of Bengal, described that class as receiving as little as was possible to keep human nature together. Under these circumstances, it would be very satisfactory if we were able to refrain from taxing them at all. I cannot, therefore, but regard the Salt Tax as a hardship on

  671
  the Indian people, and express a wish that they could be relieved of it altogether. As to the Abkari Tax, I think it most undesirable to introduce alcoholic liquors into a hot climate like that of India; and I believe the hon. Gentleman who brought this question forward did good service to that country. In conclusion, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Under Secretary on the very satisfactory statement he has been able to make of the condition of affairs in India.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I listened with very great attention to the observations of the Under Secretary for India, and I could not but admire the sagacity with which he grasps the salient points of the situation, and the great dexterity with which he calmly skates over dangerous places. I was reminded of an able article which he wrote on Indian affairs long before he occupied his present high position, in which he said—
  "In our present system of Government in India we shut our eyes to disagreeable things."
  Undoubtedly the hon. and learned Gentleman pursues that policy now, and it will be my endeavour to open his eyes to a few disagreeable things. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that the expenditure of India has increased.
  SIR J. GORST: I qualified that statement.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Yes; the hon. and learned Gentleman qualified that statement, for he pointed out that in the great Departments of Education and Police rigid economy had been exercised. But in the other great Departments the very reverse has been the ease. I do not like statistics, because I cannot remember them. But I believe that out of 210 millions of people in India only 104 men in every thousand can read, and yet you are enforcing the most rigid economy in the Education Service. Again, I find in regard to the police that the salary of a native policeman is only about £4 per annum, and the consequence of this seeming economy is that substantial and gross injustice is caused, because the officials receiving these wretched salaries naturally levy blackmail, and use their authority against persons whom they ought to protect. There is another item as to which I should like an expla-
  672
  nation, and that is that for the first time this year there appears in the Accounts a sum of £1,000 for secret service. How is it that that item appears? I have not yet had time to verify it. I think it is to be very much regretted that the discussion of Indian affairs should be driven off to the end of the Session. I know that on this occasion we can only speak on financial topics; but we ought to remember that we are dealing with money which is extracted from people who have no voice whatever in the expenditure of the money, and therefore we ought to take especial care to see that it is properly expended. Now, there are two subjects to which I wish to draw attention, one is the Salt Tax and the other the Famine Relief Fund. The Salt Tax is a tax which is levied on a necessary of life; it is naturally viewed with very great suspicion, and it is hateful to the people who have to pay it. We know what occurred in this country when it was suspected that it was intended to impose a duty on a necessary of life, we know what a fierce agitation arose in regard to the Sugar Bounties question, an agitation which compelled the most powerful Government of the present century to give in. Many hon. Members can also remember the fierce agitation on the Corn Law. Now, this Salt Tax is ground from the very vitals of the starving poor. The people of India are steeped in poverty to their very lips, and I fear that much of that poverty has been superinduced by artificial means. And now I come to the Famine Relief Fund. This fund was established in 1878, the year in which the enhancement of the Salt Tax occurred. A special fund was ear-marked for the purpose of mitigating famine miseries; but the fund, which was originally one and a half millions, was, unfortunately, appropriated to something else. Now, remember that the people of India are poor to the last degree, and they are subjected to periodic famines, which I think are a disgrace to our administration. Let us consider how the population of India is made up. Five-sevenths of it is purely agricultural, for the manufactures for which India was famous in the 18th century have been destroyed by the fiscal policy of England. A few months ago we were told by the Chief Commissioner for Assam that

  673
  half of the agricultural population of India never knew from year's end to year's end what it was to have their hunger satisfied. Yet you are under your administration taxing a necessary of life for these people. Again, Mr. Hunter, of the Bengal Civil Service, has stated that many millions die through the want of sufficient food; while Mr. Robertson, the head of the Agricultural Department in Madras, said that some natives preferred to grow cotton to grain, although the former was less productive, because they could not eat the cotton, whereas they could, and would, eat the grain. Yet these are the people on whom you impose this Salt Tax. The late Mr. J. K. Cross, when he occupied the same position as that now held by the hon. and learned Gentleman, said that any financier who was able to abolish the Salt Tax would confer almost as great a boon on the people of India as the repeal of the Corn Laws had given to the people of England. Lord Ripon, after he returned to this country, said that the reduction of the Salt Tax had the result of strengthening our financial position by rendering it more elastic. By the enhancement of the Salt Tax, according to a speaker at the Indian Congress, we took away a whole day's food from the Indian people. It is a tax which falls by far heaviest on the lower orders in India, as they require salt in a greater degree. A decrease in the yield upon the Salt Tax, however small, shows that men are stinting themselves of what is really a necessary of life. Railways, instead of being the great blessing they have been represented to be, have been a heavy tax on the people of India. Of the expenditure of the country a large part goes to Europeans for work for which natives are equally competent and less costly. For instance, you can get black soldiers at a cost of £40 per annum. Your English soldiers cost you £200 a year, yet although the natives are quite as capable you will not employ them. Natives, indeed, are excluded from spheres where their employment would be a reduction of Imperial expenditure and a lightening of Imperial taxation. The people of India, however, are now awakening to a knowledge of their rights, and I hope they will sooner or later assert those rights in a manner which will appeal to this House. As things are,
  674
  the people of India are being basely and mercilessly robbed for the benefit of middle-class families in England; and I believe that when the people of this country become fully acquainted with the real state of affairs, they will promptly put an end to the present system.
  SIR J. GORST: I will not waste time in replying to the remarks of hon. Members as to the late period of the Session at which the Indian Budget is discussed. I will content myself with remarking that the fault that the Indian Budget is not brought on until so late a period, lies, not with myself nor with Her Majesty's Government, but with the House of Commons, which would not have tolerated the interruption of the discussions upon the more exciting subjects of the condition of the Irish prisons, of the conduct of Irish Resident Magistrates, or of the tithes, by the introduction earlier of a Budget that involves the welfare of 270,000,000 of our Indian fellow-subjects. And until the House of Commons repents, and expresses a sincere desire that Her Majesty's Government shall bring forward this subject at an earlier period of the Session, it is mere hypocrisy to pretend to lament year after year the delay in the introduction of the Indian Budget. As I anticipated, I have failed to make either the Committee or the hon. Member for Northampton, supported as the hon. Member was by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, understand all about the Famine Insurance Fund. As I have already endeavoured to explain, there was at one time an intention on the part of the Indian Government to create such a fund, but that intention has never been carried into effect. As far as I understand the action of the Government of India, they made a good resolution that they would keep up a surplus revenue of one and a half millions; and, in the outset, no doubt it may have been intended to carry that surplus to some fund which might be drawn upon in time of famine. That good resolution, however, was never acted upon. The only time that it could be said that there was a Famine Insurance Fund in existence was in the very first year of its creation. In 1878–9 I there appears to have been a surplus of J revenue in India of two millions, and one and a half millions of that surplus was placed to the credit of the Famine Insur-

  675
  ance Fund. That million and a half was, however, swallowed up the following year by the expenses of the Afghan War. From 1878–9 until 1880–1 there was no surplus revenue in India, and when the revenue again showed a surplus, Lord Ripon, who was then Viceroy, applied the surplus, not in laying aside a Reserve Fund, but in the construction of railways and of irrigation works, and in the reduction of the debt, and his example was followed by Lord Dufferin. I maintain that the action of these noble Lords was wiser than if they had hoarded the money up in order to meet the possible emergency of famine. No fund in the world would prevent the recurrence of famine in some districts of India; and I feel bound to defend the action of Lord Ripon in this matter from the attacks of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: So far from attacking Lord Ripon, I praised him.
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member has praised Lord Ripon for what he has not done and has blamed others for what Lord Ripon has done. Nor has the policy of the Famine Insurance Fund anything to do with the distress in Madras. The attention of the Government was turned to the threatened scarcity in Ganjam long before questions on the subject were asked in this House, and the most careful provision made by the Government of Madras as soon as it was known that there was the danger of a failure of the crops in the district, to provide against the possibility of famine. With regard to the Famine Fund, arguments have been used which show the kind of information on which some hon. Gentlemen base their views. It is asked, for instance, how it is that such a surplus could be raised in Lord Ripon's time and not now? Those who put this question appear to be ignorant of the fact that in the last year of Lord Ripon's reign the sum of Rx.3,426,000 was paid for exchange; whereas, in the present year, the sum chargeable for exchange was Rx.7,054,000, or an increase, owing to the fall in the value of the rupee, of about Rx.3,500,000, a sum which would pay the famine insurance more than twice over. The hon. Member for Donegal no doubt speaks with perfect honesty and benevolence; but he appears to have based his arguments on statistics which are not as reliable as the official informa-
  676
  tion of which he is so suspicious. It is quite true that the expenditure on education ought still further to be increased. I understood the hon. Member to say that the expenditure on education represents only 1 per cent of the revenue.
  MR. MAC NEILL: My authority was a Bombay Magistrate, and he states that the sum spent on education represents only 1 per cent of the Imperial Revenue.
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member refers to Papers presented to the House he will find that the expenditure on education in 1886–87 was Rx.2,544,341, and in 1887–88 Rx.2,619,128, which certainly is a much larger amount than he suggests. Much has been said with regard to the Salt Tax. I have admitted over and over again, on behalf of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, that he does not regard the increase in the Salt Tax as in any way desirable. It has been raised with reluctance on his part, but there has been much exaggeration as to the dire effects of this increase. In Bengal, from the year 1836 to the year 1880 the tax on salt was almost constantly between 3 and 3¼ rupees per maund. In 1880 it was reduced to two rupees, and it remained at that rate till last year, when the state of the Indian finances necessitated its being raised to 2½ rupees. Calculating that a family of six persons used 11 lb. or 12 lb. of salt a year ahead, a whole family would pay a tax of about two rupees and one anna, and each person about 5½ annas, which gives an increased burden of about one anna on each person. I regret even this small increase of the tax; but it is foolish to exaggerate its effects and to contend that the whole people are starving in consequence of its imposition. But the hon. Member for Donegal objects to the Income Tax as much as he does to the Salt Tax. You cannot please him. He belongs to that class of Indian critics who find fault with everything that the Government of Great Britain have done or will do, in India, in the past, present, and future. They draw their inspiration from the speeches of some of those ambitious Brahmins who attend Congresses for the purpose of distinguishing themselves. As long as they continue to draw upon those sources they may

  677
  no doubt make speeches which are amusing and interesting; but their speeches will not greatly assist the Government of Great Britain in solving the problem of the government of India. The hon. Member for Northampton has found fault with the railway policy of the Government. I need not enter at great length into that policy, because the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton has been, I think, directly answered by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean), the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple), and by a speaker from his own side of the House (Mr. Schwann), whose remarks on Indian railways appear to me to be very sound and valuable. The mistake into which the hon. Member for Northampton has fallen is in treating as an unmixed evil the net charge of two millions on the Railway Revenue Account. Let me remind the hon. Member and the Committee that the railways included in the Revenue Account are not the large Trunk Lines only, but also the railways made for frontier defence, which are not expected to be remunerative, and the famine protection railways, which have been constructed in sparsely-populated districts for the purpose of protecting the people against famine, and not with a view to traffic receipts. It also includes railways like the Indian Midland, the Bengal Nagpur and other lines not sufficiently advanced in construction to pay any profit. Then it should not be forgotten that the cost is enhanced by the necessity of paying the guaranteed interest on the loans in this country in pounds sterling, while the receipts of the railways are in rupees. But if the railways were to cost £2,000,000 a year to India for all eternity, I should hold that it is a good outlay, because this is not only a question of net revenue. The capital sunk in railways in India has increased commerce and developed industry, has protected the country against famine, has augmented our power of defending the country against foreign invasion, and has benefited the people in a thousand ways, quite apart from the returns on the capital expenditure. The same observations apply to irrigation works. The hon. Member has asked me a number of financial questions; but as he is not now in his place, I do not know why I should
  678
  weary the Committee by attempting to reply to them. But as regards these irrigation works, it may be enough to say that although I do not say that every penny spent on those works has been wisely spent, and although in past times there has been a good deal of useless expenditure, for which the hon. Member in his general censure desires to make the present Government responsible, yet, on the whole, the money has been well and wisely laid out on irrigation works. And there must still be expenditure on those works, although the results may not be directly profitable to the Indian Exchequer. Just as the railways pay indirectly, so do the irrigation works; and he would be a very bad Indian financier who would allow the works to fall into ruin or who should refrain from such extension of them as may from time to time be desirable. The hon. Member for Northampton has again raised the old ghost of the Burma ruby mines. I really thought that that ghost had been laid at rest for ever. It is quite true that the "Moral and Material Progress" Report includes for the year ending March 31st, 1888, the transaction that took place in November, 1888, and this shows the disadvantage of having Reports based on statistics received long after the period to which they belong. It is no doubt a mistake, and the Burma ruby mines lease ought not to have been included in that Report. In November, 1888, when the House was sitting, the Secretary of State for India advertised for tenders in respect of the mines, and the tenders were received on November 21 at the India Office. They were duly opened in the presence of the proper officials, amongst whom I was one, and after consideration, the best tender, irrespective of names, was accepted. As the House was sitting at the time, if there had been any suspicion of impropriety in the transaction, the hon. Member could easily have moved in the matter. The question, however, was not raised, and the conduct of the Secretary of State was not challenged. The whole transaction was perfectly bonâ fide. If the hon. Member wishes to have the Papers on the subject laid before the House, I am quite ready to accede to his wish. I was asked some questions by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), to which I ought to reply. First, on the subject of the Bengal

  679
  Excise. I can at once assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State, the Government of India, and the Government of Bengal, have all most actively and energetically entered on the reform of the Excise system of Bengal. They are not going on in a slow and hesitating manner, nor are they delaying the work for the purpose of extracting more revenue from the Excise system. The Des-patch written by the Secretary of State and the principles laid down by the Government of India are being honestly carried out, and there is no doubt that the work of replacing the out-still system by a better system in the Province of Bengal will be speedily carried out. Then the hon. Member expressed a gloomy view of the opium revenue, and said that the reduction in the opium crop was a very unfortunate matter. This is not so. Owing to the very large crops of recent years there has accumulated a large store of manufactured opium at the opium factories, which would deteriorate if not sold; and it is fortunate, therefore, that this year's crop, being small, an opportunity is afforded of getting rid of the surplus stock. With regard to the Delhi-Umballa-Kalka Railway, the Government have agreed to provide the land, and have arranged that, on the completion of the line, which will be constructed by a private company, the East India Railway Company shall work it for 50 per cent of the gross receipts. There is no other expense and no other subsidy or guarantee of any kind given to the new company.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Does the private company undertake it?
  SIR G. GOEST: The private company undertake the construction of the line, which will be worked by the East India Company. In 25 years the Government will have the right to buy at 25 years' purchase of the average receipts of the last five years. Another question upon which the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy made some stringent observations was the proposal for a railway from Chittagong through Eastern Bengal and Assam, and those observations afforded a good illustration of the great anxiety of hon. Members to do the work of the Secretary of State in Council. Hon. Members want to have all the proposals and opinions of everybody disclosed to the House and
  680
  the contract to be settled in the House instead of in the India Office. Certain proposals have been made concerning this railway, including a large grant of waste land. They have been submitted to the Secretary of State, who has considered them, but he has not so far seen his way to enter into any contract.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say where this waste land is?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot say exactly where the waste land is. The proposal is to grant to the company, for subsequent sale, lease, or disposal, Government waste lands in the proportion of 10 square miles per mile of railway, or 7,250 square miles, the land to remain revenue free for a period of years, after which revenue would be assessed on all that had been brought under cultivation or rendered productive. And there are other terms as to minerals and forests. The Secretary of State has not seen his way to enter into any contract, but if any new railway policy of the kind is determined upon, it will, of course, be stated to the House, where it can be condemned or approved by Resolution. But I object to the fussy kind of interference in the Executive business of the Government of India, to which some hon. Members are addicted, who raise questions before the Secretary of State has had time or opportunity to form a decision. This arises from the anxiety of hon. Members to do the business of the Secretary of State instead of minding their own business, which is to criticise the Government's action when it has been determined upon or taken. Their business is not to attempt by agitation and threats to exert an undue influence upon the Executive Department of the Government while action, is still pending. The hon. Member for Oldham raised two questions, in which I very strongly sympathise with the hon. Member's views. The hon. Member first said that the expenses of the India Office ought to be a charge upon the English Consolidated Fund. But to give effect to these views the hon. Member must convert the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It does not matter to me whether my salary is paid out of the Revenues of India

  681
  or Great Britain. I am not afraid that the House of Commons would reject any proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the adequate remuneration of the services of the Under Secretary of State for India. But it is no use attacking the Government of India because the charges of the India Office are not borne by the Consolidated Fund. I am ready to accept any principle the wisdom of Parliament may adopt.
  MR. MACLEAN: I did not urge that the expenses of the India Office should be permanently placed on the taxpayers of Great Britain, but that they should be recouped from the Indian Treasury after the money had first been voted by the House of Commons.
  SIR J. GORST: That part of the proposal, I am bound to say, seems preposterous. Let the House exercise a controlling voice over the expenditure of the Revenue raised by the taxation of those were present, but for the House to vote money in Committee of Supply and afterwards have the money repaid out of the Revenue of India would be a proceeding which would not commend itself to sound financiers. In regard to the question of rates of postage, this is really a matter which ought to be settled with the Postmaster General and the Treasury. If any reduction in the postage rates is made, a very heavy burden may be thrown upon the revenues of India; and I think nobody will contend that we have any right to make the taxpayers of India pay for cheaper postal communication between this country and India. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy asks for information as to the Simla Exodus, but I cannot give the Committee any detailed information as to the amount of the savings likely to be ultimately effected in the expenditure under this head. The Indian Finance Committee estimated that there would be a saving of from 3¾ to more than five lakhs of rupees, provided that certain rules for the migration of officers to Simla were adopted. In April last the Government of India informed the Secretary of State that they had appointed a special officer to collect information and make proposals on the subject, and that the matter was still under consideration. The Secretary of State intimated to the
  682
  Government of India that he was glad to find that they were endeavouring to reduce the cost of moving their establishments as much as possible, consistently with efficiency, and he has called for a further Report showing the conclusions arrived at and the total amount of the reduction of expense effected. This is how the matter stands, and I have at present no more detailed information on that subject. In conclusion, I wish to refer to one observation made by the Member for Northampton, and concurred in by many subsequent speakers, and that is the desire that there should be some extension in the constitution and functions of the Provincial Councils. I do not know whether Members are aware that at the last meeting of the Legislative Council of the Governor General at Calcutta in the beginning of this year, Lord Lands-downe stated that he was in favour of enlarging the number of Provincial Councils and giving them increased functions, including the right, under certain restrictions and conditions, to question Members of the Executive Government on public matters, and also the right of discussing the annual financial proposals. Lord Lansdowne also stated with accuracy that the Secretary of State generally concurred in this view; but I put it to the Committee—what chance has the Secretary of State of carrying any legislation which affects India through the House in the present state of Parties? I can only say that I have advised my noble Friend the Secretary of State that it is impossible in the present state of Parties and the present temper of the House to attempt to carry any Indian legislation. I can only point to the unhappy little Bill, the Council of India Bill. The difficulties encountered by that Bill prove what I have said. It is useless to introduce measures dealing with the constitution of the Provincial Councils in India until the House is prepared to deal with it in a spirit conducive to legislation. I can conceive nothing more mischievous to the administration of the Government of India than that proposals should be hung up Session- after Session in this House—with but a slight chance of passing into law—yet effective for disturbing the stability of the Government of India. The hon. Member for Donegal has talked about the people managing their own affairs; but I think

  683
  if he examines a little more closely into the subject upon which he speaks, he will find that the natives of Bengal are anxious to manage the affairs of the Punjab, where they are just as much foreigners as we are. Would they manage affairs with more fairness than we do? It has been for years past the settled policy of the Government of India to encourage the people of various parts of India to manage their own affairs so far as they are capable of doing it, but I do not believe that the people of any part of India would prefer the rule of Bengal baboos to British administration. I think the hon. Member does little justice to the benevolence of British rule in India if he overlooks the efforts that have been made, and are being made, to raise up that public spirit and capacity for self-government among the natives of every part of India which every well-wisher of the country desires to bring about. The end is not to be attained by misstatements and misrepresentations calculated to bring the Government into discredit. The end is to be attained quietly and gradually. We must gradually educate the people of the various parts of India, and give them by degrees those powers as they learn how to use them for the benefit of themselves. When hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Members for Donegal and for Cheshire rail against the administration of their fellow-countrymen in India—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. M'LAREN: I never even mentioned the subject.
  SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I was travelling beyond the limits of the question before us; but I hope I may say this—that I hope this financial discussion which has taken place to-night may have a sobering effect on the zeal of some Members opposite, and that they, having considered the revenue and expenditure of India as set out in the Accounts laid before us, may come to a better and more charitable view of the administration of that great Empire by their fellow-countrymen.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL (No. 350.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, after sub-section (a), to insert the following sub-sections:—
  (b.) "A local authority may, on the request of the school board for its district or any part of its district, or of any other managers of a school or institution within its district for the time being in receipt of aid from the Department of Science and Art, make, out of any local rate raised in pursuance of this Act, to such extent as may be reasonably sufficient having regard to the requirements of the district, but subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the last-foregoing subsection, provision in aid of the technical and manual instruction for the time being supplied in schools or institutions within its district, and shall distribute the provision so made in proportion to the nature and amount of efficient technical or manual instruction supplied by those schools or institutions respectively;
  (c.) Where such other managers of a school or institution receive aid from a local authority in pursuance of this section, the local authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, be represented on the governing body of the school or institution in such proportion as will, as nearly as may be, correspond to the amount of aid given;
  (d.) If any question arises as to the sufficiency of the provision made under this section, or as to the qualification of any school or institution to participate in any such provision, or as to the amount to be allotted to each school or institution, or as to the extent to which, or mode in which, the local authority is to be represented on the governing body of any such school or institution, the question shall be determined by the Department of Science and Art."—(Mr. Mather.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHANNING: I think it very desirable that there should be some further explanation of the full scope of this Amendment. The objections which struck one—and to which I briefly alluded last night—in considering the Amendment are as follows: The hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Mather) has rather exaggerated the effect of his own proposal, and I think it would be desirable that we should know from the Vice President of the Council exactly how far the interpretation of the hon. Member for the Gorton Division will operate. What I submit, in the first place, is that the Amendment gives no right to the School Boards

  685
  to initiate in the future, or to expand, any existing form of technical or manual education; and, in the second place, no right is given to the School Board to claim assistance from the Local Authority—to make a claim which cannot be met by a negative. By the retention of the word "may"—and I understand the point has been settled by the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hanley—the School Board is left in the position that it cannot claim assistance from the rates as a matter of right. The third objection is that you are placing the alternative authority for education— which represents the popular decision as to the persons to whom the education of the district shall be entrusted— on a level with committees of private individuals who, with benevolent intentions get money together for carrying out education, with the best motives, no doubt. I frankly recognise that the Committees of Voluntary Schools have done a noble duty in the past, but I complain that this Amendment places private bodies exactly on the same footing in the eyes of the law as bodies elected by the people under the Education Act. That is a main objection I feel to the Bill. In this connection I would refer to a passage in the Report of the Minority of the recent Royal Commission on Education. They say in the chapter, dealing with the Local Authority—
  "Under the present system, the work of education is, to a large extent, taken out of the hands of the nation to be placed in the bands of ecclesiastical organisations in proportion as they are wealthy and willing to purchase the right to administer the grants voted by Parliament, and to control the education of the people."
  I am unwilling to place these bodies on the same footing under this Bill. There is a fourth principle I cannot assent to, which is that the rate should go to voluntary bodies without a really popular elective representation. I cannot agree to the proposal unless the representation is such as would carry out the general principles agreed to in 1870. The representation of the County Councils is practically illusory. These Councils are not elected for an educational purpose. They do not represent the interests of the people on the question of whether or not a policy of this
  686
  kind should be carried out. Then, there is a very important objection which may be taken to the Amendment as a whole, and that is that it will lead to a conflict of demands from various bodies and between the various Local Authorities. And here I will not put the objection in my own language, as much more forcible language has been supplied to every one interested in the question by the principal organ of public opinion this morning. This is what the Times newspaper says:—
  "Primâ facie the provisions of the Bill are objectionable. It certainly tends to confuse the educational jurisdiction of the country. It is conceivable that it may set the 'Local Authority,' thus newly invested with educational power, in antagonism both to the School Boards and to the managers of voluntary schools; and, what is still more important, it may ultimately establish an unpleasant rivalry between the Science and Art Department and the Education Department."
  This is, perhaps, one of the most important objections which can be taken both to the Amendment and the Bill, and I feel inclined in this connection to quote a remark in a letter addressed to me by one of the greatest authorities on education, who has been referred to more than once. I mean Mr. Lyulph Stanley. He says: —
  "The whole proposal of this Amendment is to my mind chaotic."
  As to differences which may arise between the Local Authorities or groups of schools, I do not think they should be left to the decision of the Science and Art Department. I consider that where you have to deal with the relations of one Local Body or set of schools with another you ought to have a responsible Department of the Government, like the Education Department, or the Local Government Board, to appeal to. My hon. Friend (Mr. Mather) in his interpretation of his Amendment has expressed very largely what we on this side of the House have really wished to carry out. I challenge that interpretation, and hope, if that interpretation is incorrect and the Vice President of the Council has to admit that the points I have raised are valid, that some effort will be made to introduce in the measure the principles which my hon. Friend really intended to carry out—namely, that no additional Educational Authority shall be set up unless the School Boards neglect this duty or

  687
  do not exist, and that the Local Authority shall not be permitted to establish schools for this purpose unless the School Board or managers of the schools established for a like purpose fail to provide efficient instruction. Those are the principles we have at heart, and in the few observations in which I have explained them, I have endeavoured, I hope, in a moderate and conciliatory spirit, to ascertain what is the real drift and scope of the Amendment. I think we are justified in going thus fully into these points, as they are of great importance. I may add that the Debates we have hitherto had and the points we have raised have been justified by the Press in every part of the country. I cannot conclude without saying that, whatever the scope of the Amendment may be, my original objection to the whole of this proposal still holds good— namely, that in this Bill we are taking away from the School Boards elected as representatives of the people for matters of education the control over an important branch of secondary education.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I think the general result of the speech of the hon. Member is observable in his last few phrases. It is obvious that he is opposed to the whole spirit of the Bill as it stands. While speaking on a particular Amendment the hon. Member repeated his objections to the general scope of the measure. He asks an explanation of this Amendment, but the Amendment speaks for itself. It is perfectly clear as it stands and needs no explanation. The best way of expressing an opinion on the substance of the Amendment is by voting upon it. The hon. Member objects to the whole framework of the Bill; but I am bound to say that in his remarks he has touched on no new point, the only novelty in his remarks being a quotation from the Press. Beyond that he has only gone over the points he elaborated yesterday.
  MR. CHANNING: It seems to me that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is singularly unfair and singularly ill-calculated to a clear and reasonable settlement of the point before the Committee. I asked what was the scope of the Amendment. I distinctly challenged the Government to say whether they accepted the interpretation put on his Amendment by the hon. Member,
  688
  and the right hon. Gentleman has given me no answer, but says that the matter must be settled not by argument but by the counting of heads.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I am surprised to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I cannot but remember that he is in favour of simplifying the authorities. This Bill seems tome to introduce utter confusion among the Local Authorities, besides taking School Board work out of the hands of the School Board and handing it over to other Local Bodies. Apart from this, I confess that I cannot quite fully follow the meaning of this clause. I have tried to follow it carefully, but I confess there are certain points about it which I do not quite understand. We are entitled to have it made clear to us. Perhaps if the whole House were here I should prefer to keep silence, but we are only a section of the House, and perhaps one of the greatest objections to legislation at this time of the year is that we are legislating on a great question with only one-tenth of the Members of the House present.
  MR. MATHER: I think it would be useful if at this stage I were permitted to make a few remarks on the Amendment standing in my name. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made some strong remarks about my hon. Friend (Mr. Channing). After the difficulties which beset the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for South Manchester (Sir H. Roscoe), I saw it would be impossible to pass a Bill for the promotion of technical education so as on the one hand to give the control of the subject entirely to the School Boards, and on the other to give to both School Boards and Voluntary Schools equal rights. On the opposite side of the House there was the strongest objection made to the School Boards having the exclusive right to control secondary and technical education; and on this side there was the strongest objection to allowing all schools to have the same advantages in regard to spending the rates of the ratepayers without obtaining some control over the voluntary schools. There we have a dilemma, which practically brings us to a deadlock, and no pro-

  689
  gress seemed to be possible in the direction of technical education unless some intermediate course could be pointed out. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council seemed to me to hit on a happy mode, in a general way, of solving the question. He proposed to enlarge and to make more perfect the kind of education now being given under the auspices of the Science and Art Department. That class of education is now being given to some extent by School Boards, but unhappily the School Boards have at present to carry on the system surreptitiously, and they have to contrive by all sorts of means, such as availing themselves of private assistance and charging high fees, to impart the instruction which is needed. In like manner the many privately managed schools which are not denominational schools, have very few of them taken advantage of the opportunities they might obtain from the Science and Art Department. The object of my Amendment is to enable the School Boards to give secondary education without employing those surreptitious means which they are at present obliged to employ. If it be agreed to, they will be enabled to make application to the Local Authority for aid in this matter. The managing committees of other schools will also have the power of applying for assistance out of the rates for the purpose. In the case of the School Boards, they will have entire control of the funds which may be granted to them. The moment, however, a voluntary school becomes a recipient of aid from the rates, it will cease to be an exclusively privately managed school, because representatives of the ratepayers will be placed upon its managing body. In my own City of Manchester the Corporation has some control over the education carried on in the schools, and has a Committee representing it on the Boards of Management, and the same is the case in other towns. The Committee will observe that, under my Amendment, School Boards will, in a permissive sort of way, become secondary Educational Authorities, which they have not hitherto been recognised as being. Now, I hold that it will be a very great advantage indeed to the industrial portion of the country, and by degrees also to the rural districts, if a
  690
  system of manual and technical instruction can be adopted under such conditions as these. There can be no objection to the proposal on the part of the School Boards, and I think that the Government, in accepting my Amendment, has gone a great distance towards meeting the legitimate aspirations of Members on this side of the House. With regard to their powers, I think there cannot really be any conflict between the Local Authorities. The Local Authority is not compelled to do anything, and it is a healthy element in the Bill that public opinion must first recognise the importance of the Bill and then operate on the Local Authority, which will be bound to act in the matter, though, if it be desired, I will alter the word "shall" into "may." I have, however, the greatest confidence that all the enlightened Town and County Councils throughout the country will take advantage of the Bill and respond to the public spirit which will be evoked in its favour in their localities, so that if the School Board make a request they will endeavour to establish these technical schools in their several districts so as to meet the wants of those-districts. We are told that the School Boards are anxious to do the work, and that the Town Councils do not desire to have the powers conferred by the Bill. In that case what can be-more natural than that the School Boards should make the request, and that the Town and County Councils would most willingly obtain what the School Boards are so well calculated to demand? I believe we owe a great debt of gratitude to those public-spirited citizens who have subscribed large sums for establishing Science and Art and Technical Schools all over the country; but these institutions may not always be carried on in the same way when they have lapsed into other hands, and it is only right that the Local Authorities should be empowered to carry on the work. The Guilds of the country have established some 300 Art and Science and Technical Schools, for which they have asked no assistance, and, although they have been doing most excellent work, they are liable to languish for want of funds. In such cases a small sum—even a few hundreds of pounds—given out of the Imperial Exchequer would have the

  691
  effect of making these schools live and thrive in our midst for the benefit of the working classes. I do hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree to this Amendment, seeing that it is likely to effect—I do not say a large amount of good, but, at all events, a certain and a definite amount of good. The next step will be, when the time comes, to place the School Boards in a position to control the technical education needed by the country. That will be the next step, but that which is proposed by this Amendment will be the first, and then we shall be able to see whether the Local Authorities, writers for the Press, secretaries of educational institutions, and others interested in the matter, will come to the conclusion we have already arrived at, that the passing of this measure will produce results that will not only be an honour to the Government, but will redound to the credit of those who have assisted in its progress; will not only prove a lasting boon to those who are most interested in such legislation, but a measure fraught with great advantage to the best interests of the country.
  MR. PICTON: I do not deny that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is, on the whole, a well-meant Amendment, and a considerable improvement on the Bill as it was at first introduced; but I regret to say that it does not fully meet our objections. The hon. Gentleman has said that at present the School Boards are not allowed to give a certain kind of education, which he terms secondary, in the shape of technical instruction; but can we be sure that he is right in his interpretation of the law? An important opinion has been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Sir H. Davey) to the effect that the School Boards have, under the existing law, full power to give both manual and technical instruction. Therefore I am not ready to concede that the School Boards are avowedly and undeniably without such power. But even if it were so, what does the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mather) propose by his Amendment with regard to the action of the School Boards? Those Boards are elected by the ratepayers as a Local Authority just as much as the Town and County Councils. They are elected for the purpose of carrying
  692
  out the educational work of their districts, and while the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Mather) does not propose the serious humiliation I am about to call attention to, his Amendment assents to and confirms it—namely, that bodies elected by the ratepayers, and in whom, therefore, the ratepayers have expressed their confidence, are to go cap in hand to the Local Authority set up by this Bill, and say to them, "If you please, will you give us a penny in the £1 for the purpose of carrying on the work of technical education?" I trust that hon. Members opposite will assist us in the endeavour to save the School Boards such a humiliation.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to order. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in raising the question of the School Boards on this Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) is hardly in order, inasmuch as that part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorton on which he is animadverting has already been affirmed by the Committee.
  MR. PICTON: As that is the ease I will not press the argument any further. I was only endeavouring to show why we on this side of the House are not satisfied with the Amendment, which I understood the hon. Member for Gorton to say was one which, in his opinion, ought to reconcile us to the Bill. Still, we are disposed, if possible, to further amend the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and if that is done it is possible that the Bill may be made acceptable; but if we are to take it as it is, it will by no means lead to an agreement.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I wish the Committee to understand that although this Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorton is accepted as a means of passing the Bill, still it must not be considered that the concession is all on one side. We on this side of the House do not approve of the Amendment absolutely; but we are quite willing to accept it for the purpose of enabling the Committee to arrive at a decision. The hon. Member for Gorton has said that no school would be qualified to come under the operation of this Amendment unless it is already in receipt of a grant from the

  693
  Science and Art Department. I wish to ask whether that does not apply to School Board schools equally with others?
  MR. MATHER: Yes, that is so.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I regret that we should have had so early this evening a repetition of the scolding which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us last night, and I think we are indebted to my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Mather) for the dignified rebuke he administered to the right hon. Gentleman. What we on this side of the House say is that the Bill, as it was originally introduced, was a thoroughly bad Bill, and this view of the Bill is now pretty generally admitted. At all events, the hon. Member for Gorton distinctly said so; and as we hold the same opinion, we want to amend it in such a way as to make it more acceptable than it is. The hon. Member for Gorton has already greatly improved the measure, some of the Amendments that have been made in it having been great improvements, and I do not understand why we should be scolded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for our efforts to amend the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer scarcely answered a single argument used against this Amendment; all he did was to urge us to go to a Division; and it is not at all unlikely that we shall go to more than one Division before we have done with the Bill. I am, however, not surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's conduct, which may, to some extent, be accounted for by the severe criticism which the Press almost without exception has applied to the Government for the way it has dealt with this Bill. [Cries of "Question."] I was only endeavouring to find an apology for the warmth of the right hon. Gentleman. Our desire is, if possible, to make the Bill a better one than it is. Indeed, I am wrong in saying "better," because that implies that it was good to begin with; therefore, I will say less bad. I do not think the hon. Member for Gorton has fully
  694
  answered the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing). What we want is to get the Bill put into such a form that we can give it some sort of approval; and I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer we do not feel ourselves in a position to accept as it now stands this miserable half measure. I hope, therefore, we may have some further statement on behalf of the Government.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can only express my desire to see this Bill passed through its remaining stages, and my great regret if anything I have said has produced a wrong impression. All I desired to do was to urge the expediency of making some progress with the Bill. I am afraid that in the intense anxiety of hon. Members to improve the Bill they will run the risk of not passing it at all, because the time for the discussion of it is absolutely limited. The Bill must get through Committee this evening, and hon. Members know that it will have to get through the Report stage to-morrow. If this be not done, it will be absolutely impossible to pass the Bill this Session. I, therefore, appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow us to make progress with the measure now. I had no intention to scold hon. Members; I have only asked them to assist in the endeavour to pass the Bill.
  MR. WOODALL: I am sure I have done my best to assist in making-progress with this Bill; but the House and the Committee have suffered from the fact that the Bill has not been discussed on its general principles, because of there having been no Debate on the Second Reading. I cannot help feeling that we should have derived some advantage if a little larger latitude could have been allowed last night with the object of removing some of the difficulties felt by Members of the Opposition. The Vice President has pledged himself to insert a clause saving all the existing rights of School Boards,

  695
  and I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to define them. School Boards are at present practically limited to primary instruction or higher primary instruction; but by this Amendment a School Board will be constituted an authority for secondary instruction of an advanced tend. As to the Bill being employed to assist denominational teaching, I must reiterate the view of the hon. Member for Gorton that the measure should contain such restrictions and definitions that no institution will be entitled to receive grants from local rates which has not already satisfied the Science and Art Department as to the character, the efficacy, and the sufficiency of its teaching of technical subjects. The apprehensions of my hon. Friends near me are really unfounded; and it would be impossible under this measure to do anything except give the technical and manual training which it is designed to advance. The Science and Art Department will judge of the bona fides of the instruction given, and a better security they could not have. I think that the Amendment of my hon. Friend would remove the difficulty which has been honestly felt in some quarters as to the operation of the Bill.
  MR. A. O'CONNOK: I desire, after the very significant remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to know whether it is worth our while to remain out of bed any longer in order to discuss this Bill? I cannot quite gather from the observations that have fallen from the Treasury Bench what is really intended to be done. It rather seems to me that this Debate is being allowed to sink to the level of a mere petty Party fight; and if that be so, I say at once, "A plague o' both your Houses." For my own part, I approach this question purely in the interests of the working class, and for their sake I am prepared to stay here as long as may be necessary in order to pass the Bill; but from the remarks just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would seem that there is, in the minds of the Government, some hesitation as to the course they should take, and that it is doubtful
  696
  whether they will not at the last moment abandon the Bill. It would also seem as if they wanted to throw the odium of that abandonment on hon. Members sitting above the Gangway on this side of the House. All I have to say is that if this is what is in their minds, they had better tell us so at once. Let them say this, and we shall understand what is the real attitude of the Government. But if, on the other hand, they have made up their minds to stay here and see the Bill through Committee, then I say they ought so to inform us. But the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did appear to me to be so insidious that all I could gather from them was that, if it could only be established that the blame for defeating the Bill could be thrown on the shoulders of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, the Bill would be abandoned by the Government.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not sorry the hon. Member for Donegal has made the observations that have just fallen from him. I may say, in answer to his remarks, that I think the minority have it now in their power to prevent the Bill from passing. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the Prorogation must take place very shortly, and that it is impossible to protract the Session many days longer. If hon. Members will give the Government a hearty assurance that they will consent to finish th6 Committee stage to-night, and will refrain from crowding the Paper with Amendments on the Report stage, I shall be very pleased, for the Government attach the greatest possible importance to the measure, and are most anxious to carry it through. But this period of the Session is a time when even a small minority is extremely powerful, and can defeat a Bill if it chose to do so. Yesterday the opponents of the Bill made a Motion to report Progress at the very beginning of the proceedings on the Bill, and to-day there has been a similar Motion. That seems to indicate that the minority are determined to prevent the Bill from passing. If pro-

  697
  gress had been made this evening, if there were any sign of a disposition to facilitate proceedings, the Government would be prepared to sit on until any hour in the morning. In these circumstances, I shall be very glad if some hon. Member amongst those who oppose the Bill will speak out frankly, and say whether his friends will give a fair undertaking that, subject to a reason able amount of discussion, the Bill will be allowed to pass through Committee to-night, and that the Report stage will be finished to-morrow.
  MR. PICTON: It appears to me that the best thing I can do is to move that you, Sir, report Progress. The hon. Member for Donegal has stated that the Debate is descending to the level of a Party fight; but I venture to say that it is in no small Party spirit, nor any spirit of envy of this or of that denomination, that we have taken the position we have assumed. We have taken our stand on the common-sense principle that public money ought not to be spent except by public representatives. I do maintain it is little short of a scandal, if I may venture to use the word, that a Bill of this importance should be pressed through in this manner in the small hours of the morning towards the end of the Session. I have to move that Progress be reported. I do it as a protest against the course which is being pursued, and I am quite prepared to take the responsibility and to defend my conduct in the matter, either in this House or outside.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Pieton.)
  MR. M'LAREN: I hope the Government will persevere in their attempt to pass this measure. I do not share the view expressed by my hon. Friends, although I have no doubt that they have a genuine fear that this Bill will be used in the interests of denominational education. I think these fears of hon. Members are greater than the circumstances justify, and that
  698
  the good which the Bill will effect will far outweigh the possible harm. The valuable principle of applying rate-aid to technical education will he established, and of course if the Bill requires amending it can be done by future legislation. If we defeat this Bill we may be sure that the existing Parliament will not bring in a better one, and there is a considerable probability that if any Liberal Government attempted to do so they would meet with defeat. I therefore hope the Government will ask their supporters to sit up to any hour rather than allow this Bill to be defeated. I shall be glad to remain to help them.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I do protest against this Coercion policy of the Government in endeavouring to force Bills through the House at this hour of the morning. I know of no reason why we are bound to have the prorogation this week. We are perfectly willing to discuss the various Amendments on the Paper at a reasonable time, and day by day, but I do protest against being kept up all night in order to do this.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 78.—(Div. List, No. 350.)
  Original Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: The object of the next Amendment which stands in my name is to secure that the Local Authority shall, on the request of the School Board, or may, at the request of any other body, take action under the clause. I am distinctly opposed to the Local Authority dominating any authority elected for educational purposes, and I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite, as managers of voluntary schools, should object to this proposal.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in Clause 1, line 1, to leave out "may" and insert "shall."
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I am entirely in favour of the object which has suggested this change in the clause which my hon. Friend desires to make.

  699
  I think the object he has in view is reasonable, and, on the whole, desirable. But still, under the circumstances, I think it would be better to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for Gorton, rather than to adopt the word "shall," for we may perhaps find ourselves in a difficulty in regard to these words later on.
  MR. PICTON: I also agree with my hon. Friend, although I am not prepared to say that any little school in any village should be able to compel the Local Authority to furnish it with money for the purposes of this Act, whether or not it thinks it expedient.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: The object of the next Amendment is to give the School Board breathing time to make applications under the Act.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to order. Does not this Amendment raise a question which was decided last night?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is very much on the same principle, but not sufficiently distinct to prevent this Amendment being moved.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I contend that there should be reasonable time given to the School Boards to make the application under the clause, and it ought not to be forgotten that the School Boards are elected by the people at large at considerable trouble and expense, that they are not confined to one political Party, and that they are entitled to reasonable consideration. There ought to be no risk that the School Board might be forestalled for want of a reasonable time.
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, Clause 1, page 1, line 3, after "or," insert "failing such request from the School Board, then at the request."
  Question put, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I have already reminded the hon. Member that the proposals embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorton are in the
  700
  nature of a compromise accepted by the Government, and if we adopt this Amendment its effect will be to utterly destroy that compromise.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I do not think that the next Amendment contravenes any principle which has been urged in this discussion. The only point it raises is which Local Authority shall be represented on the management of the school or institution receiving aid out of the rates for technical instruction—whether it shall be the Town Council or the School Board. I venture to think it ought to be the latter, because the members of it are specially elected to look after educational matters.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 14, after the word? "section" to insert the words "the School Board, where one exists, and where not."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. CHANNING: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be better to adopt the Amendment standing in my name which immediately follows, and which provides for the insertion of the words:—
  "The School Board, if such school or institution is in a School Board district, and in any other district, elsewhere any other Local Authority as hereinafter defined in this Act, and having jurisdiction in such district."
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I am quite willing to adopt those words.
  Question, "That leave be given to withdraw the Amendment," put, and negatived.
  MR. CHANNING: I wish once more to enter my protest against the exclusion of authorities elected by the people for educational purposes, for functions which it is only proper they should discharge. The question here is as to what body shall be represented on the governing bodies of private institutions which may receive aid out of the rates for the purposes of this Act. I certainly think the School Board is the most suitable authority to be represented.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: What is the objection to this Amendment? It seems a very reasonable proposal. I do think we might be told why the Government will not accept it.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 81.—(Div. List, No. 351.)
  Original Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: By my next Amendment I desire to secure that the representation of the Local Authority shall be to the extent of a clear majority. There are several Amendments on the Paper which point in this direction, and I do not care much which is accepted. I understand the Government are willing to accept one in the name of the hon. Member for Holmfirth, but I do not think that goes far enough.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 15, after the word "represented," to insert the words "by a clear majority."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, as we intend to accept that of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I am glad that the Government are prepared to accept some of the Amendments we have put down. At the same time I believe that that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Spalding Division will far better secure the object we have in view, and I therefore hope that he will not give way. I should have thought we were all agreed that where the ratepayers' money is to be expended, their representatives should have effective control over the expenditure, and they cannot have that unless they possess a clear majority on the governing body.
  MR. WOODALL: I am sorry my hon. Friend has accepted so ungraciously the important concession which has been made by the right hon. Gentle-
  702
  man in charge of this Bill. I think the concession is a most important one.
  MR. PICTON: This Amendment only carries out the principle embodied in Sub-section 2 of the clause, which declines to allow any Local Authority to delegate to any Committee the power of raising a rate or borrowing money. That is precisely the position we want to take up with regard to the managers of schools which receive aid from the local rates. We think that the Local Authority should not delegate to the school managers the power of applying this money, but that it should be responsible for the administration of the money, as well as the raising it. Unless you give the Local Authority a clear majority it will not have this power.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 76.—(Div. List, No. 352.)
  MR. H. J. WILSON: In regard to the next Amendment, I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for accepting it. I certainly had no intention of being ungracious when I said I favoured the one proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Spalding Division.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, to leave out the words "amount of aid given," and to insert the words
  "Proportion which the aid given by the local authority bears to the contribution made by the subscribers to the cost of the technical or manual instruction given in the school or institution aided."—(Mr. H. J. Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'amount of aid given' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I think it will be necessary to make a slight alteration, and I would suggest the omission of the words "by the subscribers," and the insertion "from all sources other than money provided by Parliament."
  MR. M'LAEEN: I think the Amendment on the Paper, as proposed by my hon. Friend, is infinitely the better one. The revenue of a school comes from

  703
  three sources—the voluntary subscriptions, the grant out of the rates and taxes and the fees paid by children. Now, the managers should have an amount of representation proportionate to the voluntary subscriptions, and the ratepayers should be represented proportionately to the grant made out of the rates. I do not think the fees and Government grant should be brought into the question at all, and I therefore trust that my hon. Friend will adhere to his original proposal.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I hold that the fees stand on the footing of voluntary subscriptions. No one can be compelled to attend these technical schools, and if parents send their children to them it will be a purely voluntary proceeding. I therefore think the fees should be counted as voluntary subscription.
  MR. BEYN ROBERTS: I demur to the proposition that the fees stand on the same footing as voluntary subscriptions, and I certainly see no reason why they should be taken into consideration, in order to give the school managers a larger share of representation than they are entitled to in respect of the voluntary subscriptions.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: A person attending a technical institution, whether established by one denomination or another, goes there for the sole purpose of obtaining technical instruction, and does not consider to what denomination the institution belongs. The fees paid, therefore, ought not to be treated as having the same privileges of representation as attach to voluntary subscriptions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will re-consider his proposition.
  MR. WOODALL: I venture to suggest that the difference is so slight that the Government would do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member as it stands.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "by the subscribers" and insert the words "from all sources other than money provided by Parliament."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  Question put, "That the words 'by the subscribers' stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 72—(Div. List, No. 353.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'From all sources other than money provided by Parliament' be there inserted in the Amendment to the Amendment."
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I wish to make an addition to the Amendment so that it shall read—"other than school fees and money provided by Parliament." That would leave Trustees the benefit of all subscriptions, endowments, and matters of that kind, verbally excluding fees and Parliamentary Grants.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Amendment, after the word "them" to insert the words "school fees and."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: The very form in which you put the question, Sir, shows the position in which hon. Members are putting the Committee and the Bill. Here is an Amendment practically accepted by my right hon. Friend in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. To that an Amendment is moved and the Committee have decided upon it. Now another Amendment is moved, in a manner almost unprecedented. It is extremely difficult to conduct our proceedings in this way. I make an appeal to hon. Members not to occupy time with such details as these, but to discuss the really important matters to be decided. This is an Amendment upon an Amendment which is itself an

  705
  Amendment accepted by the Government to meet the views of hon. Members. I trust the Committee will proceed with the Bill in a business-like spirit.
  MR. M'LAREN: The right hon. Gentleman is in error on one point. It was the Vice President of the Council who started with an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, to leave out the words, "by the subscribers." If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper, he would have saved half-an-hour's discussion, but he yielded to the pressure of hon. Gentlemen behind him, and so this delay has occurred. It really is a very important point. We are not going back on the old ground or raising a trivial Amendment; it is really a very important point whether fees shall be included. We maintain that the representatives of the Local Authority should be in proportion to the money given from the rates, and the representatives of the subscribers in proportion to the subscriptions. The money obtained by fees and by Government grant should not be reckoned. It is a matter on which we feel very strongly, even those of us who have voted with the Government. We all voted against the Government last time.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Though I fully understand the position of the hon. Gentleman, yet we really have argued out the question and taken a Division upon it, and it is a prostitution of Parliamentary forms to divide again.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: We understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to accept the suggestion made from this side, and it was a surprise to us when it was challenged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the spirit in which this Bill has been treated, but it is the spirit the Government have displayed which has caused all this irritation. They first of all announced they were willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member
  706
  for Holmfirth, and on that being moved they move an Amendment to it, an obstructive Amendment which totally alters its scope and purpose. The gist of the Amendment of my hon. Friend was the proportion of the aid from the Local Authority to the contributions, and this is entirely altered by the Government Amendment.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: On a point of order, Sir, is it strictly regular to have before us an Amendment to a proposed Amendment? Is not that too remote?
  MR. H. J. WILSON: We have divided on one already.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is unusual, but I do not know that it is disorderly.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President said he would accept the Amendment with a verbal alteration, and we naturally thought he meant to carry out the same purpose, but removing some ambiguity or making the meaning clearer. That is surely the meaning of a verbal Amendment, but the Vice President's proposed alteration of my Amendment is not verbal, but very material. The point we are insisting upon is not unimportant. We are contending for an increased representation of those who find the public money. I would point out also that, in addition, there is the income from Corporation property, for instance, that could be applied to the proportion.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 70.—(Div. List, No. 354.)
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I think the Government are treating us exceedingly unfairly. They promised to accept the Amendment with a verbal alteration, and they have proposed something entirely different. The Government seems desirous of provoking Divisions and wasting time. They may put upon me if they like the responsibility of obstruction, but I move, Sir, "That you do now leave the Chair."
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. H..J. Wilson.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 74.—(Div. List, No. 355.)
  Question,
  "That the words 'from all sources other than money provided by Parliament,' be there inserted in the Amendment to the Amendment,"
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  "That the words 'proportion which the aid given by the local authority bears to the contribution made from all sources other than money provided by Parliament to the cost of the technical or manual instruction given in the school or institution aided,' be inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Amendment,"
  put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, proposed.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: The Amendment I now have to propose raises no question of local jealousy whatever. I do not know whether the Vice President will accept it. I am not only giving expression to my personal opinion. If he will turn to the Report of the Royal Commission, he will find that the Commissioners have a distinct recommendation exactly in the direction indicated by my proposal. I should think it vain to attempt to induce the Government to accept the Amendment by any argument of my own, but I hope, supported by the authority I have mentioned, they will accept it.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 24, to leave out the words "Department of Science and Art," and insert the words "Committee of Council on Education."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Department of Science and Art' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. WOODALL: I appeal in the very strongest terms to my hon. Friend not to press this. It is perfectly true that the Royal Commission on Technical Education in reference to elementary schools did propose the Education Department as the authority in connection with this instruction, but we are now doing something outside and beyond ordinary elementary schools. Having in mind the difficulties we have had in reference to certain subjects, I think it will be acknowledged the
  708
  Science and Art Department is the better authority.
  MR. CHANNING: I hope my hon. Friend will persist in his Amendment, and that the Vice President will accept it. He may say no, but there is good ground for it. I consider this essentially a local government question. The Science and Art Department is all very well to carry on examinations in drawing and elementary science, but it is not the authority to which we should delegate the delicate and difficult duties of adjusting the rights of Local Authorities under this Bill. The Amendment raises a question of much importance, and I hope my hon. Friend will persist with it. I do not go with my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley. I think it is of the greatest importance for the future that we should consolidate our Educational Authority. We have the example of Scotland, where, the Education Department has much wider duties. The Amendment is an important one, and I hope it will be adhered to.
  MR. MATHER: It seems to me that though the Education Department is supreme in educational matters, it is especially the function of the Science and Art Department to determine such matters as are here concerned.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I scarcely see the object of the Amendment. I am sorry to say I have not such acquaintance with the work of the two Departments requisite to enable me to determine the point. Perhaps one of my hon. Friends who understand the scope of the work of the Departments will explain the matter a little more fully.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I do not think the hon. Member for Hanley has quite caught the scope of the Amendment. It is not an Amendment which will throw upon the Committee of Council on Education investigation into all the details of technical schools; it is simply to settle questions

  709
  that may arise as to the sufficiency of the provision, and the proportion and extent of representation—points which surely can be settled as well by one authority as the other.
  MR. MATHER: The sufficiency will depend upon the efficiency of the school, and, therefore, must be adjudicated on by the Science and Art Department.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to add at the end the words
  "Provided that no such provision, out of any rate raised in pursuance of this Act, shall be made in aid of technical or manual instruction in any school conducted for private profit."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR.CHANNING: I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Subsection (b), but as the Amendment to substitute the School Board for the Local Authority was not carried, I will not move it.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to move the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. Thomas Ellis).
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Agreed.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 22, to add at the end the words
  "Nothing in this Act shall he construed so as to interfere with any existing powers of School Boards with respect to the provision of technical and manualinstruction."—(Mr. R. J. Wilson.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to withdraw Clause 2.
  Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to move the next Amendment on the Paper, and I venture to hope that it will receive care-
  710
  ful and candid consideration. It proposes to make an exception in the case of London, and to render the School Board the special authority.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to order. I submit that this Amendment is out of order after the rejection of the Amendments to the first clause. The Committee has decided that the Local Authority shall be a body outside the existing School Board, in order that it shall act impartially as between the Board Schools and denominational schools. I submit, therefore, that this Amendment cannot be moved.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The decision the Committee as arrived at on the general principle does not render inadmissible a proposal to except London.
  MR. PICTON: I submit that the case of London is exceptional. London is exceptional in its population and in its local organisation, and this exceptional character has been acknowledged in various Acts of Parliament, notably in the Elementary Education Act of 1870. Nowhere in the country is there so vast a population, and nowhere are such varied districts brought under the direction of one School Board. In the course of the discussion on the Elementary Education Act it was at first proposed to divide London into a considerable number of small districts; but ultimately it was decided that the whole of the Metropolis should be under one School Board. The operations of the London School Board are much wider than those of any other School Board in the country or in the world, and its experience is greater because of the variety of its operations; and I venture to say, from my own personal experience, that its perception of the need of manual and technical instruction is far more thorough than can conceivably be the case with any body that can be substituted for it. This School Board has borne fruit in a number of Reports of Committees bearing upon the curriculum through which the children should be put in the schools, and those Reports

  711
  have universally recognised the enormous importance of manual and technical instruction. I remember myself being on a small Committee of that Board, presided over by Professor Huxley, which was strongly of opinion that manual instruction should be given by the Board. Since that time the idea has been considerably developed, and the use of tools has been taught—that is since I was a member of the Board. Now, can the same experience be predicated of the County Council, which now governs a certain number of the local affairs of London? I have not the least desire to say anything disrespectful of the London County Council. I admire it very much, and I should not wish to discourage it in any degree whatever; but it certainly was not elected for the purpose of looking after education, and it has a great deal on its hands—quite as much as it can accomplish for the present. Besides, before long the County Council will have other duties conferred upon it, so that I do not think any candid persons can say that the County Council is as fit as the School Board to do this work. It is suggested in some quarters that School Boards will be unfair to denominational schools. I do not think the history of the School Board for London shows that there is any fear of such a thing in London. The circumstances of the School Board of London have led to an enormous increase in the number of School Board schools in proportion to denominational schools, but that has not led to the interests of denominational schools being ignored. They have been respected rather too much, in fact. The Board has constantly numbered amongst its members a considerable proportion of clergy; there is now a larger number of clergy on it than there ever were before; and a clergyman has presided with great ability over its deliberations for more than three years. Under these circumstances, I do not think any one can say that the Board will deal unfairly with denominational schools. On the whole, therefore, I contend that the case of London is exceptional, and that London should have special treatment. I move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, after the word "mean," to
  712
  insert the words "in London the School Board for London, and elsewhere shall mean."—(Mr. Picton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, as it would alter the whole scope of the Bill in its application, to five millions of people. The Bill is a compromise as it stands; but if this Amendment were accepted it would raise, at any rate in London, the whole question of Board Schools as against voluntary schools.
  MR. STUART: I regret that the Government do not see their way to accept this Amendment. London has been regarded as exceptional in a great many Acts—for instance, in the Act constituting County Councils—and I think it should have been treated exceptionally in this case. The hon. Member who has moved the Amendment has shown that there are no difficulties to be anticipated, such as might be expected in connection with other School Boards. It is a great pity that the County Council should be regarded as a mere vehicle for the collection of rates which other people are to spend. For this reason, if for no other, I would support the Amendment.
  MR. CAUSTON: I hope on this Amendment we shall have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent London Divisions. I trust also that we shall have the support of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham, who acts as Chancellor of the Exchequer to the School Board for London. I would ask the Government to re-consider their decision.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 69.—(Div. List, No. 356.)
  The following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 4, page 2, line 12, to leave out "or enact."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  Clause 4, page 2, line 22, to leave out Sub-section (d).—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
  Clause 4, page 2, line 27, after "county," to insert "for the requirements of which such expenses have been incurred."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Clause 4, page 2, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (4).—(Mr. Channing.)
  Clause 4, page 2, line 40, to leave out "or of a Rural Sanitary Authority."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, after "instruction," to insert "including modern languages and commercial and agricultural subjects,"—(Sir W. Hart Dyke,)—Agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I think the Committee is to be congratulated on the progress it has made this evening towards the completion of this Bill; and as the measure is one that is likely to confer great benefits on England, I would ask whether there is any reason why it should not be applied to Ireland? In order that it may be so applied, I move to omit from Clause 6 the words "or Ireland."
  Amendment proposed, in line 2, to omit the words "or Ireland."—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I think the notice given by the lion. Member for Donegal, with regard to the inclusion of Ireland, is rather short. I do not think, however, that there would be any objection to the extension of the Bill to Ireland, if it could be shown that Ireland possessed the necessary Local Authorities. No doubt there are such Local Authorities in places like Dublin, Cork, Belfast and some other towns; but I would prefer that the hon. Gentleman should allow me a little breathing time, so that I may look into the matter and confer with him upon it.
  MR. E. HAEEINGTON: I cannot understand why there should be any opposition to the proposal
  714
  unless it be that during the last few nights the Irish Representatives have fallen out with their friends on this side of the House because they have supported the Government in carrying this Bill, and those hon. Gentlemen now desire to punish us by refusing to apply the Bill to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman says he has had no notice of this Amendment; but, on the other hand, he has had no notice that any one is opposed to it. There are at the present time a certain number of Local Authorities in Ireland to whom the working of the Bill might be entrusted, and I cannot see any reason why it should not be made to apply to Ireland as far as it can be made to serve a useful purpose.
  MR. PICTON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kerry that there will be no opposition from this side of the House to the proposal to include Ireland in order to inflict a punishment on the Irish Representatives for their support to the Government on this Bill. In the circumstances in which Ireland is placed, the Bill might well be usefully applied to that country, but England stands in a different position.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment for the present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  A Clause (Audit of Accounts,)—(Sir W. Hart Dyke,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. CHANNING: I think it hardly fair to expect us to accept a clause which has not been printed and of which we have had no notice. I would suggest that it should be put down for the Report.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, ): It is merely a clause applying the audit which takes place under the Public Health Act to this Bill, and only requires that the accounts of receipts and expenditure of the Urban Authorities under this Bill shall be audited in like manner as the accounts of receipts and expenditure under the Public Health Act, 1875.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: There are two clauses.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  New Clause (Provision for entrance examination,)—(Mr. Atherley Jones,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  New Clause (Memorial to Education Department,)—(Mr. Seale-Hayne,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: The object of this clause is" to apply some impulse to the Local Authorities in order that they may put into operation the provisions of the Bill. We have heard from the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Dixon) that even in an enlightened place like Birmingham the expense of putting this Bill in force would prevent the Local Authorities from doing so; and if that is the case in Birmingham we may expect that the fear of adding an extra penny to the rates would prevent the Local Authorities elsewhere from putting the Bill in operation. I propose to adopt the same principle as is adopted in the Allotments Act of allowing a certain number of persons interested in putting the Bill into operation to memorialise the Education Department on the insufficiency of the provision for technical education in their district. In that Act the number is 10 Parliamentary electors; but my
  716
  proposition is less drastic than that. I propose that any 50 ratepayers resident in the district may memorialise the Department for the object stated in the clause.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am sorry I cannot see my way to the acceptance of this clause. We are now making a great educational experiment, and I think it ought to be permissive and not compulsory in its character. If I consented to this, there are other things I might also be called upon to accept of a like character, To give the compulsory power asked for by this clause might have a very injurious effect on the operation of the Bill, and I must therefore decline to accept the proposal.
  MR. CHANNING: I hope my hon. Friend will press the principle embodied in his Amendment—a principle which it is important we should adopt not only in this, but in other Bills. I supported similar proposals in the discussions on the Allotments Bill, and I believe if they had been adopted they would have largely helped to prevent that measure from proving a dismal failure all over the country. I think it most desirable that the inhabitants of every district should have the means of protesting against the inertness or inactivity of the Local Authority, and I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
  MR. PICTON: I venture to hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division. For my part, I do not envy the position in which any 50 ratepayers would be placed by bringing down the Education Department on the Local Authority, in order to compel their follow-citizens to pay an extra rate of a penny in the £1, for the purpose of putting this Bill into operation.
  Question put, and negatived.
  New Clause (Power of School Board to appeal to Education Department,)—(Mr. Handel Cossham,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: If we do not give the power asked for by this clause, that an inquiry may be ordered by the Department on the application of any School Board, and the Local Authority be directed to make provision for technical or manual instruction the operation of the Bill will be to a large extent frustrated. The Amendment is a very practical one, and I hope the Government will accept it. It is not at all hostile to the Bill, but will lead to its being adopted.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am sorry to say I cannot accept the clause, and I hope it will not be pressed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  New Clause (Power to School Boards to contribute,)—(Mr. James Stuart,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. J. STUART: I beg, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, to move this clause. It is a step towards free education, and I hope the Government will accept it.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am sorry to say that I am not able to accept the clause.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 62.—(Div. List, No. 357.)
  MR. WOODHEAD: The new clause which I have to propose will enable the School Boards to establish and maintain these schools. I think it would be most invidious to exclude these Boards from participating in technical instruction.
  New Clause (School Board may establish schools under the Act,)—(Mr. Woodhead,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am afraid I cannot accept this clause. The hon. Member says he desires to enable School Boards to establish schools for technical instruction; but there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the Boards from having classes in their existing school buildings for the purposes of this Act.
  MR. CHANNING: I think my hon. Friend desires to make it perfectly clear that the School Boards shall have power in their own schools to start and carry on education of this kind. I think the proposition an exceedingly wise one. The Member for Stockton has, on the application of the Liverpool School Board, given the opinion that, under the 17th section of the existing Code, a School Board may even now carry on technical instruction so long as it does not apply for a Parliamentary grant. But this opinion may not be upheld, and has not the force of law. Now, what this clause would do is to legislate on the lines of that opinion and make it perfectly clear that the powers of the School Board extend to the provision of technical education under this Act, and I hope it will be carried. This clause would clearly define the powers of the School Board, and I hope it will be carried.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 69.—(Div. List, No. 358.)
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I now move a clause limiting the duration, of the Bill to the 31st December, 1892.
  New Clause (Duration of Act,)—(Mr. H. J. Wilson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. PICTON: If this clause is accepted it will probably facilitate further proceedings with this Bill. It can do no harm. If the Bill works well, it can easily be renewed; whereas if it

  719
  works badly we shall be glad to get rid of it.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 72.—(Div. List, No. 359.)
  MR. WOODALL: I hope the fact that this Bill has been considerably amended, through the efforts of my hon. Friends, will be fully realised to-morrow, and that the proceedings on the Report stage will not be seriously prolonged. I think it would be very desirable to have the Bill reprinted before the Report stage, in order that hon. Members may see how it has been amended.
  MR. GOSOHEN: Every effort shall be made to get the Bill reprinted in time. I hope I may re-echo the wish that the proceedings on the Report stage will not be prolonged, as the Bill has been fully discussed, and I think all parties may now join in the effort to pass it into law.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 391.]

  EDUCATION GRANTS (CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND) BILL (No. 390.)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Debate arising.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLOURS) BILL (No. 238.)
  Read the third time, and passed.

  STEAM TRAWLING (IRELAND) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL (No. 336.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with an amended Title; as
  720
  amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  OCCUPIERS' DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL (No. 52.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Instruction to Committee [8th July] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  DUBLIN HOSPITAL BOARD (No. 389) [ANNUAL PAYMENT.]
  Order for Committee thereupon withdrawn.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (No. 347.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (ACTIONS REMITTED TO COUNTY COURTS).
  Address for—
  "Return showing the number of Actions and Issues remitted by the High Court of Justice to the several County Courts in England and Wales, and tried by them, in the six months ended the 30th day of June 1889."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

  BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES AND OFFICERS UNDER THE CROWN) PREVENTION BILL (No. 380.)
  Lords Reason for insisting on certain Amendments to which the Commons disagreed to be considered forthwith.
  Lords Reason considered.
  Resolved, That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Amendments made by the Lords on which the Lords have insisted, and agree to the said Amendments with an Amendment to Clause F.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Four o'clock in the morning.

KASHMIR.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I wish to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India whether there is any foundation for the rumour, which seems to have occasioned some alarm in different parts of India, that it is the intention of the Government to take possession of the Native State of Kashmir?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount Cross): I can find no foundation for that report, and it is certainly absolutely untrue. It is true that the Viceroy felt bound, with my entire concurrence, to accept the resignation of the ruler of Kashmir for the present, and place the State under a Native Council, a course advised by the Resident who was there, but anyone who has looked into the way in which the State of Kashmir has been governed for some time past can have no doubt whatever that a wise step has been taken. There is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government or of the Viceroy to annex Kashmir to the British Crown. On the contrary, we have every hope that when the state of things has been remedied in Kashmir the late ruler will see it to be advisable to re-assume control of his State and to govern in a way which will be a benefit to his subjects and to neighbouring countries as well.

  COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL (No. 227.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  INFECTIOUS DISEASE NOTIFICATION BILL (No. 242)
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed, and to be read 2a tomorrow.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL (No. 243)
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with for the remainder of the Session.
COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL (No. 238.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Your Lordships will remember that by the Act governing India the Council of India in England to assist the Secretary of State was to consist of 15 Members, and when a vacancy occurred the Secretary of State was bound to fill it up. About a year ago I appointed a Committee to consider carefully the home charges of India, about which considerable complaint has been raised in India itself. One of the recommendations of the Council was that their own number should be reduced. They stated that they had no doubt whatever that a reduced number would be able to fulfil all the duties imposed upon them entirely to the satisfaction of the country, and in fact that if more responsibility rested upon those who were left, the work would be, if possible, better done. Under those circumstances, and acting on the recommendation of the Council

  575
  itself, with which recommendation I entirely agree, I have to ask your Lordships to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill. A vacancy on the Council has unfortunately occurred through the ill-health of Sir Henry Yule, whose presence on the Council had been of enormous advantage to the natives of the country. A man of more kindly disposition, thorough intelligence, high-minded, upright, honourable character I believe never existed, and I should like to bear testimony to the estimation in which his work is held, and to the services which he has rendered in. the office he so long filled. I now have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Heading to the Bill, which I may say was passed in another place without being challenged even by a Division.
  Bill read 2a (according to order); Then (Standing Order No. XLV. having been dispensed with) Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL (No. 239.)
Read 2a (according to order); Then (Standing Order No. XLV. having been dispensed with) Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (PILOTAGE) BILL (No. 240.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR: This, my Lords, is a Bill for the purpose of amending certain provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which referred to the employment of pilots and the conditions of their employment. No great change in the law is made, but it is not surprising that, after the lapse of 35 years, certain difficulties should have arisen and certain improvements in the law have become necessary. A good deal of correspondence has taken place in regard to the amendments of the law now proposed, and a Select Committee of the other House of Parliament sat nearly the whole of last Session inquiring into matters which were brought before them in respect to which it was thought the present law of pilotage required amendment. The Bill which is now before your Lordships
  576
  consists almost entirely of detail, and the Amendments which it effects in the law proceed almost entirely upon the lines of the recommendations of the Select Committee. Provision is made for the further representation of shipowners and pilots upon the Board or Pilotage Authority of the district in which they are interested, and by the 4th Clause provision is made for allowing pilots who are aggrieved by any decision which may be come to by the Pilotage Authority to appeal either to the Judge of the County Court or to a Metropolitan Police or Stipendiary Magistrate. When such an appeal takes place, the Judge or Magistrate is to sit with an assessor of nautical and pilotage experience. There are also provisions for more stringent penalties for manifest and palpable evasions of the law. For example, if the master of a vessel flies a flag which is a colourable imitation of the flag which ought to be at the masthead when a pilot is on board, and that flag is obviously placed there for the purpose of deception, a penalty is imposed. Power is given to the Board of Trade and to the Pilotage Authority to make bye laws with regard to Superannuation Funds in which pilots are interested. The penalties upon employing unqualified pilots are made more stringent. The general provisions of the Bill have been accepted by those interested, and I now ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH (CHOLERA PREVENTION) BILL (No. 241.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR: This Bill is to remove doubts as to the power of the Local Government Board with regard to regulations which they are empowered to make under the Public Health Act, and which have been in force for some 16 or 17 years. It is not the intention of the Local Government Board to make any alterations in the regulations which are now in force, but doubts have arisen as to the completeness of the power of

  577
  the Board to make the regulations for the detention of persons suffering from cholera. It is obviously a matter of the greatest possible importance that any doubts upon a matter of this kind should be removed, and, therefore, as a precautionary measure this Bill has been introduced. It has passed through the other House of Parliament without Amendment, and I am not aware that any controversy is likely to arise upon it. I now ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 234.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed and sent to the Commons.
LEASEHOLDERS (IRELAND) BILL (No.231.)
  PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL (No. 236.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL (No. 235.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lard Balfour.)
  LORD DENMANrepeated his objections to this measure, and pointed out the enormous borrowing powers which it conferred upon the County Council. By the Standing Order to which he had on a previous occasion referred, it was clear that the House had power to examine a Bill of this kind and to make alterations in it. It had been said that the particular function of that House was to put a check upon rash legislation. If ever there was a Bill which could be so described, it was this, and the House would not be doing its duty unless it rejected the measure altogether. He urged that a matter of such importance should be dealt with deliberately, and that the Bill ought not to be rushed through Parliament without adequate discussion.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Lord Benman.)
  On question whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

POOR LAW BILL (No. 195.)
Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

INTERPRETATION BILL (No. 92.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; Commons Amendments considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow at half-past Four o'clock.