Sitting of 22 February 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EAST AND WEST WALES RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a Second Time.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.) BILL.
  Read a Second Time.

  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
  Order (15th February) that the Dublin Port and Docks Bill be read a second time; read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WEST-MINSTER BRIDGE AND EMBANKMENT TRAMWAYS) BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Thursday, 10th March.
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL.
  "To authorise the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company (Limited) to extend their Tramways, and to confer further powers upon that Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRIVATE BILL.
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. LXII. has been complied with, viz.:—
Dublin Southern District Tramways Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

REPORTS PRESENTED.
  LIGHTHOUSES, ETC. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
  Copies presented,—of reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, of their Inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 310, of Session 1897) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 80.]
  ADDRESS FOR CURRENCY CORRESPONDENCE.
  Currency,—Address for "Copy of Further Correspondence respecting the proposals on Currency made by the Special Envoys from the United States (in continuation of Commercial, No. 8, 1897 [C. 8667])."—(Sir William Houldsworth.)

  AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Return ordered, "showing the number of days, hours, and minutes occupied in the transit of Her Majesty's Mails, both outward and inward, carried during the year 1897 by steamships between Queenstown and New York, and also between Southampton and New York; the Return to specify the names of the
  1340
  steamers, and to indicate by asterisks or otherwise those not carrying the Mails under contract (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 185, of Session 1897)."—(Sir John Leng.)

PETITION.

  INDIAN EXPENDITURE.
  MR. S. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have to present a Petition from a public meeting held at Bombay, and signed by the Chairman, expressing alarm at the growing military expenditure of India, especially on the North-West Frontier, and stating that India is not able to bear that expenditure, and that much of it is for Imperial purposes rather than Indian, and praying that this "Honourable House will relieve the Indian Exchequer of a substantial portion, if not of the entire charges, for the operations in the Kurram and Chitral Valleys."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! I may tell the hon. Member that the Petition is out of order if it proposes to deal with public money and taxation.

QUESTIONS.

  TROOPS FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what number and proportion of the troops carried by the SS. Avoca to South Africa last week consisted of recruits with less than one year's training, and how many of recruits with less than six months' training; and in what strength the Royal Berkshire Regiment has sailed for South Africa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Avoca took out 752 men

  1341
  of the Berkshire Regiment and 474 men who composed drafts for other Corps. There were on board 474 men of less than one year's training, of whom 183 men had less than six months' service.

  TAXATION OF WEST INDIAN COLONIES.
  MR. D. F. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will agree to the Motion for a Return relating to the Revenue and Taxation of the West Indian Colonies, which stands on the Paper this day?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The information which would be contained in the 1st and 2nd heads of the Return for which the hon. Member asks is set out in tables included in the appendices to the Report of the Royal West India Commission, which has been laid before Parliament, up to the end of 1896—the returns for 1897 have not yet been received. The preparation of the 3rd return asked for would take a considerable time, and it would not be available in time for any discussion on the proposals to be made for the relief of the West India Colonies. In these circumstances I trust that the hon. Member will not press his proposal, at all events, in its present shape.

  LAND COMMISSION APPEALS.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state when the Chief Land Commissions will sit to hear appeals from the estates of Mr. Shirley and others, County Monaghan; and whether the farms in question have been viewed yet by the Court Valuers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The sittings of the Appeal Court have only been arranged up to Easter; it is, therefore, not possible, at present, to say when the sitting for
  1342
  County Monaghan will be held, or what cases will be included in the next list. The appeals in cases pending in that county have not as yet been referred to Court Valuers for report.

  CASE OF JOHN LENNON (IRELAND).
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that John Lennon, Corduff, County Monaghan, who is undergoing in Dundalk Gaol two months' imprisonment, is in a delicate state of health, and subject to spitting of blood; whether he is aware that Lennon was convicted owing to a family quarrel, and was led to believe the case would not be proceeded with, and that in his absence, the severe sentence mentioned was inflicted; and whether he will make inquiries in this case with a view of immediately releasing Lennon?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Lennon was convicted of assaulting his wife and using threatening language towards her, and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. He was regularly summoned to attend the Petty Sessions, but failed to appear, and, moreover, evaded arrest for some time. No evidence was produced before the magistrates to show that the case should not be proceeded with in his absence. The Medical Officer of the prison states that he is not in a delicate condition of health, nor is he subject to spitting of blood. As regards the third paragraph, it is not my province to order the release of a prisoner. Any application for a mitigation of sentence should be addressed to the Lord Lieutenant in the usual way.

  WILLIAM BRADLEY, K.O.S.B.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he is aware that William Bradley, Clontibret, County Monaghan, is almost destitute, and in a very delicate state of

  1343
  health, after serving several years in the 25th King's Own Scottish Borderers; and whether he will place him on Reserve pay?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): William Bradley, after seven years' service with the Colours, was transferred to the Army Reserve in 1891; but in 1892 he was struck off reserve pay for twice failing to report himself. His service in the Reserve would have expired in 1896; so that he cannot be placed on Reserve pay, and his short service gives him no claim to pension.

  RIFLE RANGE NEAR GLOUCESTER.
  GENERAL F. S. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether there is any prospect of the Government seeing their way to set aside a sum out of the Military Works Vote for the purpose of providing a rifle range near Gloucester, to the necessity of which their attention was called last Session; and whether he is aware that in that district there is at present no range where either the Regular Reserve or Auxiliary Forces can be trained to the use of the Lee-Metford rifle?
  MR. BRODRICK: I fear it is not probable that any money will be available on the Military Works Loan for the construction of a rifle range near Gloucester. There are only two companies of Volunteers at Gloucester, and they are able to use ranges the property of other Corps. The range near Gloucester would not be required for regular or militia units.

  MURDER OF YUSSUF YUNAN.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will lay the correspondence relating to the murder of Yussuf Yunan upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): Correspondence on this subject will be found in the Papers respecting the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey, which have been recently laid before Parliament (Turkey No. 1,1898). Later correspondence will be given in a further collection of Papers, which is now being prepared for presentation.

  COSTS OF THE JAMESON RAID.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether all the costs incurred by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Jameson Raid and to the subsequent Native insurrection in Rhodesia have been repaid by the Chartered Company of South Africa?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: All claims for costs incurred by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Jameson Raid have been met by the Company. And I am given to understand that all expenses in connection with the native insurrection, for which the Company was held liable, have been practically repaid. There are one or two minor outstanding items as to which further information is awaited.

  HER MAJESTY'S EFFIGY ON STAMPS.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, as Canada has adopted a new issue of postage stamps with a more modern likeness of Her Majesty than that in use on British stamps, he will consider the advisability of issuing a set of stamps bearing an effigy similar to that on recent British coinage?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): There is no intention, I am informed, of issuing a new set of postage stamps bearing an effigy similar to that on recent British coinage.

  DECREES AGAINST CLARE TENANTRY.
  MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) if he can state how many decrees Lord Leconfleld's agent obtained against his tenantry in Clare at the last January Sessions; (2) is he aware that, in cases where the tenants had paid their rent before they received the processes, they were proceeded against by the agent for the costs, and that in some cases these tenants were receiving outdoor relief at the time they were proceeded against for rent; and (3) whether some steps can be taken to protect tenants in districts where considerable distress prevails?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that 66 decrees were obtained against tenants on the estate referred to at the last Kilrush and Ennis Sessions. I have no knowledge of the matters alleged in the second paragraph, and no effective means of obtaining the information. The meaning of the third paragraph is not quite clear; the hon. Member is, of course, aware that the Executive cannot interpose any obstacle to the issue or execution of County Court decrees.

  APPOINTMENTS TO METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) with reference to the number of applications received during the last two years from England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, for the position of constable in the London Metropolitan Police Force, can he state how many of such applicants for this period from England,
  1346
  Scotland, and Ireland respectively have been appointed; (2) how many applicants during the last two years have been appointed before their proper turn on the list was reached; and (3) if there are any, what were the reasons for such procedure?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I am afraid no Returns are kept from which the information asked for in the first paragraph of the Question could be given. Some 15,000 applications are received every year; and to obtain the information it would be necessary to examine the description form in each case. There is no such thing as a "proper turn"—priority of application confers no right to priority of appointment. The Commissioner, as is his duty, chooses those whom he considers most suitable.

  INDIAN DEBT.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what additions to the debt of India by sterling and by silver borrowings respectively, have been made since the closing of the Mints in June, 1893?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The net additions to the debt of India since the closing of the mints in June, 1893, are (1) by sterling borrowings, £16,696,766; and (2) by silver borrowings, Rx8,602,401. I should add that during that period the capital outlay in railway and irrigation works was over £4,400,000 in England, and Rx16,000,000 in India.

  SMALL ARMS FACTORY. (MR. DONALDSON'S APPOINTMENT.)
  MR. J. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if his

  1347
  attention has been called to the fact that in the notice for applications it was stated that the successful candidate for the post of Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield should also hold the newly-created position of Deputy Director General of Ordnance Factories; if Mr. Donaldson is now occupying those two positions; and when and where did Mr. Donaldson acquire knowledge of military rifles and machine guns and their manufacture?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The Deputy Director General of Ordnance Factories is at present occupying also the post of Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield. His mechanical training and experience render him thoroughly competent to carry out the manufacture, not only of military rifles and machine guns, but also of ordnance of other and larger calibres. I would remind my hon. Friend, however, that the satisfactory management and control of a large manufacturing undertaking call for the exercise of other important qualifications besides mechanical knowledge, and the Secretary of State is satisfied that Mr. Donaldson possesses these qualities.
  MR. ALLAN: Arising out of that, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Mr. Donaldson has had no experience in the manufacture of machine guns and rifles, or of anything pertaining to such mechanical departments?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Mr. Donaldson is a highly-trained mechanical engineer, and therefore acquainted with the processes used in the manufacture of guns of all kinds.
  MR. ALLAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Mr. Donaldson's training as a mechanical engineer has been entirely in opposition to guns, rifles, or anything of the sort?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I am aware of the contrary. Mr. Donaldson was trained at the Crewe engineering works of the London and North
  1348
  Western Railway, and his training there, as I have already said, qualifies him to carry on mechanical operations of any kind.
  MR. WEIR: Are not the Crewe works largely devoted to constructing railway locomotives?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether it is intended to introduce the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill in the course of the present Parliament; and (2) whether, if so, the qualification of £100 a year in real estate, which is now required in every county, with the exception of seven Welsh counties, will be abolished?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is Yes, and to the second, No.

  VIVISECTION LESSONS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Department have sanctioned the use of the text-books in the London Board Schools with regard to vivisection, in which painful experiments on living animals and their result are described in detail without stating that such experiments are in any way exceptional?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. E. GORST,): No; the Education Department does not sanction text-books used in elementary schools, but it has power to disallow any book that is considered unsuitable. The text-book referred to in the Question shall be obtained, and the Question whether its contents are suitable for the instruction of children considered.

  FRUIT PEST.
  MR. G. H. MORRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether Germany has prohibited the entry of fresh fruit from the United States because the San Joséscale insect (Aspidiatus perniriusus) has been found in a case of imported apples; (2) whether the Hamburgh Senate have granted permission for the further export of consignments to England; and has the Department any information whether this pest of American fruit-growers has been acclimatised in England; and (3) if so, whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the adoption of stringent measures to prevent development of attack?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. LONG,): The reply to the inquiries contained in the first two paragraphs of my hon. Friend's Question is in the affirmative, but it appears that the pest in question was found in some imported pears, not apples. The subject is being carefully investigated by my Department, and if I find that it is in our power to issue any advice or render any assistance to fruit-growers in the matter, we shall, of course, at once take steps to do so.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION: MR. CALVERT'S APPOINTMENT.
  MR. M. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the date and terms of the appointment of Mr. Leonard Calvert as Sub-Commissioner under the Irish Land Acts; whether he is aware that Mr. Calvert appeared as a witness for landlords at a recent sitting of the Chief Commission at Belfast; at whose request and by what authority did Mr. Calvert appear there on behalf of the
  1350
  landlords; and whether he is still a Sub-Commissioner; and, if not, when and under what circumstances were his services as such dispensed with?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Calvert was appointed a temporary Assistant Commissioner on the 24th June, 1897. His appointment terminated on the 31st December last, and he is not now an Assistant Commissioner. Prior to his appointment he had been engaged as valuer on behalf of certain landlords, and when, in November, appeals came on for hearing at Belfast in those cases, he was permitted, on the application of persons interested, to attend as a witness in connection with the valuations so previously made by him. The tenants' solicitors refused to allow his written valuations to be accepted as evidence, and hence his personal attendance became necessary.

  ALLOTMENTS AT EAST RUSTON.
  MR. R. J. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that although a Local Government Board Inquiry was held on the 31st August, 1897, to investigate into the matter of allotments at East Ruston, Norfolk, it was the 15th October before the confirmation of the Order was received; whether he is aware that tenancies in Norfolk commence on Old Michaelmas Day, and that the result of the delay is that the applicants for allotments are compelled to lose an entire year before commencing their tenancy; and what is the reason for the great delay in sending down the confirmation of the Order?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): The facts as to the date of the inquiry and of the receipt

  1351
  of the Confirmation Order of the Local Government Board are as stated. After the inquiry, the Inspector had to make his report, the objections to the Order had to be carefully considered, and when a decision was arrived at the confirming order had to be settled and printed. I do not know if these proceedings could have been expedited. But with regard to the question of urgency, I am advised that it is not necessary to delay for a year putting in force the Order for the compulsory hiring as suggested. I may observe that the Order of the County Council for which confirmation was sought was not made by the Council until nearly 12 months after the receipt by them of the representation of the Parish Council.

  NAVY RATINGS.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there still continues a considerable deficiency in the skilled ratings of the Navy, especially of shipwrights and blacksmiths; whether the inquiries recently conducted by Captain Niblett and Mr. Gifford on behalf of the Admiralty at the naval and other shipbuilding Ports have elucidated the cause of the difficulty; and whether he can state the numbers necessary to make good the complement in the depôts?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The number remaining to be entered by the end of the financial year are:—Shipwrights, 72; blacksmiths, 75.

  PAYMENT OF PENSIONS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has observed the remarks of Mr. Justice Grantham on the evils consequent on the payment of pensions to army pensioners in quarterly instalments—namely, that the result in hundreds of cases is that the money is spent
  1352
  in drink within a day or two, and then for the remainder of the quarter the men are destitute; whether it is practicable to pay them more frequently in smaller sums by postal orders or otherwise; and whether arrangements can also be made for giving soldiers their deferred pay in instalments through the Post Office Savings Banks?
  MR. BRODRICK: The sums due to Army pensioners and Reservists, who are employed under the War Office and the Post Office, will in most cases, at any rate, be paid weekly with the wages as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed. There would be hardship in making weekly payments to all pensioners, because many of the men would have to proceed long distances in order to receive their money, and would incur much loss of time thereby. As regards deferred pay, the hon. Member will observe from the memorandum of the Secretary of State accompanying the Army Estimates, that it is proposed to materially reduce it in amount. Under the present system the bulk of the money is deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank in the name of the soldier, and is not handed to him in cash.

  MEAT INSPECTION AT BRIGHTON.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in Brighton three unqualified meat inspectors have been appointed; whether he has had any communication on the subject; and whether he will decline to sanction such appointments made in opposition to the views of the local meat traders' association?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The Corporation of Brighton submitted Bye-laws under a Local Act, empowering the four senior Assistant Inspectors of Nuisances to discharge the duties of an Inspector of Nuisances. No new officers were appointed, and if there had been such appointments no sanction on the part of the Board was required. The Board received objections on the part

  1353
  of the butchers to the proposed Bye-laws on the ground that if these officers had the powers of an inspector they would be empowered to make seizures of meat that was believed to be unfit for human food; but the Board were informed by the Corporation that every carcase in respect of which there was any dispute was examined by the Medical Officer of Health before being shown to the magistrate, and the Bye-laws were confirmed. I understand that the Royal Commission on tuberculosis have under consideration whether some qualifications by way of passing an examination should not be prescribed in the cases of persons empowered to make seizures of meat, and any proposals that may be made by the Commission on the subject will be carefully considered.

  WELSH TIN PLATE TRADE.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if his attention has been called to the fact that a leading firm of tinplate manufacturers in Llanelly have asked for the indulgence of their creditors, and that the operatives at the Crombwrla works of the firm have received 24 hours' notice to terminate contracts; (2) whether he is aware that severe depression has existed for some years past in the tin-plate industry of this country, caused by a heavy fall in the price of tin-plates, and that this fall has been stimulated by the system of protection to the producers and manufacturers of tin plates maintained in the United States of America; and (3) whether he will urge the Government to adopt measures for the relief of the immediate necessities of the case, and for assisting those engaged in tin-plate manufacture to tide over the present crisis, similar to those indicated in the Queen's Speech for the relief of depression in the West Indian Colonies caused by the action of some of the European States?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am not aware of the position of the firm referred to in the first paragraph of the Question, but un-
  1354
  doubtedly a severe depression has of late years been felt in the tin-plate industry, partially attributable to the diminution of export to the United States. It is satisfactory, however, to find that the most recent returns both as regards employment and export show some improvement in the situation, and that the exports of tin and black plates to countries other than the United States have of late been rapidly increasing. No measures such as are indicated in the Question are contemplated.

  FORCED EMPLOYMENT OF CARRIERS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce representations as to the interference with Native traders and others on the Gold Coast, especially in November last, under the Gold Coast Compulsory Labour Ordinance; and whether that Ordinance sanctions the forced employment of carriers for Government service without resort to the revived authority of Native chiefs?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce communicated to me representations which they had received from the Gold Coast Colony, as to the manner in which the Compulsory Labour Ordinance had been enforced in November last. That Ordinance authorises the Native chiefs to call upon able-bodied male labourers residing in their districts, towns, or villages for service as carriers for the Government, but does not sanction forced employment, except under the authority of the chiefs. On the occasion in question the police, who were called in by the chiefs to assist them in putting the Ordinance in force, appear to have gone beyond the powers of the Ordinance, and caused a temporary disturbance of trade. I am in communication with the Acting Governor, with a view to the establishment of a better system of carriers for the Government, which will, I hope, obviate the necessity of resorting to the powers of the chiefs.

  IJESHA SLAVES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Governor of Lagos the Report called for last November as to the re-enslavement of escaped Ijesha slaves by order of the British Resident at Ibadan and the Governor of Lagos; and what steps are now being taken to enforce the promised abolition of the legal status of slavery in the Lagos Protectorate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have received the Report. Three slaves who had escaped from Ibadan to Ijesha, in both of which places the legal status of domestic slavery exists, were restored to their owner by order of the British Resident. Instructions will be given to British officers in the Protectorate not to assist in the recapture of slaves. No promise has been made to abolish domestic slavery in these territories, and it would be impracticable to do so immediately, even if treaty engagements allowed it; but the subject will have my careful attention, and in the meantime the system appears to be gradually dying out, and every possible encouragement will be given to the substitution of voluntary service.

  TELEGRAM PORTERAGE.
  MR. C. FENWICK:: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the reduction of telegram porterage in rural districts is the cause of much inconvenience and loss to rural postmasters in consequence of the difficulty they have to find porters willing to carry telegrams at the reduced rate; if so, what steps he intends to take to remedy this matter?
  MR. HANBURY: The rates authorised for the delivery of telegrams have recently been under consideration, and, as a rule, they appear to be adequate. If, however, in any particular district they
  1356
  should from any cause be inadequate, they will be increased as circumstances may require.

  KILMESSAN TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the guarantors of the Kilmessan telegraph office have been asked to pay £4 6s. 5d. out of a total deficit of £6 in the receipts as compared with the cost of working of that office for the first year of its establishment; and, whether, as this is a departure from the rule requiring payment of only half the deficit, this demand should be reduced to one-half?
  MR. HANBURY: The rule under which payment of only half the deficit in respect of a guaranteed telegraph office is required, did not come into force until the 22nd June. The Kilmessan office was opened in the previous January, and, therefore, would obtain the benefit of the reduction only after Jubilee Day. In the current year, if there should again be a deficiency, the full reduction of one-half will be allowed.

  IRISH FUSILIERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men in the Irish Fusiliers who were unfit for service, through contagious disease, on their arrival in Egypt from India in January?
  MR. BRODICK: Ninety-two men of the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers were found unfit for active service through venereal diseases when the battalion was inspected at Alexandria on the 17th.

  FROZEN MEAT.
  GENERAL F. S. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he has any objection to

  1357
  mention the name of the scientific gentleman who, he states, recently reported that frozen imported meat has equal nutritive qualities to that which is home fed; and whether the Government will call in some other gentlemen of scientific attainments to confirm or refute this opinion?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The two gentlemen referred to were Professor James Long and Dr. Bernard Dyer, President of the Society of Public Analysts. There is no intention of taking a further opinion.

  CARRIAGE OF GOODS (IRELAND).
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, at a meeting of the Omagh Town Commissioners recently held, the chairman (on the occasion) complained of an alleged grievance under which the people of the town suffered with regard to the carrying of goods and passengers on the Great. Northern line; and will he have inquiries made with a view to the removal of this alleged grievance?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): If the Chairman of the Omagh Town Commissioners will communicate the precise details of his complaint to the Board of Trade, the Department will be happy to inquire into the matter, and see if there is any prospect of being able to bring about a settlement.

  LETTER DELIVERY.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it has been brought to his notice that great inconvenience is caused by certain houses not receiving a regular daily delivery of letters; and whether he can make any statement as to when the promised general house to house delivery will be effected?
  MR. HANBURY: When announcing the intention of the Postmaster General to intention of the Postmaster General to aim at including every house in the kingdom in the free delivery of letters, the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly stated that the delivery would not necessarily be a delivery every day, and that the work would necessarily occupy a siderable time. Considerable progress, however, has been made, and arrangements have already been sanctioned for the delivery of one-third of the correspondence addressed to places at which there was no delivery in June last. The work will be continued without any unnecessary delay until the whole of the United Kingdom has been dealt with.

  TUNISIAN DUTIES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the French Government have suddenly raised the duty on refined cotton oil imported into Tunis from 6fr. to 35fr. per 100 kilogrammes, and whether he will make representations to the French Government on the matter.
  MR. CURZON: I believe that the facts are as stated. But the duties in question are imposed on refined cotton oil, not from Great Britain alone, but from all foreign countries; and inasmuch as this country is only entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment, except in the case of cotton goods, there does not appear to be any ground for representation.

  MAINTENANCE OF ASYLUMS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received resolutions from public bodies in Ireland desiring that the cost of maintaining lunatic asylums should be maintained out of State funds; whether he is aware that the cost of maintaining lunatic asylums in Ireland is a very heavy charge on the

  1359
  cesspayers; and, whether he will advise the Government to defray the expense out of the Imperial Exchequer?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Resolutions have been received to the effect mentioned in the question. The proposals of the Government with regard to lunatic asylums were stated by me last night when introducing the Local Government Bill for Ireland.

  NEWMARKET (CORK) POOR.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the attention of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland has been drawn to the present condition of the funds accruing from charitable donations and bequests to the poor of Newmarket, county Cork; is it a fact that bequests amounting approximately to £1,540 were bequeathed to the poor of the parish; can the Commissioners state what is the amount now available, the interest on which is destined for the relief of the poor, and will they inquire into the management and administration of all of the bequests left to the poor of the parish?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Both this Question and the next one will be brought before the Commissioners at their meeting to be held tomorrow, and, to enable me to receive their observations on the matter referred to, perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Questions on Friday next.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to donations and bequests left by testators for the relief of the poor of Newmarket parish, county Cork, whether he is aware that the interest on the Creagh bequest, amounting to £5 10s. 9d. yearly, was punctually paid to the vicar and churchwardens up to six years ago, and that Mr. A. G. Creagh, of Mallow, the representative of the testator, has since that time declined to pay the said interest on the
  1360
  ground that the portion of the property upon which it was charged had been sold off, whereas it is chargeable on the entire Creagh property; and will the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests make a thorough inquiry into the circumstances of the loss of the bequest?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member will defer this Question until Thursday, as I have not yet completed my inquiries.

  WOODFORD (IRELAND) POLICE.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state the cost of the number of police at present stationed in the parish of Woodford in excess of the number there in 1885, and the present rental of the Clanricarde estate in the parish?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The cost of the police now stationed in the area mentioned in excess of the number there in 1885 is approximately £1,600 per annum. As stated by me in answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of Tuesday last, no expense either to the district or county is entailed by the employment of the police at present stationed there, the extra force having been entirely withdrawn from the county on the 1st instant. I have no knowledge of the rental of the estate of Lord Clanricarde in the parish of Woodford.

  DUBLIN POLICE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to a circular issued by the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force to the police stations of that city, on the 22nd of January last, in which the Chief Commissioner, after complimenting the officers and men for

  1361
  the cheerfulness with which they discharged their duty on the preceding day, went on to say that, although matters passed off well, he was confident officers and men were prepared to give a satisfactory account of themselves if it had been otherwise; if he can say on whose authority this circular was issued; and (2) whether its language was in accordance with the constabulary regulation.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The terms of the circular are described with substantial accuracy in the first paragraph. It was issued by the Chief Commissioner on his own authority, and no regulations have been laid down prescribing the nature of the language of such communications. That is a matter for the judgment of the Chief Commissioner himself.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAY SCHEMES.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been directed to the necessity of constructing a light railway from Crossdoney, in the county Cavan, to Newtonforbes, on the borders of Leitrim and Longford, which would pass through Arva, Ballinamuck, and a number of congested and impoverished districts; and (2) whether he can hold out any hope that his project for connecting the northern and western provinces will be favourably considered before the balance of the moneys voted for light railways is disposed of?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The places named in the Question, though in the vicinity of a district scheduled as congested, are not included in such. I am afraid I can hold out no hope in the direction suggested in the second paragraph.

  CROFTON ESTATE (IRELAND).
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Com-
  1362
  mission can state what steps have been taken as to the sale of the Crofton Estate at Mohill, South Leitrim, to the occupying tenants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are no proceedings pending in the Land Commission for the sale of the estate referred to. It appears that a petition for sale of the estate was filed in the Land Judges' Court in March, 1897, and that an absolute order for sale was made in July following. No further proceedings, however, as to a sale in that court have since taken place.

  TITHE-RENT CHARGES (LOUTH).
  MR. R. MCGHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the grievances of the persons liable to pay lay-tithe-rent charge in the parishes of Ardee and Richards-town, in the county of Louth; whether the tithe-rent charge is open for revision every seven years upon the production of the last certificate of composition; if he is aware that the last certificate in respect of the parish of Ardee bears no date, and therefore affords no opportunity for having the present tithe-rent charge revised; whether he is aware that the requirement that the notices of intention to apply for septennial revision must be posted on the door of the parish church and of every house of worship in the parish cannot be complied with in the parish of Richardstown owing to the absence of any such house of worship in the parish; and if he will have the matter considered with the view of extending to these lay-tithe-rent charge payers facilities for enforcing the rights to which they are entitled by law?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Representations have been made to me by tithe-rent charge payers in this district in the sense of the statements contained in the first four paragraphs of the Question. The matters complained of could only be dealt with by legislation, and I could not give any undertaking to deal with them during the present Session.

  NEW POST OFFICE IN CLONES, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, has he sanctioned the erection of the proposed new post office in Clones, county Monaghan, on the top of a steep hill, in the Diamond, while several sites in the Central part of the town are available; and has any step been taken by the Department to ascertain the state of feeling in Clones upon this matter; and, if not, will an expression of opinion be elicited before final choice of site is made and the work proceeded with.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has not yet received a report giving particulars of the site for a new Post Office at Clones, mentioned in the answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 17th instant, nor has he sanctioned the selection of any site at present. Steps shall be taken, before a final selection is made, to give the local authorities an opportunity of expressing their views on the subject.

  FRANCHISE IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that persons entitled to vote for parliamentary, county, and parish council elections in Scotland are disqualified to vote at School Board elections by reason of their rents being less than £4, can he state whether he proposes to bring in a Bill this Session dealing with this condition of the electorate?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): As has previously been stated, this is a matter which will receive careful attention should it be found possible to propose any educational legislation. But, further than this, I can give no pledge on the subject.

  NEWCASTLE (CO. DOWN) HARBOUR.
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the grant of £5,000, proposed to be granted towards the repair or reconstruction of the pier and harbour works at Newcastle, county Down, whether he will state if the money has yet been lodged for this purpose to the credit of the county Down Grand Jury; if he can state the cause of delay; and whether, considering the urgent necessity for going on with the work at once, he will make inquiry with the view of expediting it?
  MR. HANBURY: A large number of replies on the subject have been received, and further answers are expected. As soon as these are received the results will be put together and laid before the House in the form of a Parliamentary Return.

  CIVIL EMPLOYMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the announcements that have been made as to its being the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give greater encouragement to the civil employment of Reserve and discharged soldiers, it will be possible to favourably reconsider the recommendation of the Select Committee on Retired Soldiers' and Sailors' Employment with regard to substituting a weekly in place of a quarterly payment of wage for all ex-soldiers employed in Public Departments of the State?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As regards old soldiers in the employment of the War Office and the Post Office—and these departments include a large portion of the employment—the recommendation of the Committee will be carried out.

  WARRANT OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. W. ALLAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Secretary of State for War is prepared to amend the present rules and regulations relating to the grant of pensions to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men, and to the widows and children of soldiers killed in action, or dying on active service, with a view of remedying the position of those who are now excluded by the rules of the War Department from a grant from the Exchequer in respect of services rendered to the country?
  MR. POWELL-WILLLAMS: The pensions of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men, as also of the widows and children of warrant officers, are already provided for by the Royal Warrant; and I am not aware in what direction the hon. Member wishes the regulations amended.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask whether the Government had considered the possibility of making these weekly payments at police-stations all over the country?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I don't think that particular suggestion has been considered, but the whole matter is being considered with a view to the recommendations of the Committee being carried out if possible.

  WAR OFFICE PERSONNEL.
  MR. W. ALLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with a view to the re-organisation of the personnel of the Department of Military Works and Buildings, whether the Government will appoint a composite Committee, comprised of representatives of the Treasury, and practical engineers, architects, and surveyors, for the purpose of inquiring into the present condition of affairs in that Department?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Committee of Inquiry into the possibility of decentralising some of the work now carried on at the War Office is directing its attention
  1366
  to the Department of Military Works and Buildings, and the Secretary of State thinks that no advantage would be gained by the appointment of another Committee as suggested.

  ELECTION OF PARISH COUNCILLORS.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, by the new rules issued by the Local Government Board last month, all parish meetings for the election of parish councillors must be held on one day only, namely, Monday, 14th March; whether the annual parish meetings of parishes which have not got councils are also only to be held on that particular day; whether he is aware that the Local Government Act of last Session enacted that the annual assembly of the parish meeting should be held on some day between the 1st day of March and the 1st day of April; and, by what power the Local Government Board have now fixed that this annual meeting shall be held on one particular day?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the negative; to the third, in the affirmative. In reply to the fourth, the Local Government Board have not fixed that the annual meeting shall be held on one particular day.

  DUBLIN GENERAL POST OFFICE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although there are several thoroughly efficient and well-conducted officers in the Secretary's Office, General Post Office, Dublin, a London official has been lately appointed to a superior position in that office: could he state how many superior positions in the Post Office Department have been filled during the past five years by the introduction of English officials, and what is the pay attached to the situations so filled; and whether, during those five years, any

  1367
  officers of the Secretary's office in Dublin were appointed to superior positions in the London Secretary's office?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the recent appointment of Mr. Taylor, a clerk in the Secretary's Office, London, to fill a vacancy on the first class in the Secretary's Office, Dublin. The post to which Mr. Taylor was appointed required an officer of special knowledge and experience, which no officer on the Dublin establishment happened to possess. During the past five years, four officers from England have been appointed to superior positions in Ireland—namely: One to be secretary, salary £1,000, rising to £1,200 a year. One to be examiner in the Accountants' Office, salary £440, rising to £540 a year. Two to be surveyors, salary £500, rising to £800 a year. No officers of the Secretary's Office in Dublin have been transferred during the same period to the Secretary's Office in London; but the Secretary in Dublin has been transferred to Edinburgh. One surveyor has been transferred to England, and one assistant surveyor has been appointed to an important Postmastership.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the fact that no officer of the Secretary's Department in the General Post Office in Dublin has been promoted to the higher grade of the Second Division, under the terms of the Order in Council of March, 1890; and whether any recommendations for such promotions were at any time made by the Dublin postal authorities?
  MR. HANBURY: It is a fact that no clerk of the second division, employed in the Secretary's Office in Dublin, has been promoted to the higher grade of that division, because, under the provisions of the Order in Council to which the hon. Member refers, a vacancy on the higher grade occurs only when a clerk
  1368
  reaches a salary of £250 a year, and no one of the second division clerks in the office has attained to a salary of that amount. In these circumstances, any recommendations for such promotions would be premature.

  KILWORTH CAMP.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War office if he will consider the desirability of establishing a military station at Kilworth Camp for the slaughter of animals, in order to ensure that the proportion of fresh meat supplied to the troops shall undoubtedly be of Home origin; and whether this system is already in operation at the Curragh Camp and other stations with satisfactory results?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The system of slaughtering animals at military abattoirs is more expensive than supplying troops with meat by contract. Abattoirs are only maintained at certain stations—the Curragh among others—in order than an establishment of butchers for war purposes may be kept up. That establishment is sufficient at present; and is fully employed at more important stations than Kilworth, which is only occupied in any strength during a portion of the year.

  COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IN CHINA.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs what will be the functions of the new Commercial Attaché in China, and whether he will be concerned with the business interests of individuals resident in the United Kingdom who are not represented by agents in China?
  MR. CURZON: The instructions to our Commercial Attachés were printed in the Blue Book Commercial

  1369
  No.5 (1897). The scope of work in China, in particular, was indicated in Mr. Brennan's Report on China (Annual Series No. 1,909) of 1897. The Commercial Attaché there cannot, of course, be authorised to act as the local agent of firms or individuals; but he will render generally what assistance he can to British trade.

  DISTRESS IN BELMULLET (MAYO).
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is in receipt of any information showing that, in consequence of the storms which have been prevailing on the north-west coast of Mayo, no cargoes of Indian meal or flour can be landed? Is he aware that, as a result of this inability to land such cargoes, the small occupiers in the neighbourhood of Belmullet are practically without any food: and what steps the Government intend to take to meet the immediate wants of these people?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that much inconvenience has been caused in the neighbourhood of Belmullet owing to the difficulty experienced by cargo vessels in reaching the place through stress of weather. On the 11th and 15th instant vessels arrived with about 36 tons of flour and meal, and other vessels were on their way to Belmullet. In a report received from the Vice-Guardians on Saturday last, they did not apprehend that there was any danger of the people suffering from want of food, and stated they would at once inform the Local Government Board should any such danger arise. I have caused a telegram to be sent to the Vice-Guardians for further information as to the present state of affairs.

  GROSVENOR HOTEL COMPANY.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Spokes v. Drew and others, tried in the High Court of Justice, with reference to the Gros-
  1370
  venor Hotel Company; and whether he will consider the expediency of requesting the Public Prosecutor to inquire into the matter, and, if necessary, obtain the advice of the law officers thereon?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention has, of course, been called to this case. I hardly think any steps are necessary on my part, but I will communicate with the Attorney General, under whose superintendence, in undertaking criminal proceedings, the Public Prosecutor is required to act.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPEALS.
  MR. D. MACLEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that two Court valuers were recently sent to inspect holdings in the Union of Clones, county Monaghan, upon which appeals were lodged; were the rents increased by the Chief Commission upon the reports of these valuers; did both inspectors visit all the holdings; and what experience had they in valuing land in county Monaghan?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners, to whom I have referred this question, point out that in cases in which applications to fix fair rents are adjudicated upon by them pursuant to the powers conferred on them by the Land Law Acts, their decisions are arrived at after hearing the evidence offered on behalf of the landlord and tenant, respectively, and, after taking into account all the circumstances of the case of the holding and the district. I desire to take this opportunity of protesting against the practice of putting questions of this kind on the Paper.

  DESTITUTION IN TORY ISLAND.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that extreme destitution exists in Tory Island, off the coast of Donegal, where

  1371
  several families have consumed their whole stock of potatoes, and, being quite destitute of means to purchase food, would starve but for the aid of neighbours almost equally indigent; and whether, communication with the island in the present stormy weather being almost entirely cut off, and the stock of meal in that place being nearly exhausted, he will direct that the promptest measures shall be taken to afford relief to the islanders who are in so perilous a condition?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The inquiries made as to the state of the crops in the Union of Dunfanaghy, comprising Tory Island, disclosed the fact that the loss of the potato crop was not considerable. The Local Government Board's Inspector has been instructed to proceed to Tory Island as soon as possible, and to take measures to see that relief is afforded to any of the islanders who are in the condition of destitution alleged in the question.

  MORAY FIRTH FISHERIES ASSOCIATION.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to his statement on 3rd January last to the Moray Firth Fisheries Association that Her Majesty's Government considered it inexpedient to open negotiations with the North Sea Powers for the extension of the close area to thirteen miles, whether he would state the nature of the inconvenience anticipated?
  MR. CURZON: I think if the hon. Member will refer to a speech which I made on August 3rd of last year on Report of Supply, he will find a full answer to his question.

  PENAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Viceroy proposes to declare his assent to the Penal Code Amendment Bill, or to reserve the same for the signification of the pleasure of Her Majesty thereon, and, in the latter event, as the Penal Code Amendment Bill and the Criminal Procedure Code Bill are very intimately
  1372
  correlated, will he defer tendering advice to Her Majesty respecting the former Bill until after the latter Bill has been disposed of by the Legislative Council of the Viceroy?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Viceroy has not communicated to me his intention with regard to the Bills mentioned in the question, but I have no doubt he will follow the usual course by declaring his assent to them. If he does so, it will still be within the power of the Crown to disallow either or both Measures; and, as I have already said in this House, I am quite prepared to be held responsible for any advice which I may think fit to give.

  VICTORIA AND THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colony of Victoria has withdrawn from the Imperial Institute; and, if so, what are the reasons given?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I am informed by the Agent General for Victoria that notice was given early in December last that the Victorian subscription to the Imperial Institute would cease on the 31st December, 1897. No reasons were assigned for this action, and communications on the subject are still passing between the Government of Victoria and the authorities of the Institute.

  STRENGTH OF THE REGULAR ARMY.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how he accounts for the falling off in the effective strength of the Regular Army on the 1st January, 1898, as compared with the 1st January, 1895. Could he state how many men entered the Army, and how many left the colours, in the years 1896 and 1897 respectively; and, how the strength on the 1st January, 1898, compares with the strength on the 1st April, 1897, on which date the increased establishments, authorised last Session, came into force?
  MR. BRODRICK: The 1st January is not a convenient date for comparisions of strength, as men coming home for discharge, who are virtually no longer with the colours, are often at that date in transitu, and, therefore, still borne on the strength of regiments. This was the case on the 1st January, 1895, when the Army was 4,381 above its establishment, an excess largely due to the fact that an unusual number of time-expired men coming home for discharge did not reach this country until just after that date. By the following 1st April the surplus had nearly disappeared. In the year 1896 the recruits who joined the colours were 28,589, and 29,889 men left them; 35,083 recruits joined the colours in 1897; but the effect of this large inflow was almost neutralised by an abnormal outflow of 34,921 men. Between the 1st April, 1897, and the 1st January, 1898, the Army increased by 2,976 men.

  SOMALILAND FRONTIER.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has ceded any territory in the North-East of Africa to the Emperor Menelik of Abyssinia; and, if so, whether the territory ceded included any portion of land under the dominion of the Khedive before our occupation of Egypt?
  MR. CURZON: There has been a slight rectification of the Somali frontier as recorded in the Annex to the Treaty already laid before Parliament. Egyptian authority formerly extended to Harrar; but the whole of these possessions were abandoned with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government after the fall of Khartoum, and Harrar has since been occupied by Abyssinia. There is no evidence that the Frontier districts were ever under the practical jurisdiction of Egypt.
  SIR C. DILKE: Is not the slight rectification of territory of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks, one which extends to fifteen thousand square miles, and includes one-quarter of the Somaliland Protectorate?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir. I hesitate to answer definitely without reference to official sources of information, but my impression is that the right hon. Baronet is not right in his figures.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE IN WEST AFRICA.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any definite representation has been made to the French Government in reference to the recent occupation of British territory in West Africa?
  MR. DAVITT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask is it not denied by French Ministers in the French Press that there has been any occupation of British Territory in West Africa by French troops?
  MR. CURZON: As this is a Foreign Office question, perhaps the House will allow me to answer it. The answer to the Question on the paper is in the affirmative. Perhaps the House will allow me to say that I have not had an opportunity of seeing the Secretary of State to-day, but I hope to do so this afternoon with a view to giving what information can be given as answer to the supplementary question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Treaty of 1890 with France recognised the territory of Sokoto as in the British sphere of influence?
  MR. CURZON: Yes. The words of the Agreement are as follows—
  "The Government of Her Britannic Majesty recognises the sphere of influence of France to the South of her Mediterranean possessions, up to a line from Saye on the Niger to Barruwa on Lake Tchad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere of action of the Niger Company all that fairly belongs to the Kingdom of Sokoto."
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the kingdom of Sokoto has been definitely defined?
  MR. CURZON: No, my impression is that it has not, if the hon. Member means by a formal commission.
  MR. W. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he would be willing to give the House in a convenient form all the Treaties dealing with the boundaries of British, French, and German territory in West Africa?
  MR. CURZON: The hon. Member will find the Treaties contained in Hertslet's "Map of Africa by Treaty."

  EDUCATION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  MR. W. WOODALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the inquiry promised by him on the 28th January, 1897, into the question of the provision made for University education of Roman Catholics in certain Foreign Countries and British Colonies, with special reference to the constitution of the Universities, the amount of their endowments, and the sources from which they have been derived, and the number of persons receiving University education in proportion to the population, has been made; and when the results will be reported to the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: A large number of replies on this question has been received, and further answers are expected. As soon as these are received the results will be put together and laid before the House in the form of a Parliamentary return.

  COMMITTEE ON THE MUSEUMS OF THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to reappoint the Committee on the Museums of the Science and Art Department; and, if so, whether it is intended to reappoint the Committee on an early day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it would be desirable that the Committee should be reappointed, and the sooner the better.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed this Session with the appointment of a Commission on the Financial Relations between England and Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Commission to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers would have been appointed, as he is aware, ten months ago had we received any assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but a large number of Gentlemen representing Nationalist constituencies declined to assist us, and the Front Bench opposite took the same view. Since that date, as the House is aware, the Government have resolved to add a large amount to that already contributed from Imperial sources for purely Irish purposes—a large amount for purely Irish purposes. Until this policy receives the approval of Parliament it is manifest that the investigation of any Commission must be on imperfect data. When we know what the fate of the Bill introduced last night is to be we shall be in a better position to decide what to do.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Are the Government prepared to favourably respond to the request put forward on behalf of Irish representatives of all shades of opinion, assembled in meeting, to grant an early opportunity for a discussion on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government are far from having any wish to prevent further discussion on this subject; in fact, so far as we are concerned, we shall welcome any debate; but in the present condition of public business it is quite impossible for me to make any promise for the purpose of affording a Debate on

  1377
  the subject referred to. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland will forgive me for reminding them that four out of the total number of days spent in discussing the Address were devoted to Irish Amendments, and that the great Measure of the Session, which, so far as we can form any forecast, will occupy the greater part of our time is an Irish Bill. Therefore, I do not think Irish questions can be said this Session to have fallen into the background. If we make such satisfactory progress with the Measure as will enable us to give a day for the purpose desired, we shall be happy to do so, but, of course, it is impossible to say what will be the amount of time devoted to the Bill.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the request for facilities for a discussion on this question comes from Members representing all parts of Ireland, and are we to understand that, when a request is made by practically the entire Irish representation for one day for the discussion of a question of this enormous importance, the Government, refuse to grant that request?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; the last thing the hon. Gentleman has a right to infer from my answer is that we have refused anything. If Irish Members of all shades of opinion put this question in the forefront of those which they want to discuss, I should have thought that they would have raised it first on the Address. But I think it rests largely with Gentlemen opposite to so assist the Government in getting through Irish business that there will be no excuse for the Government, if they think we desire an excuse, for refusing a day.
  MR. J. REDMOND: May I point out that there is a difficulty on a question of this kind of moving an Amendment to the Address, as every Amendment to the Address is regarded by the Government as implying want of confidence in them.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, Sir, I do not know what form the discussion can take if a day is found for it. It will be quite an experiment in Parliamentary procedure.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  ASH WEDNESDAY.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I beg to move that this House do meet to-morrow at Two of the clock.
  MR. J. DALY: My reason for rising to oppose the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman is that a most important Bill with regard to Ireland, which stands in my name, is first in order of discussion to-morrow, and if the House does not meet until Two o'clock, it will considerably curtail the discussion of that most important Measure with regard to Ireland, dealing with the distress in the West. My Bill, if passed into law, will very considerably help to alleviate the distress in the West of Ireland. I do not intend to detain the House any length, but if the right hon. Gentleman insists on his Motion it will be my duty to ask my friends to support me in opposing it on the ground of the importance of the Bill of which I intend to move the second reading to-morrow.
  MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: I think the appeal that has just been made by the hon. Gentleman who sits near me is one which the First Lord of the Treasury might take into consideration. It is not often that the Irish Members at this early period in the Session have favourable opportunities of introducing a Measure. It does seem a very hard thing that the hon. Gentleman has not been sufficiently fortunate to secure a good place for the consideration of his Bill, that it should be practically knocked on the head because of the proposal not to have the House meet until two o'clock to-morrow, instead of twelve. I do not for a moment cast the slightest doubt upon the solemn sense of religious observance held by hon. Gentlemen, but I submit there is plenty of time to do

  1379
  it up till twelve o'clock. The time from twelve till two could much more advantageously be spent in the discussion of a Bill which has the charitable and religious object of relieving distress. I certainly think this is a matter on which the First Lord of the Treasury ought to give an explanation.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: This is a matter which belongs, in a particular degree, to the right hon. Gentleman. It is intensely an Irish matter, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Gentlemen who wish to attend Divine service are not prevented from doing so at all. But Irish Members will be prevented from having two hours' discussion on the Measure, simply because hon. Members choose to attend Divine service. Every one knows that it is usual on a Wednesday afternoon to sit for twenty minutes after prayers, while that formidable functionary, the Serjeant-at-Arms, goes and hunts up in the library and tea rooms in order to bring in hon. Members. Such will not be the case to-morrow. Those other benches may be empty, but we could form a quorum ouselves. This is for a Christian and philanthropic object, and I would not mind discussing the matter even on the Sabbath day itself. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot boast, like him, of being an accomplished theologian and an amateur apostle, and I have never addressed a Church congress. If ever there was a matter of his own policy, this belongs to it, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It would be quite impossible for an even more stony-hearted person than myself to refuse to make some reply to the impassioned appeal of the hon. Member. He says the Bill is of a Christian and philanthropic character, but everybody who is keenly interested in a Measure always thinks it a Christian and philanthropic Measure, and certainly we on this Bench cannot exalt ourselves into judges as to the comparative amount of Christianity and
  1380
  philanthropy to which a Bill brought in may justly lay claim. I do not think there is any grievance, for the authors of it have not been fortunate in the ballot, and the only reason that they were able to get this Wednesday, was that those who had been more fortunate in the ballot knew that the first two hours of debate would be cut off by the immemorial practice of Ash Wednesday. Had the whole day been given by Parlialiamentary usage to the discussion of the Bill on Ash Wednesday, this Bill would probably not have come on at all during the whole of the Session, or at such a period when there would have been a chance of its becoming law. It is not necessary that I should enter into a general discussion of this Motion. If you are to continue the traditions and practice of this House, from which I do not understand the hon. Gentleman dissents, you cannot make exceptions on Ash Wednesdays on account of the particular character of a Bill. Either abandon the rule altogether—which I am not prepared to recommend the House to do — or carry it out continually, legitimately, and logically, without fear and without favour.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask a question on a point of order? As I understand hon. Gentleman are determined to go to church to-morrow, I see no reason why they should not be later with their dinners. Would it be in order to suspend the Standing Order which obliges us to close our discussion at half-past five?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Any such Motion must be made by a Member of the Government.
  The Speaker then put the Question.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That this House do meet To-morrow at Two of the clock."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 215, Noes 121.—(Division List appended.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Garfit, William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Ascroft, Robert

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Monk, Charles James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  More, Robert Jasper

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Mount, William George

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'hm (Bute)

  Baird, Jno. Geo. Alexander

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsb'y)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Gretton, John

  Myers, William Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

  Greville, Captain

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Penn, John

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curz'n

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Ben.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bris.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Heath, James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bethell, Commander

  Helder, Augustus

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Biddulph, Michael

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth'r (Down)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

  Bigwood, James

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstd.)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Round, James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Howard, Joseph

  Russell, Sir George (Berks.)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Howell, William Tudor

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Samuel, Harry S.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Hy. Cecil

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Seeley, Charles Hilton

  Cochrane, Hon. Thamas H. A. E.

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Coddington, Sir William

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharp, William Edward T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfr'w.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kemp, George

  Simcon, Sir Barrington

  Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

  Kenrick, William

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kenyon, James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Cox, Robert

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knowles, Lees

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lafone, Alfred

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Currie, Sir Donald

  Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc S. W.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpl.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H.

  Thorburn, Walter

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpl.)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir Jno. P.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.)

  Drucker, A.

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir Jas. Bevan

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mncr.)

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Finch, George H.

  M'Ewan, William

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Finlay, Sir Rbt. Bannatyne

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Malcolm, Ian

  Younger, William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Fison, Frederick William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Milbank, Powlett Chas. John

  1382

  1383

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hazell, Walter

  Pinkerton, John

  Baker, Sir John

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Pirie, Captain Duncan

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Price, Robert John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Birrell, Augustine

  Holburn, J. G.

  Redmond, Jno. E. (Waterford)

  Blake, Edward

  Holden, Angus

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humphrey-Owen, Arthur C.

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Burt, Thomas

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Kilbride, Denis

  Strachey, Edward

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Logan, John William

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Colville, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Tully, Jasper

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Wayman, Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Cartan, Michael

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davitt, Michael

  M'Donnell, Dr. M. A. (Queen's C.)

  Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.)

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, Jno. (Durham, Mid.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Woodall, William

  Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Woods, Samuel

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Maddison, Fred.

  Young, Samuel.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Finucane, John

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Daly.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Hy. (Wol'tn)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  DAYS FOR GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)having presented the Appeal for Jury (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill to Amend the Court of Session Act, 1868,
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask your ruling on a point of order—namely, whether it is in order for a Member of the Government to introduce a Government Bill on a Tuesday at the commencement of public business?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am well aware that the practice has been for the Government to confine themselves to Mondays and Thursdays, but there is nothing in the Standing Order to prevent them introducing their Bills on a Tuesday or a Friday if they choose. Any Member
  1384
  may, at the commencement of public business, move to introduce a Bill on a Tuesday or Friday, and the Government Ministers have the additional privilege of making such a motion on a Monday or Thursday.

ORDEES OF THE DAY.

  INDIA: COST OF THE FRONTIER OPERATIONS.
  *MR. SAMUEL SMITHgave notice—
  "To call attention to the extreme poverty of the mass of the people in India, to the serious condition of the Indian finances, and to the need of a more effective control over Indian expenditure; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the expenditure involved in the recent operations beyond the Frontier of India ought not to be charged entirely upon the revenues of India."

  1385
  The hon. Member said: Some apology is due to the House for again raising the question of India, after so much discussion on the Address. My excuse is, that the Resolution I move is of a definite, practical character. It is wholly free from Party bias, and is not intended to embarrass the Government; and I am not without hopes that it will be unanimously accepted by the House. I do not think that anyone who is acquainted with India will deny that last year has been the worst through which India has passed since the Mutiny; the famine was the most extended of the century, and affected sixty millions of people; the mortality from the plague has been excessive, and the Frontier war has been very costly both in blood and in money. I say, without fear of contradiction, that at no time since the Mutiny, has there been such deep and widespread discontent in India. The Press prosecutions and the Bill now pending to restrict its liberty show the anxiety of the Indian Government, and I am sure that no more urgent matter can be brought before Parliament. The poverty of the Indian people, even in the best years, is excessive; it is far worse than is realised by the British people. A very large part of the Indian people are always on the brink of famine; they are never removed from it more than a few weeks or months. They are a great deal underfed. I make bold to say that many millions of the people of India are not in the habit of eating more than one meal a day, and that of the coarsest food. They hardly know what it is to have a full stomach. Their clothing is so scanty that I have often seen them in winter in the North-West Provinces shivering in a thin cotton cloth, with frost on the ground, when I was glad to wear two top coats. I will make one quotation which, I think, ought to satisfy the House on the question of the extreme poverty of the people of India. It is the opinion of Lord Lawrence, one of the most noble and best of governors. He says—
  "The mass of the people of India are so miserably poor that they have hardly the means of subsistence. It is as much as a man can do to feed his family, or half feed them, let alone spending money on what you would call luxuries or conveniences."
  1386
  I will cite another. Lord Cromer was once Finance Minister for India, and one of the ablest financiers we ever had in India, and I commend what he says to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I am glad to see in his place. Lord Cromer made an estimate of the average annual income of the people of India, and his estimate was Rs. 27 per head, which is rather less than £2 sterling. Just imagine—£2 per head against an average income of £36 per head, which, according to the best authorities is the average income of the people of this country. There are other statists who have placed the Indian average income even lower than this, and one good authority has placed it at only Rs.20, but I take it at £2 per head of the population of the people of India against £14 per head, which is the average income of that very poor country, Italy, according to Mulhall. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this shows the enormous and desperate poverty which exists in India; if anything more on that subject is required to be stated I will add this: A penny in the Income Tax in India yields only one-tenth of what it does in this country, although it applies there to 220 millions of people, whereas here it only applies to a little under 40 millions.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Not 220 millions.
  *MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Yes; 220 millions of people directly under the British Government. I think all under the British Government are liable to Income' Tax excepting incomes derived from land, but as against that the Income Tax in India begins at Rs. 500, that is to say at about £35 sterling a year, whereas here it begins at £160. I put the one thing against the other. I put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, taking it all in all, the income assessable to Income Tax is only one-tenth of what it is in England. Under present circumstances and conditions now existing in India it is utterly impossible to squeeze more out of it than is already done. The chronic condition there is one of great poverty, which is now very much aggravated by this awful famine, through which 60,000,000 of people have passed, and which has in a great number of cases destroyed the cattle; in other cases it has

  1387
  left the people absolutely penniless, without means of cultivation, and in many cases they have sold even their utensils, implements of husbandry, and possess nothing beyond the clothes that they stand up in. That, Sir, is the condition of millions of people in India, and unless the Government deals very mercifully with them by relaxing taxation, many of them will suffer nearly as much this year as they did last year. Now, I have to make a statement which causes me sorrow, and which, I think, the House will scarcely believe, and it is this: that a fresh land assessment has recently been made in these very districts, and the rent on the land has been considerably raised. In the Central Provinces, the part of India where the famine was most severe, the rent on the land has been considerably raised. An appeal was made about a month ago in the Viceroy's Council to delay the operation of this additional assessment for some time in order to allow these poor people to recover themselves. I have got here the question and the answer. I will not trouble the House by reading them, but the answer was simply a refusal. I am very much afraid, Mr. Speaker, that India is destined to go through pretty much the same experience it went through in the last famine, which was in 1878, the year of the Afghan war; that was what I call a criminal and unrighteous war brought on by Lord Lytton as part of the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. India was therefore plunged into this most expensive war, although a great part of it had scarcely recovered from famine. I will call the attention of the Secretary of State for India to what happened in 1878, by reading an extract from the book of Colonel Osborne, entitled "War in Afghanistan." He says—
  "At this time (1878) India had been scourged by a series of famines. … But, with, an Afghan war on their hands, the Government could not afford to be either just or generous. The revenue collectors were ordered to go out among the famished villages of India and wring from the wretched inhabitants the utmost farthing that was due from them. To satisfy these demands, the starving peasant was compelled to sell even the household utensils which enabled his family to cook their scanty meals. In the North-West Provinces no less than a million and a quarter of men, women, and children perished of hunger, the
  1388
  Government wringing from them, in this season of dire distress, no less a sum than two million pounds.… It is no exaggeration to say that for every hundred Afghans whom we have slain in this unrighteous war, we have caused a thousand of our native fellow-subjects to perish of want and hunger."
  That is what happened in 1878, and India stands to-day in the very same position as she did in 1878. She has scarcely recovered from a dreadful famine. She finds herself burdened with another expensive war on the North-West Frontier. The Government are also extremely short of money. The finances of India are in a very bad condition, and there is a very strong inducement for the revenue officers to squeeze money, under any circumstances, out of these poor people. I do not say this is done willingly or consciously; but when a Government is short of means, when orders are put forth to the revenue officers to make the revenue as much as they possibly can, the screw is put on in all directions. From the higher-placed officials it works down to the multitude of the lesser agents, people who do not even know or come in contact with the higher officials, and the result is that there is much distress and suffering; and I repeat that there is a danger of the same sort of thing happening now as happened in 1878. The fact is that there can be no real prosperity in India until a permanent settlement of the land tax is arrived at, because whilst the present uncertainty exists there will be a tendency to raise the assessments as much as possible. Over much of the land of India the assessment is for 20 or 30 years, in some places less, and the result is that, with this chronic state of poverty, the peasant never feels sure how the land will be assessed, and the Government of India seem to be afraid to make this permanent settlement on which so much depends. It is the Irish Question over again in India on a much larger scale. My belief is that no greater boon can be conferred on India than by granting a fixed and permanent assessment of land in perpetuity, so that the peasants will know exactly how they stand with regard to this important matter. When that is done, and when the peasant knows that the additional improvements he makes on his holding will be his own, things will be better,

  1389
  and that would be one way to mitigate these recurring famines. This way is, at all events, as practicable as any other that can be devised, and I do earnestly call upon the House to grapple with this question, which lies at the foundation of the happiness and welfare of hundreds of millions of people. Now, with regard to Indian Finance. This House relies for its knowledge of Indian Finance on hearing the Budget statements of the Secretary of State for India year by year. Last year the Budget estimated a deficit of Rx2,500,000, and the year before there was a deficit of Rx2,000,000. But since this Estimate was framed the Frontier war has occurred, costing, as it has done, Rx4,000,000, which has to come into the present financial year, and there will be probably as much again for the coming year, as a great part of the Bills will not be paid till next year, so that allowing for gains from Exchange and from other sources, the deficit this year cannot be less than Rx5,000,000. Indeed, I do not think an accurate Budget could show a deficit of less than that sum. I say "an accurate Budget," because you may make up an Indian Budget to show things very much as you choose. If the conditions of the Indian peasantry were properly taken into consideration, and remissions made on account of that condition, I believe that the deficit will be much more than. Rx5,000,000—possibly it will be nearer Rx10,000,000. But that is not all. I have to call the attention of the House to another very great financial danger, which, I think, we will hear more about before long. Only those engaged in the trade of India know how very serious it is—I refer to the financial danger which arises from attempting to introduce a gold standard into India. The Mints there have been closed for five years, and the object is to force up the price of the rupee so as to prevent the Government losing so very heavily on exchange. As the House knows. India has to remit on the average £15,000,000 a year to England, payable in gold, and the idea was, as I have said, to push up the rupee, and so save themselves from some of the loss. Well, the Government succeeded by these artificial means in forcing up the rupee to 1s. 4d. The condition of Indian Finance at the present time is most unsatisfactory, as
  1390
  people do not believe in the permanency of the rupee at 1s. 4d., and, consequently they are remitting home all the money they can, because they believe mat this artificial rise in the price of the rupee cannot be of long duration. The result is that the Government cannot pay their debts. Their debt to this country is about £15,000,000, and I do not believe that the Government can remit home more than £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 this year. How does it supply the balance? By borrowing gold in London—the very worst plan which India could adopt. This was done in order to escape the collapse of the monetary policy of India. The Indian Government is borrowing money in London like a spendthrift, to conceal the unsound condition of the Indian Exchequer. I call this juggling with finance. It is not, at any rate, sound finance. The Indian Government is in a terrible dilemma. It has only two courses open to it, and each of them is beset with difficulty. If it raises the price of the rupee, to save the loss of exchange, it forces the peasant to take fewer rupees for his produce. The masses have to suffer, and grave discontent is appearing among the people, and all the uncoined silver which the people of India possess falls enormously in value. This is a peril that many in this country are practically unaware of, and yet it is one of the most serious dangers that besets our rule in India, and all this is done in order to save the Government the loss on the exchange. The Government of India looks too much to the opinion of this country, and to the opinion of this House, and forces up the rupee by these artificial means in order to save acknowledging the semi-bankrupt condition in which it is. This is practically the position of affairs in India just now, and I do not think that the Government here can fully realise what this state of things is causing in India. This artificial contraction of the currency is producing a kind of asphyxia, and is causing such a fall in the price of Indian commodities that great discontent is spreading amongst the agricultural population. I do not know whether the House has paid attention to those striking letters which have appeared in the Times on Indian affairs. I will give the House a quotation from

  1391
  one of the letters, which dates from Bombay. It is as follows—
  "The truth is that the official and mercantile classes in India have a widely divergent interest in the future of the rupee. Although it may appear sound in the eyes of the Finance Minister to produce a famine in rupees, and a consequent fall in the prices of commodities generally (including sovereigns), to all students of monetary science such a course is nothing less than a crime of the most serious and comprehensive order. A false rupee, an artificially created scarcity of money, and a 10 per cent. bank rate, are not the most favourable conditions amid which to conduct business. A food famine is a very serious matter; but a money famine, such as is now being deliberately induced by the Government of India, is far more serious, for it involves not only the gradual asphyxia of trade enterprise and a certain decline in the rate of commercial progress, but also a consequently widespread feeling of unhappiness, misery, and disaffection, which it should be the continuous endeavour of the British Government to avoid."
  Up to five years ago all uncoined silver was equivalent to rupees, just as gold is worth £3 17s. 9d. an ounce, so you could take all this silver to the Indian mint and coin it into so many rupees. So that when a man put into a cellar a certain weight of silver he had a potential right of having so many rupees. Now the price of the raw material of silver has gone down fully 40 per cent. below the price of the coined rupee, and so the peasant who has hoarded bars of silver finds nearly half their value gone, losing half his capital. These poor ignorant people all over India, after having struggled to hoard silver, cannot understand why it has fallen to nearly half of its value compared to what it was before. They measure it by rupees, and to them it seems an incredible thing that by some hocus-pocus this great mass of silver should lose over 40 per cent. of its value. I believe there is a much greater risk in this matter than the Government is aware of, and I may tell the House that I was very much struck by a letter I received from one of the old residents in India, a gentleman who was through the Mutiny, who married an Indian lady, and who has had close connections with the Indian people, and understands the sentiments of "underground India." If the House will allow me, I will read a paragraph of it, so striking that I hope the Secretary of
  1392
  State for India will give his serious attention to it—
  "I am here on the spot and see much of underground India, and I also see the Government set on going to ruin blindfold. Just 41 years ago, Lord Dalhousie left India, having, as he wrote, left the Empire in peace, and not a cloud on the political horizon; but in a short five months English men and women were either murdered by hundreds, or flying for their lives from Dacca in the North-East to Peshawur in the North-West, and so it is to-day. Our Governments are dining, dancing, and playing cricket on a smouldering volcano of discontent, which they think to suppress by gagging the Press, and imprisoning the editors, and on the other hand fostering the evil by insane Currency Bills."
  I fear there is more truth in this than the House will like to acknowledge. There is great discontent simmering in that vast country, and many of us fail to realise the perils of the situation. The fact is that the Indian Government cannot apply the rigorous financial tests of England; judged by our standard, the financial state of India is unsound. We are really squeezing out of these poor Indian people more than we ought to squeeze, and no person can invent a new tax which would yield any considerable amount, because we have reached the limit of taxation. In place of raising we ought to lower the land assessment. Let me tell the House there are parts in India where the laud-lord is taxed 50 per cent. on his rental, and 15 per cent. in addition for local purposes, making the total taxation 65 per cent. of his income. Taxation there is too high, and it ought to be lowered. Then there is that other harsh tax, which brings in a large revenue—the salt tax, which I say is one of the most cruel taxes that we can impose. The salt tax at the present time is 16 to 20 times the first cost of the article, and on the North-West Frontier, where a poorer kind of salt is supplied, it is 32 times the cost of the original article. Upon this question Lord Lawrence, before the Royal Commission, gave this evidence—
  "When I was a magistrate, many men, accused of smuggling salt, were brought before me, and I had to try them and punish them under the Customs law. I thought it was a very hard and very severe system. Here are the people of India paving an excessive price for the salt. I think it is an enormous rate. And not

  1393
  only does it limit the consumption as regards human beings, but, I think, it limits the consumption very much as regards cattle; and I believe myself that a great deal of the loss of cattle from murrain in India has arisen from want of salt."
  Now, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for India a question, and I hope he will reply. I put this question to him, whether it was not the case that the duty on the Kohat salt was raised to 32 times the price of of the salt, and he replied: "Only six and a-half times." The statement I wish to make is this: the Secretary of the Punjaub Government writes to the Calcutta Government, as given in the Blue Books, that the cost of this salt is less than one anna per maund, and the duty put upon it was 32 annas. That is 32 times the price of the article. Instead of raising the salt tax, the Government ought to reduce it. I may say, having been in India about that time, that we never had a more popular Viceroy than Lord Ripon, who was in touch with the people, and, by wise administration, kept the country out of war. One of the objects of all Viceroys ought to be to lower the salt tax, and I think he lowered it, and there never was a more popular Viceroy, or one who attached the people to him more. We are extracting from India quite too much taxation, and we are pressing very hardly on the poor. Our system of government is far too expensive for so poor a people. By the Afghan wars and the Frontier wars we have squandered 60 or 70 millions on the North-West Frontier in the last twenty years. As a consequence, the Government had to raise the salt tax, although it is well known that great suffering arises from want of salt. The cattle do not get as much salt as they require; neither do human beings. I say, speaking broadly, you cannot extract more taxation out of that country. It is as dry as a bone, and you cannot squeeze any more out of it. The difficulty is just this: our officials in India are most able, they are upright, and they are doing their best, I do believe, but the system keeps them from being in touch with the people. What is the cause of the trouble? I say it is principally the wasting of our substance on these Frontier wars, which have cost us nearly Rx. 70,000,000 in 20 years. The present
  1394
  expenditure for the Army in India is Rx. 24,000,000 a year. When Lord Northbrook was Viceroy it was only Rx. 15,000,000 or Rx. 16,000,000, and that was considered to be quite sufficient. I listened with great interest to what was said by the late Secretary for India the other night. I believe, with him, the military party is endangering India. They are dreaming about an imaginary Russian invasion, which may never come, and to prepare for this they squander the resources of one of the poorest peoples in the world, and are thus poisoning their minds against British rule. By this policy the Indian Government is raising a real danger of far more importance than this imaginary danger. What I ask for tonight is but a feeble palliative. I only ask that some portion of the cost of the Frontier war shall be placed upon this country. I hope the Government—I believe there are many upon the other side of the House who agree with me, and will accept my Motion and come to the help of India. But some object to grants, especially for the Frontier war. So long as you accept the principle that some help is to be given to that poor country, which God has placed in our hands, I do not mind, what name is given to it. Whatever the alleged cause may be, I feel sure that we shall touch the feelings of the people of India if the House adopts my motion. The Indian people are a sentimental people, and an emotional people, and kindly words spoken in this House do far more good than the House is aware of. Sharp words are sometimes spoken across the floor of this House which appear in a hundred papers next morning, and are read by multitudes, and we ought to be most cautious as to what we say here, so as not to excite ill-feeling among those dense masses. In speaking about India in this House, which is a whispering gallery open to the world, we ought to be most careful to say nothing but what is kind and sympathetic. The permanent difficulty of our Indian Government lies in the fact that it is impossible for a small handful of officials at Simla to govern satisfactorily 280,000,000 of people, even with the aid of the finest Civil Service in the world. These high officials pull the strings that move India, and live mostly

  1395
  on the hills. In the old days of the East India Company the officials did not go to the hills, they lived amongst the people often for a lifetime, but now we have Civil Servants of great mental powers, but who spend all their holidays in this country; their heart is here, and it is not in India. They are not sufficiently in touch with the people, and as they rise to higher positions they spend most of their time in the hills far away from the masses. There is nothing but comfort and well-being amongst the Europeans who live at Simla, and they are removed from that close contact with the suffering masses which is so useful an education for the rulers of India. I say this is one of the reasons why these expensive wars are devised. High officers at Simla, well fed and clothed, with a single stroke of the pen can put upon India millions of expenditure, notwithstanding that the money has to be squeezed out of people who are living on 2d. a day. This is the essential drawback to our rule in India. It is not that the men are not able. I do not believe there are more capable men anywhere than in the Indian Civil Service, or at the head of those great departments. But I say you cannot govern India economically under such a system as that. You require an overhauling of the entire system, and a reconstruction of Indian Administration. One thing ought to be done, and that promptly. We ought to send out a first-class financier—one of the strongest men that can be found—with great powers, to cut down the expenditure. It will not be done unless the man sent out be made of cast-iron—a man who can stand against official pressure. You send out too often an untrained man to India, knowing little of the country, surrounded on all sides with old officials: what can he do? He is bound to go to them for advice. If you wish to reduce expenditure in India you must select of of your strongest men, and send him out with large powers, and in no other way can you put the finances of that country in a sound position. What I ask for at the present moment is that a moderate grant should be made to India—a grant even of three millions would be of great value. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has had large surpluses,
  1396
  amounting to 6¾ millions. And what has he done with those surpluses? Like a very parsimonious man, he buys up the National Debt.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. E. HICKS BEACH,): I beg your pardon. The surpluses have gone in the furtherance of works for the benefit of the country.
  *MR. S. SMITH: Then I am not quite right there, but I do object to Consols being bought at 112, which is like buying annuities to yield 2 per cent. I am told that this year we shall have another urplus of between two and three millions, but probably it will be pounced upon for some other purpose. Now, I do not believe in using our Surplus to buy up the National Debt. Surely, it is better to use this money in helping our famishing fellow-subjects in India than in buying up Consols. There are times for generosity, and there is a time when a little sympathy counts far more than dry financial economies. I say, use a little generosity to India just now, and it will bring back a rich reward to this country. I appeal to the humanity of this House, I appeal to the benevoence of this rich country. I do not believe that public opinion in this country would have the smallest objection to a handsome grant being made to India. My own opinion is that it would be most willingly given, and I believe, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do it, he would find that nearly every newspaper in this country would support his action This is the feeling of the country. I will conclude my remarks by quoting from a speech of the late Secretary of State for India, which, I am glad to say, does as much credit to his heart as it does to his head. He says—
  "We have yet to deal with the cost of the present expedition. What that cost is I do not know; but if it approaches the figures I have seen the Indian Revenue cannot meet it, and I go further, ought not to be asked to meet it. Parliament in 1880 voted £5,000,000 towards the cost of the Afghan War. The reasons which justified that Vote are more forcible to-day than they were then. To throw upon India, in addition to the enormous cost, and the loss by the famine and plague, the entire cost of the present war, would be an injustice which would rankle in every part of the Indian Empire."

  1397
  I thank the House for the indulgence accorded me, and I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  *MR. R. SOUTTAR: I beg leave to second the Amendment. The first plea I would put forward is based upon the poverty of the Indian people. My honourable Friend has spoken of that poverty, and I am able to testify to having witnessed that poverty. I lived for five years of my life in India, and owing to the work upon which I was engaged I spent those five years directly amongst the poor people in India, in the streets and in the lanes of the various cities. I can assure hon. Members here that, however much they may have contemplated the poverty of India, they have no real conception of what poverty is until they have lived in that country. I have lived in various countries, and have seen poverty of various sorts. I have seen poverty in Africa, but it is a lazy poverty that arises from the beneficence of nature. I have seen poverty amongst the negroes in the Southern States of America, but it is largely of the idle "laugh and grow fat" kind of poverty; I have seen poverty in this country, but it generally arises from dissipation; but the poverty in India arises from none of these causes, and is like none of them. In India you will see that, which you will, perhaps, not see anywhere else in the world. You will see men toiling from morning till night with all their strength, and receiving at the end of the day a miserable pittance—a pittance which they do not waste in debauchery, or drink, but which they will lay out, not in halfpence and farthings, but in cowries, which is the smallest shell coin that they can get. And when all has been spent, and the poor result earned home in a handkerchief, with all their exertions they have not provided one full meal for themselves and their families. This goes on from lay to day, and from the cradle to the grave. I have only seen one sort of poverty that has ever struck me as comparing in any degree with the poverty you see in India. Hon. Members have seen the hollow-cheeked poverty of the poor wretch who is dependent in London upon the sweater's bounty. Well, the whole of the Indian poverty is
  1398
  just like that. The second plea I would put forward is the poverty of the Indian Exchequer. Now, it has been said by my hon. Friend that there would probably be a deficit in the Indian Exchequer this year. But I do not measure the poverty of the Exchequer by deficits at all. I know that, even if there were a surplus, there would not be half enough to spend as money should be spent on public works in India. I know that in India you require to spend millions and millions, far more than ever you have spent, if you want to properly ensure that country against famine. I do not know that irrigation is a cure for all the evils of India. I think that the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord two or three days ago, when he stated what the Government had in their minds, were excellent suggestions, which showed that he had thoroughly grasped the agricultural part of the subject, and I am sure they will do almost as much good as irrigation ever can. At the same time, irrigation is also necessary, and every penny that can be spent should be spent on irrigation, works, if you want to provide against future famine. My belief, with regard to the poverty of the Indian Exchequer, arises also from the consideration that the money which is raised in India is not raised in a natural way. Even if you had a great surplus, where would it come from? Five millions of it would come from opium, and there are some of us on this side of the House, and on that side of the House, too, who would rather that India should get along without this five millions. Then, eight and a half millions would come from salt, and my hon. Friend has already told you what a terrible tax that is upon the poverty of the Indian natives. In this country, if a man does not take tobacco or spirits, he may practically escape taxation. In India every mouthful that the poor, wretched coolie puts in his mouth has already paid toll to the British Government. We know there is no other way to raise the money, and that circumstance is the measure of the absolute poverty of India. The third plea that I would urge arises from the special circumstances in which India is placed. I will not enlarge upon this. We know perfectly well, if India ever needed help, she needs it today. India got help in 1881, and she

  1399
  needs it to-day, far more than she did then. She has famine and pestilence, the twin sister of famine. I don't know if hon. Members have ever just quietly considered how famine and pestilence almost invariably go hand-in-hand in that country. The fact of the matter is, Europeans, who are well fed, are rarely touched by pestilence in India, but the poor, miserable native is so absolutely starved that he has no vitality, and the moment pestilence touches him, he just lies down and dies. But, now, my fourth plea with regard to this matter arises from the justice of the case. I am not going to press anything that would be in the slightest degree of a Party character, but, as far as I can study the question, we were promised, in the Statute of 1858—which has been corroborated constantly by the declaration of statesmen since—that India would not be in any way dragged into any question of Imperial policy. I am not going to say the Frontier War—in connection with which money has been spent—which we are considering to-night, that that has been a purely Imperial matter; but it would have been absolutely impossible for any conscientious man to have stood in this House, and listened to the speeches which have been made on both sides, without realising that Imperial matters had, to a certain extent, at any rate, entered into the question of the Frontier war, and to the extent that Imperial matters entered into that question, to that extent are we bound to absolve India from the cost. My last plea would be that we have precedent in its favour. Honourable Members who have been in this House a long time, know far more about that than I do. This would be no new thing. There have been wars carried out by Indian soldiers not paid for by India. The Persian War was not paid for by India, the Abyssinian War was not paid for by India, the Chinese war was not paid for by India, and we know that in 1881 an almost precisely similar state of things existed in connection with the Afghan War, and this House, without a dissentient voice, voted five millions in favour of it. I know perfectly well, in conclusion, that something may be said against it, and something may be said on lines of true political economy. I know that it is of very
  1400
  great consequence that the financial independence of India, as well as the financial independence of every one of our possessions and dependencies, should be very carefully maintained. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe in doles, whether they are doles to individuals, or whether they are doles to our dependencies; but if ever there was an occasion when strict political justice might be departed from, the House knows perfectly well that that occasion has now arisen. I know also that the maintenance of responsibility for warlike policy is of very great consequence, for we have a very strong war party in India, and we do not want to make it any easier for them to make war; and I am always glad to realise that such men as Sir James Weston are sitting at the same Council table and are able to say to these men—"It is all very well for you to talk about war, but we cannot raise the money to pay for it." But the worst of it is, these men have not got to pay for it. We know that the men who voted for the war, and who carried the Indian Frontier War against the wishes of the civil representatives—if I am not incorrect—are those military men to whom a war, if it brings a certain amount of risk, also brings commensurate advantages. At the same time, I am glad that there is even a half cheek kept with regard to warlike expenditure, but I would point this out to the House—that there is another side to that question. It is all very well to check the warlike spirit in India, but it is equally important to check the warlike spirit in this country, and I don't think it is good for Englishmen that they should be able to have a spirited Foreign policy, and that they should throw the burden of it upon somebody else, especially when that somebody else is a poor, wretched, impoverished, and unrepresented nation like India. I second the Motion with extreme pleasure. I believe if the Government would accede to the Motion, there would not be a dissentient voice In this House, there would not be a dissentient voice in the whole country, and. I believe the acceptance of this Motion would cause untold happiness and satisfaction to India. I also think the policy, which is suggested by this Motion, is calculated to prevent a

  1401
  recurrence of the calamities of war, and therefore I consider that, the Motion is not only in the interests of India, but is framed in the higher interests of a great and united Empire.
  SIR H. SEYMOUR KING: I think the speech we have just listened to is one of great importance, and, as a large taxpayer in India myself, I can feel a good deal of sympathy with it, but, at the same time. I cannot say that I go any great distance with either of the honourable Gentlemen who introduced this Motion, either as regards their arguments, or the conclusions which they have drawn. It seems to me this question might have been dealt with on larger grounds and in a larger manner, and in that way it might have commended itself more to the House than on the very narrow lines put forward by the hon. Member for Flintshire and the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire. Sir we must have great sympathy with India in the position in which she finds herself at the present time. That is common ground, but there is a great danger to allow sentiment to run away with one, especially upon matters of finance and matters of business. I am one who, all my life, since I have been concerned in these matters, have taken a very strong view in regard to the duty England owes to India, and the relief which India has a right to claim from England. I say on that ground, the views which have been admirably set forth by such great Viceroys as Lord Northbrook, Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Brackenbury, are views which I entirely share. It will be admitted that in the past India has not been well treated by England in financial matters, especially when we think of the sums charged to the Indian Exchequer for such things as the entertainment of Sultans and Shahs, for which we have had the glory, while India has had merely the privilege of paying. And when we reflect on the Abyssinian War, when we remember the Egyptian Expedition—undertaken for purely Imperial reasons—we must come to the same conclusion. £1,200,000 was charged against India for the Suakim expedition alone. Surely there is some reason for a readjustment of the accounts between India and England. The hon. Member
  1402
  said we maintained in India a greater army than was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of order there, and that we should not do so if it were not for Imperial considerations, and for that reason again a readjustment of accounts is desirable in order to give relief. There are also quasi-Imperial questions, such as those in connection with the North-West Frontier—questions which arise out of our relations with Russia. There is also the Burmah Frontier question; and intertwined with these questions are considerations as to policing the Frontier for the protection of our own people against raids from outside. In addition to that, we have to promote British trade, and these are points which make it so difficult to decide whether England or India should pay. I do, however, think that the Indian Exchequer should be relieved of the heavy expenditure charged in connection with the maintenance of Departments of the India Office in this country. The chief argument put forward by the hon. Member has been the extreme poverty of India. To my mind that is not the real question, which is—Are the claims just or unjust? It is not a point to be considered whether India is rich or poor; if she is responsible she should pay the money; if she is not, then England should bear the burden. The mere fact of the poverty of India imposes no special reason why England should find the money. I was sorry to hear retold the old story about the average income of the Native being 27 rupees; the fallacy of that story has been exposed again and again. As a fact the 9 rupees a month which is earned by the Natives, is not a bad way as things go in India. India is undoubtedly a poor country judged by Western standards, but, although that is unfortunately true, you must not set up those standards of comfort when judging the condition of the people. A country should be judged by the wants of its people, and our capacity to satisfy them. There is another point which the House ought never to forget. It is all very well to talk of the poverty of India, but is not that due to, and caused by, the habits and customs of the people themselves? Is it not due largely to early child marriage, and the consequent overpopulation of the country? The people

  1403
  multiply up to the limits of existence, and the problem is one which it is almost hopeless to deal with. There are many curious things in connection with the Indian people. You cannot get them to migrate from one district to another. It may be that in one district there may be ample employment to be obtained, and in another district over-population, with a scarcity of work. Yet the people will not migrate from one district to another. I have myself suffered the greatest difficulty in getting coolies for tea gardens, although frightful poverty was existing in adjoining districts. I should like to say one word upon another aspect of this question of poverty. The hon. Member for Flintshire has made a good deal of it, but he seemed rather to contradict himself. I do not quite understand how, if the people are so frightfully poor and have an income of only 27 rupees a year, they have managed to save the millions of silver which they have stored away as a reserve. It cannot be true that they have saved hundreds of millions, and yet, at the same time, are never much above starvation point. Another cause of poverty is that agriculture is the mainstay of the country, and there is little diversity of employment. What we have to aim at is, by the introduction of more capital, to increase the number of industries, and to employ more people in mills and factories where they can earn better wages, and are far better off than when employed on the land. There is a reverse side to this poverty of India—or rather, of the people. In the first place, in spite of what has been told to the House, there is no question but that India is the most highly-taxed country in the world. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to come down here and talk about Income Tax, but they ignore the fact that only a few favoured individuals have the privilege of paying it, and the great bulk of the people of the country do not know that such a thing exists.
  MR. S. SMITH: Their incomes are so small.
  SIR H. SEYMOUR KING: You have no right to speak of the Income Tax, unless at the same time you deal with the number of people taxed. There is another
  1404
  side of the question to be looked at. In eight years out of every ten—I might almost say out of every nine—the Indian Budget shows a surplus, and I must enter a strong protest against the suggestions put forwards as to the unsatisfactory condition of the Indian Budget. It is not fair, it is not honest for hon. Members on either side of the House to argue from the particular to the general, and to base their case on the state of things which arises in years of famine and plague and war. That does not correctly show the average condition of affairs. As a fact, except during the last two years, there has been a steady increase in the revenue, and a steady, although not a large, increase in the deposits in savings' banks. These things do not prove an increase of poverty in the country, and I repeat the hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake in arguing from two years of famine as showing what is the average condition of affairs in India. He should remember what was said by Lord Cromer (then Sir E. Baring) when speaking as Finance Minister in 1882–83—
  "We do not profess to finance for a surplus in a year of famine. When a serious famine occurs it is inevitable that the expenditure of the year should be greater than the revenue."
  I cannot conceive a worse argument than that, because, as a result of two years of famine and plague, the Indian Budget shows a serious deficit, therefore, India is in such a state as to entitle it to come to this House for assistance. In the 15 years ending 1895–96, what has this poor, miserable, bankrupt Government been able to do? It has been able to put on one side 17½ crores of tens of rupees for the purpose of meeting the very emergency which has arisen, and the cost of which, as stated by the noble Lord, will be about 12 crores. This money, it is true, has not been put into the bank, but it has been used for the benefit of the country. Rx18,13,000 have been spent on irrigation works, Rx65,50,000 on protection and railways, and Rx53,27,000 on the reduction and avoidance of the debt. This shows how carefully the finances of India have been husbanded for the last 15 years. I said' at the start that I have some sympathy

  1405
  with the Motion, but while I think there could and should be some re-adjustment of the burdens between this country and India, I cannot conceive a worse method of helping than by starting a series of grants in aid. I think that system most objectionable and pernicious in every respect. What we want to do is to keep the financial rein tight in the hands of the Financial Secretary in order to prevent the military Party getting hold of them, and running away. If, directly we get into a difficulty, the Indian Government are to shelter themselves behind the English Exchequer, we shall be always having frontier wars. I agree with my noble Friend, that—
  "It is much better to keep the two Exchequers as far apart as we can."
  The Mover of this Motion talked of the necessity for more effective control over Indian expenditure, but I do not think he could go to work in a worse way than by initiating a policy of grants in aid. What after all is the real trouble from which India is suffering? To what must we direct our attention if we are to arrive at a proper decision? It is not so much a deficit on the Budget, not so much the results of famine and plague and war, as the present position of the currency. There can be no worse position than that brought about by a forced currency—and the currency of India is a forced currency, just as unsound as is the forced paper currency of Argentina. If hon. Members were as well acquainted as I have been during the last six weeks with the position of the Calcutta money market, they would feel that this is a matter which demands the attention of the House, and that that is the direction in which the aid of this country might best be given. The position in January in Bombay and Calcutta was that the banks would not errant loans on Government paper, or even on bars of gold. They had not the money to lend. Think what it would mean if the Bank of England were not able to lend, and if there were no possibility of any expansion of the currency, and we were left with a fixed or gradually contracting currency. I admit that the experiment tried in India was the only possible one at the time, other than that which I hope and believe my noble Friend will yet carry
  1406
  into effect—namely, the establishment of a currency on a gold basis, because the pressing need of India at the present moment is, undoubtedly, that of a staple rupee—a staple exchange, which can only be obtained on a gold basis. It is not a question of the re-opening of the Mints, for that would only bring about the invariable ups and downs. It is true there may be some opposition from the agricultural industry, which no doubt has greatly benefited by the fall in exchange, but I believe that the rapid and incalculable fluctuations in exchange far outweigh that benefit. In India, money at present is almost unborrowable, even on the very best security, and if only capital could be introduced which could be lent at a moderate rate of interest, it would do far more good to the planting interest. The establishment of the currency on a gold basis—although I admit a serious undertaking—is not impossible if faced with courage, and with the advantage of English credit at its back. India by herself is not strong enough for this gigantic undertaking. This, of course, is not the occasion to go into details how to establish a gold currency. I trust we may, later on, have another opportunity to go into the much larger question. It is only necessary that I should indicate the amount necessary for India and England to raise for the purpose. I think it would be about 15,000,000 sterling. Russia has succeeded in doing this, and so have Japan and Austria-Hungary. Then why could not England and India do it? There is plenty of gold in the world. India has always been a country which absorbs the precious metals, and I believe there is no country in the world in which the experiment of establishing the currency on a gold basis could be more easily made.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member's remarks do not appear to me to come within the terms of the Motion.
  SIR H. SEYMOUR KING: I recognise, Sir, that I was going rather beyond the Motion, but the terms of it are intimately bound up with the financial questions generally. Some relief may have

  1407
  been given by the Bill dealing with the deposits of gold, but, after all, it appears to me to be a somewhat sentimental feeling of relief, and I am afraid it will not prove substantial, for people will not send their money out unless they know they can get it back without serious loss.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! I must again call the hon. Member's attention to the terms of the Motion—namely, whether the expenditure involved in the recent operations beyond the Frontier of India ought not to be charged against England?
  SIR H. SEYMOUR KING: I apologise to you, Sir, and to the House, for having gone beyond the terms of the Motion, but my feelings carried me away. I will ask the House to consider, from another point of view, what would be the relief to the Indian Exchequer if a grant in aid of £3,000,000 sterling were made? It would represent about £75,000 a year and would be almost inappreciable to the people of India, while it would inflict an incalculable blow on sound finance and introduce a most mischievous principle. It would, too, weaken the restrictions put upon the military party by the Finance Minister. I hope, therefore, such a policy will not receive the support of hon. Members.
  *SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I am very glad my hon. Friend has brought this matter forward, and I do not think the Government will continue to refuse his request. The conscience of the nation has been aroused, and I do not believe the people will allow the Government to place the whole burden of this great war on the shoulders of the poor people of India. I think we ought to make a substantial contribution. The resources of the people of India are crippled at the present moment, and the sum suggested by my hon. Friend would go far to help them again on to their feet. I do not suppose the money would be expended exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull suggests—for the reduction of debt. It would be used as far as possible to meet the immediate financial needs of the people; and I
  1408
  join in asking for what may be called a dole, not because I like the system of doles, or because the people of India like it. What they want is fair play in order to enable them to develop the almost boundless resources of their own country, and that cannot be done unless we have administrative economy in India, which I do not believe we shall have until we get more stringent control in this House over Indian finance. The fact is, the two countries are bound together; they must stand or fall together; if one droops the other must sink. There never was such a partnership in the history of the world as the partnership of England and India, and there never were such magnificent assets in any partnership. On the one hand, this country has the command of the sea—she can give India peace and advance her industrial wealth.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is going into the general question of the relations between England and India. That is not the Question before the House. It is a perfectly plain Question; and, although I have perhaps allowed the Debate to travel somewhat outside it, I must request the hon. Members to confine themselves to the Question really before the House.
  *SIR W. WEDDERBURN: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I not refer to financial relations?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not the Resolution.
  *SIR W. WEDDERBURN: So far as the poverty of the people of India justifies, a contribution to the finances under present circumstances?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is at liberty to refer to the poverty of India as being a reason why the expenditure involved in the recent operations ought not to be charged on a poor country. I will not prevent the hon. Member from referring to it in that view.
  *SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Well, Sir; of course, I do not wish to press it, or to deal specially with the financial question, for the reason that I have the honour to sit upon the Royal Commis-

  1409
  sion which is now occupied with its deliberations, and one of the main questions they have to decide is the apportionment of the charge between India and this country as regards these great and costly wars. I, therefore, thought it would hardly be suitable that I should go in detail into the argument on that question; but I feel strongly that if, instead of merely helping India, from time to time, by doles, we could exercise such control over her finances in thin House as would enable her to develop her resources, she would not be able to meet all her necessary expenditure, but would be a source of the greatest strength Mid advantage of this country. My main point is this that the people of India are immensely skilful. They are mainly an agricultural population; they are extremely skilful; and they have a rich soil and a fine climate. There is abundant labour, both skilful and cheap, and if they only had a reasonable supply of capital, and with good irrigation and manure, instead of being as miserably poor as they are, they would become very wealthy. That is the reason why I am so anxious at this time, when they have broken down from want of capital, that England should find them in a little capital now, so that they might complete their irrigation works, and take other means for improving the condition of things. I consider that the money will be well invested by this country. At present their difficulty is this, that owing to the poverty into which they have fallen they have got no store in reserve. They fell terribly into debt. They not only possess nothing, but they possess less than nothing. Therefore, what I would say is that the people of this country have behaved kindly and charitably by assisting in the famine, but the critical time is not only during the famine, but just after the famine, and a liberal sum of money put into the hands of the Government of India to enable the people to start again, will be money very well bestowed, and I trust the House will kindly and generously give approval to the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): Mr. Speaker, in the few
  1410
  observations which I have to address to the House, I will conform strictly to your ruling, Sir, by keeping to the Resolution before the House; but I hope I may be allowed, incidentally, to allude to the argument on which, to a large extent, the Resolution is based—namely, the poverty of the people of India. Well, Sir, I do not deny that, measured by our standard of comfort, the great mass of the people of India are very poor. But what I think we really have to consider is, not whether they are poor or not, but whether their condition, under our rule has improved or the reverse. That is the real question, and I am bound to say that, although there is much poverty, yet, tested by every criterion which you can apply, whether by statistics or any other way which experience can suggest, the condition of the agricultural population of India is, I believe, improving. Now, Sir, two of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have given very pathetic accounts of the terrible condition in which the famine districts were left, and the hopeless condition in which the cultivators found themselves. There is a Paper now in the hands of the printer, which will very shortly be distributed to the Members of this House, dealing with the famine, which is written by Sir Anthony Macdonnell, Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces. That document is well worthy of perusal, for it is by far the ablest summary of the famine operations which I have yet read, and it has special importance attached to it, inasmuch as Sir A. Macdonnell, I think I may say, is not only the ablest administrator in India, but is a man whose ubiquitous energy brings him into contact with every class of the community. He does not get his information at second hand, but mixes freely with the people, and uses his own eyes and ears. And this is what he says at the conclusion of his Report. I am sure it will interest the House very much, because it gives a much more sanguine estimate than I should have been prepared to give. His report deals with the North Western Provinces, where, with the exception of the Central Provinces, the famine was most severe, and where a

  1411
  very large portion of the population felt its pressure very greatly. He says—
  "It would be too early to attempt an estimate on the future effects on the Provinces of the trial, the severest within the century, through which they have just passed; but it is possible to observe the unprecedented rapidity with which agriculture is recovering as soon as natural conditions permitted its resumption."
  Then he goes on to say—
  "This statement of the existing condition of agriculture goes to show that the people have resumed the usual tenour of their lives with energy, undemoralised by the hardships or the incidents of the preceding year."
  Further on he adds—
  "All observers are combined in thinking that the high prices of recent years, together with the increased facilities for transport, have enabled the cultivating classes to derive much profit by the sale of their surplus produce. This has added to their wealth and enabled them to improve their general standard of living. How long this improvement will last, how long the surplus which makes it possible will continue to be produced, depends on the growth of population, the progress of agricultural improvement, the maintenance of moderate taxation, and, finally, on the advance of general enlightenment. Into speculations on these interesting subjects the Lieutenant-Governor will not enter now, but he has faith in the future, in the people, and in the equity and resource fulness of British statesmanship…… The general conclusion, then, which the Lieutenant-Governor is disposed to draw, is that the cultivating classes, whether tenants or proprietors, have displayed in this famine a command of resources, either in the shape of capital or credit, and a power of resistance, which have not been paralleled in any previous period of scarcity, but that this improvement has not been materially shared by the labouring classes."
  To come now to other aspects of the question. Without in the least alluding to those vexed questions of currency reform which are outside the four corners of this Resolution, I am bound to state that the real want of India is capital, and under present conditions unquestionably owing to the fluctuations of exchange, there is now a stoppage in the flow of capital from England to India, which would unquestionably be resumed with more stability of exchange. And it should be borne in mind that although the mass of the population of India are poor, they are very lightly taxed. I should say that they contribute less to the suppert of the administration under which
  1412
  they live than almost any large population living under anything like a civilised Government.
  MR. M. DAVITT: But in what proportion to their income?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Well, I think I may go so far as to say that, independent of the land revenue, the average contribution is 1s. 8d., and with the exception of salt, and possibly the higher cotton goods, the mass of the population do not contribute to the taxation at all. But I am not stating this with any desire in any way to minimise the condition of hardship under which they live and toil; but I do not think that the fact that a large number of the people of India are poor, is quite a sufficient reason why this House should vote a large sum of money from the taxation of the people of this country to the people of India. Now, the position we have taken up from the first, in reference to the financial situation of India, is one which I think any responsible Government would be bound to maintain. We have carefully watched the financial crisis through which the Indian Government has been passing during the last few years, and we let them know that if they wished for assistance from the Imperial Government, the Government would not refuse favourable consideration to such an appeal, provided it was attended by certain conditions. The conditions were these: they must show either that there were practical difficulties in providing the ways and means necessary to carry them through the crisis, or that there was a serious depreciation of credit in regard to the money they had borrowed already, or that additional taxation was necessary in order to maintain future equilibrium between income and expenditure. I think nobody will deny that those are absolutely sound conditions, and conditions which any Government who occupied our place would be bound to adhere to. Well, the Indian Government were unable to accurately forecast their financial position until the close of the last calendar year; but at the end of December they sent to Her Majesty's Government a forecast of their financial position. Sir, I have

  1413
  heard with regret some expressions, which, I think fell involuntarily from the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution, in which he spoke of cooking and juggling with figures. I do not think those are proper expressions to use in this House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to cause pain by his remarks to the officials of the Finance Department of India, whose figures and accounts are prepared with the greatest care.
  MR. S. SMITH: I admit that I used, perhaps, too strong an expression in what I said on that point.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I, on the other hand, feel sure that if the hon. Gentleman will look into the accounts of Indian expenditure he will find the forecast with regard to the Frontier expeditions is marvellously accurate. The expenditure on the Chitral Expedition, undertaken before we came into office, was actually under the estimate; and I am fully confident that the estimates of expenditure now given will not be materially exceeded. Hon. Gentlemen have attempted to show a deficit of over five crores. We received in the month of December a six months' estimate—that is, of course, for the present year, 1897–98. Taking the exchange at 1s. 3d. per rupee, it shows a deficit of six crores—that is, 663 lakhs of rupees. These figures include 361 lakhs in addition to some sterling expenditure on account of the expeditions on the Frontier, 180 lakhs excess expenditure in regard to famine relief works, and various minor items which balance one another, and which I need not read to the House. Now, of course, a deficit of 663 lakhs is a very large deficit, but, unsatisfactory as it is as regards the year to which it relates, it is, in one sense, not unsatisfactory with regard to the future of India. The famine expenditure, which is an extraordinary expenditure, is estimated at 540 lakhs, and taking the Frontier War at 400 lakhs, and other extraordinary expenditure at 12 lakhs, we get a total of 952 lakhs of extraordinary expenditure. But the total deficit is only 663 lakhs, and therefore the normal revenue will be able to meet 289 lakhs of the expenditure of this year of abnormal
  1414
  expenditure, or, in other words, in a normal year there would probably have been a considerable surplus of income over expenditure. Having got these figures, as regards the past, we telegraphed to the Indian Government to get more accurate information as regarded the past, and we sent the following telegram—
  "Budget forecast. Please let me know by telegram, for the information of Her Majesty's Government, whether the present financial condition of India and prospects for coming year are such as to justify anticipation that all necessary expenditure can be met without additional taxation or unduly increasing the indebtedness."
  To this we received the following reply—
  "Financial position.—Twenty years' accounts up to March, 1898, show a surplus of ordinary revenue amounting to 45 crores, against extraordinary expenditure on war of 21 crores. famine relief 8½ crores, railway construction, charged to revenue, 13½ crores; showing a net surplus for the 20 years, after meeting these charges, of 2 crores."
  And then they go on to say, without committing themselves to figures, that they are fully confident that a substantial surplus can be forecasted for the next ensuing year, that no additional taxation will be imposed, but that the examination of the figures, both of revenue and expenditure, is not complete. In addition, we got this further information from the Indian Government—
  "Official telegram to-day (i.e., 11th January) succinctly states the facts bearing on the financial position, and warrants our considering external assistance unnecessary."
  Why, therefore, Sir, should we override the Indian Government, and force this assistance upon them? I think there are most conclusive reasons why we should not do so. The hon. Gentleman opposite criticised the method of control adopted in India over the expenditure of the Government, and seemed to indicate that it ought to be controlled in the same way that it was in England. Now, we believe that the present system of control over expenditure in India is most efficient. I recollect that two years ago I drew up a comparison between the growth of expenditure in India during ten years and in this country, and whereas in India it was almost stationary, in

  1415
  this country it had enormously increased. I do not hesitate to state that I really believe that the Indian Government get a better return for their expenditure than we do in this country. Their system is not so elaborate as ours. It is not a joint system of control between the House of Commons and the Executive Government. In India, whenever a department finds it unnecessary to expend the whole of the sums placed at its disposal within the financial year, the Government can, without difficulty, transfer that which is not required by one department to another department, and in this way I believe that, on the whole, they get, I will not say a better, but as good a return as the Treasury does in this country. Well, now, Sir, this control over expenditure in India is largely exercised by the personal influence of the Finance Minister. We have an exceptionally strong Finance Minister at the present moment in Sir James Westland, and I know that he agrees strongly in the opinion of the Indian Government that it is not wise, under the present conditions, to have outside assistance. I believe the main reason why he is desirous that such assistance should not be given, is because he is conscious that if once it is granted on the ground of sympathy and benevolence—because this case has not been argued on the ground of justice at all, but simply on the ground of humanity, benevolence, and sympathy—if once this House gets into the practice of granting doles to India on these grounds, the control of the Finance Minister in India would be gone, so far as checking expenditure is concerned. Sir, I do not attach much importance to the idea that military men and others are always pushing the Government of India on frivolous pretexts into warlike projects, but I do hold this view: that it would be absolutely inconsistent to say that the Indian military authorities require further checks to be placed upon them in order to prevent unncessary expenditure, and then to remove all checks upon large expenditure. Well, then, turning from the point of view of sympathy, let us examine the proposition from the point of view of justice. I can understand this House wishing to assist India in defraying some of the military expendi-
  1416
  ture of an expedition which had been more Imperial than Indian; but no one for a moment can contend that there was anything Imperial in the recent operations on the Frontier. Those operations were purely Indian in every sense, as part of our administrative policy. The late Government in their day sanctioned an expedition to Chitral, and nobody ever proposed that the expenditure on that expedition should be defrayed by the Imperial Parliament. Well, Sir, I hope I have given to the House good, reasons why we should not accept this Resolution; but, at the same time, I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has moved it, that it is with reluctance that I speak against any Motion which is prompted by a sympathetic impulse, and which would in any way help India. While I feel that I cannot assent to this proposition, I can assure him, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen on the other side, that in regard to any practical proposals they can make for the amelioration of the condition of the population of India, or for improving the financial condition of that country, they will always meet from me with at least an appreciative hearing.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am sorry that the noble Lord has announced so definitely the decision of Her Majesty's Government upon this question. I had hoped, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Bristol, and also from what the noble Lord said to myself in reply to one or two questions, that they had still an open mind upon this question, and that they recognised that they had both a responsibility to India, and, I think, a responsibility to the people of this country, in accurately representing what I think there can be no doubt their general feelings are, which would have induced them at all events, to have looked upon this Motion in a favourable spirit, to say the least of it, and to have reserved their final decision until the figures were really before them. I can assure the House and the noble Lord, that I entirely concur in the opinion the noble Lord has expressed with regard to the Finance Minister for India. I am sure my hon. Friend behind me was betrayed into a mistake when he talked of there not being an honourable Budget in India, and implied

  1417
  that there was some inferiority in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as personal honour and honesty were concerned, over the present Finance Minister in India. Now, I have had official relations with the one, and I have had the honour of sitting in opposition to the other, and I venture to say that, high as is the standard of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, both for financial ability and for stainless honour in the administration of the great responsibilities of his office, the Finance Minister of India is not one whit behind him in any one of those respects. Sir James Westland is as incapable of presenting to the Secretary of State or this House a dishonourable, or delusive, or deceitful Budget, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be of doing so in Committee of Ways and Means. Now, Sir, let us look at the information which has been received from India. If I follow the noble Lord's figures correctly, the present estimate is that at the end of the present financial year there will be a deficit of six and a half crores. The extra expenditure for the financial year has been nine and a half crores. Of course, when the "time comes for analysing these figures—they are sent over from India shortly after the commencement of April—we shall see how much of that £2,000,000 has been derived from normal taxation, and how much has been derived from a reduction of expenditure from the improved rate of exchange. Assuming that there is in India a deficit of six and a-half crores, a certain proportion of that would be due to the famine, and a certain proportion to the Frontier expedition. I did not quite understand the famine figures, I am bound to say, and that makes it difficult to follow the noble Lord. But in following the figures given last week in the Gazette of India, we find they stated that the cost of the famine would be £7,500,000 sterling, which, stated in crores of rupees, is 10,000,000. They included in that an immense decrease in the land revenue, and the great reduction in general revenue, but the statement, as I read it, represents a deficit of something like 1,00,00,000 of rupees, ten crores, and, in addition to that, we have this heavy expenditure in the shape of the Frontier war. The noble Lord says this has not
  1418
  been discussed in the spirit of justice, but rather in a spirit of benevolence. But for myself I rather prefer to discuss it as a question of justice. I object to the word dole; it is not to be discussed as a dole to India, and it is not a grant-in-aid. If it came within the limits of a grant-in-aid, it would be recognised by the Government and Parliament of England, at all events, as an honourable debt, owing to our fellow-subjects in India under exceptional circumstances, which contained the three elements never, perhaps, combined before—plague, famine, and war, all resulting in an enormous depression. Before I pass on, I should like to say a word or two upon the words used in the despatch of the noble Lord. In his despatch he was, no doubt, correct in saying that if any grant was refused he must be satisfied that there would be no increase of taxation, but I do not quite understand what he meant when he said there must be no undue pressure with reference to the terms on which they could borrow. I object to their having to borrow at all. That simply means increasing their liabilities; but there is no doubt that a very large share of this deficit will be met by borrowing money, and that is the point where I do think the case arises for this House to step in and interfere. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend behind me with reference to the condition of India. I think he may possibly have made some exaggerated statements with reference to the poverty of India, and I am not going to trouble the House by controverting them. On the general statement, I will assume that India—and the hon. Member will admit this—is a poor country. Well, Sir, Great Britain is a very rich country. Great Britain is passing now through a period of almost unexampled prosperity. What has been the result in the last 20 years? In India the result has been that, without paying off any debts, she has a yield of two crores of rupees. In England I think 70 or 80,000,000 have been paid off during that time. And then we have the big surpluses of the last three years. I understand the surplus of 1896 to be £6,000,000, and the surplus last year was £3,000,000. I will not attempt to anticipate the pleasant announcement

  1419
  which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to make in the course of a few weeks as to the almost incredible and enormous surplus, with which he will have to deal, if we are justified in placing any reliance on the figures published in the Times. I should, perhaps, be not very wrong if I said that the Budget surpluses for the last three years will not be very far short of £12,000,000. I do not think it will be denied that Great Britain is financially at this period, not only strong, but exceptionally strong, and Great Britain can afford to behave with liberality, as well as justice, to India. The noble Lord said there was no Imperial question here, but the sending of the expedition to India was more an Imperial than an Indian question. It was our duty to rescue our officers who were interned in Chitral, and I would not shrink from putting all the expense on the Imperial Treasury, if necessary. We were bound to rescue Sir George Robinson, and how they can say that the expedition to Chitral and its retention were not Imperial questions I cannot understand. There I am unable to follow the noble Lord, for I think if ever there was a question of Imperial expenditure this was one. For this reason: The people of India had no voice in it, and I do not think the noble Lord will dispute that it was decided on Imperial grounds. The whole foundation of the policy of this North-West Frontier rests upon Imperial grounds, and, to a great extent, on European politics. We are fighting the battles of Europe on the confines of British India, and these expenses would not be incurred but for that, and the Indian people have some right to say that it was not an ordinary and normal expenditure for Indian purposes. I am not going to cumber this question with arguing that we are right and they are wrong. That is no part of my argument. Can we not look at it on broader grounds of statesmanship than even that? First, on the ground of precedent. This country has never shrunk from lavishly helping any of her co-partners when they have been labouring under exceptional suffering. We have done it over and over again in Ireland and various of our Colonies, and we have done it in India in the case of the Afghan War, when this House voted
  1420
  £5,000,000 towards the cost of that war. If it was just to relieve India of part of the expenses of that war, then it is equally just, it seems to me, to assist her in the payment of the expenses of this Chitral War. We have also to look at the relationship between us and India. I do not quite agree with what my hon. Friend behind me said, but it is of vital importance to strengthen our friendship with India in order to make the people believe that the House of Commons looks fairly after their interests. I will not trouble the House again with what I troubled them some six or eight months ago, but they will remember they received information of a very important speech which was made by one of the Native Princes in the Legislative Council of the Viceroy, and he argued it on the ground of that good feeling that it would engender between Great Britain and India if a contribution was made, and I say, looking at it from a statesmanlike point of view, that that is a point that the Government ought not to ignore. It is to our advantage to obtain a stronger hold on the affections and generosity of these people, and give them a stronger idea of the justice and generosity of this House. My hon. Friend behind me spoke as to our being very careful as to what we said in this House. I think he said the speeches rankled like barbed arrows, but I think I may be excused if I say we ought to be very careful on both sides. I should be very sorry to hear anything said in this House which will reflect upon the Government of, or give pain to the people of, India, or to give sanction to any opinion which they may entertain adverse to the Government under which they live. I think it is a very doubtful thing to attack the Government of India, either on account of their luxury—debauchery, I think, was the word used in these Debates—or on account of their indifference to the difficulties of the duties which they have to discharge. I believe there is no body of men outside Great Britain, or in any other country on the face of this earth, who could discharge the difficult duties of the ruling of India, and the defending of India, better than can the Indian Civil Service; and, although I have said strong words with reference to the policy of the Military Department—and I will say them again

  1421
  on the question of policy if necessary—I have no desire to say anything that will in any way east any reflection upon the Indian Civil Service. Nevertheless, these things are said, and said in India. My hon. Friend says they have been said in the Indian newspapers. It was my fate to read the Native newspapers while I was Secretary of State for India. There are some pleasant, and some unpleasant, duties for the Secretary for India to do, but I never, until I read those papers, knew what a bad man I was, what a bad Government I represented, and what a bad House this was. When I say bad. I am using a much milder adjective than was actually employed. But this is a feeling we cannot ignore, and we cannot express, and which I do not think it would be wise to suppress. At the present time I do not want to supply them with any opportunity to justify them. I do not want to supply those people who are bombarding the best Government that India ever had with additional ammunition, and I think the refusal of this House to entertain the question as to whether we will, or will not, come forward to help India in a crisis in which it is clear beyond all doubt she will have to borrow and add to her debt. I say that with no idea of conveying the impression that India is insolvent. I do not believe that for a moment, but she is not paying off her debt. Now, there is another ground. My hon. Friend behind me referred to the extremely heavy taxation of the people of India. He alluded to the land revenue, and stated that he thought a great deal of indignation would have been aroused in the people of Ireland if it had keen employed there. He said the land revenue was forced up, and that people were compelled to pay more than they ought. All I can say is that, if the people of Ireland had had the land revenue system of India for the past 70 years, you would not have had a tenth of the distress and of the oppression there of which my Irish Friend so constantly complains. I cannot leave this point without dealing with one case that he cited. He said that rents were raised on the tenants'
  1422
  own improvements. Now, it is impossible for that to occur except in direct violation of the law, which upon that point is very plain, and states that no increase of rent shall be allowed on land which has been improved by the tenant, or from improvements made with his own private money. My hon. Friend said we ought to have a permanent settlement there. We had a permanent settlement 100 years ago, and what has been the result? And then we had a settlement once in 30 years, and at the end of that time the conditions of the land were considered, and the price of produce taken into account, and, as I said just now, no increase of rent was allowed in respect of improvements made by the tenant out of his private means. It must be Government money spent on the land in order to justify an increased rental. The gross area of land under cultivation in British India is 196,000,000 acres, and the gross rent—it is not a tax—paid for that to the Government is £25,000,000; and the average rent under this oppressive tax is half a rupee an acre on the cultivated land of India. All the grass and pasture land in India, at all events, is exempt from this. It is all charged upon cultivated land, and the rent varies from half a rupee to three rupees. The large increase in the revenue to which our attention has been called, comes entirely from the building land in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, and I would now ask whether the average percentage of the gross value represents more than about eight per cent. of the value of the crops. There are no such rents paid in this country. Rents here are on a much higher scale; and in pressing this question on the House I do not agree that the people of India are oppressed with the tax on their land, but I do agree with what has been said as to the oppressiveness of the Salt Tax, and I think we ought to reduce salt duty; and I am sure it is the ambition of every Secretary of State for India to endeavour to do so.

  1423
  In supporting this motion, I put it simply on the broad basis that we can afford it, and that we ought to do it, and that it is a matter of justice to the people of India. And, as a matter of policy, so far as the relations of India and Great Britain are concerned, in the opinion of this House, before almost the universal opinion of the country, of men of all shades of politics, it is wise that England should behave wisely, justly, and generously to India, and that such a policy would not only be of inestimable value in benefiting India, but in strengthening the relations between this country and the Indian Empire.
  *MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Whether the land revenue is called a tax or a rent, it takes as much from the people of India as they can possibly pay, and when the right hon. Gentleman points to Bengal, I would point out that she pays more than her share of the Imperial expenses of the country, and that she is the most prosperous province in India. Turning to the question raised by the hon. Member, that, in case of need, England ought to come to the financial assistance of India, I think it is admitted on all hands that the Secretary of State has based his refusal to do anything entirely on the representations made by the Financial Department of India, and he is perfectly justified in saying that, under the circumstances, the India Office is not justified in doing so. If the Financial Department of India said they did not want help, none could be offered. But I should like to know what representations were made to the Financial Department before that communication was received from them by the noble Lord the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton has laid it down that the Indian debt has increased, and has urged that no undue increase should be made in it. I hope we shall hear, before the end of this discussion, what is meant by "undue increase
  1424
  of debt," because that debt has been largely increased by the recent Frontier operations. Now, a great deal has been said about the Financial Department of India. I believe the Financial Department is very careful in its expenditure, and I give it every credit for being so; but when you remember that the Budget for any particular year cannot be completed for three years, the Government cannot say what the expense of the present year has been. I think, therefore, the House cannot get a very accurate estimate of what the ultimate outcome will be. The weak part of the Financial Department of India is that it has no control over the British policy in India. It is a policy of the Council of the Viceroy, and, if it is approved by the Secretary of State for India, you may immediately have an increase of expenditure without the assent of the Finance Department at all. That is what has actually taken place with regard to the recent war, and when we are considering what is just and right towards the people of India in this matter, we must also consider where the responsibility really rests. The responsibility for this Frontier war seems to me to rest, first of all, on the Council of the Viceroy, and immediately afterwards with the noble Lord the Secretary of State. The noble Lord hold his present position through the favour and confidence of this House of Commons, and consequently this House shares his responsibility. And if he assents to a war in India, which is carried on, certainly without the consent of the Indian people, it is not for the noble Lord, or the House of Commons who placed him in his position, to shirk their responsibilities. We have no share in, the Indian expenses of wars of this kind, and that is why we sanction the war; but for the people of India, who pay for it, it is a very different thing. It is a very easy thing for an eloquent Minister to come down to this House, and in accents palpitating with patriotic emotions, ask us to rise to the height of our Im-

  1425
  perial mission, and conquer all Central Asia, without pausing to look back, but they never, while they speak of the honour and glory of defending the Empire, say a word as to what is all-important to the unfortunate people of India—the financial aspect of the case. What should we do if a similar case to that which has occurred in India happened in Canada? Suppose you found it necessary to have a war on the Frontier of Canada, in order to protect the country from an invasion we refuse to come of Canada with Imperial assistance? There is not a colony in the whole of the Empire which we are not assisting in some way. Why should we make an exception in the case of India? If this country had to bear her fair share of the Imperial expenditure on the Frontier of India, this House would be very much more careful in sanctioning the wars we have had on the Frontier than it is at the present moment. I have only one other point to mention, because we, have heard a great deal about India lately; but I would ask the question whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has money at his command for purposes of this kind? I sympathise with my right
  hon. Friend in the enormous demands that are made upon the public purse at the present moment. He has to provide millions in order to find a new market, for our trade in the Mountains of the Moon in East Africa. He has to provide for another expedition in West Africa, and then, finally, he has to give a substantial dole to the sugar planters in the West Indies. These are claims upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I am afraid it is impossible for him to deny, because they are pressed upon him from quarters which he cannot possibly resist; but I can assure my right hon. Friend that India is worth much more to us than all these places, and we should beware lest in spending our money elsewhere in search of new markets, we are not sacrificing the oldest and best market which this Empire possesses.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the expenditure involved in the recent operations beyond the frontier of India ought not to be charged entirely upon the revenues of India."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
  The House divided: Ayes 96; Noes 188.

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Ewan, William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Allen, Wm. (Newc-under-L.)

  Finucane, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Asher, Alexander

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maddison, Fred.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Baker, Sir John

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Hy. (Wol'tn)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gilhooly, James

  Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

  Blake, Edward

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno. (Montrose)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hazell, Walter

  Murnaghan, George

  Burt, Thomas

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Caldwell, James

  Holburn, J. G.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Holden, Angus

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Colville, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pinkerton, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Kinloch, Sir Jno. Geo. Smyth

  Pirie, Captain Duncan

  Daly, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Price, Robert John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Priestly, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Davitt, Michael

  Leng, Sir John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dillon, John

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Roche, Hon. Jas. (E. Kerry]

  Dunn, Sir William

  MacNeill, Jno. Gordon Swift

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Wilson, Jno. (Durham, Mid.)

  Spicer, Albert

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Woodall, William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld.)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Woods, Samuel

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mr. Samuel Smith and Mr. Souttar.

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.)

  NOES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Garfit, William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Mount, William George

  Baird, Jno. Geo. Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsb'y)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'hm (Bute)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Greville, Captain

  Myers, William Henry

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bris.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Penn, John

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bethell, Commander

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, James

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brassey, Albert

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hill, Col. Sir E. S. (Bristol)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth'r (Down)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstd.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Round, James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Howard, Joseph

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Hy. Cecil

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Seeley, Charles Hilton

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Sharp, William Edward T.

  Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kemp, George

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kenrick, William

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cox, Robert

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lafone, Alfred

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc S. W.)

  Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpl.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Usborne, Thomas

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpl.)

  Verney, Hon. Richard Greville

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir Jno. P.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Warkworth, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Drucker, A.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mncr.)

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Wyndham, George

  Finch, George H.

  M'Killop, James

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Finlay, Sir Rbt. Bannatyne

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Younger, William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION.
  *MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE: I rise to call attention to the state of the Poor Law, and to Move—
  "That the present state of administration requires the urgent attention of Her Majesty's Government."
  We have sufficient materials at present upon which the House can form an opinion, and upon which we can ask the Government to bring in measures of reform. We had recently a Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, a Select Committee with reference to the unemployed, and we have also had a Departmental Committee with regard to Poor Law children. Year by year the Local Government Board issues its reports, year by year Poor Law conferences are held, and the volumes containing their proceedings are issued, and year by year there is an increase in the amount of scientific literature on the subject. But it is especially with regard to the Poor Law children that I wish, briefly to call the attention of the House. The House is aware that there are a large number of children constantly being taken in and out of workhouses, always with the result, and generally with the intention, of depriving them of such education as had been provided for them by the State. With regard to the number of these children there are 238,000 dependent on the rates in Great Britain, 18,000 in London, and 14,000 in Metropolitan Poor Law schools. In these schools there were 63 per cent. of admissions and 64 per cent. of discharges in one year, and the case is recorded of one family being taken in and out of one workhouse alone 62 times within 13 months. Miss Davenport Hill, who, as the House knows, has devoted her life to work in regard to this matter, testified that the morals of the children are constantly being ruined. Not only are they deprived of their education, but they are brought into contact with disease and moral degradation.
  1430
  The effect upon the teachers is to dishearten them, and the effect upon the parents is to deaden all sense of responsibility with reference to the children they have brought into the world. The Master of the Whitechapel Union, a great authority upon this subject——
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not present.

  NEW BILLS.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
    To amend The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alexander Cross, Sir Walter Foster, Sir Charles Cameron, Sir William Priestley, Sir William Arrol, Dr. Farquharson, and Mr. Nicol.
    LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    To extend the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, to the Officers and Servants of other Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Sir Seymour King, Mr. Wanklyn, Sir Blundell Maple, Colonel Dalbiac, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. James Bailey, and Captain Norton.
    APPEAL FOR JURY (REPEAL) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    To amend The Court of Session Act, 1868, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.
    CHAIRMEN OF PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    To exempt certain Chairmen of Parish Councils in Scotland who have already taken the oath from again taking oath before acting as Justices of the Peace, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.
    SHERIFFS DEPUTE TENURE OF OFFICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    To amend the Law in regard to the tenure of office of Sheriffs Depute in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS OF THE PEACE AND COUNTY COUNCIL) BILL.
    To amend the Law with regard to Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of the County Council, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Luttrell, Sir A. Acland-Hood, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Courtenay Warner.
    WORKMEN'S HOUSE TENURE BILL.
    To make provision with respect to the Tenure of the Houses of Workmen in certain employments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colville, Mr. Souttar, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Holburn, and Mr. Wilson (Govan).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
    To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, the 30th March, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    To extend the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, to the Officers and Servants of other Local Authorities," presented, and read
    1432
    the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, the 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

    APPEAL FOR JURY (REPEAL) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    To amend the Court of Session Act, 1868," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, the 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
    CHAIRMEN OF PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    To exempt certain Chairmen of Parish Councils in Scotland who have already taken the oath from again taking oath before acting as Justices of the Peace, presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
    SHERIFFS-DEPUTE TENURE OF OFFICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    To amend the Law in regard to the tenure of Office of Sheriffs-Depute in Scotland, presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS OF THE PEACE AND COUNTY COUNCIL) BILL.
    To amend the Law with regard to Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of the County Council, presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

    WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
    To make provision with respect to the tenure of the Houses of Workmen in certain employments, presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, the 16th March, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
    The House adjourned at 7.50.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter to Four of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY) acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Blackpool Sea Water [H.L.]: Patriotic Assurance Company [H.L.]: Yeovil Gas [H.L.]. The same ordered to lie on the Table.
Halifax Corporation Bill [H.L.]: Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report of Her Majesty's Attorney-Genera], received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Agricultural Company of Mauritius Bill [H.L.]: Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Bill [H.L.]: Dundee Suburban Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]: Filey Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]: Newhaven and Seaforth Water Board Bill [H.L.]: Sheringham and Beeston Protection Bill [H.L.]. Examiner's Certificates of noncompliance with the Standing Orders, referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
General Power Distributing Company Bill [H.L.]. TO be read a second time on Tuesday, the 8th of March next.
Halifax Corporation Bill [H.L.]: Tod-morden Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]: Paisley Corporation (Loans) Bill [H.L.]. Read a second time.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read a second time (according to order).

REPORTS PRESENTED.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1898.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (FISH-CURING TRADE).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories appointed to inquire into the fish-curing trade of the United Kingdom: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE PROCEEDINGS.
  Report by the Board of Agriculture of their proceedings under the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1878, during the year ended 31st December, 1897.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (SPECIAL LICENCE TO BE AT LARGE).
  Licence to be granted to Henry Swinnerton under the provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (INDIA-RUBBER WORKS).
  Special rules with regard to the employment of persons in the process of vulcanising of india-rubber by means of bisulphide of carbon.
  POLICE PROPERTY ACT, 1897 (DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY).
  Regulations, dated 14th February, 1898, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of section 2 of the Police (Property) Act, 1897 (650 and 651 Victoria, chap. 30), with respect to the disposal of unclaimed property in the possession of the police.

  LIGHTHOUSES, ETC. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
  Reports to Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, of their inspection of local lighthouses, buoys, and beacons:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PUBLIC BILLS.
Bail Bill [H.L.]: Public Record Office Bill [H.L.]. To be read a second time on Thursday next.
Marine Insurance Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.
London University Commission Bill [H.L.]. To be read a second time on Monday next.

PUBLIC BILLS.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve as Chairmen of the Standing Committee:

  E. Halsbury (L. Chancellor.)

  V. Cross (L. Privy Seal.)

  E. Belmore.

  E. Morley.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Kimberley.

  L. Herschell.

  And that the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee:

  L. Archbishop of Canterbury.

  E. Halsbury (L. Chancellor.)

  L. Archbishop of York.

  D. Devonshire (L. President.)

  V. Cross (L. Privy Seal.)

  D. Bedford.

  D. Leeds.

  D. Rutland.

  M. Lansdowne.

  M. Salisbury.

  1336

  M. Bath.

  M. Exeter.

  M. Ripon.

  M. Breadalbane.

  E. Pembroke and Montgomery (L. Steward.)

  E. Denbigh.

  E. Stamford.

  E. Chesterfield.

  E. Jersey.

  E. Lauderdale.

  E. Carnwath.

  E. Cowper.

  E. Stanhope.

  E. Waldegrave.

  E. Buckinghamshire.

  E. Spencer.

  E. Clarendon.

  E. Belmore.

  E. Onslow.

  E. Grey.

  E. Morley.

  E. Vane (M. Londonderry.)

  E. Beauchamp.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Yarborough.

  E. Strafford.

  E. Kimberley.

  E. Wharncliffe.

  E. Selborne.

  E. Cranbrook.

  E. Ancaster.

  E. Crewe.

  V. Falkland.

  V. Sidmouth.

  V. Knutsford.

  V. Llandaff.

  V. Peel.

  L. Bishop London.

  L. Bishop Winchester.

  L. Clinton.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  L. Balfour of Burleigh.

  L. Boyle (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  L. Lovaine (E. Percy.)

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Churchill.

  L. Harris.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Rosebery (E. Rosebery.)

  L. Poltimore.

  L. Leigh.

  L. Wenlock.

  L. Belper.

  L. Lawrence.

  L. Aberdare.

  L. Norton.

  L. Shute (V. Barrington.)

  L. Watson.

  L. Rowton.

  L. Ampthill.

  1337

  L. Reay.

  L. Tweedmouth.

  L. Monk Bretton.

  L. Northbourne.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Lingen.

  L. Ashbourne.

  L. Herschell.

  L. Hillingdon.

  L. Thring.

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Cheylesmore.

  L. Morris.

  L. Iveagh.

  L. Mount Stephen.

  L. Rookwood.

  L. Ashcombe.

  L. Hawkesbury.

  L. Stanmore.

  L. Welby.

  L. Russell of Killowen.

  L. Burghclere.

  L. James.

  L. Pirbright.

  L. Glenesk.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE IN WEST AFRICA.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, before moving the Adjournment, perhaps, it may be convenient that I should read a telegram which I have received from Paris in reference to matters which have excited some attention. It is from Sir E. Monson, and reads as follows—
  "I placed in M. Hanotaux's hands, as soon as I could obtain an interview, a note, drawing his attention to the report which had been published this morning of a French advance into Sokoto, and I said that if the report was correct, the news must be regarded as having a very serious character. M. Hanotaux, in reply, told me that he had no knowledge of any such proceedings. If anything of the kind had occurred, it would have been done, not only without orders from the French Government, but against their wishes and instructions, as they had no desire of approaching Sokoto. He said that he did not believe the news to be true, and he has since communicated to me an assurance which he has received from the Minister of the Colonies, that there are no French troops in that region."
  House adjourned at 4.35 to Thursday next, 10.30.