Sitting of 26 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  Order for consideration, as amended road.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid of course he offered no opposition whatever to the Bill, but he wanted to know what was the position taken by the Government in regard to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee. The Amendments on the Paper in his name were all agreed Amendments. They were very numerous, but they were agreed to between the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council and the other local authorities, and they were entirely non-contentious. One of the Amendments was not to be moved, because it was objected to by the county council. He had now to express the hope that the chairman of the Joint Committee, Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth,

  1291
  would be good enough to say a few words as to the position taken up by himself and the other members of the Joint Committee as to what should be done next session. There was a strong desire that an equalisation of rates should be made extending over the entire townships. He congratulated the chairman of the Committee on having proposed the recommendations with the unanimous assent both of the Members of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords forming the Committee. He thought he had done them very considerable service, but at the same time he did not say that Dublin did not wish for considerably more than they had got. Still they would take what they could get. He was sure that Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth would back up his recommendations, and he trusted that the Government would be induced next session to bring in a Bill as suggested. This was not the first time that local government matters had been dealt with in public Bills.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Perhaps after the appeal made to me by my hon. and learned friend I shall be expected by the House to say a word or two, having had the honour to be chairman of the Joint Committee which for twenty-five days sat to consider this very contentious matter. We were practically unanimous, although we were unable to come to a unanimous view on some important points. Having failed to arrive at a unanimous view on those points, we did our best to arrange a compromise which, as we think, will carry out the main objects of the Bill, which are acceptable to us all. I am happy to say that in that we were successful. My hon. and learned friend has alluded to two points on which he is anxious to know what line the Government are likely to take. For that, of course, I cannot speak with any authority, but I should like to impress upon the Government publicly what I have done privately—namely, the justice and importance, and I might even say the necessity, of spreading the burden which now falls so heavily upon Central Dublin, upon the poorest of the poor, over the whole of Dublin, so that the richest townships, the residential parts of the town, should con tribute their proportion towards the burden of taxation. I attach great importance to that. I do not think the
  1292
  strong sense of injustice now existing among the inhabitants of the city of Dublin can possibly be overcome unless the Government apply the same principle to Dublin as has been applied with so much success to London in the shape of the equalisation of rates. If Belgravia did not contribute as much as it does to the rates which fall so heavily upon the East End of London there would be a great scandal. Now that has been remedied in London, and I hope Her Majesty's Government may feel the absolute necessity of applying the same principle as has been applied with so much success in London to lighten the burden falling upon the poorer parts of Dublin. There is another point on which the Committee made a unanimous recommendation, which I hope the Government will consider. We were convinced that it would be absolutely absurd if the two drainage systems were to continue to exist side by side over the drainage area in Dublin, one dealing with untreated sewage falling into the bay within the city walls, while the system now being carried out by the Corporation of Dublin treats its sewage in a scientific way, which results in a comparatively pure effluent being poured out at the very point where Rathmines and Pembroke are discharging the impure effluent. There would be a great advantage in having a joint drainage board to manage the whole business of drainage, and the advantage would not be confined to having the drainage treated alike over both parts. There would be an immense advantage in having the necessary burden spread over the rich districts as well as the poor. It would be a further advantage, in the opinion of the Committee, if the three governing bodies —Pembroke, Rathmines, and Dublin— were to work on the same board, as they might learn to respect each other in managing that great business together. I have ventured to press upon the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland the views of the Committee on this subject. I understand the position they take up is this—they assure those who are interested in the subject, as all members of the Committee necessarily are after their laborious inquiry, that they will give the most careful consideration to the Committee's suggestions, and that they will forward their answer to the corporation before the month of

  1293
  November, in order that the corporation may be free to take such steps as it feels it its duty to do, supposing the Government do not deal with the question. I earnestly hope that, in view of this special inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and of the unanimous recommendations to which they have been able to agree, Her Majesty's Government will take up those points. If the Committee's recommendations are carried out, we shall consider that very good fruit has resulted from our labours.
  Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
  Bill considered.
  A Clause added.
  Amendments made.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Galdwell.)
  MR. WHITMOREsaid that as a member of the Joint Committee he would be sorry if the House passed the Third Reading without an expression of opinion from some members of the Committee who sat on the Ministerial side of the House in support of the appeal made by the right hon. Baronet. He certainly was as much in earnest as the right hon. Baronet in hoping that the Government would give effect as soon as possible to the unanimous Report of the Joint Committee. He attached very great importance to the practical suggestions it contained. He was perfectly certain that the constitution of a joint drainage board would be fruitful of good results. It was rather interesting to remember that the Central Government of London really owed its existence to the institution of a drainage board for this great metropolis. While he personally felt unable to bring Rathmines and Pembroke, against their obvious desire, into the corporation, he did earnestly hope that the Government would give effect to the recommendations of the Committee.
  SIR ROBERT MOWBRAYsaid he should like to associate himself, also as a supporter of the Government, with the appeal made by the chairman of the Joint Committee and by his hon.
  1294
  friend the Member for Chelsea. He held the strongest possible opinion that this question should be settled on the lines they had recommended, and he earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Government would give serious attention to the recommendations of the Committee, and would carry them into law within a very short period of time.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought it was very greatly to be regretted that Government were, apparently, not ready to respond to the strong and unanimous appeal of the members of the Committee. It was unique, in the case of private Bills, that the members of the Conservative party as well as those belonging to the Liberal party on the Committee should join together in an appeal to the Government to make a statement as to their intentions on that particular subject. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether the Government would bring in a public Bill to carry out the recommendations, because, unless they did so, or announced their intention of doing so, the Dublin Corporation would be compelled in its own defence to undertake the expense of again introducing a private Bill to annex these two townships. If the Government would give the pledge asked for it would be a saving of public time and money.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I am not in a position to go beyond what has been already said by the First Lord of the Treasury— namely, that the matter will receive the careful consideration that a recommendation from so important a body as this Committee deserves. At the same time I must say, with reference to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, that on Friday I saw the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who made a similar request, and I informed him that, although I could not give him an answer at the present time, I would give him an answer before the end of November as to the course the Government intend to adopt—in other words, that a definite answer should be given by the Government before it becomes necessary that the corporation should go to any expense in the matter of bringing in a new Bill to deal with the question next year. I hope the answer will be satisfactory.
  MR, HARWOODsaid that, as the only other member of the Joint Committee in that House, he would like to support the appeal. Reference had been made to one side of the House and the other side of the House, but there had been no side of the House on the Committee. They were absolutely unanimous, not by any management, but by their own impulse. They believed that the state of the housing of the poor was a social danger in Dublin, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would give the matter his most careful attention.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
      NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
      Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  RAMSGATE CORPORATION IMPROVEMENTS BILL [Lords].
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered; an Amendment made.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Queen's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Clontarf Urban District Council Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.— (Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly considered, as amended.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill
  1296
  be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell)
  Queen's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  GLASGOW DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee. "—Debate arising,
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed upon Monday next. — (Mr. Caldwell.)
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed upon Monday next.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL AND CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Proceedings of the Joint Committee on the Dublin Corporation Bill and Clontarf Urban District Council Bill be printed. [No. 301.]
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills (Section A), with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company Bill, without amendment.
  That they have agreed to—London County Council (Money) Bill; Ilfracombe Improvement Bill, London and North Western Railway (Wales) Bill; East London Water Bill; London and North Western Railway Bill; Blackpool, St. Anne's, and Lytham Tramways Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to—Great Grimsby Street Tramways Bill [Lords], Margate Pier and Harbour Bill [Lords], Bury and District Water (Transfer) Bill [Lords], Preston Corporation Bill [Lords], without amendment.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MARRIAGE ACT, 1898.
  Return [presented 25th July] to be printed. [No. 299.]

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Manuscripts of Mrs. Frankland-Russell-Astley, of Chequers Court, Bucks [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Manuscripts of Lord Montagu, of Beau-lieu, Hants [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Manuscripts of Beverley Corporation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Copy presented, of Statistics of Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1899 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-sixth Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Section I. of the Appendix to the Sixty-sixth Report of the Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Section II. of the Appendix to the Sixty-sixth Report of the Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Section III. of the Appendix to the Sixty-sixth Report of the Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Section IV. of the Appendix to the Sixty-sixth Report of the Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  AFRICA (No. 6, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Preliminary Report by Her Majesty's Special Commissioner on the Protectorate of Uganda [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 300.]

  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
  Return ordered, "showing, according to the Accounts for the twelve months preceding the 31st day of March, 1900, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894—

  (1) The sanitary authorities to whom payments under the Act were made by the London County Council during the year;

  (2) The amount so received by each sanitary authority during the year;

  (3) The amount of the expenses incurred during the year by each such sanitary authority (a) under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (including expenses of scavenging streets); (b) in respect of lighting; and (c) in respect of streets (other than the expenses of scavenging); and

  (4) The amount expended during the year by each such sanitary authority out of the sums received by them under the Act;

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 323, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. T.W. Russell.)

QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK—RECENT NEWS—CHINA PAPERS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any news from China, and when the Papers relating to China will be laid on the Table.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,): We

  1299
  have no further news from China. There are many unconfirmed rumours from various quarters. But we have no official information. As regards China Papers, I hope they will be in the hands of Members on Monday next.

  HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS IN CHINA.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what arrangements have been made, or will be made, for the sick and wounded among the British troops in China.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Baling): With the troops proceeding from India, numbering about 9,600 officers and men, thirty-three sections of field hospitals are being sent (825 beds); and in reply to a query from me the Viceroy has telegraphed that "they are fully provided with medical stores, which need not be sent specially from England." In addition to these troops from India, about 1,400 British officers and men are proceeding from Hong Kong, South Africa, and England. I am asking Hong Kong what field hospitals were sent on with their contingent. Three hospital ships are being provided. One by the Government of India; one, the "Maine," by the generosity of the Atlantic Transport Company and the benevolent exertions of American ladies; and one by the munificence of his Highness the Maharaja Sindia of Gwalior. These will all be fully equipped in every respect. The "Maine" sailed from Southampton on the 11th instant. In addition to these vessels, General Gaselee has been authorised, should he deem it necessary, to convert three selected transports into hospital ships. As soon as he reaches Wei-hai-wei, General Gaselee will report fully on the suitability of that place for the location of his base hospitals.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR —HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS INQUIRY.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statement of Lord Justice Romer at the opening of the sitting of the South African Hospitals Commission, that he or his colleagues had been
  1300
  appointed by the warrant of the Prime Minister; and whether he can say what authority the Prime Minister has for the issue of such a warrant; and will he have-any objection to lay a copy of this document upon the Table.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Commission to which the hon. Gentleman refers is now a Royal Commission. Any Secretary of State, as the hon. Member is aware, has power to appoint a Commission.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was Lord Justice Romer correct or incorrect when he said that he was acting under the wan-ant of the Prime Minister?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He certainly received the warrant of the Prime Minister.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What was the authority of the Prime Minister to give that warrant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He is Secretary of State.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It should have been a warrant from the Crown. I beg now to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state why the South-African Hospitals Commission was not created by statute and invested by statute with powers of examining witnesses on oath, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and procuring documents.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There will be no difficulty in getting sufficient evidence. I certainly should not suggest the unusual course of making this a Statutory Commission until the necessity for it is demonstrated. Her Majesty gave her consent to this being a Royal Commission on the evening of Monday. I received it on Tuesday morning.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not the Pigott Commission a Statutory Commission?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Commission to-report on the arrangements for the care and treatment of the sick and wounded

  1301
  in South Africa has commenced its inquiry by virtue of a warrant issued by the Prime Minister; and, if so, what is the nature of this warrant, and by what authority, statutory or otherwise, has it been issued; whether it is intended to supersede this warrant by the issue of a Royal Commission; and, if so, when will the Royal Commission be issued; and, whether, seeing that compulsory powers to compel the attendance and examination of witnesses can be given by Parliament alone, he will at once introduce a Bill to confer these powers on the Commission, in accordance with numerous precedents.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have answered this question already.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: When was the Royal Warrant issued?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Her Majesty gave her assent on Monday evening, and I received it on Tuesday morning.

  MARTIAL LAW IN CAPE COLONY.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether martial law was proclaimed in the several districts of Cape Colony previously enumerated by the civil or the military authorities; whether it is still in force in these districts, and whether the proclamations were made by the civil or the military authorities.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Martial law was proclaimed by the Governor, and the proclamations were countersigned by the Prime Minister. Martial law has been withdrawn from three districts; from Cathcart and Queenstown by proclamation dated 16th July, and from Glen Grey by proclamation dated 23rd July.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—CIVIL SURGEONS—ALLEGED PLEDGE OF SECRECY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to give the House any further information respecting the statement that civil surgeons employed in South Africa have been required by the
  1302
  Army Medical Department to sign a contract in which they undertook not to divulge in any way what their impressions might be as to hospital matters.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No, Sir. No reply has as yet been received from Lord Roberts.
  DR. TANNER: When may we expect one?
  [No answer was given.]

  COMFORTS FOR THE TROOPS— FAILURES IN DELIVERY.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that quantities of warm clothing, tobacco, and other comforts sent from time to time to the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa have failed to reach their destination, notwithstanding every effort by the authorities in England; and that cablegrams have been sent from the Imperial Yeomanry offices in London and from the relatives of those engaged to the officer in charge of the base depot at Cape Town, and the reply prepaid, inquiring as to the non-delivery of parcels known to have arrived there, without receiving any reply; whether, in particular, a consignment of winter clothing and necessaries to the value of nearly £5,000, sent out to the Imperial Yeomanry at the front, was taken out to the Cape in the transport "Princess Royal," and actually brought back to London without having been landed; and, if so, will he state who is responsible, and will an inquiry be held.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An official complaint of the non-delivery of cases of stores despatched by the Imperial Yeomanry Committee has reached the War Office, and a full inquiry is being made at the various ports in South Africa. In the particular instance given the "British Princess" appears to be the transport intended; all the cases taken out in that vessel were landed.

  HONNEN SPRUIT DISASTER.
  CAPTAIN NORTON; I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether, at Honnen Spruit, near Kroonstad, on the 25th of June last, 300 ex-prisoners of war,

  1303
  sent from Pretoria to hold the spruit in anticipation of an attack by De Wet, were armed with old Westley-Richards and Mauser rifles surrendered by the Boers; that the party had no Maxims, and was without either a surgeon or hospital staff; whether, seeing that there were thousands of Mausers with a large supply of ammunition in Pretoria at the time, will he state who was responsible for the despatch of this force in such a condition; and whether he has been informed that the ignorance of the enemy as to the weapons with the force, coupled with Colonel Bullock's prompt action, alone saved the force from annihilation; and also that the safety of the wounded was entirely due to the voluntary services and marked resourcefulness of Dr. Lenthal Cheatle, one of the consulting surgeons sent to the front, who was a chance passenger by the train that was attacked.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no information at the War Office respecting the matters alluded to in the question.

  BOER WOMEN SENT TO THE ENEMY'S LINES.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if any further intelligence has been obtained relative to the sending Boer women living in the territory partially occupied by the English over into the Boer lines; and whether this action has the consent of Lord Roberts, and does it apply in its integrity to Boer women whose husbands are lighting for their country; and what is the number of women so treated, and by what method of conveyance are they forwarded.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. No information has been received.

  RESERVISTS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what increases have been made in respect of bounty, pay, and allowances for Army Reservists, Army time-expired Reservists, Militia, and Militia Reservists, respectively, since the beginning of the war in South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The chief increases have been in the rate of separation allowance granted to men's families, in the bounties granted to Militiamen re-
  1304
  engaging, and in the amount of furlough with pay to be given on demobilisation. Two new grants, as distinguished from increases to old grants, have been made, viz., the special bounty of £22 to the Royal Reservists, and the grant of halfpay to the families of men leaving Government employment to serve with the Army or embodied Militia.

  SOUTH CORK ARTILLERY MILITIA— CAMDEN FORT ACCIDENT.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inquest held on the 15th instant upon the body of Gunner John Addis, of the South Cork Artillery Militia, who was killed on Monday by the bursting of the breech of a 40-pounder gun at Camden Fort, county Cork; whether the gun was one of four that were injured before, whether it was an out-of-date pattern and had been condemned, and whether he can state what precautions are taken to test guns before artillery practice is entered upon; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the War Office will duly compensate the relatives of the deceased gunner, and also the other gunners who were wounded, one of them dangerously, upon that occasion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No further report has yet been received in regard to this matter.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I put this question down nine days since?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes. I have explained there has been one inquiry, and that the matter has been referred to experts on mechanical questions involved. One cannot hurry on such an inquiry.
  MR. FLYNN: I want to know if any compensation is to be given to the relatives of the deceased man.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no provision for the widows of men killed in the service beyond a year's pay. There is compensation payable for people incapacitated by accident.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the

  1305
  recruiting sergeants make these facts known?
  [No answer was given.]

  JERSEY MILITARY GARRISON.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the approximate annual cost to the Imperial Exchequer of maintaining the military garrison in the Island of Jersey.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The annual cost of the troops stationed at Jersey is approximately £91,000. But the whole of this cannot be considered as an additional charge on the British Exchequer arising from the defence of Jersey. If the infantry battalion were withdrawn we should still have to pay for it, and, in addition, we should have to provide a barrack for it elsewhere.

  ARMY HEAD-DRESS — SOLDIER'S DEATH AT YARMOUTH.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any inquiry has been held with reference to the death of William Ward, a private in the Prince of Wales' Own Norfolk Artillery Militia, at Yarmouth, on the 18th instant, which death is alleged to have been the result of sunstroke incurred on the journey from Sheerness on the previous day; whether Ward wore the field service cap or some other head-dress on the journey; and whether the War Office has yet come to any decision with regard to the future head-covering for our troops.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This man was taken ill at 4.30 p.m. on the 17th instant while on a baggage guard at the South Town Railway Station, Yarmouth. The inquest verdict was "heat, overwork." On the journey he wore a helmet, but when working under cover at the station he wore a forage cap; he did not work in the sun at all. Inquiry will be made into the allegation of over-work. I have dealt with the question of a new headdress in debate.

  SALFORD VOLUNTEER ENGINEERS.
  SIR J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any reply has yet been received at the War
  1306
  Office from Major-General Swaine, commanding the North-Western Division, with reference to the formation of a Volunter engineer corps whose headquarters would be within the Salford hundred of the county of Lancaster, and whether the offers of 1,000 men suitable for service in such a corps have been received; and whether he will undertake that the inefficiency of the arrangements in the formation of engineer Volunteer corps previously should not be used as an argument against the acceptance of so large a body of men under regulations made by the War Office sufficiently stringent to guarantee efficiency.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The recommendation from the General Officer commanding the North-Western District has now been received, and the Secretary of State for War is prepared to authorise the formation of a corps of four companies of Fortress Engineers.

  ALDERSHOT— RECREATIONS FOR TROOPS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the new canteens at Aldershot, shared by two battalions, have not met with general approval, he will consider the advisability of doing at home what Lord Roberts, when Commander-in-Chief in India, succeeded in doing there— namely, in making the recreation rooms more attractive by having entertainments in them instead of in the canteen, thereby encouraging a higher type of entertainment, while diminishing the temptations to drink.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The present design of recreation room includes a stage where entertainments can be given.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: My question is whether entertainments in canteens will be discouraged in favour of those in recreation rooms.
  [No answer was given.]

  RECRUITING—STATISTICS.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state what numbers, respectively, of fresh recruits and time-expired Army Reservists

  1307
  have joined the colours in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, for the six months ended 30th June last, and what were the numbers in the corresponding period of last year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The figures are as follows:—

  Recruits.

  1899.

  1900.

  England and Wales

  13,764

  22,028

  Scotland

  1,747

  2,860

  Ireland

  1,923

  2,343

  17,434

  27,231

  Re-enlisted men.

  England and Wales

  19,576

  Scotland

  2,825

  Ireland

  2,133

  24,534

  I may add that these figures do not give an accurate idea of nationality, as sometimes Irish regiments are quartered in England and English ones in Ireland.

  PROMOTION BOARD.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Promotion Board is still existing under the same organisation as heretofore; whether the promotions of all officers are considered by this Board or only those of generals and field rank; whether it is now the practice of the War Office to communicate to officers the decisions at which the Board have arrived, and whether the decisions of the Board are ever re-considered; whether the fitness of each officer to command in the field is decided by this Board; and whether, after the Board have reported an officer as competent to command in the field, and when under the test of active service such officer is ascertained not to be so qualified, any re-consideration of his qualifications takes place, or whether his name is retained on the qualified list, and the opinion of the Board prevails over the test of actual experience in the field.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Promotion Board exists under the same organisation as before. Its function is to report on colonels and lieutenant-colonels of three years standing as regards their fitness for promotion and employment. The decisions are communicated to the officers reported on when the Commander-in-
  1308
  Chief considers it desirable. It is open to the Board to reconsider its decisions. The fitness of each officer to command in the field is not decided by the Board, but by the Commander-in-Chief.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Am I to understand that in all cases the decisions of the Board are communicated to the officers or not?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is a matter in the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can you give the names of the members of the Board?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think there will be no objection if the hon. Member will put down a question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: They are very superior persons, I am sure.

  ARMSTRONG'S MANCHESTER WORKS —WAGES.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are 120 joiners employed at the works of the firm of Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whit-worth and Co., Limited, Manchester, Government contractors for guns, ammunition, etc., and that these men are paid at the rate of 36s. per week of fifty-three hours, a few only being paid 37s. 6d. per week, though the rate of wages throughout this district is 9½d. per hour, or 39s. 2d. per week of 49½ hours; whether he is aware that a deputation from the workmen recently met the manager and pointed out to him that they were not receiving the average rate of wages paid in the district, and that the manager declined to pay the same wages as other employers were paying; and whether, seeing that this is a breach of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons (February, 1891), he will cause an inquiry to be made with a view of giving effect to the terms of the said resolution.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): I have caused inquiry to be made into the allegations contained in the question, and I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result when it is arrived at.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL—ACCIDENT IN 1881—JAMES QUINLAN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the promise to inquire into the case of James Quinlan, who mot with an accident when working in Woolwich Arsenal in 1881, will be redeemed; whether he is aware that Quinlan is at present in hospital, and has never recovered from the injuries indicted while at Government work; whether medical certificates proving the injuries Quinlan suffered from will be taken into account, and whether he can state why his pension has not been granted and his sick pay never given; and whether the case will be thoroughly inquired into and substantial compensation awarded Quinlan.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: A promise was given to inquire further into the case, provided sufficient details were supplied to enable it to be identified. The honourable Member has not yet supplied the necessary information. If he will do so, I shall be happy to have the case thoroughly considered.
  DR. TANNER: What information does the hon. Gentleman want?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The part of the factory in which he was employed, and the date on which he entered the service.
  DR. TANNER: Why did not the hon. Gentleman tell me that three months ago?

  DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been recently directed to the condition of the laundry at the Duke of York's School; whether he is aware that the present building and arrangements have been described by the medical officer as old-fashioned, antiquated, insanitary, and unsatisfactory, and by a War Office Committee as deficient in labour-saving appliances, and causing an atmosphere unbearable when drying or folding clothes in wet weather; and whether he will endeavour to remedy a state of matters which has been further condemned by the Visiting Committee to the Board as not in a creditable state for a Government building.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Yes, Sir; I believe the facts to be as stated. We have hitherto been prevented from renewing the plant and from carrying out the improvements asked for by want of funds. The matter will be carefully considered with the Estimates for next year.

  FRENCH SUBMARINE BOATS.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the report that during the naval manœuvres of the French fleet the submarine boats "Narval" and "Morse" went through their various trials without a hitch.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): My attention is invariably called to anything interesting and instructive in connection with foreign fleets, and which may be regarded as authentic.

  H.M.S. "REVENGE" — CORDITE EXPLOSION.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now inform the House of the result of the inquiry by the Ordnance Committee into the cause or origin of the explosion of cordite in the magazine of H.M.S. "Revenge," in the Mediterranean some months ago.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The cause or origin of the explosion of cordite in the magazine of H.M.S. "Revenge" is still under consideration by the Ordnance Committee. On May 9th that Committee made an interim Report, in which they summarised the facts of the case, and stated that they had asked for some further information and were awaiting this and the result of certain trials that were being carried out. From the evidence then before them they were unable to assign any cause for the said explosion.

  FIRST SEA LORD—OFFICIAL RESIDENCE.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether representation was made by their Lordships to the Treasury respecting the making provision of a suitable residence for the First Sea Lord in Queen Anne's

  1311
  Gate, so that he should be near the Admiralty for the better discharge of his official duties, especially in time of war; whether, on the expiration of the lease of the house recently occupied by the late First Sea Lord, the landlord was willing to renew the lease at an increased rental of only £100, and did the Admiralty submit the proposal for Treasury approval, and with what result; and, seeing that in the evidence before the Duke of Somerset's Committee of 1871, stress was laid on the importance of one or more Sea Lords residing in the vicinity of the Admiralty, whether further representations will be made to the First Commissioner of Works, and to the Treasury, as to the necessity of thus meeting the wishes of the Admiralty in this matter in the interests of the public service.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is not the custom to communicate to the House Departmental correspondence of the kind referred to. I am in agreement with the Committee of 1871, as to the importance of the Senior Naval Lord residing in the vicinity of the Admiralty, and as I stated in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh, endeavours are being made to arrive at a settlement.

  COMMITTEE ON NAVY BOILERS.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of. the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the constitution of the Committee on Boilers for Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not yet in a position to state the constitution of the Committee in question. Many persons have to be communicated with. I may possibly be in a position to answer the question on Monday, but I cannot pledge myself to a day.

  THE VISIT OF THE SHAH OF PERSIA —SUGGESTED NAVAL REVIEW.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Shah of Persia, on his forthcoming visit to Her Majesty the Queen, is to witness a Naval Review, similar to that witnessed by his late predecessor; if so, will he state whether arrangements will be made, and vessels provided, for the Members of both Houses of Parliament to take part in the procession and review.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is a misunderstanding that there is going to be a Naval Review. The Channel squadron and probably a certain number of other ships will be at Spit head for inspection by the Shah, but there will be no procession or review.

  THE SAILING TRAINING SQUADRON.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that nearly nine months have now elapsed since the training squadron was put out of commission and laid up on 31st October, 1899, the Admiralty have arrived at any conclusion as to re-commissioning the squadron; if not, can he state the cause of the delay in arriving at a conclusion, and when a decision is likely to be reached; does he, in the meantime, propose to take any measures for providing the Navy with any training squadron whatever; or does he contemplate the advisability of leaving the Navy without any training squadron of any description; has he received reports showing that the captains of the Fleet are generally convinced that the sailing training squadron produces officers with qualities of excellence that cannot be obtained by any other training; if not, will he, before deciding to abolish the training squadron, take measures to ascertain the opinion of the captains, and communicate the general results of his inquiry to the House; and will he, in any case, before deciding to abolish the squadron, give this House an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Admiralty have not arrived at a final decision with regard to re-commissioning the masted training squadron. Their crews were turned over to a similar number of modern ships in which their general training is being continued. The sea training of the officers and men of the Navy is now being carried on in the sea-going ships in commission, over 200 in number. I have not received reports showing that the captains of the Fleet are generally convinced that the sailing training squadron produces officers with qualities not to be obtained by any other training; opinion in the service is much divided in this respect. It is open to the hon. Member to discuss the matter in question, should he wish to do so, when the Naval Estimates are before the House. No immediate decision is likely to be come to.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to abolish the squadron before the next Navy Estimates are introduced?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot give any undertaking of that kind, but I think it is highly improbable that a decision will be come to before then.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then will the right hon. Gentleman take measures to inform himself of the opinions of the captains, as suggested in the third part of the question?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It would be most unusual and undesirable for the Board of Admiralty, in forming their decisions, for which they alone are responsible, to refer to the service afloat in the way suggested. Their Lordships would, no doubt, to a great extent be guided by the opinions of experienced officers in the service, but it must remain with the Board—on whose shoulders responsibility rests, and who must necessarily have wider information as to the calls made on the Navy—to decide how far the opinions of those who have not the same information nor responsibilities can be accepted with regard to the requirements of the service.

  COAL SUPPLY—RESERVE FOR NAVAL PURPOSES —PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the fact that the exports of coal from this country to France have increased during two years from 2,670,000 tons to 4,230,000 tons for a period of six months.
  MR. FIRBANK: I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the supplies of coal which are daily being shipped to foreign countries for storage for naval purposes; and whether, as the Government are bringing in a Bill to check the exportation of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores from Great Britain, he will consider the desirability of extending the provisions of the Bill so as to include so important a munition of war as steam coal for foreign navies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the facts as regards the export of coal are as
  1314
  stated. The Bill which awaits Third Reading in the House of Lords does apply to coal as well as to other naval and military stores.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS—FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. A. H. A. MORTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the methods of calculating the rates of interest (which were settled by the Bank of England), regarding the termination in 1884 and and 1886 of the Eastern Bengal and Scinde Railway contracts, have never been checked or investigated by the India Office; and, if no knowledge of this financial transaction is on record at the India Office, whether he will now seek to secure this information for official purposes, and also for publication.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: In the cases to which the question refers the contracts prescribed that the rate of interest should be determined by the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. As I stated on Monday last,* I have no knowledge of the manner in which they calculated the rate, and it would have been most improper for the Secretary of State for India to interfere. I do not propose to take any such steps as are suggested in the latter part of the question.

  BRITISH OFFICERS IN INDIAN NATIVE REGIMENTS.
  MR. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the estimated annual cost to be incurred by the proposed addition of ninety-two European officers to Punjab and Bengal native regiments; and whether these officers will be always selected from the Indian Staff Corps, or from officers of British regiments serving their term in India, in some cases, appointed by patronage or by the Commander-in-Chief; and whether selections for these additional officers could be made from experienced native commissioned officers already borne on the strength of these Punjab and Bengal regiments.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The addition of ninety-two British officers to the Indian Establishment will involve a
  * See page 865 of this volume.

  1315
  gradually increasing expenditure, which it is estimated will eventually amount, about twenty-five years hence, to about eight and a quarter lakhs of rupees per annum. These officers will form an increase to the Indian Staff Corps, which is recruited partly by appointments direct; from Sandhurst, and partly, under strictly defined regulations, from British regiments serving in India. The object of the measure is to increase the number of British officers in India, and this obviously would not be attained by selecting native commissioned officers.

  INDIAN TRADE STATISTICS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will give in separate figures the value of manufactured articles and raw materials respectively which are comprised in the general headings "Export of Merchandise," and "Imports of Merchandise," in the table relating to trade at page 9 of his Explanatory Memorandum for 1900–1901.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member will find the details for which he asks at pages 24 and 25 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

  THE "KOWSHING."
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the case of the "Kowshing" has ever been submitted to arbitration; if it has been so submitted, can he state with what result; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay.
  MR. BRODRICK: The case has not yet been submitted to arbitration, and the delay has arisen in consequence of a difference of opinion between the Chinese Minister and Her Majesty's Government with regard to the terms of reference, which the Minister has been obliged to refer to his Government.

  VACCINE LYMPH.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received information of the bacterial impurity of the vaccine lymph now or recently supplied for vaccination;
  1316
  whether he is aware that certain brands of lymph, including that supplied by the Local Government Board, have developed colonies of germs, rendering their use improper for vaccination; and whether he will prohibit the use of such lymphs in vaccination until freedom from contamination by them may be ensured.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): In reply to the first paragraph, I have received no information as to the bacterial impurity of the vaccine lymph now or recently supplied by the Local Government Board which renders its use improper for vaccination. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the negative.

  FOOD PRESERVATIVES.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state when the Departmental Committee on the use of preservatives in food may be expected to report; whether he is aware that summonses are being now issued by local authorities for adding to Devonshire clotted cream a small quantity of boracic acid solely as a preservative; and whether he will communicate to such local authorities the undesirability of proceeding with prosecutions on this point until the Report of the Departmental Committee has been issued.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am informed that some delay has been occasioned by a series of experiments the issue of which will not be known for some months yet, but the Committee hope to complete their Report by the end of this year. I understand that some local authorities have recently instituted proceedings in cases such as those referred to in the question. The Local Government Board, however, have no authority to prevent such proceedings being taken, and they could not undertake to interfere with the discretion of local authorities in the matter.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to communicate to the local authorities the fact that the Committee will report by the end of this year?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No doubt the information will reach them in due course.
  MR. LAMBERT: But it will have more weight if sent direct.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I do not see any necessity for it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As this is a matter which affects Ireland, I will ask, if it be considered a reasonable request, that the Home Office should issue a circular to magistrates advising them to defer prosecutions in relation to these matters until the scientific point has been settled.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot give any advice to the Home Office.

  DIDSBURY VOLUNTARY SCHOOL RATE.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in the township of Didsbury, Manchester, a voluntary school rate is applied for by the collector of, and in conjunction with, the ordinary rates of the township, and in some cases on the same demand note; and whether the Board has taken any, and what, action in the matter.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am aware of the facts referred to in the question. The Local Government Board have made inquiry into the matter, and they informed the collector on the 24th instant that the demand note for a voluntary rate should not be sent out with the demand for a compulsory rate. I understand that in a few cases the demand for the voluntary rate was made on the same demand note as the poor and general district rate. It was done without the collector's instructions by one of his clerks, and the collector immediately stopped it.

  BURNLEY MINERS—CHECK-WEIGHING CLAUSES.
  MR. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now given full consideration to the petitions presented to him on behalf of a section of the miners of the Burnley district to be relieved from their present exemption, and to be placed under the provisions of the weighing clauses of the Mines Regulation Acts; whether he has caused examination to be
  1318
  made into the genuineness of these petitions, showing as they do in the case of the pits in question an almost unanimous desire on the part of the underground workers to be placed under the protection of the ordinary law regulating the payment of wages calculated by weight and not by measurement; whether he has received an assurance that such an inquiry, or a ballot jointly conducted on behalf both of the employers and employed, would be welcomed by the miners themselves; and whether, seeing that the Secretary of State has the power, under the Mines Regulation Acts, to make an order enforcing the check-weighing clauses of those Acts in respect of any mine or group of mines, on being satisfied as to the feeling among the miners employed in the mines in question, he will make an order giving them the protection accorded by Parliament to miners in general.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,: The matter has been constantly before both myself and my predecessors, and I have again considered it very carefully. I am satisfied that the signatures to the recent petitions are genuine, but on the other hand they do not show by any means an unanimous desire on the part of the miners for the revocation of the exemptions. I am not, however, in favour of continuing the exemptions unless it is clear that it is desirable in the best interests of all parties. But the matter appears to me to be so difficult that I have resolved to direct a special inquiry to be held, at which the representatives of all persons interested can be heard.

  DANGEROUS TRADES REGULATIONS —REDUCTION OF ARSENIC.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an inquiry was held in 1899 into the nature of employment in the extraction of arsenic; whether he has received a Report upon the subject; and, if so, whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether it is proposed to amend the existing special rules relating to this employment.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I instituted an inquiry last year with regard to the

  1319
  health of the persons employed in certain works for the reduction of arsenic in Devon and Cornwall. I have not yet received the final Report on this inquiry, but I gather from an interim Report made some time ago that it is not likely that the establishment of any new special rules in those works will be necessary.
  MR. TENNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Papers when the Report is completed?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I should think there will be no objection to that.

  MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION— PLYMOUTH LABORATORY—STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government made it a condition, when granting a subsidy to the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, that space should be provided for the carrying on of investigation by such official bodies as the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade; and whether any naturalist has ever been employed by the Board of Trade or other Government authority to make investigations on fishes at the Plymouth Laboratory; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): In 1885 the Treasury, when agreeing to a grant to the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, made it a condition "that the Council undertakes to place space in the Plymouth Laboratory at the disposal of any competent investigator deputed by a recognised authority to carry out any investigation into fish questions which the laboratory can give facilities." The Board of Trade have never employed any naturalist to make investigations on fishes at the laboratory, and they have no staff or funds to devote to such a purpose. I have no information as to what has been done by other Government authorities.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has ever consulted the council of the Marine Biological Association (a body in receipt of public money) on any subject connected with fisheries; and, if so, when and on what subject, and
  1320
  in particular whether the council was consulted with regard to the Bill dealing with undersized fish, now withdrawn.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade have occasionally consulted the council of the Marine Biological Association on fishery subjects. The latest occasion had reference to the question of the fisheries exhibit at the Paris Exhibition. The inspectors of the Board of Trade have on many occasions consulted the officials of the association in an informal manner. The association were not directly consulted by the Board of Trade as to the Bill dealing with undersized fish, which, however, was founded on the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1893, who took evidence from the association.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Marine Biological Association was consulted with respect to the Fisheries Conference held at Stockholm last year, to which Her Majesty's Government sent several delegates; whether any delegate was selected from the staff or council of that association; and whether he will consider the advisability both of increasing the Government grant to the association to £2,000 a year, and at the same time making use of the information so paid for before entering upon restrictive legislation or international agreements with regard to fishing matters.
  MR. RITCHIE: So far as I am aware the Marine Biological Association were not consulted with respect to the Fisheries. Conference at Stockholm, and no delegate-was selected from the staff or council of that association. The question of increasing the grant of public money to the association is one for the consideration of the Treasury. Any information or advice that may be afforded by the association will always receive careful consideration from the Board of Trade, who are most desirous of acting in friendly relation with the association.

  JERSEY PASSENGER STEAMER SERVICE.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that passenger steamers from Jersey to England are often delayed for two or three hours at Guernsey, and

  1321
  whether he would make representations to the railway companies concerned to minimise this delay.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have communicated with the railway companies concerned, and understand that the delays to which the hon. Member refers are chiefly due to the fact that the steamers in question are cargo as well as passenger vessels. The matter is not one in which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction, but I am assured that everything practicable is done to minimise delay.

  RAILWAY PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.
  SIR CAMERON GULL (Devonshire, Barnstaple): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the railway companies have come to an arrangement as to the amount of passengers' luggage which they will allow to be carried free of charge; and whether he can state the rates which are to be charged for excess luggage.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade have not at present received any further communication from the Railway Association, and I am not, therefore, in a position to say whether the railway companies have adopted any concerted action in the matter. I have, however, seen it stated that some of them have agreed to an allowance of free luggage of 150, 120 and 100 lbs.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY FARES.
  MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that the daily double journey between Hornsey and King's Cross costs first class passengers about 6d., second class passengers about 4½d., and third class passengers 8d.; and whether he will endeavour to obtain a proportionate equalisation of rates in the treatment of third with the other classes of passengers.
  MR. RITCHIE: I will communicate with the Great Northern Railway Company upon the subject of the hon. Member's question, and inform him of the result.

  SUBURBAN RAILWAY FARES.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has information, or could procure information,
  1322
  to make a Return showing the comparative cost for the conveyance of first, second, and third class passengers upon the London and suburban railways.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; I am afraid not. The maximum powers of charge are of course laid down by the Acts of the several companies; but the actual comparative cost of conveyance would be impossible to obtain with accuracy.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY—LABOUR DISPUTE.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet approached the directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company and the representatives of the railway men, with a view to inducing them to accept arbitration under the terms of the Conciliation Act, 1896; and if not, whether he will hasten to do so, in view of the imminent danger of great public inconvenience arising from the cessation of traffic on one of the chief lines in the country.
  The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a dispute has arisen between the directors and a section of the workmen on the Great Eastern Railway, and that a number of the men propose to hand in their strike notices early in August; and whether he can intervene, so as to avert an open conflict; and if so, under what conditions would he be prepared to act.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the industrial crisis on the Great Eastern Railway; whether either the directors or the workmen have applied for the intercession of the Board of Trade; and whether he has any possible ground of intervention to avert the inconvenience to the public and the dislocation of trade which must arise from the refusal of the directors to treat with the representatives whom the workpeople have selected.
  MR. RITCHIE: There are several questions on this subject. The matter has, of course, been receiving my careful attention, but perhaps the best way of

  1323
  informing the House as to the present position of affairs will be to read a letter which I have addressed to Mr. Bell. The letter is as follows—
  "Board of Trade,
  "Whitehall Gardens, S. W.,
  "July 26, 1900.
  "Sir,—Mr. Ritchie desires me to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 24th inst., and to say that reading your letter together with that of the chairman of the Great Eastern Railway, which has appeared in the press, it seems to him that any difference there may be between the position taken up by Lord Claud Hamilton and yourself on behalf of the railway servants does not warrant anything in the nature of a strike, such as Mr. Ritchie sees is in contemplation, and which would be attended with the greatest inconvenience to the travelling public, especially at this period of the year. He therefore desires me to say that the first condition of any advice he may offer in connection with the dispute is that any idea of a cessation of work by the railway servants at present should be abandoned.
  "With regard to the question in dispute, Mr. Ritchie observes that it is not what concessions, if any, should be made to the railway servants by the company, but how an interview between the directors of the company and their employees for the discussion of the points at issue can be secured. The chairman of the Great Eastern Railway has, Mr. Ritchie notices, expressed on behalf of himself and his colleagues their willingness to receive deputations of their employees in grades, though not collectively. Mr. Ritchie is of opinion that this is a reasonable condition to impose. It is obvious that a much more effective and useful discussion of alleged grievances can thus be secured. It also appears to Mr. Ritchie that such deputations should consist of persons freely elected by the employees, regardless of whether they belong to the Amalgamated Society or not, and that any meeting at which the delegates are elected should be a meeting summoned in such a way as not to give to it the character of having been called together under the auspices of any section of the employees.
  "If the course indicated by Mr. Ritchie is adopted he cannot doubt, having regard to the declarations made by Lord Claud Hamilton, that the directors of the Great Eastern Railway will readily consent to receive and to discuss the points at issue with the delegates duly elected in the manner suggested."
  I may say that I have had an interview with Mr. Bell, and I have good reason to hope that the suggestions I make will be favourably received.

  LAND REVENUE RECORDS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, seeing that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, given in 1864, regarding the records and documents in the Land Revenue Record Office, is thirty-six years
  1324
  old, and that the law appertaining to estates which have escheated to the Crown through want of ownership has been altered and simplified in the meantime by the 50 and 51 Vic., c. 53 — Escheat (Procedure) Act, 1887—he will at once advise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests in future to allow inspection and copies of all Court Rolls relating to manorial properties held by the Crown, on payment of the legal fees, for the convenience of legitimate claimants.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The passing of the Escheat (Procedure) Act, 1887, does not appear to afford any reason for altering the rules regarding inspection by the public of documents in the Land Revenue Record Office. A rule allowing to persons who are not copyholders inspection and copies of all Court Rolls relating to manorial properties held by the Crown would be objectionable, particularly as the Rolls are the records of the tenant's rather than the lord's title. The present rules appear to be proper, and in special cases such as those alluded to in the question applications for leave to inspect documents can always be made to the Commissioners of Woods, and will be duly considered.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if any progress is being made towards the promised increase of accommodation for Members of this House.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The vacating of Sir Reginald Palgrave's residence has set free a considerable amount of accommodation on the Terrace front, and I am having plans prepared showing how it could be utilised for the convenience of Members. The scheme shows that large and costly structural alterations are involved, such as it has never been the practice to carry out without a recommendation from a Committee of the House. I propose, therefore, at the commencement of next session to move the appointment of a Select Committee on the accommodation of the House, and to lay these plans before it.

  COMMITTEE ROOMS — OUTSIDE BLINDS—VENTILATION.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will arrange before next summer to have outside blinds fixed to the windows of the committee rooms facing the south and the west, of which the temperature last week, during the protracted sittings of the Standing Committee on Trade, owing to the absence of outside blinds, obliged several Members to leave the committee room.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg, at the same time, to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has had recently under consideration the question of ventilation of the committee rooms and dining rooms of this House; and, if so, whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: In reply to these questions, I have to say that I have been giving attention to the subjects referred to, and that I propose to ask the Treasury to sanction provision in the Estimates to enable mo to proceed with the improvements in the ventilation of the committee rooms by means of electric fans, in accordance with the arrangements in the rooms already satisfactorily treated. As an accessory measure, and to provide a more comfortable atmosphere, I hope to have outside blinds fitted before next summer.

  NORWOOD GREEN (MIDDLESEX) POSTAL DELIVERIES.
  MR. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is possible to improve the collection and delivery of letters, which have been for so long a time defective, in Norwood Green, Middlesex; and, if it be possible, whether the Department will proceed forthwith to make the necessary improvement.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General regrets to find that on several days recently the delivery of letters in the neighbourhood of Norwood Green was delayed owing to the illness of the postman. The service is now being worked with punctuality.

  STRAW HATS FOR POSTMEN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if attention will be given to the supplying of straw hats in the present hot weather to postmen in lieu of the kepi, and if some alteration will be made in the present summer uniform; and can he state whether postmen are required to wear waistcoats tightly buttoned up in this weather.
  MR. HANBURY: Postmen are already supplied with serge uniform for summer wear. Postmen in London are also supplied with a light summer shako. In hot weather the men are allowed to wear straw hats, though they are not a part of the official uniform. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. STEADMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the order as to the wearing of straw hats in London is not general? Will he make it so?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not an order; it is a permission.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is it true that postmen on very hot days are punished if they take their coats off and carry them on their arms? Can that not be allowed?
  MR. HANBURY: I will consult the Post Office authorities as to that.
  DR. TANNER: Seeing that other uniformed servants are not required to wear waistcoats, cannot the same regulation be applied to postmen?
  MR. HANBURY: I said the answer to the second paragraph was in the negative.
  MR. STEADMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that permission to wear straw hats has not been given to the postmen in the East End of London yet?
  [No answer was given.]

  POSTMEN'S HOLIDAYS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can see his

  1327
  way to allowing overseers to sign a special holiday sheet, instead of blocking postmen out for the better portions of the year for their holiday season.
  MR. HANBURY: At all offices, where the arrangements permit it, postmen sign a separate holiday sheet, but this cannot be done everywhere without injustice to some of the persons affected or waste of force. The postmen receive their annual leave during the eight months from March to October inclusive.

  SORTERS' EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there is either rule or practice at present in the Post Office Department by which candidates for the position of sorter or telegraph learner in head provincial offices, who at their first examination do not gain the minimum percentage for appointment, are excluded from ever again being admitted to examination; whether a similar rule prevails in any other branch of the public service; and whether arrangements will be made in this Department, as in all other branches of the Civil Service, to admit candidates within the prescribed limits of age irrespective of previous failures at examinations.
  MR. HANBURY: Where positions as sorters or learners in the Post Office service are offered as the result of open Competition, competitors who have been unsuccessful are allowed to compete again so long as they are within the limits of age. There are, however, chiefly at the smaller offices, posts which are filled by nomination subject to a qualifying Civil Service examination, and persons who have received nominations, but reach such a low standard in the examination that their ultimate success is improbable, are not as a rule allowed to try again, it being in their own interests that they should at once seek more suitable employment.

  THE DISTRICT MESSENGER COMPANY.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he state whether the District Messenger Company pays any royalty or tax to the
  1328
  Post Office; and, if so, what the amount of the royalty is, how it is calculated, and where the amount will be found in any accounts laid beford the House; on what ground the royalty in question is exacted from the company, and whether in pursuance of any judicial decision affirming the liability of the company to pay it; has the Post Office, since the establishment of the company, organised a special service with the special object of competing with the company; and, if so, has this special service resulted so far in a loss or in a profit to the Post Office; and will the Post Office, in view of the great and increasing use to the public of the District Messenger Company's services, consider the propriety of ceasing to exact from the company the royalty hitherto paid by it.
  MR. HANBURY: The company pays a royalty on telegraph call boxes calculated at the rate of 6d. per call box, with a general royalty of £25 per annum. This royalty is exacted on account of the company's operations in the use of such call boxes being an infringement of the Postmaster General's telegraph monopoly. On the 14 th of April, 1891, a decree was made by the Queen's Bench Division restraining the company from transmitting telegrams and conveying letters in violation of the exclusive privileges conferred upon the Postmaster General; and the company has since carried on business as regards telegrams and letters under the licence and authority of the Postmaster General. The company is required to pay to the Postmaster General 1d. upon each letter which it delivers, and pay over such postage to the Postmaster General. On the other hand, the Postmaster General pays to the company for services rendered ½d. per letter out of moneys voted by Parliament. The amounts paid over by the company appear in the finance accounts presented to Parliament under the heading of "Gross Receipts." They are not shown separately. The Post Office organised an express delivery service for the purpose of meeting a public want as soon as this was ascertained to exist, and the service is largely used by the public. Its establishment has not resulted in a loss to the Department, and it is believed to be profitable; but owing to its being worked in connection with the other services of the Department it is not possible to state exactly the amount of profit earned. It

  1329
  is not proposed to make any further reduction in the Royalty upon call boxes, or to increase the payment made to the company for the delivery of letters.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask my right hon. friend whether he can arrange that this royalty shall appear separately in the finance account, and whether he is aware that eleven out of nineteen Cabinet Ministers are box-holders?
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot say anything about the latter point, but with regard to a separate account I think a Return ought to be made to the House showing what the expenses are.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will my right hon. friend agree to a Return if I move for it?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not like to reply for the Post Office, but I should think there would be no difficulty about it.

  JUNIOR CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why it is proposed to amend the rules of the Civil Service Commissioners, which provided that those who passed the Junior Civil Service Examinations could, when competing for other Civil Service examinations, deduct from their actual ago any time up to five years which they may have spent in the service, so that a junior can now only deduct one year when competing for an Excise assistant-ship; whether he is aware that this rule would operate hardly against persons who entered the service under the old rules; and whether he will take steps to exempt from the operations of the new rule the said persons.
  MR. HANBURY: The principal reason for this change was that it is considered inexpedient in the interests of the public service that anyone should become an assistant of Excise at an ago exceeding twenty-three years. More than a year's notice of this change was given, as it will not come into force until July next; so that anyone interested has ample time to make his arrangements. There seems no reason for any further postponement of a desirable reform. No vested interest in the old regulations can be recognised.

  CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has taken any steps to carry out the suggestions made by him with a view to increasing the wages of deserving Customs watchers after a certain number of years service; and can he hold out any hopes that such improved conditions of service will be assured to these men.
  MR. HANBURY: Yes; improved conditions of service will be assured to the more deserving Customs watchers after a certain number of years service.

  SCOTTISH SHERIFF COURT PROCEDURE.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if any report has yet been received from the Departmental Committee on Sheriff Court Procedure appointed more than two years ago; and, if such report has been received, whether the Government propose to take any action on the same; and, if no report has yet been made, can he state when the same may be expected.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Report has not yet been made, nor can I name any definite time at which it may be expected. The reference to the Committee was a very wide one, and the constitution of the Committee is such that it can only meet during the winter months.

  CARRICKMACROSS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the number of admissions to the Carrickmacross workhouse during the past year, according to the report recently issued by the local board, appears to be about twice as great as the admissions to Castleblaney and Monaghan workhouses, although the valuation of Carrickmacross union is only about half the valuation of Monaghan and less valuation than Castle blaney union; whether he is aware that the admissions to the Carrickmacross workhouse during the past twelve months was about three times as great as to Clones workhouse, and that the 2,172 admissions to Carrickmacross workhouse during the year were almost entirely composed of tramps or casuals; and whether the Local Government Board inspector for

  1331
  Carrickmacross district has reported on this matter and suggested any remedy; and, if not, will he ask for a report, with a view to preventing further loss to the ratepayers of Carrickmacross union by having to support a number of persons who do not belong to the district.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds,): The figures in the first and second paragraphs are approximately correct. The Local Government Board are not aware that the admissions to the Carrickmacross workhouse during the past year were almost entirely composed of tramps or casuals, though it is probable that a large proportion of the admissions did belong to this class. The Board's inspector has made no special recommendations as to the relief to be afforded to the tramps, but the Board have issued circulars on the subject to boards of guardians from time to time, and are prepared to instruct the inspector to confer with the Carrickmacross guardians at any time in the matter should the guardians so desire.

  DROMORE RIVER FLOODS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at recent meetings of the Monaghan County Council complaints were made against the Board of Works and the Lough Erne Drainage Board in consequence of the flooding of thousands of acres of land between Ballybay, Sporthall, and Coot-hill, owing to the want of drainage of the river passing through these districts; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of the flooding of the districts mentioned by clearing an obstruction in the Dromore river near Tullyvin, and thus prevent a loss of the crops of the people holding land in the low-lying districts between Ballybay and Tullyvin.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Representations to the effect mentioned in the first paragraph have already been made by the County Council to the Board of Public Works, and the matter has been investigated by that Department, who have informed the Council that as the Dromore river is not within the area of any drainage district no steps can be taken by the Board with a view to the removal of the obstruction complained of.

  LIMERICK TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the telegraph messengers of Limerick are entitled to receive one halfpenny per message on all messages they deliver, he will explain why this payment has been withheld from them during the past three months; and, will he take steps for the arrears to be paid and the rule of one halfpenny per message to be observed regularly in future.
  MR. HANBURY: It is not the case that the telegraph messengers are entitled to receive one halfpenny per message on all messages they deliver. The payment made to them is already high and cannot be increased; and no arrears are due.

  CAHIR POST OFFICE.
  MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the intention of the Department to build a new post office in the town of Cahir, county Tipperary; and if so, when will they be prepared to commence the work of building it.
  MR. HANBURY: A scheme for the erection of a new post office at Cahir is under the consideration of the Post Office, but has not yet been sanctioned by the Postmaster General. I cannot, therefore, state when the building is likely to be commenced.

  DUBLIN SORTING STAFF.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to a memorial received by the Controller, Dublin, over three months ago, from members of the Dublin staff complaining of punishments for the mis-sending of letters, alleging that the increase in mis-sending was due to insufficiency of time at roads, and the quick rate at which p.m. despatching officers have to sort correspondence, the sorting of letters on the new divisions, and asking that letter-despatching officers be exempt from sorting at the primary tables in the evening; and can he state whether the memorial has been acknowledged yet; and if so, with what result.
  MR. HANBURY: The memorial was duly received and acknowledged by the Controller, Dublin. Inquiry has shown that some additional force is necessary on evening duty in the Dublin Sorting Office, and steps are being taken to afford relief. For the present extra staff is brought on duty whenever it is known that the work will be heavier than the average. The bulk of the mis-sending is found to be confined to comparatively few men, and increases when these men are on duty. No record of mis-sending is made against any officer when there is any doubt as to his responsibility.

  COUNTY KILKENNY POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can explain the delay in establishing the house to house delivery of letters in the townlands of Boggan and Blanchfieldboy, county Kilkenny, and say when it will come into operation.
  MR. HANBURY: A house-to-house delivery of letters once a week was commenced on the 18th of June in the town-lands of Boggan and Blanchfieldboy, county Kilkenny. There are very few letters for these places, and a more frequent delivery is not at present warranted.

  COAGH (TYRONE) POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has recived a further detailed statement from the residents of Coagh, county Tyrone, suggesting how the defects in their postal service could be remedied at slight, if any, cost; and, whether the Coagh memorial praying for redress, which was refused last year on the ground of expense, will be reconsidered in view of the fresh information furnished.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has received a further detailed statement from the inhabitants of Coagh, county Tyrone, suggesting how a better postal service to that place could be provided. The desired improvements, however, could not be afforded without considerable additional cost. Even if a
  1334
  service between Cookstown and Coagh could be provided at practically the same cost as the present service between Moneymore and Coagh, which does not seem likely, considerable additional expenditure would still be necessary in order to maintain the existing delivery to places on the road between Moneymore and Coagh; and such expenditure would not be warranted.

  BUNDORAN MAILS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience entailed on the inhabitants of Bundoran by the delay in the day mails from Dublin and the consequent inability to reply by evening post to letters received by those mails; whether he is aware that the Bundoran letters are sent by the 6.5 a.m. train from Dublin, viâ Portadown and Omagh; are detained at Omagh, where they arrive at 9.30 a.m., till 12.25; do not reach Bundoran till 3 p.m.; and are not delivered till 4 p.m., the time when the evening mail goes out; whether he is aware that, while an express train leaves Dublin at 9 a.m., and reaches Bundoran, viâ Clones, at 1.40 p.m., the letters for Bundoran are sent some hours earlier and reach Bundoran some hours later than the parcel post, which is sent by this train; whether letters for Bundoran could be sent from Dublin by the 6.5 a.m. train, which arrives in Enniskillen at 10.5 a.m. and be taken up by the express passing Enniskillen at 12.33, and due in Bundoran at 1.40; and whether immediate steps will be taken to secure that letters should reach Bundoran from Dublin in time to be answered by the evening post.
  MR. HANBURY: These letters now arrive at Bundoran at 2.25 p.m., and are sent out for delivery at 2.50 p.m. Some persons, however, living near the end of the delivery do not receive them in time to post replies for the return mail at 4 p.m. During the summer months an express train, as stated in the question, leaves Dublin at 9 a.m., and to reach Bundoran at 1.40 p.m. This train, however, could not be used for correspondence from Omagh and other places north of Dundalk, and even if it were used for the mails from Dublin, it is doubtful whether the residents at Bundoran would

  1335
  be willing that the afternoon delivery should be made before the arrival of the correspondence from Omagh, etc. The question whether a double service to Bundoran would be justified during the summer is being considered, and if that is found to be the case, inquiry shall be made as to the wishes of the residents in regard to the time of the delivery.

  DRUMCONRATH POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a memorial influentially signed by the gentry and traders of Drumconrath, asking for the establishment of direct postal communication between Drumconrath and Nobber; and whether it is intended to establish the service asked for; and, if so, when.
  MR. HANBURY: This memorial has been received. It is proposed to arrange for the postman from Nobber and the postman from Drumconrath to meet every week day at Summerhill and exchange letters. By this means local letters will be available to callers at the Post Office at either place shortly after one o'clock on the day of despatch. This arrangement will be commenced at an early date.

  CORK POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has considered the memorial presented more than twelve months ago from the residents of Ashburton, Dillon's Cross, Mayfield, and neighbourhood on the north-east side of the city of Cork, to have a post office established at Dillon's Cross, the district being at present only served by a wall letter-box; and whether, in view of the fact that the nearest post office is a mile away from the greater portion of the district in question, which is one where the population is increasing and many new houses are being built, and of the inconvenience caused by the present want of postal facilities in this important and growing district, a post office will be opened there, as requested.
  MR. HANBURY: No such memorial has been received. The Postmaster General has called for a report, and will communicate his decision upon it in due course to the hon. Member.

  CLONES WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that dissatisfaction exists among the inhabitants of Clones with the quality of the water supplied to that town; and can he say when a report upon the condition of the filter beds of this supply was received from the sanitary officer; and will he instruct the Local Government Board to send an inspector to Clones to report upon this matter, so that all apprehension as to the purity of the water may be allayed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No representations have been made to the Local Government Board as to the quality of the Clones water supply, and the Board are unable to say when a report upon the condition of the filter beds was received from the sanitary officer. The medical inspector of the Board has been directed to make special inquiries into the matter on the occasion of his next visit to Clones.

  ROSSAVALLEY (FERMANAGH) TENANTRY.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why the tenants of Rossavalley, county Fermanagh, who purchased their holdings from Messrs. Bracken and Gordon, joint landlords, in November, 1898, have had to pay, and are still paying, half-yearly instalments to the Irish Land Commission at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum on the purchase money, whilst the tenants on the adjoining estate of the Commissioners of Education, who purchased about the same time, had to pay instalments at the rate of only 4 per cent. per annum.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This question refers to interest in lieu of rent payable by the tenants to the vendor pending the completion of the sale, and not to half-yearly instalments of annuities payable to the Land Commission. The amount of interest payable in such circumstances is a matter of agreement between the tenants and the landlord.

  IRISH PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange for an annual return of the number of new public-house licences granted and extinguished in each quarter sessions division in Ireland, showing in each case whether the new licence was granted in substitution for an existing licence.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to Table 60 in the volume of Judicial Statistics (Ireland) for 1899, recently presented to Parliament, the information in which may serve the purpose he has in view. If not, perhaps he will communicate with me further in the matter.

  THE BREHON LAWS.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can say whether any and what progress is being made towards the publication of the promised volumes of the Irish Brehon Laws; and whether, on account of the death in July, 1899, of the Eight Rev. Dr. Graves, one of the Brehon Law Commissioners, he deems it advisable to appoint another Gaelic scholar in his place, and so expedite the work of publication, and give confidence to all who feel interested in the due preparation of the volumes.
  MR. HANBURY: The Glossary, which will form Volume 6 of the series, is nearly completed, and it is hoped that it will be ready for printing, together with Volume 5, by Christmas. No special steps are therefore necessary to expedite the work of publication.

  IRISH TENANCY CONTRACTS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland have yet obtained a test case to determine the question as to whether contracts of tenancy are to disqualify persons from being members of district councils whose tenants they are; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to settle the matter by a decision of the higher courts.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have taken proceedings in a case where a rural district
  1338
  councillor was a tenant of a labourer's cottage, but as the magistrates convicted and imposed a nominal fine the case did not come before the higher courts. The magistrates' decision in this case was communicated by circular to all rural district councils. The Board have instructed their solicitors to endeavour to obtain a test case to decide the question in the higher courts.

  MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state why the county Meath was not allowed to adopt the Staffordshire bye-law as to resignation of members of the county council.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware whether the Staffordshire bye-law requires confirmation by any Government Department. The County Meath bye-law, in the opinion of the Irish law officers, was ultra vires.

  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what steps have been taken by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Company to carry out the undertaking embodied in their agreement with the Treasury of the year 1898 to construct a direct line of railway between Cork and Fermoy; and whether a contract for the construction of the line has yet been entered into; and when work on the line is likely to be commenced.
  MR. HANBURY: No steps have been taken towards the construction of this portion of the company's undertaking, and no contract has been entered into. No portion whatever of the proposed Treasury grant of £93,000 will be paid until at least half of each line (that from Fermoy to Cork, as well as that from Rosslare to Waterford) is completed, and the grant as a whole is dependent upon the whole work being completed before 1st August, 1904. The £93,000 payable to the Treasury by the company has been allowed to remain outstanding at a low rate of interest; but in view of the apparent reluctance to begin the Fermoy and Cork portion of the undertaking I propose to require the immediate payment of this sum, unless satisfactory assurance is at

  1339
  once given that the Fermoy and Cork branch will be undertaken without further delay and completed before August, 1904.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Has any portion of the line been surveyed?
  MR. HANBURY: I have no information beyond that I have given.

  SUTTON TO CENSURE RAILWAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway Company have, without legal authority, removed the fence of the public road from Sutton to Censure, and constructed a railway partly on its site and partly on private land, and raised over a foot above the public road, but unfenced therefrom; and whether, seeing that the only power enjoyed by the company in regard to the highway between these points is, under their Act of 1897, to make a tramway along the public road and with the rails level with the road, the Irish Executive will take any steps for the public protection, and the vindication of the law affecting highways.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Anything the Great Northern Railway Company have done they have done either at the suggestion or with the consent of the county survey or, the officer of the road authority, and for the protection and convenience of the public. On the limited information in my possession it would undoubtedly appear to me that prima facie the provisions of the statute have not been strictly observed. I shall carefully consider all the facts.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has a County of Dublin grand jury power to suspend the law in Ireland?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH RAILWAY AMALGAMATION BILL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the possibility of the Railway Amalgamation Bill now before Parliament, which would establish a railway monopoly over nearly three-fourths of the entire area of Ireland, becoming law, he can say whether the Government intend,
  1340
  and if so when, to create some tribunal, cheap and easy of access, in Ireland, other than the existing Railway and Canal Commissioners, to which Irish traders and passengers can appeal in causes of complaint in the matter of railway rates, fares, and facilities against railway companies; whether he can state what powers (if any) the Irish Department of Agriculture have to deal with such railway questions; and whether it is proposed to give to that Department the powers now possessed by the Railway and Canal Commissioners to deal with them, or in what other way the Government propose to meet the necessities of the case.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to the first and third paragraphs of the question is that the passing of the Bill referred to by the hon. Gentleman will be accompanied by powers obviating the necessity for creating a tribunal dealing with the question as between the railway company and the public. The Department of Agriculture has power to appear on behalf of aggrieved persons before the Railway Commissioners, and to pay the cost out of their funds.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: What are the powers which the right hon. Gentleman says will obviate an appeal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid the hon. Member must give notice of that question. I have supplied all the information I have.

  IRISH TENANTS AND POOR RATE DEDUCTIONS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government propose to insert a clause in the Local Government (Ireland) Amendment Act to define the rights of tenants to deduct half the poor rate from the landlord, and also a regulation to separate the poor rate from other rates on demand note.
  MR. ATKINSON: If the hon. Member will refer to the Bill he will observe that the matter is already sufficiently provided for.

  POTATO CROP—EXPERIMENTS WITH ELECTRICAL CONDUCTORS.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland if he can

  1341
  now state what are the results of the inquiry promised regarding certain experiments made by Mr. O'Sullivan, of Athea, county Limerick, in the improvement of the potato crop by the introduction of electricity through lightning conductors distributed through the crops by means of wires, by which it was stated that an increase of 80 per cent. was shown.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): A Departmental inspector has visited Athea to make inquiry on this i subject. The inspector reported that the experiments conducted last year by Mr. O'Sullivan to test the influence of electricity on the growth of potatoes were too limited in extent to warrant conclusive deductions. Similar experiments on a larger scale are, it is stated, in progress this year under Mr. O'Sullivan's direction, and will be watched with interest by the Department.

  IRISH SCHOOL TEACHERS' BONUS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether teachers of the National schools (Ireland) who, under the old regulations, were entitled to an annual bonus, will get credit for these amounts when the new salaries under the new rules are being fixed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Existing teachers who have hitherto been entitled to an annual bonus will get credit for the amount when the new salaries are being determined.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' INCOME.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a memorandum as to provisional payments of income to teachers of National schools issued in June last by the National Education Board, Ireland, in which a section of paragraph 5 laid down that if a teacher's results period did not usually terminate till the 31st May, he would be paid as the June quarter's remittance (a) £20, the equivalent of twelve months results fees, etc.; (b) two months salary, etc., up to the 31st May, 1900, at the old rate, equal to £13 6s. 8d.; and
  1342
  (c) one month's consolidated income from the 1st June, 1900, namely, £8 6s. 8d., or a total sum of £41 13s. 4d. would be remitted to him; and in the event of items (b) and (c) having been remitted in such cases and item (a) withheld, can he say why, and whether item (a) will be made good to the teachers.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The promises contained in the memorandum referred to are being fully carried out. Payments under (a) take a little longer time to determine than those under (b) and (c), but all such amounts falling due in the June quarter will have been discharged about the close of the current month.

  TEACHERS IN POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what steps it is proposed to take to safeguard the interests of the teachers in contributory unions in view of the fact that the direct grant, now to be included in the Education Estimates, is considerably less than the results hitherto paid by these unions.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: For the future, existing teachers of National schools in unions that have hitherto been contributory will have included in their income from State sources the moneys voted by the unions. In the case of future teachers no disparity will exist.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state definitely what arrangements will be made to secure that National teachers in workhouses will suffer no loss from the abolition of result fees, and that an allowance will be made to them corresponding in amount to that hitherto allowed by the guardians for result fees.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not think I can add to the statement already made by me in answer to the previous question of the hon. Member, namely, that it will be open to the guardians to pay to teachers in workhouse schools a bonus equivalent to the average of the results fees for the last three years after each examination, if the report of the inspector upon the school be in every respect satisfactory

  CANADIAN EXPORTS TO GERMANY.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the Tariff Law passed by the German Reichstag, pending the negotiations for the Commercial Treaty with the British Empire, specially excluded Canada and Barbados from the most-favoured-nation treatment for their products, on the grounds that Canada and Barbados had specially given preferential advantages under their tariff laws to the British Empire, and had not admitted other countries to these advantages; whether he is aware that this discrimination against the products of Canada, which was enacted because Canada had, as above stated, discriminated in favour of the mother country, has diminished the importation of Canadian products into Germany; and whether there is any intention to offer her any compensating advantages in trade.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no accurate information as regards the grounds on which the Government have taken action, nor as to the effect of that action on the imports from Canada to Germany. As regards the last paragraph of the question, my hon. friend is probably aware that the exports of Canada to this country are already free.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us what will be the business next week, and I would specially ask him whether the Report of the Colonial Office Vote will be taken at such a time as will permit of further discussion. Yesterday we had a short discussion, which was closured, and there was no opportunity for detailed inquiries which Members desired to make.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that yesterday's was a short discussion. It lasted until half-past seven o'clock, as the House knows, and was nearly as long as it would have been on the night I intended to set apart for the Vote, though on an appeal from the right hon. Gentleman I transferred the discussion to a Wednesday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I merely mentioned that it was closured.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought there was some undercurrent of objection. As regards the Report stage of the Vote, there is one opportunity on which the Report of Votes can be taken at an early hour—the last day of Supply. The Government hare no views as to how that day up to ten o'clock should be allocated, and I would certainly regard what may be any general wish. On Monday next the first business will be the resolution to introduce the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether the House would desire to take a general discussion at that stage or to defer it until the Second Reading stage. For various reasons I think it would be more convenient to defer discussion until the Second Reading, because I am anxious to proceed with the Companies Bill on Monday.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement be made by resolution in Committee of Ways and Means?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a very important notice down on the motion to go into Committee?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware of it, and I regret to hear it.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Brodie Hoare, Mr. Charles M'Arthur, and Sir James Wood-house; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Round, Mr. Kemp, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham).
Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. H. S. Foster, Mr. Flower, and Mr. Yerburgh; and had appointed in substitution: The Lord Advocate, Mr. Loder, Colonel Milward, and Viscount Cranborne.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES RELIEF BILL [Lords.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 313.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Beer Retailers' and Spirit Grocers' Licences (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have agreed to—Amendment to Inebriates Amendment (Scotland) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to Amend the Law relating to the Exportation of Arms, Ammunition, and Military and Naval Stores." Prohibition of Exportation of Arms Bill [Lords].

PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 314.]
QUARRIES (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Order for Committee [this day] read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
Order for Committee read.

THE INDIAN BUDGET.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The statement I propose to make to the House, as those acquainted with the finances of India are aware, covers a period of three years, and the period with which I have to deal commences with April, 1898, and terminates in April, 1901. In two out of those three years a drought of unparalleled dimensions, intensity and duration has upset the normal finances of the year, and inflicted terrible sufferings on a large portion of the population of India. I believe the House takes more interest in the cause of this abnormal affliction than in the ordinary prosaic comparisons between the revenue of different years. So I propose to devote a considerable part of my statement to describing the extent, progress, and future prospects of this terrible calamity. It is the practice in this country always to
1346
designate an affliction of this kind by the word "famine." But I do not think that word, although perhaps it may be the best word in our language, quite accurately designates the primary cause of an affliction of this character, and certainly does not convey to those who read about famine all the consequential evils entailed by drought. As the House is aware, India is one of the most purely agricultural countries in the world. Eighty per cent. of the population are usually engaged in agriculture, and agriculture in India, as elsewhere, is dependent on rain. But rain only falls at certain periods, and during the rest of the year a condition of more or less heat prevails. If rain fails during the periods when it ordinarily falls drought obtains possession of the area not touched by rain, and not only is there a lamentable curtailment of food supply to those living in the localities where there is no rain, but all means of earning wages ceases. It is very difficult to bring home to those of us who live in a densely populated country like Great Britain, where occupations are so diversified and varied and independent of climatic conditions, what terrible industrial paralysis the failure of the monsoon causes to those districts in India which are not adequately watered. The supply of food is almost the least of the difficulties with which the Indian Government have to contend. There is always a sufficiency of food in the great continent of India, even in years of drought. Owing to the increase of communication and the development of railway enterprise that food can with greater ease be carried to the districts which are distressed. The real difficulty is that of distribution and the supervision of distribution. Cattle are the only means of transport in rural India. In a period of drought vegetation ceases and cattle die. The number of officials at the disposal of the Indian Government is limited, and it is absolutely impossible to organise a system of supervision of distribution which would enable food to be brought to the multitudinous villages, and consequently it becomes necessary to take people from their villages and aggregate them in various places where supervision may be exercised and distribution of food may be made effective. Therefore the House should bear in mind that when a calamity of this kind occurs it is not merely that people are deprived of their crops, but all means

1347
of earning a livelihood disappear, vegetation ceases, their cattle die, and to keep them alive it is necessary to have recourse to the dislocation of the whole system of village and agricultural communities in India. All these difficulties the people in the distressed districts have borne with consummate patience and resignation, and I am glad to say there has been a remarkable absence of crime throughout the great majority of these districts. The House may perhaps like to know what are the dimensions of the present famine. Taking the most accurate data we have of the last three serious droughts, we find that in 1876 the area affected was 205,000 square miles and the population 36,000,000. In 1896 the area affected was 275,000 square miles and the population 52,000,000. This year I am sorry to say the area affected beats the record. It is 420,000 square miles and contains 62,000,000 of people. I am sorry to say the intensity and duration of the drought within that area is greater than in preceding droughts. The number of people on relief works in the last great drought on 1st January was 636,000. This year on 1st January the number was 2,750,000. On 14th July, in the last drought, the number in receipt of relief was 3,300,000; the number at the same time this year was 6,100,000. Now if we dismiss temporarily from our minds the enormous aggregate mass of suffering, both physical and mental, that this affliction has imposed upon the localities it has touched, and look simply at the material loss which these localities have sustained, the figures assume most serious dimensions It is very difficult to get accurate agricultural statistics as regards the edible crops, because a large proportion is consumed in the districts producing them, but we have more accurate statistics relating to the great agricultural exports, and I take these as an illustration of the loss which the country has sustained, putting on one side all other considerations. The wheat crop in a normal year is estimated to amount in value to £21,000,000. This year I am informed it cannot be more than £10,000,000. There is a loss in that one particular crop of £14,000,000. The cotton industry employs a larger number of persons than any other industry except agriculture. I mean not only in the cultivation of cotton, but also in the processes of manufacture, and she
1348
cotton industry largely depends upon the supply of raw material from Indian sources. The value of the cotton crop in a normal year is £12,000,000. This year it cannot be more than £5,000,000. Another very lucrative crop is that of oil seeds. The average value of that crop is not less than £18,000,000. This year it has disappeared altogether outside the Northern Provinces. I am informed on reliable authority that the reduction in the harvest in Bombay cannot be put at less than £15,000,000, excluding the frightful loss in cattle. Notwithstanding these tremendous losses, so large is India, so variable is its climate, and so unfailing is the law of compensation— that which is to the detriment of one province being very often to the benefit of another—that if we had only had to deal with one year's drought, I should, from the financial point of view, have been able to lay before the House an eminently satisfactory statement. But I am sorry to say that the reports of the last few days have not been at all satisfactory as regards the position of the monsoon, and we cannot dismiss the possibility that there may be a partial failure of the monsoon this year. Before I deal with the accounts, I may perhaps point out to the House that they are now stated in sterling; previously they were stated in tens of rupees. In the time of the East India Company the rupee was converted at 1s. 10½d., but in 1857–58 the exchange value was altered to 2s., a most convenient figure, introducing an unauthorised kind of decimal coinage. In the course of time the rupee steadily fell in value, and the difference between the nominal and the actual value became so great that it became necessary to alter the form of the accounts, and we took to stating the transactions in tens of rupees. That practice continued for some little time, but as during the past two years the exchange value has scarcely vaied fromr 1s. 4d. the Government in September last declared a gold standard in India, and we thought it a favourable opportunity to state all transactions in pounds sterling at the rate of 15 rupees to the pound. The first year I have to deal with is 1898–99. I estimated last year a surplus of £2,700,000; the actual surplus realised was £2,640,000. For the year 1899–1900 the Finance Minister estimated a surplus of £2,600,000. He anticipated a normal year and made no special provision for famine. During the year a very

1349
heavy expenditure has had to be incurred in connection with the famine, and very large remissions of revenue have also had to be made. These in the aggregate amount to very nearly £3,500,000. But the whole of that amount is not an additional charge against revenue. Every year there is included in the expenditure a certain sum which is allotted to famine. If no famine occurs, that money is used either in constructing protective famine works, or in reducing the debt. In the year in question £730,000 was so available, and that has been used for the purpose of direct famine relief. Therefore the amount of additional charge caused by the famine is only £2,631,000. That, of course, is a very large deduction from the original estimate, but I am glad to say that we have had certain windfalls, and certain branches of revenue show such an improvement that I have more than a corresponding balance to show on the other side. Army expenditure is much less in consequence of the European contingent which has gone to South Africa. The railways have given a very good return, nearly half a million in excess of the Estimate. Telegraphs also show a large increase, and the gain on revenue generally is nearly £1,400,000. Adding to this reductions in expenditure we get a gain on the Budget of last year of £2,870,000, and putting that against the loss caused by the famine, the first year of famine expenditure, after paying all expenses connected with the famine, closed with the substantial surplus of £2,800,000. That put us in a position of exceptional financial strength for dealing with the famine expenditure of this year. When, therefore, Mr. Dawkins had to balance the expenditure and the income for the year, he estimated that he might safely rely upon a normal monsoon for this year, a monsoon which would be adequate in its volume and effective in its distribution. Inasmuch as it was the west of India that was affected by this drought, parts which had not for a century known lack of rain, his estimate seemed to be a prudent one, and one upon which we thought we might safely rely. But I am sorry to say that during the past ten days the accounts of the behaviour of the monsoon have not been at all satisfactory, and I am afraid that we must contemplate a very considerable expenditure over and above that which the Indian Government
1350
estimated in March last. For this year, after all the expenditure and all the loss of revenue inflicted on the Government of India by drought, they thought they might rely on a surplus of £160,000. About eight days ago I got the revised account. The monsoon had then broken well, and the Indian Government thought would not be necessary to make any much larger provision than they included in the original estimate, and they informed me that they thought the surplus for this year would be about £50,000. Now the monsoon was very late this year. In recent years the Meteorological Department have established a direct connection between the fall of rain in India and the height of the Nile flood in Egypt. For the last twenty years, when there has been a failure of rain in India, the Nile flood has been low. Last year the flood was one of the lowest on record, and the failure of the monsoon was exceptionally bad. This year the Nile flood was normal, and that inspires the hope that ultimately the monsoon will fulfil its normal course. But on Tuesday night I received a telegram from the Viceroy in which he stated that after consulting with the Finance Department, he had come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to provide for an additional £1,200,000 for famine relief and the remission of land revenues. So that, instead of a surplus of £160,000, a deficit of £826,000 is now contemplated. I will read a telegram from the Viceroy, which states the facts upon which this estimate of increased expenditure is based. It is dated Simla, 25th July, 9 a.m.—
"Since my famine telegram to you of 20th July, conditions have changed decidedly for worse. No rain has since fallen in the Punjab, Sind, or Gujerat; insignificant rain in North Western Provinces, Bombay, Deccan, and Rajputana. On West Coast ordinary monsoon current has failed, and there are no present indications of revival. It is, therefore, not impossible that we may be faced, at any rate in Gujerat, Kathiawar, Baroda, and South-West Rajputana, with a far more serious situation than has yet arisen, while should monsoon continue to hold off a large part of India may be in for a second consecutive year of famine."
Then Lord Curzon, with his characteristic vigour, adds—
"I am going down myself on Monday to Gujerat to spend a week in the distressed districts and personally inspect the state of affairs."
The Viceroy and Lord Northcote will consult together, and before the end of

1351
the week we shall no doubt have a further report of the state of affairs. I have now a telegram from the Governor of Bombay of the same date as the Viceroy's telegram, but despatched at 4.15 p.m. As he is much nearer to the distressed area, we may assume that this telegram is some twenty-four hours later than Lord Curzon's—
"Your telegram, 21st July. Rainfall has been generally sufficient for agricultural purposes in Surat and Southern Gujerat States. Some rain has fallen in part of Broach, where cotton sowings being actively prosecuted; but more rain is urgently required in Kaira, Ahmedabad, Panch Mahals. Rain not sufficient for agricultural purposes except in a few places. Two-and-a-half inches of rain have fallen since yesterday, Godhra, Panch Mahals; one in several parts Ahmedabad; over half an inch in parts Kaira; rain sufficient in parts Baroda, adjoining Surat; no rain anywhere in Okhamandal division, Baroda; rainfall to date insufficient in the remainder of Baroda, where extensive failure of crops inevitable unless good rain falls in a few days."
The area most severely threatened is a part of Bombay known as Gujerat, the richest and most fertile of the provinces of Western India, and for 100 years it has not known what drought is. It is a great cattle-breeding district and a country where the people to a large extent live upon a milk diet. We have in that part of the country only four small collectorships, and these are exceedingly difficult to administer, because they are inhabited by a great number of the non-Aryan aboriginal tribes, who are not easy to manage in times of drought. They are surrounded by native territories, which have not the same supplies and efficiency of administration as in our territories, and they are liable to be flooded with fugitives from the distressed native territories. There are four districts, and in the first rain has fallen; in the others rain is required. The Governor of Bombay's telegram proceeds as follows —
"No rain worth mentioning has fallen in any of the districts of Kathiawar, excepting small area south-east, where also more rain is urgently needed. Cultivation at a standstill for want of rain in almost the whole province. No signs of rain. Season is far advanced for sowing jowar staple cereal, but bajri can be still mostly substituted for jowar. Still time for cotton. Cattle dying from starvation. Scarcity of water increasing day by day."
This refers to the northern portion of Gujerat, which has suffered exceptionally, and where the death-rate for
1352
June has increased by nearly one-half over the death-rate for May. As regards ways and means, I propose to raise a loan of £3,000,000. For some time past I have made arrangements for inviting applications, and these will be asked for on Friday next. It will be part of the unexpended balance of the borrowing powers which I obtained three years ago. I assumed at that time that the greater portion of it would be spent in the next two years; but our finances have been so good that I have still £9,000,000 unexpended. After consultation with my advisers, I am of opinion that I shall be able, with that and other resources, to meet any demands which the Viceroy or the Government of Bombay may make between now and the end of October, even assuming that the rainfall this year is a partial failure. If the rains are propitious the loan will cover the requirements for the whole financial year. But, of course, there may be difficulties. We may not be able to make available our existing credit; and in that case we shall appeal unhesitatingly to the British Treasury. I have always held that where life can be saved by expenditure the whole financial resources of the Indian Government must be utilised; and that if, owing to untoward circumstances, we are unable to utilise our credit, Her Majesty's Government will in that case come to her assistance.
MR. MACLEAN: Will that be a free grant?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member must not anticipate. In dealing with the complicated conditions of this famine it is impossible for me now to anticipate the exact shape which that assistance ought to take. My hon. friend is under the impression that the Indian Government have been somewhat curtailed in their expenditure by desire for economy. I have had a table prepared of the total amount which the famine has cost India, and of the ways and means which we have, without any financial embarrassment, been able to apply to meet this exceptional expenditure. There has been spent, or provision has been made for spending, £6,190,000 in direct relief. Remission of land revenue and other reductions amount to £3,473,000. Loans to Native States for the purpose of meeting the famine have been £2,347,000;

1353
and advances to individuals have amounted to £1,098,000. That is an aggregate disbursement on the part of the Indian Government of upwards of £13,100,000 sterling in two years. Nobody who realises the magnitude of these figures can say—as has been said in some quarters—that there has been an attempt to run this famine on the cheap. No demand of the Government of India or of Bombay has been refused; we have complied with every requisition, and shall continue to do so as long as the object is the saving of life. Let us see how far success or failure has attended our efforts. A very considerable portion of the area now affected by drought was similarly affected three years ago; and any one who did not very carefully study the consequences and effects of the Indian drought and famine would naturally suppose that the mortality would be higher in the districts which had been twice affected than in the districts affected for the first time. But, curiously enough, exactly the reverse is the case. In 1897 the Central Provinces, which suffered for the first time, were terribly afflicted by scarcity, and there was a heavy mortality. This year they have been even harder hit, and there is a larger proportion of the people on relief works. But, except for those districts where epidemics have broken out, the mortality has been low. The conclusion at which I have arrived from a careful study of the famine of 1896–97, and from my previous experience of the famine of 1874, is that the first essential of successful famine administration is to get the people to come in early to the relief works, when they are still in good physical condition. If that is done, then it is easy enough; but if, on the other hand, from various reasons, the people will not come on the relief works until the last stage of exhaustion and inanition, their vitality is so low that it is almost beyond the powers of the authorities to revive them. They bring with them the germs of disease, which they communicate to healthy persons who are engaged on these works. Almost all the criticisms which have been hostile to the administration of famine relief have been devoted to the conduct of famine affairs in the province of Gujerat, which has not been afflicted by famine or drought for nearly a hundred years. The mortality in Gujerat has been exceptionally high. It has been a source
1354
of the greatest solicitude to myself, Lord Northcote, and the Viceroy. I have been in almost daily communication with them on the subject, but it is exceedingly difficult to put your finger on any mistake or error which has been made. The expenditure per unit there on relief is higher than in any other part of Bombay. The works there are more numerous, and the number of additional officers drafted there is higher than in any other part of Bombay. The collection of the land revenue has been almost infinitesimal. Undoubtedly the result, so far as mortality is concerned, is not satisfactory. In the past whenever famine operations are over it has been the practice to appoint a commission of inquiry for the purpose of investigating the various methods adopted. We shall have recourse to this procedure when this famine is over, and I hope that the collection of facts and the expression of opinions may be of use to the officials of the locality in dealing with subsequent outbreaks. But the difficulties which the local officers have to contend with are enormous and almost indescribable. I saw a report of the origin of the terrible outbreak of Asiatic cholera which suddenly occurred at the capital of one of the provinces. An American gentleman, the editor of a newspaper, published an account of what he saw in the Times of India. For many years he had devoted himself to charitable work, and he was a very competent authority to express an opinion as to the enormous difficulties which the relief officers have from time to time to cope with. There was great distress in the native States, and it was necessary, therefore, that some works of a certain size should be put up for the purpose of giving employment. In the middle of April a large tank work was opened in Godhra to meet the case of thousands of starving people from the outlying districts outside our own administration. Here is the account which appeared in the Times of India, and perhaps the House will excuse me reading it, but I do so because it will enable hon. Members more fully to appreciate the almost insuperable difficulties which these officers had to contend with—
"The story of the cholera outbreak in Godhra is ancient history, but it is worth retelling. In the middle of April the big Kanelao tank work was opened in the im-

1355
mediate vicinity of Godhra town to meet the case of the thousands of starving people flocking in from the outlying districts. The rush to this upset all calculations, and by the 20th of the month over 11,000 were crowded on to a work intended for only half that number. The administrative machinery broke down under the strain…. The people came hungry and resourceless; and hungry and resource-less they had to remain. … The receding waters of the tank confined within a limited space an enormous number of fish, and, deprived of other food, the starving people threw themselves upon this unwholesome diet and washed it down with the foul and putrid fluid in the tank. A great rise in the mortality gave rise to suspicions of cholera, and on the 20th one case was detected. On the 21st there was a lull; on the 22nd the storm broke, and 200 dead bodies lay about the camp. The ensuing panic was indescribable. The people gathered up their loins and fled from the unseen terror."
It is a sad tragedy, but no one can blame the officers on the spot for not accurately forecasting the actual number of persons who flocked in from territories not our own. Although there was a terrible mortality among those receiving relief, it was not confined to them—
"The wife of Mr. Cooper, the superintendent of the work, was struck down, and since then both Mr. Cooper and his little child have fallen victims to the disease."
It is a sad incident, only typical, however, of what was going on in other districts. All over the distressed districts our officers are combating these great evils with the greatest courage, success, and patience. In proportion to their numbers many have fallen victims to death uncomplainingly, believing that their work was appreciated by those with whom they came in contact, and quite confident that their fellow-countrymen at home will not be harsh or unfair critics of their action. Of all the men who visited those works no one was so competent to express an opinion as Dr. Klopsch, the American gentleman to whom I have alluded. After a visit to those works he wrote a final letter to the newspapers, in which he gave expression to these views—
"The more I see of the stupendous Government relief undertaking, the less I feel competent to criticise. With the limited number of intelligent workers at the Government's disposal it is a marvel that so much is being accomplished, and on the whole so well done."
It has been pointed out by hon. Members that in their judgment my action is inconsistent, inasmuch as I appealed to the Lord Mayor and the public for funds to combat the famine, but at the same time
1356
I have not asked the Imperial Treasury to give a grant for that purpose. Hon. Gentlemen who have not given a close study to the principles of famine administration in India say that the fact of appealing to the public shows that the task is beyond the control of the Government, and that if this is the case we should frankly say so and come for aid to the Imperial Government. Those criticisms imply a very limited knowledge of the methods and the machinery which we employ in connection with famine administration. Many years ago, when the organisation was not systematised for the purpose of dealing with famine, money was subscribed by the public. Practically it was applied to the same objects as Government disbursements, and the result was that there was a great deal of overlapping, and distress did not get the full benefit of the money which was raised for relief. In 1878 the celebrated Famine Commission was appointed, of which Sir Richard Strachey was chairman. It had one of the most difficult administrative tasks which was ever laid before any body of men. There is no permanent poor law in India at all; it does not exist. But India is subject to periodical visitations that contract and expand with exraordinary rapidity. At one time drought may cause temporary distress; a few weeks afterwards it may sweep the whole province and deprive the people of the means of obtaining food. What that Commission had to do was to improvise a system of poor relief so thorough and elastic that it could be applied to all these various phases of famine. They laid down elaborate regulations the principal of which was that the Government of India took upon itself the obligation of finding food for all and work for those who were unable to obtain it, and to supplement this system of relief by kitchen poor-houses and hospitals. In fact, they were to take upon themselves as regards relieving distress a higher and wider obligation than was ever undertaken by any civilised Government in Europe. If the Government of India took all these duties on itself, was there any sphere of action for private charity and benevolence? The Commission emphatically replied in the affirmative; but they said that if an appeal is made to the public that appeal must be an authorised appeal of the Secretary of State and the Viceroy, and it must be arranged that

1357
every one subscribing will see that the money he gives is not in deduction of the Government aid, but in addition to it, and that the work of private charity shall be in clearly defined spheres of action, separate and distinct, and in addition to that which the Government undertakes. It is on that ground alone I appealed to the public, and not because we were unable to fulfil all the obligations we had undertaken of ourselves. It was because I wanted charity and benevolence to co-operate with us in that work that I appealed to the public, for in every country in the world such work is done by philanthropic co-operation. The object for which this money is asked is not work which the Government can undertake. There are four objects. First, to supplement the dole or the ration which the Government gives by special comforts in the shape of clothing or food. This is a work of discrimination, and it is impossible for the Government in the case of the enormous number of persons who come on the relief works to attempt that individual discrimination. The second object is to try and get together committees of all religious denominations, and through the instrumentality of these committees to get at the people who from caste and other reasons decline to participate in any system of public relief. The third object is to give special attention to orphans, and the last is to make advances to the cultivators of the soil to enable them to commence agricultural operations again. That last burden we have put on the shoulders of the Indian Government, because it seemed to us to be a proper and legitimate function for them to discharge, and we have practically, during the past year, devoted something like £1,100,000 to that purpose, relieving to that extent the charitable funds, and consequently enabling them to devote their attention exclusively to other objects. It is said that after all Indian Government aids and disbursements are regulated by the state of their finances, that India is poor, and that her poverty regulates the expenditure on famine, but what really regulates famine expenditure in India is the Famine Code. That Code makes provision for every conceivable contingency, and the two extreme principles upon which it is founded and which regulate its action are on the one hand that money
1358
should not be wasted, and that relief should be given in such a way as not to prevent the people going back to their normal occupations, and the second principle that wherever life can be saved by expenditure there expenditure is to be incurred. As far as the relief of famine in India is concerned, the whole financial resources, the whole administrative machinery, are at the disposal of those who are combating this terrible evil, and it is only in the event of our being unable to give effect to the regulations which we have deliberately laid down that we shall appeal for help or assistance elsewhere. May I just say a word to many hon. friends on both sides who, actuated by the most philanthropic motives, are desirous that the Imperial Government should, as an indication of sympathy and having regard to the safety of the people of India, contribute a large sum from the Imperial finances to help the Indian Government in their task? I quite admit that conditions may arise under which we may be brought face to face with facts which would necessitate such assistance on a large scale, but I for one have been brought up to believe that if you want to encourage effective economy in India, if you want to ensure financial reform, one of the primary conditions is that you must make Indian finance as far as possible independent and self-supporting. We live in a time when public expenditure is the fashion. There seems to be no class of expenditure to which a large portion of Members of the House are not ready to give their assent, and it is a very hard task when there is this craving for expenditure for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, with the taxpayer at his back, to stop this growth of expenditure and to prevent it advancing by leaps and bounds. There is no more unpopular and unpleasant task which any man can undertake than that of checking the demands so constantly falling upon him. In India there is just the same pressure; but if the Minister of Finance in India is consistent in trying to keep down expenditure, because he knows he must balance his income and expenditure, it is his duty to establish an equilibrium between the income and the disbursements of the Indian Government. It is nearly twenty-seven years ago since I first went to the India Office as Under-Secretary of State. My chief, who was the

1359
Financial Secretary at the India Office, was one of the ablest officials in the public service. We soon became friends, and we agreed on this, that the only hope of effective economy, the only hope of improving the financial system, was to make India independent and self-supporting. What inducement would the Finance Minister in India have to endeavour year after year to balance income and expenditure if he knew that there were a large number of Members in this House who were prepared to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a large contribution to Indian finances. Therefore, if I have objected to and opposed premature proposals to the Imperial Exchequer it is not because I have not sympathy with the sufferings of the Indian people, but because I believe the course I have adopted is for the truest well-being of India. I feel that a sound system of finance is a convertible term for the improvement of the material and industrial products of the country. I believe that as soon as this cloud passes we shall be able to make considerable remissions of taxation and so to improve and ameliorate the general condition of the taxpayers. But I admit that this policy must be conditional upon the establishment between the Imperial Exchequer and the Indian Exchequer of an absolutely just principle as regards the apportionment of the charges in which the two Exchequers have a common interest, and that naturally brings me to the very elaborate Report, delivered after years of investigation, which Lord Welby's Commission have drawn up. In this House it is the fashion with a good many of my friends on both sides to accuse the representative of the India Office with taking an optimistic view of Indian finance. My facts and my figures are not the result of mere official optimism. We had a Commission consisting of men of the highest authority, who have spent their whole lives in examining questions of finance, and some of whom have been intimately associated with the Treasury here. What are their main statements? They say first that the financial machinery of the Indian Government is well organised and effectively controlled. Then they go on to say that though the growth of expenditure has exceeded the normal growth of revenue, this was mainly due to the increased cost of exchange due to the fall in value of the rupee, and that, except
1360
for this fall, a considerable reduction of taxation might have been looked for. They further say that during the past forty years the unproductive debt of India had been reduced 25 per cent., that the commercial services, the telegraphs and post-offices, were worked at a considerable profit, and that the railway and irrigation works, with their far-reaching benefits, entail but a very slight cost. And lastly they say that the apportionment of charge between the United Kingdom and India as regards matters in which they have a common interest has on the whole been equitable and fair. If, then, we take a more sanguine view than our critics, it is because we have our hand on the pulse of Indian finance. We know its vitality, and we are not unconscious of its weakness; but, as the Commissioners point out, if we can stop this fall in exchange, if we can in any way ensure anything like stability in exchange, I am perfectly positive it will be possible in future to make considerable reductions in taxation. Not only so, but you would offer the strongest inducements to capitalists in this country to make investments in India. It is often assumed in connection with this question of exchange that we have adopted a currency policy for the benefit of a few individuals. That was not the opinion of the chairman of the Commission. The question of exchange is indeed the key of the situation. If we can keep up present prices we not only hope to reduce taxation in India, but also to offer inducements to capitalists to invest in that country, thereby assisting its resources. The Commission suggests practically that a certain sum should be transferred from one Treasury to the other; and they assume that if this sum is so transferred, the arrangements between the two Governments will in future be practically equitable. Taking the proposals in their entirety, the amount which they propose should be transferred, and charged from one Treasury to the other, is £257,000. I have been in communication with the various Departments concerned, and with Lord Curzon. The Government wish to give the most favourable consideration to these proposals, and we hope that in the course of a few months we shall be able to make arrangements whereby a sum of £250,000, or thereabouts, shall be transferred as suggested, and India to that extent will be

1361
benefited. At the same time, I am bound to guard myself by saying that I do not necessarily bind myself to accept all the detailed proposals of the Commissioners. I naturally pass on from Lord Welby's Commission to the work we have done during the past year in connection with our object of establishing a gold standard associated with a limited gold currency. What did the experts tell us? We always like to consult experts. I think it is often pleasant to hear them talk; but the real satisfaction is when a number of experts have irretrievably committed themselves to a proposition which subsequent events show to be wholly and utterly false. The experts on this occasion who were opposed to our policy all told us that we might be able to establish a gold standard by proclamation in India, but as to associating with that a gold currency or getting any amount of gold flowing into India it was an absurdity. The gold, they said, would gradually filter back by process of exchange or trade. It was absurd, so they alleged, to think that any sensible person would take to India gold which had an even exchange in value all over the world in order to exchange it for rupees whose monetary value decreased 40 per cent. when taken outside India. The famine, to which I have so frequently alluded, caused a great falling off in the export trade of India; war broke out in the Transvaal, the world was deprived of its largest source of gold supply, and in consequence of the war expenditure the price of money rose. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that if the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman was chairman could have foreseen that in the first year after they concluded their report conditions so unfavourable to the realisation of a gold standard and currency in India would have existed, they would not have wanted action to be taken until a normal state of things had been reestablished. Yet, notwithstanding this rare combination of influences against us during the past year, so far from gold not going to India there has been a superabundance of gold there. I do not like to trouble the House needlessly with figures, but this is really so interesting a matter that perhaps I may be allowed to read a few. There is a very large note circulation in India, and a considerable portion of this note circulation is covered by
1362
Government securities, the remainder by coined metal, either rupees or gold. The rupee is valued in exchange at 1s. 4d., or at the rate of 15 rupees to the sovereign. In January, 1899, the note issues secured by metal were 15 crores 67 lakhs; against that was held silver, 15 crores 19 lakhs; gold, 48 lakhs. In October silver had fallen to 12 crores 36 lakhs, and gold had risen to nearly 5½crores. In January this year silver had fallen to 6 crores 78 lakhs, and gold had risen to about 10½ crores. At the end of May, of the notes for 18½ crores secured by metal, only 4½ crores were represented by silver; 14½ representing gold. We were in consequence obliged to buy silver and coin it to exchange it for gold. We have been compelled to buy £1,900,000 of silver, sufficient to coir 440 lakhs. About 1,689 lakhs of rupees or £11,200,000, have been added to the rupee circulation since 1st April, 1899. I think we shall have to watch very closely this addition to the currency, but still I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee on the singular success which has attended its recommendations. We have got over the initial difficulty of the currency reform, and I hope that with the exercise of patience and vigilance we shall in measurable time have accomplished the objects we have in view Sir E. Law reports that there was a large profit on the coinage of the silver, and in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission, he proposes to appropriate that to a special reserve fund which will facilitate our currency operations. I am afraid I have detained the House a long time, but there are a great many Amendments on the Notice Paper, and no doubt I shall be able to deal in reply to them with various other subjects of interest. There is only one other item of expenditure on which I wish to say a word or two—Army expenditure. The cost of military equipment seems to me to have almost escaped the control of the different Governments of the civilised world. I often wonder whether the great military Powers when they forced all the men of their nations into arms foresaw the result which would follow. The result has been that there has been such a demand for the manufacture of arms and munitions of war that their manufacture has become a most profitable undertaking. In the old

1363
days Governments for the most part manufactured their own arms and munitions; now there are great syndicates for the purpose controlled by men of the highest scientific attainments and genius, great chemists, great financiers. All the modern processes of production and industrial organisation are combined for the purpose of making more deadly weapons with which men may kill one another. The whole resources of civilisation are ransacked to obtain more and more effective weapons of warfare. The result is that the improvements are so great that it almost involves a change every decade. No Government can stand aside and allow its army to be armed with weapons which are a few years old. To such an extent is the manufacture of arms pushed that it has destroyed the difference which used to exist between the barbarous and semi-barbarous and the civilised Powers. The civilised Powers used to keep back barbarism by the superiority of their arms and weapons, but now these great syndicates are prepared to provide barbarous nations with arms of the most modern type, provided they can pay for them. In these circumstances the Government of India have no option but to see that our men are equipped with the most modern weapons. An illustration of what has occurred may be found in China to-day. Our native army in India until recently was armed with the Martini rifle. We thought it necessary that they should have the more modern weapon, and we were able, with the assistance of the War Office, to arm a considerable portion of the native army early in this year with Enfields. Some of these troops are under orders to China; and had it not been for this increased expenditure this year, these troops would have been sent to China with less effective weapons than those possessed by the Chinese. I regret that we have to incur this expenditure, but it is inevitable. The sums which have been paid by the British Government on account of the contingents to South Africa and China will to a very large extent cover the expenditure. In certain quarters it is suggested that, because the Indian Government in exceptional circumstances have allowed a certain number of the troops of their establishment to go to South Africa and China, the Indian establishments must be in excess of the requirements. The emergency,
1364
however, was in both cases altogether exceptional, and the Indian Government were perfectly justified under the circumstances in doing what they did. Because in abnormal circumstances we ran a risk, it is unreasonable to suppose that when affairs return to a normal condition we should still continue to run that risk. Therefore, I can hold out no hope whatever of a reduction of military expenditure. I think, if anything is done, we may have slightly to increase it That is not due to any wish to extend our territory, or to adopt any aggressive policy. During the last year Lord Curzon has shown great energy and determination in seeing everything for him self; he has passed all along the frontier. Two principles have been laid down for the regulation of our North-West Frontier policy. One is the substitution of levies and local Militia for British Indian troops, and the other withdrawal from cantonments outside the administrative frontier. That policy has been vigorously followed by Lord Curzon. He has placed a local Militia on the frontier, and has withdrawn the troops from cantonments outside the frontier and concentrated them in convenient cantonments where they will be in readiness to go at very short notice to the relief of the local levies if required. Suggestions have been made to the Indian Government to construct a railway down the Khaibar Pass, and to place a British garrison at Kotal, but these views did not recommend themselves to Lord Curzon and myself, and the only railroad made is one to Jamrud, in our own territory. I cannot leave the Indian Army without alluding to the irreparable loss India has sustained by the death of two distinguished soldiers—Sir Donald Stewart and Sir William Lockhart. Sir Donald Stewart's military reputation is well known. He was for fifteen years past a member of the Council of the Secretary of State, and a shrewder or more sagacious adviser never had a seat on that Council, and with his unfailing sagacity and great patience, he was as good an adviser in financial, political, and administrative questions as he was in military questions. Sir William Lockhart was a born leader of men, and a man of immense force of character. He no doubt shortened his life by his devotion to duty, for he was undergoing a course of German baths when he was

1365
called upon to take up the command of the troops in the Tirah campaign. He went out at a moment's notice, and I fear that the hardships he underwent so impaired his health that he was never able fully to recover. There is one characteristic about these two great men. Both had rare powers of attracting the native officers and natives who served under them in such a way as to secure their complete confidence. There is another most distinguished Anglo-Indian soldier, Lord Roberts, who possesses this characteristic to a superlative degree. We have made enormous changes in India during the last ten years. Our Government is stronger and more solidified than it was before that period. The material prosperity of a large section of the population has greatly increased, and our mechanism of government has so improved and developed that I think it may fairly be claimed for it that it is the most advanced and scientific system that India has ever possessed. Yet sometimes I have doubts whether our popularity has increased. Sir, we have gone on improving our administration, we have passed up through various stages of administrative improvements, until administration at the present moment has reached the highest point of development. This work has been accomplished by a great deal of labour and ability, and I do not think too much credit can be given to those who have achieved it. We have codified the laws and simplified procedure, and we have made uniform our methods of administration, but, looking at all these great improvements, can it be said that they are as palatable to the people to whom they are applied as the older and cruder system? We have no fault to find with those who have administered the laws. They are fully up to the standard of those of earlier years in intelligence and sense of duty, but they do not get the opportunities which were afforded to the young men who formerly went out from here to serve in India early in life and usually spent their lives there, being placed, not infrequently, in isolated positions in which they had to depend on their own resources for the preservation of law and order. That has all gone. We have passed from the old patriarchal methods. The gentlemen who go out to India now are in a different position. Everybody has a code for everything, and if the code fails
1366
there is the telegraph by which he can get assistance at the earliest possible moment. But that is not the only evil from which civil servants in India suffer. They have everything that develops—telegraphs and railways—and the result is that they are so over-burdened with correspondence,. Reports, and Returns, that they are really imprisoned in their offices for the greater part of the day, and it is only when such a great calamity as that with which India-is now afflicted occurs and sweeps away all their stereotyped procedure that these men are able to come out of their offices and join with the other forces at work in dealing with the trouble. Then the sympathy of these men brooks no denial, and we see them come out and toil to ameliorate the condition of the sick and. the poor. I hear from all sides in the distressed districts of India which are suffering such terrible loss that the work of these men has rekindled between the Government and the governed that feeling of regard and affection which was so marked a characteristic in India. We have a remarkable man as Viceroy, a man of untiring energy and unbounded power of work, and he has devoted his> energy to every branch of administration. His wish is so to free the official that he shall be able to get more time to give to the essentials of administration, and therefore I am hopeful that, although one cannot but deplore the mass of suffering and misery through which India is passing, and which may occur again in subsequent years — I sincerely hope and believe that the outcome of this misfortune will not be without its benefits to India, that the wounds and scars which this terrible calamity has inflicted may be forgotten, and that interchange of kindly feeling and mutual regard among all classes who have fought the common fight may be a lasting and increasing influence in guiding the future fortunes of' India.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Lord G. Hamilton.)
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am sure the House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord for the admirable statement he has made. I have been struck by the pathos, eloquence, and luminous exposition of detail which has characterised his masterly speech

1367
I think it will rank among the foremost statements of Indian finance that have been made to this House. The noble Lord has gone over the greater part of the ground over which it is usual to travel, and he has also dealt in a sympathetic manner with the great calamity from which India is suffering, and has brought before us the difficulties which he and his colleagues have had to face in this difficult situation. There are one or two points on which, perhaps, I do not quits agree with him and on which I may have to express my views in a few words, and beyond that I do not propose to trouble the House at any length. I should like, however, to add my testimony to the great loss India has sustained in the death of the great soldiers to which the noble Lord has referred. I was associated with Sir Donald Stewart when I was in office as Secretary of State, and I can state that not only was he one of the wisest of military advisers, but also one of the soundest financiers and most practical men in administration. We have sustained another loss this year, happily not occasioned by death. I deeply regret that one of the eminent civil servants to whom the administration of India has been entrusted has found himself compelled to deprive the Indian Government of his services—I refer to Mr. Dawkins, to whom the greater part of the credit for the reform of the Indian currency belongs. There were several figures given by the noble Lord which were interesting to the House, and one or two I should like to supplement. I quite admit that the Currency Commission did not anticipate the calamity that has fallen on the Empire of India during the last few months. I am sure that the members of that Commission would not have signed that Report and adopted so great a change if they had known that within a year we should be engaged in a war with South Africa, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have issued the largest loan since 1815, and that India would be suffering from a terrible famine. As far as we can see at present everything that has transpired since is encouraging as to the probable success of the currency policy. The noble Lord has told us how the unfavourable predictions have been falsified, but he has not told us the effect of this change upon trade. The House
1368
will remember the abnormal condition of trade as far as famine is concerned, and the state of things produced in the cotton trade as far as China in concerned. The total trade of India, in and out, was in 1898 105 millions; in 1899, 109 millions and a quarter; and in 1900, 115 millions and a quarter. So far as exports were concerned, in 1898 they were 56 millions; in 1899 65 millions; and in 1900 65 millions, notwithstanding that the export of wheat and rice was necessarily reduced by the diversion into the famine districts. I understand from the accounts that, on the 1st April, 1899, the currency of gold in reserve was two millions sterling, and on 7th March, 1900, seven millions sterling, and, in addition, the Secretary of State had accumulated in London a million and a half of gold. So the aggregate of gold under the control of the Secretary of State was eight millions and a half. Now, there must be in India a silver reserve. The noble Lord has had this year to buy silver. There is one factor it is impossible to pronounce accurately upon—the quantity of silver necessarily diverted into the famine districts, and that may disturb calculations. I understand the Indian Government intend to have a gold reserve of five millions. Beyond that, they propose to give gold in exchange for silver. The gold taken from currency in payment of notes is £130,700. I mention that as showing that the people are still pursuing the old habits of trade, and that the Report of the Committee that the great bulk of the internal transactions of India would continue to be carried on in silver is being borne out and the quantity of gold circulated is equally small. The gain is in the fixity of exchange between this country and India, and estimating the cost of a common denomination. I hope this great change which has marked the administration of the noble Lord will act most beneficially on the trade, commerce, taxation, and prosperity of India. As far as I can gather, a sum of money has evidently been exported from this country to India for investment in India. With reference to the famine I have nothing to add to the pathetic statement of the noble Lord, and his just expression of admiration of the manner in which the famine has been grappled with by the officials, and I hope the House will note what has been stated by the noble Lord and

1369
the Viceroy of India, that the actual cost to the Government of India— not the people of India (that would have been a great deal more)—in the last two years has been thirteen millions sterling, an indication of the sound financial position in which India stands. The Secretary of State makes this a strong argument for objecting to India being relieved from Imperial funds. "India is able to meet its own requirements. We ought not to appeal to the Indian Exchequer to help us." I agree that an equilibrium should be maintained between income and expenditure, and I would oppose anything which would appear like the pauperisation of India. But the large excess of revenue out of which these large sums are being provided really means an excess of taxation levied beyond the actual requirements of the Indian Government in normal circumstances. In other words, if it had not been for this exceptional expenditure there must have been large reduction of taxation. That being so, I say we come to the point of voluntary contribution. There should be a payment made by Great Britain to her great dependency to help her in this great calamity. You may say India does not need it. But sympathy is a strong force in human affairs. Sentiment is a strong force in human affairs. We have recently received strong marks of sympathy from India and our colonies. There are two sides to this, and if we receive expressions of sympathy from India and the colonies we must be prepared in return to give expression of sympathy when the time arrives. A great Indian prince, the Maharaja of Gwalior, has recently offered to fit out a hospital ship for the use of the British Government in China. I suppose if that Indian prince had not come forward a hospital ship would not have been wanting, but throughout the length and breadth of the land this expression of sympathy from that great Indian prince to the mother country will be recognised and admired far more than its intrinsic value. If the Government had been prepared, not as a matter of dry finance, to say to India, "You are in financial difficulties, and we will relieve you," and the people of this country, through their representatives in Parliament, had said, "We will vote India a sum of money to aid her in her calamity as an expression
1370
of our national sympathy in addition to private charity," I believe that, as a matter of State policy, it would have been one of the wisest things the Imperial Government could have done. These perpetual appeals to the charitable section of the English public—I find no fault-are only responded to by a limited class, and the same class who give for the relief of the soldier, sailor, the suffering, and hospitals, whether in India or elsewhere. But there is a great mass of wealthy people in this country who give to nothing. It is only right and fair that they, deriving advantages from this great relationship between us and our colonies and India, should take their share, as part of the nation, in doing what I believe the nation would desire to have done. Whether the Secretary for India asks for a large or a small sum, and whether he terms it a loan without interest, or a grant, the handsomer, the more generous, and spontaneous it is, it will be better appreciated and approved by the people of this country, and will be accepted in the same spirit by the people of India. As to the proposals of Lord Welby's Commission, I think that the Report of that body has dispelled, and will dispel, a great many delusions which have taken hold of the popular mind in England and India with regard to our financial position there. That Commission was appointed with two objects. It was appointed to inquire into the administration and management of the military and civil expenditure of India, both at home and in India, and into the apportionment of the charge between the Imperial and the Indian Governments for purposes in which both Governments are interested. That Commission sat for two or three years and took the opportunity of ascertaining from the best authorities what were the facts of the case. I think the facts are stated in the Report with singular accuracy, clearness, and fairness, and for many years to come the various details of Indian finance will have there an authorised text-book. I have no fault to find with the facts which the Commission found as a jury. I am bound to say that I think the Commission have been very timid in their recommendations. There are some of their recommendations which I am glad to hear the noble Lord does not intend to accept. I am very sorry that they were not unanimous with refer-

1371
ence to the audit. There was a very strong weight of opinion that though the present audit was very admirable, still it was desirable that the Comptroller and Auditor General in India should be put in the same position as the Comptroller and Auditor General in this country, and should be absolutely independent of the Executive. The only ground of objection I can trace was the very familiar one, "Oh, it would cost too much; it is not worth the expense." I think it is worth the expense. The last estimate I have seen of the cost of an independent audit in India puts the figure at £15,000 a year. I do not think that is a sum worth saving on a question of this magnitude. There is another point with reference to the position of the Finance Minister in the Indian Council. At present there are two military members in that body. I think the Commander-in-Chief ought to be removed, just as the Commander-in-Chief here is from the English Cabinet. That is a subject which I hope the Government will very carefully consider. The question of the debt of India is one upon which we have often had discussions in this House. Some gentleman sent me a book this week in which he stated that, while the English debt had been reduced by something like £140,000,000 since the Crimean War, the debt of India during that time had steadily increased. This is from a very respected author, and I am sure he would not make a misrepresentation. But he did not divide the debt into productive and non-productive debt. There is the ordinary debt which every State must incur, and there is the public works debt, which pays its own interest and repays its own capital. At the close of the Mutiny the ordinary debt of India stood at £97,000,000. In 1897 that had been reduced to £72,750,000. The noble Lord's Memorandum puts it in the clearest way, and it shows that now the entire debt of India, productive and non-productive, is £212,000,000. The assets which India has in the shape of railways, canals, irrigation works, money lent to corporations, and other valuable assets, is £182,000,000. The net debt of India at this moment, after having gone through this terrible famine, is £30,000,000. I do not believe there is any great civilised Government in the world where there is proportionally so small a debt as there is in India at the present time. This Commission has also found
1372
that the civil expenditure is not excessive as compared with 1875, and that it has not been excessive as compared with the expenditure of other countries, and that although there has been a net increase of 25 per cent., yet there has been an increase in the population of 20 per cent. I hope the Government will take into its most careful consideration the various recommendations of the Commission, and even if they do not agree with them they should settle some of the questions once and for all. I do not think the Treasury has done what it ought to have done in the proposal now suggested as the financial settlement. I do not think £250,000 a year does adequately meet the claims of India. I think there is a greater claim, not upon the charity, but upon the justice of the people of this country, with reference to military charges. It has been proved, and the noble Lord's speech shows it, that a great portion of your military reserve is in India. You had to have recourse to India with reference both to South Africa and to China. I have no wish that India should in any way profit by the transaction, but, looking at it as a whole judicially and fairly, I think that the contribution from India to what is called the capitation grant is too high. I express again my thanks to the noble Lord, and I re-echo his hope in regard to the somewhat gloomy view of the Viceroy on Tuesday, which is certainly modified by the telegram on Wednesday from Lord Northcote, and of course Bombay is a most important district. We are at present in July, and I think August is an important month in the history of the monsoon, and I hope the situation may not prove to be so gloomy as it is at present anticipated; but whether that be so or not, I think we shall not forget, India will not forget, and history will not forget the admirable manner in which the British Government in India and the officials of the British Government have grappled with this calamity with a success which has no parallel in the history of India.
MR. SOUTTAR: The speeches to which I have had the pleasure of listening have encouraged me the more earnestly to say that which I have to say. The speech of my right hon. friend was, of course, a direct encouragement, and the speech of the noble Lord who repre-

1373
sents India in this House was also an encouragement of no mean order, for he told us three things. In the first place, he warned us that the danger was by no means at an end; in the second place, by the figures he laid before the House, he distinctly showed that, although the Government of India had been exceedingly generous as far as its power went, it had been unable to do more than meet a small proportion of the great loss which the country had experienced; and in the third place, if I may say so, he showed that his heart is not entirely closed and sealed against the proposition which I have to make. In making that proposition, I ought to explain that I have been advised that it is not in order for any private Member to propose that a definite sum should be granted from the Exchequer, and perhaps, instead of saying anything about a definite sum, if I substitute the words "a large and generous grant," and ask hon. Members to bear in mind that £5,000,000 is the amount I have in my mind, that will sufficiently meet the case. But before I proceed to say anything about that, I should like to be permitted, partly from my own personal knowledge of India, and partly from what I heard lately, to say how immensely everyone, so far as I know, on this side of the House appreciates the efforts made by the Government of India in connection with this famine. From the Viceroy down to the humblest official, both natives and Europeans, they have done their very utmost, as far as in them lay and as far as they had the power, to mitigate the great calamity which has befallen India. Of that there is not the slightest doubt, and concerning that there is no difference of opinion. One thing sometimes strikes me as rather strange, and I daresay other Members have thought the same, and that is, that in a country where so many men are working with extraordinary earnestness on behalf of the people, there should yet be such continued suffering. In the old days you could account for these things by saying that they were the product of war and misrule, but there has been no war within the frontiers of India for forty years, and during that time there have been ten famines, and 15,000,000 people have died of famine and of the diseases connected with famine. This famine is the worst of all. The noble Lord has given us extraordinary
1374
figures showing that this is a famine of no ordinary degree. It is perfectly impossible to really appreciate the meaning of these figures. The more one studies them the more one feels that perhaps in the history of the work) there has never been a famine like the one we are considering to-night. Moreover, this famine is the greater because it has so soon followed the famine of 1897. Many of the natives of India, I think, were only able to gather one meagre crop after that famine had passed before this second famine was upon them. I mention that, not for the sake of letting Members see what a big famine it is, but because I wish to impress upon their minds this circumstance, that this is an extraordinary famine, that therefore the occasion is an extraordinary occasion, and that the grant made in connection with this famine need not for a single moment be regarded as a precedent in connection with any future famine. The question is, Is there such an emergency as to need a considerable grant? I think there is; and for two very clear reasons. In the first place, I think the people have got to the end of their resources. Their ornaments are gone, their clothing is gone, their furniture is gone, and the very fittings of their houses have been sold in order to keep bare life within their bodies. Not only that, but this famine, which has been a famine of food and fodder and water, has swept away almost entirely the plough cattle of the people, and there they stand facing the future in perfect misery and hopeless despair. That is a very serious consideration. Here we have millions of people practically bankrupt, their cattle gone, their credit gone, having no hope in the present, and very little hope with regard to the future. But I think we may go further and say that we can prove emergency from the circumstance that the Government have got to the end of their resources. The noble Lord, in speaking of the resources of the Government, said he had yet borrowing powers to the extent of £9,000,000. I suppose, as a matter of fact, having the whole credit of the British name behind him, he has borrowing powers for £90,000,000 if he is so disposed, but surely borrowing is not the way to meet a great difficulty like this. Surely the noble Lord will not contend that the people of India should in that way be plunged yet more heavily into debt Moreover, it becomes more serious when

1375
you consider, as my right hon. friend has pointed out with great clearness, that the Government of India is the people of India. In this country you might possibly establish a tax by which you could raise a certain amount of money, the incidence of the tax falling at first on the wealthy people of the land—such a tax as the income tax. You could not do that in India, because the revenue is received from salt and land, and everyone who knows India knows that to pay more money as interest on loans, or anything else, is only to burden more seriously the miserably poor in order to help those who are yet more miserable. If we desire to see the exact condition of India we have only to look at the words in one of the paragraphs of the Viceroy's appeal. He says—
"If the question be asked, Why is Government not able to assume the entire burden, and to dispense with all external aid? no false pride need deter me from giving a frank reply. Government is straining every nerve, is pouring out its money, is shrinking from no obligation, however severe…. But over and above this expenditure, which cripples our development in a score of ways, there lies a vast area of need which, do what we may, we can barely reach, and in which extraneous contributions supply an invaluable reinforcement…. This is a field of enormous and almost undiscoverable extent, the margin of which the already overworked official hardly touches, but which is, in a peculiar and inevitable degree, the property of individual effort and private generosity."
No words I can utter are likely to carry more conviction than those of the Viceroy. He tells us that the Government are straining every nerve, and that yet there is an enormous field of almost undiscoverable extent, the very margin of which is scarcely touched. The Viceroy's appeal has produced an altogether inadequate result, and that field will remain untouched until the British Parliament rises to a sense of its duty, and steps forward to do its part. Seeing the need of India, let me give one or two simple reasons why I think we should help her in her hour of need. The first is a somewhat selfish but a very forcible reason. India is the fourth best customer we have in the whole world as a commercial nation. The United States comes first, then France, then Germany, and then India. In a very little while India will be our second best customer. She is already a better customer to us than the whole of Australasia, and in a little while, if the present rate of progress continues, she will be a better customer
1376
than the whole of our colonies pub together. In ordinary business life, if a business man in a large way has a customer a little embarrassed for the moment, he does not crush that customer; he does his very utmost to help him. He remembers what he has made out of that customer in the past; he thinks of what he hopes to make in the future, and he does his best to help the lame dog over the stile. We have made a great deal out of India in the past; we hope to make a great deal out of her in the future; and we ought therefore to come forward and help her in this hour of trial. But there is a higher reason than that why we should help India. Notice has already been taken of what India has done for us. in connection with foreign affairs. In our embarrassments in South Africa, in China, and on the West Coast of Africa, who has come forward to help us loyally, if not India? Indian troops were, I believe, the first to face the enemy in South Africa; they will be the first in any number to face the enemy in China. India has lent 22,000 troops to her Suzerain, and she may lend a great many more. Have hon. Members ever reflected what would have been the case to-day if India had been disloyal? Have they ever reflected what might be the case if some day India should be disloyal? You cannot make a country loyal in a day; but you can gradually make a country loyal by good government, by a display of good feeling, and by acts of kindly generosity. I have lived for years in India, and I do not hesitate to say as my deliberate conviction that the Indians are the most grateful people on the face of the earth. If we would only rise to the occasion and make this grant —which we should never miss—I believe we should make India loyal for half a century to come. Fathers would tell their sons of the time when famine and pestilence walked hand in hand throughout the land, when the seed corn had passed away, when the plough cattle had died, and when apparently nothing remained for the people but to die; and then at that time England came forward with a great gift for new seed corn and for new plough cattle, and saved the lives of the people, and brought back happiness and contentment to the homesteads. There is one other reason I should like to give, and that is that India has cost us nothing in the past. We have heard the

1377
noble Lord speaking about the necessity of teaching India good finance, showing India a good example, and teaching her economy, and so on. There was not a word in regard to that with which we would not all agree, and yet at the same time the thought came that he was speaking as if India needed to learn that lesson. Nothing of the sort. India has cost this country practically nothing. Our colonies have cost us hundreds of millions of pounds; India has never cost us a penny. The British Empire in India was founded, and has been extended and consolidated, by Indian resources, and the British taxpayer has never been asked to contribute a single shilling. But beyond that, India costs us nothing at the present. Just consider the contrast for a moment between the Colonial Office and the India Office. We know how difficult it is to get up a debate in this House on any Indian subject. Why is that so? Because the expenses of the India Office, from the salary of the noble Lord down to the wages of the meanest employee in the office, are borne by the Indian peasant, and do not come before this House. We have no such difficulty with regard to the Colonial Office, because the salary of the Colonial Secretary, and the great expenses of that Department, are borne absolutely by the British taxpayer. If you look at the thing more broadly, it becomes even more striking still. The noble Lord at the head of the Government made a very remarkable speech a few days ago in which were words of very solid wisdom. He spoke of the burdens of empire, and showed that those burdens might have to be more evenly divided than at present.* I entirely agree, if I may be permitted to say so, with the doctrine he preached; but when that day comes India will have nothing to fear, as she already pays her full share. Every penny that can possibly be put upon India is put upon her today. The colonies subscribe in all one and a half millions towards Imperial defence, whereas India subscribes from twenty-two to twenty-five millions. Above and beyond that, India has been burdened with the expense of many wars; she has had to bear the expense of wars, either wholly or in part, to which the colonies have not contributed a single shilling.
*See speech of Marquess of Salisbury, 20th July, 1900, page 616 of this volume.
1378
Our richest colonies have been spared, but the poorest and most miserable peasantry in the world have been taxed not only for their own welfare but also to preserve the name and reputation of our great Empire in portions of two continents. The noble Lord indicated that it is quite possible that the colonies have been treated with generosity while India has been treated with strict justice. Surely that is an argument in favour of helping India to-day. If India has stood shoulder to shoulder with us in our times of trial, if she has borne the heat and burden of the day, surely it is right that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with India now that her great day of trial has come. I might contend that strict justice demands that we should help India. My right hon. friend went into that point, and I will not carry it any further. There are men in this House who understand these things a great deal better than I do, but my superficial judgment on the Report of the Royal Commission is that this is an act not of mere generosity but of absolute justice and equity. I believe the British Empire owes a debt to the Indian peasant of which these millions would be but a payment on account. Finally, it seems to me that our national dignity is indissolubly bound up in giving help to India at this time. We have made ourselves responsible in a very striking degree for the government of India. We hold in India 300,000,000 of our fellow-creatures in the hollow of our hand; we govern them just as we like, without even asking the opinion of the natives of India. Of course, we are not responsible for this famine; it is the act of God; but surely the position we have taken up in regard to India makes it absolutely necessary that we should, by every means in our power, mitigate the calamity which has come upon the people. We have vaunted the Government of India; we have said to the nations of the world, "Come and see how Englishmen can: govern Orientals," and it seems to me that the miseries of our fellow-subjects in India to-day touch our honour, and are a blot upon the fair fame of our Empire. The appeal of the Viceroy has gone throughout the length and breadth of the world; the whole world is therefore looking at us and wondering how we will act, and the strange thing is that this House has not yet granted even a £5 note towards the

1379
Famine Relief Fund. If the noble Lord is obdurate, and this proposal is cast aside, it may be that we shall have to record that the greatest famine of the nineteenth century was allowed to eat its way through the country without any help being given to the people from the legislative assembly of the greatest and richest Empire the world has ever seen. Surely such a conclusion would be to our everlasting shame. I cannot believe that the Government mean to put such an affront upon the nation. Rather do I believe that they will fall in with what I know to be the desire of the House and of the country at large, and make a generous gift to the Indian people out of the fulness of our abounding wealth, to strengthen the hands of an admirable Viceroy, and to gladden the hearts of a greatly suffering people. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to second the motion, and I trust that the House will favourably consider this appeal to its pity. When the proposal for a Parliamentary free grant was discussed last April,*it was received with favour by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the Government did not then see its way to take any action. The First Lord of the Treasury recognised the terrible distress of India, and was prepared, if needful, to apply without hesitation to Parliament for assistance, but he did not accede to our request, as the Government of India did not then anticipate difficulty in providing relief. It will be seen that this refusal was conditional; and I submit that since April things in India have become much worse, and that the time has come to reconsider the original decision. I hope also that when I make clear the purpose for which we ask the grant the objection taken by the First Lord may in some measure be removed. He pointed out that the Indian revenues sufficed to provide the relief undertaken by the Indian Government. We quite understand that; and we do not propose that the Parliamentary grant should go as an addition to the Indian revenues. On the contrary, we wish the Parliamentary grant to go to the famine-stricken people by way of
*See discussion on Resolution proposed by Sir W. Wedderburn, 3rd April, 1900, The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxi., page 1080.
1380
charity in ways altogether outside the scope of ordinary Government relief. Our object will become clear if the House will consider the Famine Code rules, which distinguish by a broad line between the relief functions of the Indian Government, on the one hand, and the functions of charity on the other. These rules were summarised in a Memorandum sent last April by the Secretary of State to the Lord Mayor, at the time the Mansion House Fund was opened. In this Memorandum the noble Lord stated first the duties undertaken by Government. He said that "the Government undertakes to prevent death, and to relieve misery from famine in British India, at the cost of the Indian Treasury, so far as organisation and effort can accomplish these ends." And he then proceeded to specify the four purposes for which charity was required. These were (1) extra comforts in the shape of food and clothing, (2) the maintenance of orphans, (3) the relief of specially helpless classes, and (4) the provision of cattle, seed-corn, and implements to enable the cultivators to make a fresh start. This division of labour was in accordance with the recommendations of the Famine Commissioners, the functions of the Government being limited to the preservation of life and health; while charity was expected to supplement this work in certain exceptional cases, devoting itself principally to the duty of giving the cultivators a fresh start in life. Now in 1897 the charitable contributions were very large, so that no less a sum than three quarters of a million sterling could be allotted out of the Charity Fund for cattle, seed grain, and implements. It thus resulted that in 1897 the duties undertaken by Government, and the duties undertaken by charity, were both sufficiently fulfilled. But this unhappily is not the case in 1900. As regards the duties undertaken by Government, we know, from the assurance of the First Lord, that the Indian Government have the necessary funds, and no help is required. But as regards the relief dependent upon charity the resources are altogether insufficient, and it is here that special and exceptional help is required most urgently. I would specially invite the attention of the House to the almost despairing appeal made by Lord Curzon to the world's charity on the 28th of May. In that appeal he pointed

1381
out how vastly greater the present famine is than that of 1897, both in extent and intensity, while up to date only about half the amount previously subscribed had come in. This cry for help has been answered from many quarters of the globe—from our own colonies, some of whom have voted Parliamentary grants, from the United States, from the Emperor of Germany, even from the mandarins of China, and the Sultan of Turkey. Under these cir cumstances it does not seem fitting that this Parliament, which represents the richest community in the world, should stand aloof and refuse a contribution proportioned to the wealth of this country and its responsibility for the welfare of the Indian people. As far as I can judge, there is in the country no unwillingness to make this free grant. On the contrary, expressions of public opinion seem all to be in its favour; and I brought specially to the notice of the noble Lord the memorial in support of a free grant from so important a public body as the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce. As regards the purposes of this free gift, I would repeat that we do not desire it to be used in support of the general finances of India. It should be placed at the disposal of the Viceroy, to be utilised, according to the local needs of the suffering provinces, in helping the prostrate cultivators to their feet, and giving thorn a chance of regaining their normal condition. The excessive need in the present case has arisen from the wholesale destruction of plough and much cattle by the drought, the loss amounting to 80 and 90 per cent. in some districts. Without plough cattle the cultivators cannot take advantage of the rains now falling; and so pressing is the need that the Government of India is making advances to the cultivators for this purpose exceeding a million sterling. But this relief will only be partial and temporary, for those loans are only made to those who can give security, and, as they must be repaid, the object of giving the cultivators a fresh start will not be accomplished. What is wanted is a free gift of cattle, seed, and implements, to all who desire to return to their village homes and regain their old position of skilful and industrious peasants. The noble Lord has told the House how devotedly the officials in India have worked, high and low. I desire respectfully to associate myself in
1382
appreciating the noble work that has been done, and would specially mention that from all parts of India communications reach me expressing deep gratitude to his Excellency the Viceroy for his personal exertions. And I would ask whether this House would not be fitly recognising these exertions by placing at Lord Gurzon's disposal funds which will enable him to deal promptly and effectually with the misery by which he is surrounded. I see it announced that he is about to visit Gujerat, which is probably the most sorely afflicted province in India; and if the House will bear with me I will read a short extract describing the condition of the people there, as seen by Mr. Vaughan Nash, the special correspondent of the Manchester Guardian—
"When I look back on the scenes through which I have passed and think of the sum total of human misery, and the despair I have seen on people's faces, and the ruin this famine has brought on their homes and fields and on their families, I feel it is hopeless to attempt to put into words the agony of India. You see these simple childlike races, devoted to their homes and their children, made outcasts by the famine and forced to abandon their customs and leave their homes to get a, little bread by labour at stone-breaking or earth-carrying. Most poignant of all in the appeal it made to me was the silence and submission with which they bear their trials. In the hospital sheds, where you pick your way between the rows of dying, or out in the burning sun, where mothers are hammering stones with one hand and hugging a child with the other, you rarely hear a complaint. Even the gift of tears seems to have dried up, except among the children, whom you see crying sometimes by the side of a sick mother. Those who know India may be able to tell you what spirit it is that looks out from the eyes of these miserable?, broken and quenched as they are, and which keeps them dignified and composed in surroundings that are degrading and horrifying. It seemed to me to be the spirit of a noble people, who had won refinement and discipline when our own forefathers were savages, a people we may well be glad to succour and proud to rule, looking out at the wreck of all things, seeing their gods, their homes, their country shrivelling to dust and ashes."
No words of mine will add to the pathos of this description. But in asking hon. Members to take a merciful view of the present appeal I would remind them that the famine in India is essentially a famine of money, not of food, and that, on an average three-halfpence a day is sufficient to keep these poor people from the pangs of death by hunger. I beg to second the motion of my hon. friend.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'looking to the special needs of the famine stricken people in India at the present time, this House recognises that funds are urgently required to feed, clothe, and house the cultivators in their villages until their crops are ripe; to provide them with plough cattle, seed, and other requisites of cultivation; and to restore them to their normal economic condition; that these requirements cannot be adequately met from Indian revenues raised from the suffering Indian people, and within the necessarily restricted field of ordinary relief operations; that the funds subscribed by charity are altogether insufficient for these purposes; and this House is therefore of opinion that a large and generous free grant should be provided to assist in meeting this unprecedented calamity,' instead thereof."— (Mr. Souttar.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I do not think it would be respectful to the House that I, who am very little cognisant of the affairs of India, should attempt to detain it with arguments on the general subject on an evening when the debate must range over so vast a field; but the Amendment which has been moved induces me to detain the House for a short time while I express the views of the Government on this subject. It is a subject which commends itself to all our sympathies. All of us must have deeply felt the sufferings in India from this terrible famine; all of us have desired on the ground of that sentiment to which the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton referred to assist India if she needs assistance, even at considerable cost to ourselves. I hope, therefore, that in what I have to say to the House, I shall not be considered as in any way approaching this subject merely from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I am bound to say something as Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I am afraid that what my noble friend the Secretary of State for India said in the earlier part of the evening is but too true—that nowadays every one sympathises with expenditure, and few people indeed care how that expenditure is to be provided. What are we asked to do by the Amendment of the hon. member? It would not have been, I believe, in accordance with our rules that
1384
it should have specified any sum as a grant to India in the painful circumstances in which the Amendment is submitted, but on the Paper we find that the hon. Member desires to grant a sum of £5,000,000 to India in aid of this famine. Now the speech of the hon. Member who made this proposal differed in one very material respect from the speech of the hon. Member who seconded. The hon. Member who made this proposal dwelt at some length on the sufferings of the population of India from taxation; and that view was also taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, who, I think, suggested to the House that if it had not been for the famine large remissions of taxation would have been made in India; and therefore he argued—though I do not quite see that the argument was justified—that India was more highly taxed than this country. If there is to be a question of a grant to India from the Imperial Exchequer, I hope hon. Members will recollect when they talk so readily about the Imperial Exchequer that the Exchequer is the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and not of the Empire at large; and if it be a question of the power of India to bear taxation for this purpose, and the power of the United Kingdom at the present time to make this grant, there are some facts which I should like to place before the consideration of hon. Members. We have heard from my noble friend that the surplus of India in the year just closed is £2,800,000. I believe that in the previous year it was £2,600,000; but I have to remind the House that our deficit in the year just closed was nearly £14,000,000, that our estimated deficit in the present year is something like £23,000,000, and that within the last few days additional Estimates to the extent of £13,000,000 have been laid on the Table of the House. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that for our own objects we are not only not paying our way at the present time, but that we are largely increasing the debt of the country. What does the proposal of the hon. Member amount to, and how is this £5,000,000 to be provided? Is it to-be provided by increased taxation in this country? Increased taxation for this object would be no more possible than it was for the whole of the great expenditure of the war. What we are asked to do, therefore, when we have in the present

1385
year and last year added to our debt £37,000,000, and when we may have to add more, is to increase our debt still further for the purpose of granting £5,000,000 to India, the whole net debt of which is no more than £30,000,000. But is it for the relief of our Indian fellow subjects? I speak subject to correction, but I believe that the main suffering from this famine is in the native States, for the finances of which and for the subjects of which we are in no degree responsible; and therefore it is proposed that either by way of increased debt or increased taxation—probably by way of increased debt—the taxpayers of this country should at such a time as this provide £5,000,000 mostly for the benefit of the inhabitants of the native States, over whose finances, we have no power at all. That is a proposition which appears to me to demand the most careful consideration of anyone who has the least regard for the finances of this country. I notice that the hon. Baronet who seconded the Amendment did not put it on the ground of the taxation of India at all. He says, "I do not want to relieve the finances of India or the taxation of India." He agrees that the Indian Government has sufficient means and power to raise money to meet all the exigencies; the hon. Baronet put it purely on the ground of charity. His suggestion was that it was a grant we should never miss, and I think the hon. Member who made the proposal said it would be a generous gift out of our fulness and abounding wealth to the poverty-stricken population of India. I have shown the House the condition of the Exchequers of the two countries at the present time, and I confess astonishment that such a proposition should be based on such grounds as these, because it is not as if those who are responsible for the finances of India came to the Government of this country, or came to the House of Commons, and said, "We are in a position in which we are unable to provide sufficient means to meet what is required of us; we feel that we require the help of the United Kingdom in this great Indian difficulty; we appeal to you for that help which we think you ought to give us in remembrance of the past and what we have done for you." That would be a request which I should be the last man to disregard; it would be a request which I should feel bound to con-
1386
sider to the utmost of my power, whatever the condition of our finances here; but it is not the proposition we are considering to-night. We have been told by my noble friend, speaking after communication with the Government of India and with the authority of the Council of India, that this grant is not required; and, more, not only that it is not required, but that nothing could be done in the circumstances as they now exist which would be more prejudicial to the future of India than such a grant as is suggested. I think someone said that it would make no precedent, because this is the most serious famine that has ever been. But it would be a most dangerous precedent. Cannot the hon. Member see that if there be one duty more than another incumbent on the Government of India it is to provide be- forehand for serious famines of this kind? Cannot he see that if we were to once give such a grant as is proposed without a request from the Secretary for India in Council, little provision for famine would be made in future? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton felt the force of that argument used by my noble friend, and I for one would never be responsible for detracting so completely from the responsibility of the India Office, for the thing which above all others they right to care for, the preparations they should make by the machinery of their administrative government for famine by imposing upon ourselves a burden that they do not ask us to bear, and for which they have a special fund.
SIR HENRY FOWLEK: You did it in the Afghan War.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Why? Be cause it was the opinion of the Parliament of that day that the Afghan War had been undertaken at the instance of the Home Government and against the necessities or requirements of India, and, therefore, in fairness the people of the United Kingdom should pay for it. But this is an entirely different thing from making a grant towards the Indian famine against the wish of the Secretary for India. Is it suggested for a moment that we are not doing anything at the present time to assist the Indian Government in matters of finance? The hon. Member who made this proposal stated that among the advan-

1387
tages which India had given to the United Kingdom was that she had lent 32,000 troops for South Africa and China. That no doubt is the case, but we are paying for them. We are relieving India of the whole cost of those troops while they are employed in South Africa and China. Why is it that the people of India maintain an army like every other State? It is required not merely for quiet times but for times of emergency; and this being a quiet time in India she is able, at our request, to spare some Indian troops for service both in South Africa and in China. We are paying the whole of the cost of those troops, though from my point of view it appears that India has some interest in Chinese affairs as well as the United Kingdom. By paying the whole of the cost of these troops we shall relieve India in this present financial year, I suppose, probably of not less than £3,000,000. I do hope that the House will have some regard in this matter not only to the claims of sentiment and sympathy,; but also to the claims of reason and sound finance in India and in this country. The hon. Member deprecated India being called upon to meet this famine by borrowing. Why should we who are not responsible for this famine be called upon to meet it by borrowing? If the Indian Government comes to us and says that their resources are exhausted, that the future before them is so dark that they do not see their way to meet this terrible calamity without assistance from us, that assistance will be cordially given; but till that request is made I hope the House will support the Government in declining to assent to a proposal which, recommended as it may be by claims of sentiment and sympathy, is, in my opinion, contrary to the future advantage not merely of the United Kingdom, but of India itself.
MR. MACLEAN: The House has now had the privilege of hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the real reason which has induced Her Majesty's Government to refuse to give a grant to India. Such a grant has been approved of by the public feeling in this country, but it has never been listened to by Her Majesty's Government. Now we know from the responsible administrator of the finances of this Empire what is the real reason that has induced the Government
1388
to take up this position in regard to this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this is a time of great pressure upon the finances of the United Kingdom, and he also says that it is a, time of great prosperity for the finances of India. But is there any real comparison between the two countries? Are not the resources of every taxpayer in England one hundredfold greater than those of the Indian peasant? Do we not know the extreme pressure of the taxation on the poor people of India? In this country taxation is scarcely felt by any body, and it is a very light pressure upon the country. The taxes here are mainly paid by the wealthy, and they are hardly felt by the poorest in our midst. But every poor man in India pays his share of taxation, and feels the pressure of it very acutely indeed. I was surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that no appeal had ever been made from India for help, and that if such an appeal were made it would have at once been listened to.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Not by the Government.
MR. MACLEAN: Why has Lord Curzon had to scour the world in the hope of getting charity from all the nations of the earth instead of coming to Her Majesty's Government at home, from whom he might have got fifty times as much as all the foreign countries were subscribing in charity for the benefit of India? Is it not that he has had hint from the Government that it is not desirable, and that it is not considered appropriate that they should be pressed to give a large grant to India at the present moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that no need has arisen. I say it has arisen. It has been asserted in many of the speeches which have been made that everything has been done in India to avert famine that was possible, but that is not the case. Within the last forty years there have been ten recurring famines in India which have swept away at a moderate computation 15,000,000 human beings. These people have been absolutely wiped out of existence. The present famine is incomparably a greater famine than any of the nine famines which have preceded it. We cannot tell at the present moment what the extent

1389
of that famine has been, but I should say it would be no exaggeration to declare that between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 human beings have died through the ravages of this famine in India. Therefore, when it is said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that the administration of famine relief in India during the past year has been marked by wonderful success, I deny that that has been the case. The first plain duty of the Government has been frankly acknowledged to be to pre-! vent death, and I say with perfect fearlessness in this House that the Government have not prevented death, and that people have died every week by tens of thousands without getting any help from the Government at all. Look at the returns published from Bombay of the deaths which have occurred in that Presidency, and in the native States. There are 1,500,000 people on famine relief in the Bombay Presidency, and the deaths among those people alone amount to 13,000 per week—that is to say, between 650,000 and 700,000 deaths in one year. Therefore in two years, if this famine lasts, the whole of that population of 1,250,000 human beings will have been completely swept away by the ravages of famine. It has been stated in many quarters that it is not famine that has caused the death of all these people but cholera, or intermittent fever. But those are merely different names for the same thing, and they are merely aliases for what is the real cause of the death of the people which is simply starvation. The people come to these relief camps which are nothing but pest houses where they are exposed to the ravages of epidemics. They come to these relief camps from their homes in the last stage of exhaustion, for they have not the means of subsistence j or the means of recovering strength to do the work which they are called upon to do. Consequently they fall victims to these epidemic diseases and they die off rapidly. That is the cause of the appalling mortality which has occurred in India. Upon whom does the responsibility for this mortality rest? It is a mortality which is admitted on all hands, and even the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India would not venture to deny it. Upon whom does the responsibility rest? It is divided between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India. I do not mean the
1390
Secretary of State personally. I have no doubt of his sympathy with the people of India, and I agree with a great deal he has said about the admirable way in which a great part of the work has been done. I am aware that large sums of money have been spent, but the staff out there has not been sufficient to give the people relief. Directly cholera appeared, those great camps that are formed should have been broken up and the people distributed in their own districts, and looked after more carefully by officers of the Government. The Governor of Bombay acknowledges that his staff was so small that the areas affected could not be covered. There is room for the employment of Imperial funds and Imperial officers to help those civil and military servants of the Crown in India who have been so splendidly doing their work as Englishmen under most difficult circumstances. But nothing of the sort has been done by the Government of India. On the contrary, they have sat still and done nothing. The noble Lord has waited in his office for the monsoon to appear. He has of course written the inevitable letter to the Lord Mayor, which seems to be a remedy for all the ills which flesh is heir to. Instead of presenting money to that country, he is now going to accept a large gift of money from the Maharaja of Gwalior, who is a rich Indian prince. The noble Lord came down here the other day with an admirable ingenuousness which we cannot too much applaud, and spoke of the great gift which the Maharaja of Gwalior has made in order to fit up a hospital for the benefit of our soldiers and sailors engaged in the Chinese War. I should say that when the Imperial Government received an offer of that sort—which seems to me to be only another illustration of that spurious Imperialism which is spreading like a parasite over the whole British Empire—at a time when India is suffering the terrible ravages of famine; when they received an offer of nearly £200,000 from an Indian prince, they would have had the politeness to refuse such an offer and tell that native prince that he could better employ his money by giving it to his own starving fellow countrymen at home. We have had. enough of these offers of gifts of hospitals from all parts of the world. England ought to be ashamed to accept

1391
such gifts from any country so long as we are rich and strong enough to maintain our own soldiers and sailors in health or in sickness; and we do not want to have hospitals sent to us as free gifts, either by enterprising citizens in America or India who desire social recognition in English society, or from Indian princes who wish to compete with one another for the favour of the Imperial Government. So much with regard to the responsibility of the Home Government. But the responsibility of the Government of India lies much deeper. The noble Lord the Viceroy of India is a man of great personal energy and ability, and he has taken a step which I ventured two months ago to recommend him to take in this House. I stated here that it would be very much better if instead of issuing admirable regulations he came down from the heights of Simla and went about in the poor districts to see for himself what could be done to deal with this great difficulty.
LORD G. HAMILTON: He visited all the districts last year.
MR. MACLEAN: Yes, that was a long time ago. But I am very glad to see that he is now trying to put all the new energy he can into the people who are charged with the duty of conducting the administration in India. There is this to be said with regard to the resolution proposed by my hon. friend opposite: that it will have to come eventually to a free gift to the people of India from the Imperial Treasury. There is no doubt that India is bleeding to death under our rule, and that the country is nearly exhausted. India has mainly an agricultural population, but the people have not the means by which they can produce crops and restore the land to a state of fertility unless a free gift is made to them. A free gift given in the way of charity will not suffice, for the money will be spent upon necessaries and the land will be no better off. Such gifts ought to be supplemented with a comprehensive policy, and one distinguished by foresight. That policy was framed long ago by the Government of India on the recommendation of & gentleman who was one of the most distinguished public servants who ever existed in India. Forty years ago when there was a great famine in the North-
1392
West Provinces Lord Canning, who was Viceroy of India, appointed the late Colonel Baird Smith, who was equally distinguished by his valour and his administrative capacity, to draw up a report upon the famine and advise the Government of India as to what could be done to prevent the recurrence of such a stupendous calamity. Colonel Baird Smith injured his own health in pursuing that work, but he furnished a most comprehensive and able State paper in which he recommended that the land assessment of India should be permanently settled for the whole of that country, and not merely in a few provinces of Bengal. That was a distinct recommendation that he made, and he converted to his view not only Lord Canning, but also Lord Lawrence and Sir Richard Temple. Not only did he convert people out in India, but that policy of settling the land revenue on a fair basis and fixing it for all time was taken up in this country by the late Sir Charles Wood and Sir Stafford Northcote, and it only failed because the Manchester school at that time foresaw that if the land revenue was reduced very heavy indirect taxation would be the result and large import duties would be levied on English piece goods. That is the real remedy for the state of things which exists in India, and it is the only manner in which the will be enabled to accumulate stock and to devote all his energy to the cultivation of the soil. At the present time the Indian peasant is virtually taxed upon his own improvements. He is rack-rented on his own improvements. Directly he gets his head above water and succeeds in cultivating a certain portion of land, and getting more out of it, the agent of the State comes down on him and demands half the net profit of his field, and drives him back again to the stage of despair from which he had just emerged. Depend upon it, if we are ever to appreciate our real responsibility to the people of India we must undertake a reform of this land assessment, and we must fix it on a reasonable scale. When I mentioned this subject in the House a couple of months ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton rebuked me for saying that the land revenues of India brought in £18,000,000 a year, and were in spite of the famine expected to bring in that amount next year. The right hon.

1393
Gentleman quoted Mr. Fawcett to show that these land revenues were merely a portion of the rent. Those of us who I have had any connection with India, and who have studied the working of the land assessment and the terrible results which follow from it, know the position much better than Mr. Fawcett, and we are not going to be overawed by schoolmen from Oxford or Cambridge. Only to-day I came upon an extract from a book which was sent me which shows the view taken of this matter by no less a person than Sir Louis Mallet, who is one of the most fervent disciples of Cobden, John Stuart Mill, and the Manchester school. He had also some acquaintance with India, and he said that the results of this land assessment were underrated, and that he would rejoice to see it placed on a more satisfactory footing. That would be a policy worthy of an Empire like this to undertake. We are accustomed to speak of the benefits which railways and irrigation works have conferred in India. I do not undervalue these great improvements, but I say the natural fertility of the land in spite of them is decreasing in India. I will quote one or two figures showing that. In the middle of the seventeenth century, during the height of the prosperity of the Mogul Empire, the average produce of rice in India was 1,335 1b. per acre, of wheat 1,155 lb., and of cotton 67 lb. The statistics for the nineteenth century show that the average yield of rice per acre is from 800 lb. to 900 lb., of wheat 600 lb., and of cotton 52 lb., so that the actual produce of the land, in spite of all that has been done, has fallen something like 50 per cent. The question which suggests, itself is, what remedial measures must be adopted to improve the fertility of the soil? I venture to point out one such measure based on the most careful study of India, and recommended by some of the most able statesmen who have ever ruled that country, and that is to revise the system of land assessment and to give fair play to the Indian agriculturist. I am quite sure that if Lord Gurzon would examine this matter for himself he would build up for himself an enduring fame and would redeem this country from the reproach that while India has a most fertile soil and a most docile population she has a very incompetent Government.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Having travelled through the famine-stricken districts in India early this year, and having seen the terrible suffering of the population, I feel I must' offer a few remarks in support of the proposal which has been made that India should be given a grant of £5,000,000 out of the Imperial Exchequer. I desire to bear testimony from my own personal observation to the most admirable and self-sacrificing manner in which officials, from the Viceroy down to the lowest official in India, are grappling with this terrible devastating famine which has spread over so wide an area and which is greater in relation to the number of people affected by it than possibly any famine which has ever occurred in the history of India. I think it would be a great act of sympathy if the House of Commons unanimously voted this money without a word of discussion, but I go beyond that, and I say that it would be an act of restitution to the people of India. We have a right to come to their assistance in this time of severe emergency. Lord Welby's Commission acknowledged that more than a quarter of a million annually was being overpaid to the Exchequer of this country from India, in connection with the financial arrangements between the two countries, and that it should be put an end to. But I should like to know whether this policy is not to be retrospective. We know that this sum of money at least has been exacted from the people of India for the last twenty years, which amounts to the £5,000,000 proposed in this resolution. If we grant it, we shall have had the benefit of the whole of the interest we have derived from that money, to which we have no just claim. Is it not also a fact that a third of the whole British Army is quartered in India, and that one-third of our Army Reserves are being created at the cost of India? I do not know how far that aspect of the question was taken into consideration by Lord Welby's Commission. We have been told to-night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the inhabitants of the native States of India have practically no claim on the sympathy and the financial aid of this country. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is or is not true that the Queen of England is Empress of the whole of India, and that every inhabitant of India is a subject of the

1395
Empress? That being so, I venture to say that the inhabitants in the native States have an equal claim to our assistance and generosity as have the inhabitants of the States directly governed by us. We are told that India is to receive considerable financial relief by the fact of 20,000 troops from that country have gone to South Africa and to China to uphold the interests of the British Empire. We are told that that will mean a saving of at least £3,000,000 sterling. I find that the total net cost of the army in India is £15,000,000 sterling, and that 20,000 troops are just about a tenth of the whole native and European army, and therefore it appears to me that the utmost saving to the Exchequer of India that can be effected if these troops remain absent for a year will be one and a half millions, not three millions. With regard to the famine and to the measures which are necessary for the relief of its victims, my own view is that what is needed is a vigorous policy of opening up and developing India by the laying down of more railways, and especially the construction of irrigation works, so as to grapple with the question once for all and lessen immensely the probability of the recurrence of famine. I am sorry to notice that in connection with the heavy expenditure on famine relief it has been found necessary to reduce the amount spent on railway construction and irrigation works. When I was in Calcutta, in January last, I had an opportunity of discussing this whole question with the Viceroy. He is as keen on railway extension, and the construction of irrigation works as anyone can possibly be, and I know that he greatly regretted being obliged to stop the construction of railways in various parts of India on account of the special expenditure rendered necessary by the famine. But what I wish to submit to the House is whether there is any reason why the construction of railways should not proceed irrespective entirely of any special expenditure on famine. What are the facts? The railways of India last year, including military and famine lines, earned an average dividend of 5"32 per cent., and we know that by the construction of many feeder lines, which will pay well in themselves, the profitable character of the main lines is likely to be increased. That is the financial result of
1396
the whole railway system in India, and it can be improved still further. We know that reproductive public works have not given sufficient employment to the people of India; but we would not only be giving them present employment by opening up the country in this way, but works would be undertaken which would permanently give considerable employment to the people of India. In connection with the East India Railway, we find that they cannot get the Government of India to allow them to raise money which is so urgently required for the purpose of supplying the line with rolling stock. The other day a deputation of Calcutta merchants brought this matter specially under my notice. We find that the great East India Railway during the last twenty years has not only discharged nine millions of capital debt, but has also covered a capital expenditure of from six to seven millions, and has reduced its liability to the Government of India by twelve millions. At present the surplus profit from the East India Railway coming into the Exchequer is more than a million annually. What is the situation at present? One firm owning collieries had 30,000 tons of coal stocked at the collieries; they had ships waiting at Calcutta for it; and yet they could not get them loaded for six weeks because the railway company had not the necesssary rolling stock to carry the coal to the port of shipment. It is also true that wheat and seeds have been detained at railway stations for weeks together for want of trucks. A gentleman whom I only met to-day, and who owns large works in Calcutta, told me he had to cease work because he could not get coal from the collieries.
MR. SPEAKER: These observations are not relevant to the Amendment.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I had no intention of going beyond my right, and I will defer any further statement in regard to this matter until this particular Amendment has been disposed of; but perhaps I would be in order in urging that the proper way to deal with famine in India is by opening up and developing the country by railway extensions and the construction of irrigation works. I think I am justified in advocating that, by reason of the fact that the railways pay exceedingly well, as do also the irrigation works. The irrigation works last year

1397
earned on an average a profit of 7 per cent. The interest was only 4 per cent., and therefore there was a clear profit of 3 per cent. which went into the Indian Exchequer. Is the financial position of India, after all, so bad that the work of constructing railways and the carrying on of irrigation works should not proceed? The railways of India earn 5.32 per cent., and I presume that money to extend them could be borrowed at 3½ per cent. I find in the explanatory statement that has been issued that, in taking account of the assets and liabilities of India, the capital value and not the present value is taken. I submit to the House that the 140 millions which is invested in railways earning 5⅓ per cent. is worth more than that capital sum, and, in the second place, that the irrigation works on which 23 millions have been spent, and which pay on an average 7 per cent., are certainly a marketable asset worth twice the amount they have cost. On that calculation the total realisable market value of our assets in India to-day would be 269 millions, whereas the total debt of India is only 212 millions, showing a surplus of 57 millions. Then, again, consider the enormous revenues from land. We got last year 16 millions from that source, which at twenty-five years purchase would be worth 400 millions. The only reason I quote these figures is that I hold that the financial position of India today is so excellent—there is no debt in the sense that we have a National Debt, because it is more than covered by revenue-producing assets—that we should be able to proceed with railway construction and irrigation works, irrespective altogether of the value of the telegraphs and public buildings, and the enormous revenues from land. Why, then, does not the Government of India deal with this question of railway construction and irrigation works on its merits? Why do they not separate the railway and irrigation accounts from the general finances of India? They would then have a splendid security, and they would be in a position to raise all the money they required for railway extension and irrigation works. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's sympathies will j be with this proposal, and that he will be able to announce in the House to-night that at any rate he will give it favourable consideration, and that before long a
1398
separation of accounts may take place so that the opening up of India will not be retarded by any special expenditure in connection with famine. The extension of railways and irrigation works is the one practical way to increase the prosperity of India, and to prevent to a large extent the recurrence of famine, and even if famine did appear we should then be in a much better position to grapple with it.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. TANNER, Cork County, Mid). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG GREE: There is one feature with regard to the debate to-night on which I wish specially to express my thanks to Her Majesty's. Government—namely, the unusually early date granted for the discussion of the Indian Budget. I welcome this arrangement, as it has boon considered a grievance in India that almost the only definite opportunity this House has of discussing' questions affecting that country is postponed to the last night of the session. The present change will be regarded with, satisfaction in India, and I trust that it will be allowed to form a precedent in future years. I am pleased to find that all the Amendments on the Order Paper relating to the Budget have reference to the famine, which evinces the great concern which the House as a whole feels about the terrible calamity from which. India is suffering, and this sympathy by the representatives of the nation will be regarded with a sense of gratitude by the people of that country. But as the particular motion now before the House does not embrace all the points covered by the several Amendments, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask your decision as to-whether it would be in order to refer to those points, and especially to the one with regard to the development of technical and industrial instruction, which forms the subject-matter of the Amendment standing in my name as follows—
"That the spread of famine and scarcity over extensive areas and affecting millions of inhabitants in India, although recurring at irregular intervals, may be regarded as a. certain calamity to which that country is periodically exposed; that the disastrous consequences of such visitation are rendered unconquerable by the fact that an unusually

1399
large proportion of its population is allowed to remain dependent for its livelihood upon agricultural labour exclusively, whereas nearly all other industrial pursuits, for which the natural resources of the country offer wide scope, are neglected; that one of the most effective methods by which the rigour of the famines could be modified, and the buying power of the people now succumbing to them increased, would be to enable large classes of the agricultural population to pursue other industries; and that, therefore, it is the opinion of this House that the Government of India should adopt measures for the elementary industrial and technical instruction of the poorer communities, so as to fit them for more profitable manual labour in other directions besides agriculture."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be in order in dealing with any method of relieving the famine, or any measure which he thinks would prevent its recurrence.
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: Of the several methods suggested there are four which deserve special attention as being calculated to mitigate the rigours of future famines, if not altogether to prevent their recurrence, cither by lessening the burden upon the taxpayer, or by increasing the production of wealth in the country. Modifications in the different systems of assessment, and the adoption of protective measures against undue and uncertain enhancements, are admitted to have a close bearing upon the ultimate prosperity of the cultivator, and I am glad to find that the Government of India has before it important materialin connection with these questions, as well as with regard to the question of elasticity, which is engrossing its attention. It seems to me a sound principle that enhancement should be regulated on the ground of an increase in prices. From the. discussion in the Viceroy's Council on the last Financial Statement it is satisfactory to note that the revised Estimates were less than those of the Budget by 83 lakhs of rupees in Bombay, and by 35½ lakhs and 38 lakhs in the Central Provinces and the Punjab, respectively, and that for the coming year large reductions are already promised in the estimates which were originally based on a favourable anticipation. The surplus shown in the revised Budget, in spite of adverse circumstances, is due in a great measure to the steady increase in the earnings of railways and irrigation works, and this fully justifies the provision of a crore of rupees for the
1400
extension of irrigation works, to which as a remedy against famines Lord Curzon has wisely directed his attention. Under the head of "Reduction of Expenditure" might be included a readjustment of the cost of maintaining in India forces which are required to perform Imperial duties. We have had considerable and valuable testimony from competent statesmen that the Indian foreign policy was determined by Imperial rather than Indian considerations, and I hail the announcement made by Lord Onslow in another place a few nights ago that Her Majesty's Government are willing to accept the recommendations of the Commission, and to give at least £250,000, and probably more, towards the relief of the revenues of India; that Her Majesty's Government desire to treat India not only equitably, but liberally; and that if time were given them they hoped to give effect to other recommendations of the Royal Commission. I trust Her Majesty's Government will go a good deal further in their final action on those recommendations, j and see their way to make further concessions in the direction in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton has made so eloquent an appeal to-night for an ampler measure of justice to India. I also gladly welcome the determination of the Government to accept the recommendation of the Commission as to referring to arbitration questions in dispute that j may arise between the Imperial i and. the Indian Governments. The interests of India, safeguarded as the are, no doubt, by the Secretary of State and the Viceroy, are apt to be brushed aside if submitted to the final determination of the Cabinet alone. But if, upon any question in which the authority directly connected with India differs from the Imperial authority, the points upon which they differed were referred to arbitration, it would go far to convince the people of India that the final decision arrived at was a fair and just one. I would now refer, lastly, to the great cause which leads to the impoverishment of the resources of India, and exposes her population to the ravages of scarcity and famine, which is not inaptly called the drain of the wealth of India. Under this head political thinkers and speakers include a great many questions, such as the large civil and military expenditure of the
*See page 610 of this volume.

1401
country, the home charges, the interest paid on foreign capital, and so forth, and they have their different panacea for these evils. To my mind, this great drain, the existence of which cannot be denied, is due to the enormous volume of foreign manufactured articles which are imported into the country. India pays out somewhere about fifty millions of tens of rupees under this head every year, or, to do away with what Lord Curzon very aptly termed "the dreadful and bewildering symbol of Rx.," a sum exceeding £33,000,000. Against this huge figure the value of manufactured articles exported from India is absolutely insignificant, so that the conclusion is undeniable that the manufacturing capacity of the country is infinitesimal. On former occasions I have quoted figures and statistics to prove this, and I shall not trouble the House by going over the ground again. When I first drew attention to this subject I was misunderstood and misrepresented by a certain class of people who imagined that my object was to discredit high literary education in India. Even my hon. friend the Member for Dumfriesshire was misled in that way, but I should be very much mistaken indeed if he is still of that opinion. It is naturally gratifying to me that the arguments I then advanced have found wide acceptance, and the necessity for the propagation of such industrial and technical teaching as might fit the people of India to bestow skilled labour upon the natural materials which are found in such abundance in their country is recognised. The interest evinced in this matter by the noble Lord and the Viceroy must be gratefully acknowledged. I regard the development of instruction in this direction as the most important of all remedies suggested against the terrible affliction of the oft-recurring famines. I shall briefly illustrate this by alluding to the fact that 90 per cent. of the population of India subsists on agricultural pursuits, and that if we succeed in withdrawing say, even 10 per cent. from this occupation, we at once reduce by so much the burden on the soil, and increase the productive power of that 10 per cent. by teaching them to turn raw material into articles of domestic use, every one of which nearly they now import from foreign countries. Owing to the scarcity of fodder in the present famine, large numbers of cattle have perished. I am told that for want of skilled manipulation, the hides were
1402
exported to foreign countries at the ridiculously low price of a few annas a piece. These same skins will return to the country in the shape of manufactured goods. If the natives were taught to manufacture such goods, to how many hundreds of thousands of people would this very material furnish lucrative occupation, and how much money on this one head be retained in the country? This is what might be said with respect to horns, bones, seeds, and almost every variety of material which is to be found copiously in India. In short, the extension of industrial enterprise would stop the enormous drain on the resources of India, and furnish the means of subsistence to a large number of those who succumb so easily to the ravages of famine. Gratifying as is the fact that the need for such teaching as might make this enterprise possible is widely and even authoritatively recognised, it is necessary that some steps should be taken to supply that need, and means devised to provide the necessary instruction. I have often been confronted with the argument that the people of India are averse to such education, and asked how it is possible to get a people to adopt trades or industries to which they are not inclined and would not take kindly; but the answer is plain. The mission of the British Government in India is absolutely a paternal one, and it places an obligation upon them to guide the people of the country. It is no excuse for the Government to say "The people do not want it, and will not do it"; that is not the position that ought to be taken up. It is the duty of the Government to find out what is good for the people of India, and then place such means at their disposal as they might be induced to adopt. All the schools in the villages and towns throughout the country should be provided with workshops and scientific laboratories, on a scale proportionate to their size and capacity, and by that means the people of India would be brought to see the desirability and the necessity of adapting themselves to the pursuit of industries of a lucrative character. At present the education of India proceeds in the direction of making the people literary scholars, which is right enough in its due proportion, but a nation of literary scholars is not one that is likely to advance in the paths of prosperity.

1403
The bulk of a prosperous nation must be composed of people skilled in industrial arts and crafts, and it is the duty of the British Government to remedy the gross ignorance of India in that respect. If the people could be induced to gradually enter upon the manufacture of even one-fifth of the articles which are now imported, and which have entered into their daily wants, and which they are now compelled to purchase, famine would to a large extent disappear. I submit that this is the most effectual way of subduing the effects of this curse that overwhelms India periodically. This is the root cure for the future. Meanwhile, for the present, we have not only the prevailing famine, but unfortunately a dismal prospect for the coming year. Reports from India about the rainfall are alarming, and there is promise of continuous scarcity. This has enhanced the disappointment with which I heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the right hon. Gentleman rose to speak, I fully expected he would make some announcement which would carry comfort to the hearts of the people who are in such dire distress, and that, at all events, he would hold out some hope of help. But the argument which he mainly employed was that Great Britain could not spare money for an adequate grant, because her Exchequer was poorer than that of India. This statement will be read to-morrow everywhere with surprise and even consternation. The right hon. Gentleman further argued that the credit of India was unshaken, and that she can borrow more than she requires for her needs. No doubt the credit of India is as good today in the midst of her sufferings as it ever was, and she can draw upon her credit as largely as she chooses for the purpose of obtaining relief, more especially as it is generally known that England is at her back; but a nation in this respect is like a man, who might have any amount of credit, but who, if he drew upon it too largely, would become a helpless bankrupt, and ultimately perish.
MR. WYNDHAM: In such a case the Government would come to her assistance.
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I am grateful for that assurance. I make no claim on the part of India on the ground of right, of her past
1404
wrongs, or anything of the kind. I only appeal to the benevolence of the British nation, and to the high Imperial instincts which have recently been shown by the nation in various ways, so that India may feel that her relationship with England is not merely one of pounds, shillings and pence, but that England will stand by India to-day as India has stood by England whenever called upon to do so. I remember during the time of the American War, when there was a great crisis in the Manchester cotton trade, how the merchant princes of Bombay sent stupendous aid to Lancashire.
MR. MACLEAN: They were making their fortunes out of it.
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I am surprised at my hon. friend, after his speech to-night, using this argument against the appeal I am making. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I do not base my appeal as any sort of claim whatsoever. I would not hark back on the past, or I might be tempted to dwell on the various instances in which the Indian Exchequer was unjustifiably burdened with large payments on account of the Persian and Abyssinian expeditions, the entertainment of the Sultan, the demonstration at Malta, and the Egyptian campaigns. I only plead for a generous grant in this time of India's need, on the ground that it would be essentially the sort of charity that covereth a multitude of sins. I make my appeal because I feel that amid our present distractions, and owing to the numerous calls that have been made on its purpose, this nation has not fully acted up to its noble traditions for sympathy with suffering fellow-subjects. A few days ago I made an appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the concluding words of which I would take the liberty of reading to the House—
"As head of a Church the beneficence of whose operations and whose resources for doing good are practically boundless, I venture to appeal to your Grace in this time of India's direful need to make a call upon this nation for succour and relief. A day of general prayer and intercession, to be followed by a collection, in all the churches, would provide such a remedy. Divine grace thus supplicated would not be withheld, while the donations of the religious-minded specially called for from innumerable pulpits would result in a copious flow of that material help which would sensibly mitigate the evils of this gigantic

1405
calamity. Should it please your Grace to take ray appeal into your favourable consideration, I need scarcely say that you will earn the unutterd blessings of countless masses of our suffering fellow-subjects in India, endear the Church to their hearts in its charitable aspects, and demonstrate as has never been done before to three hundred millions of the inhabitants of that country the benevolence, the potency, and the saving grace of Christian prayer and Christian charity."
The Archbishop's reply to that appeal was to the effect that it would be best for intending subscribers to send all contributions to the Mansion House Fund. Such a reply from the highest dignitary of the Church showed unmistakably that the heart and conscience of the nation had not been awakened. On this ground I urge that it is the clear duty of the Government to make a grant, and I trust that the decision announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be reconsidered. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would make an appeal to hon. Members opposite. If they really mean to serve India in this time of her distress, I would ask them not to press the motion for a grant to a division. We know that the division will be on the usual party lines, and the motion will be rejected by a large majority. It will be regarded as a decision which confirms and stereotypes the unfortunate declaration that has been made; but if the appeal for a grant is allowed to rest on the expression of views that has taken place to-night and which will be echoed in the press to-morrow, there may be some hope of a favourable consideration of this question before long.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman in any of the arguments he has placed before the House. I will merely say that I do not think that he drew the right inference as to the amount of interest that there is in the motion under discussion. I believe that the country and the House are deeply moved at the distress in India through this famine, and I desire to add my personal appreciation of the closing remarks of the noble Lord, the pathos of whose words, to my mind, was expressive of the sincerity of the deep feeling of this country. I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the speech he did. Though I quite see that there may be reasons why the Government could not accept this resolution, I object to the
1406
grounds which he gave for coming to that conclusion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman drew with regard to the Exchequers was entirely fallacious, and one which will not bear the grip of argument for a moment. With regard to the famine now raging in India, I feel that no words are too strong to express our admiration for the way in which all officials responsible for the famine administration at the present time are doing their duty. From the highest officer down to the humblest official, whether English or Indian, they are doing their duty. They are doing duties which, if done on the field of battle, would have been made known to the world, and would have won the admiration of the public generally. They are doing their work silently, loyally, and unwitnessed, and I am sure that this House and the country cordially endorse all that has been said in praise of what they have done. The fact is, as has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, this is the greatest famine of the century, and the most widespread in its effects. We must remember that cholera in its most fatal form has been added to the horrors of the famine, and that has made the situation still more serious. In many districts in India the people had scarcely recovered from the effects of the famine of three years ago when they received this second blow. I do not desire to dwell to-night in any way on certain mistakes which have been made in the famine administration. I will only call attention to two things which I think have been unfortunate. First of all, there was the massing of the sufferers in relief camps distant from villages. I would also note the fact that the people receiving relief are paid a minimum of wages cut down to the starvation point. Those things have had the effect, I think, of intensifying the evils resulting from the famine. No doubt when this famine is over there will be an inquiry into the whole circumstances. I am not going in any way to anticipate what will be the result of that inquiry. I would rather refer for a few moments to one or two of the remedies which I think are essential before India can be placed in a position satisfactorily to resist the awful consequences of these famines. It is a commonplace to say that the immediate cause of all these famines is

1407
the lack of rainfall. No possible remedy can affect that immediate cause, but I think all hon. Members will agree with me when I say that it is possible to make such changes in regard to the position of the great masses of the population in India who are peculiarly liable to the effects of famine as will make them stronger to resist its effects. I will mention one or two of these remedies which I think would permanently improve the position of the cultivators of the soil in India. My hon. friend below me has already referred to the need of extending irrigation works. I am not going into this question at any length, but I would like heartily to associate myself with what he said. There is need for extending irrigation works for famine-protective purposes in India. I notice that Lord Curzon in his speech at his Council in March last complained a little of the insistence of a certain number of those interested in India in this country upon this point. He said that apparently we were not aware that already a great deal had been done in the way of providing irrigation works for the purpose of preventing famine. That is perfectly true. What we say is, we think a great deal more ought to be done than has been done already. We have spent in India up to 1897 the enormous sum of £250,000,000, or thereabouts, upon the construction of railways. We have only spent £32,000,000 upon the construction of irrigation works. I think that that is a great disproportion, which ought not to exist, between these two kinds of public works, which have mainly for their purpose the prevention and the amelioration of famine. Of course the objection is made that you cannot make canals in high and hilly countries. This is a difficulty which no doubt prevails over a large portion of the Central Provinces of India. I reply to that—if canals are impossible, lakes are not. I would remind the House that there is a large number of storage tanks in certain districts of India, especially in the Central Provinces. They have been used throughout history in India. They have been a practical method for alleviating the horrors of famine, and I will ask whether it is not possible to construct storage tanks, at least in such districts as I have named in the Central Provinces, if it cannot be done elsewhere. If we cannot erect these storage tanks, what about
1408
wells? There are in Northern India a great number of these wells, and they could be, I venture to assert, multiplied to almost any extent. In concluding what I have to say on irrigation works, I would like to remind the House, and especially the noble Lord opposite, if be will allow me, that there was a specific recommendation in the Famine Commission Report of 1898, on this subject. It stated this—
"As the State in India is generally in the position of superior landlord, there are special reasons why the Government should undertake, without expectation of direct return, works peculiarly protective of agriculture, such as irrigation works."
I venture to say that this is a sound piece of advice. Although the Government have not had a very long time to carry out that recommendation, I hope the noble Lord will to-night be able to say that they agree with the policy which underlies the statement. I hope also the noble Lord will be able to give the House some information in regard to the attitude of the Government to the Madras Irrigation Bill, which embodies a point of policy with the most direct connection with the question of famine. As some hon. Members may be aware, the Government of Madras passed a Bill making the irrigation rate compulsory. This is a most retrograde policy. It is contrary to the distinct recommendation of the Commission I have already alluded to. It is contrary to the universal usage in India, and there is no reason why this change should be made. That is a change which means that, in regard to Madras, there shall be a compulsory rate for the use of water from irrigation works, because, as my hon. friend below me has already pointed out, the interest earned by the irrigation works upon the whole is about 7 per cent.—at all events, it is over 6 per cent. I should point out also that the policy that underlies this Madras Bill is contrary to the position taken up by more than one previous Secretary of State with regard to similar legislation. Thirty years ago a similar measure was proposed, and the Duke of Argyll, who was Secretary of State for India at the time, for three specific reasons refused his sanction. I am not going to trouble the House with the reasons in detail, but they were in the first place that a canal might not be able to supply for irrigation purposes the expected quantity of water; secondly, that the

1409
expected quantity being available, cultivators might decline to avail themselves to the expected extent; and thirdly, that excessive costliness of construction might, in order to render a canal remunerative, necessitate the imposition of higher rates than cultivators could afford or would voluntarily pay. If these three reasons against making the rate compulsory in regard to these works were valid in 1870, they are valid to-day. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some ground for hoping that he will not sanction this particular Bill. As the hon. Member for Cardiff has already pointed out, the root of the famine is the land question. India is an agricultural country. I agree with the hon. Member opposite entirely that it is of the utmost importance we should develop, as far as we can, the industrial resources of India, and I think he will also agree with me when I say that it will take many decades before India can hope to compete with the capital, the skill, and the science of Europe. Even when this does take place, the great masses of India will depend primarily upon agriculture. Therefore, in dealing with the land question in India with regard to famine, you are dealing with an issue of vital and permanent importance. I would like to make one or two remarks as to the principle regulating land assessment in India, and to point out that these facts have a direct bearing upon the consequences of the famine. Take, first, the principle now obtaining in Northern India. I will content myself with simply showing what the system there is. After a number of reductions had been made on the scale of assessment about fifty years ago, it was finally fixed at 50 per cent. of the rental. The system is to allow the landlord and the tenant to make their own arrangements, and then the State comes in and takes 50 per cent. of the rental. It is interesting to note that the then Governor of the North-west Provinces, Sir Antony MacDonnell, a man of the largest experience, and a most distinguished public servant in India, points out that this means, generally speaking, 8 to 10 per cent. of the gross produce of the soil. The arrangement has worked well hitherto, and I wish to suggest that it would be most desirable that a similar limit should be placed in regard to land assessment in the Southern Provinces of India. Just one word as to Madras and
1410
Bombay. Here the matter stands in a very different condition. As hon. Members know, the Government deal direct with the cultivators. The rent in many cases is excessive, and the cultivators are in a state of chronic poverty. I will only mention one fact to prove that statement. I find on reading the Report of the Famine Commission of 1878 the statement—
"The Government takes in rent not from 8 to 10 per cent. of the gross produce, as in Northern India, but from 12 to 31 per cent."
I am afraid if the present day facts were examined the matter would be still worse in regard to that point. As to Bombay, the only evidence I will trouble the House with is what is divulged in the Crop Experiments Report in reference to the relation between the assessments. I find that, judging from the results of these experiments, it has been discovered with regard to the Presidency of Bombay that the assessment is very high, and that in some cases it reaches a scale of 42, 67, and even 96 per cent. of the gross product of the soil. Without wearying the House with any further facts and figures, I will content myself with simply pointing out that it seems to me plain that there is an inevitable connection between the scale of assessment and the present famine in these districts. With regard to the Central Provinces, I will remind the House that six years ago an enhancement took place of similar dimensions. Rents advanced from 20 per cent. to 105 per cent., and the effect of this enhancement has been inevitable. People are afraid to embark capital in the land, and when famine comes, as it has come to that district to-day, the people are practically helpless to resist it. The moral of these facts is written, I believe, very plainly in the history of the famines in India. I do not wish to say that it is only in those districts where land assessment is very high that famines ever come. What I do say is that an examination of the facts of the case proves beyond doubt that it is just in those districts that famines are always most severe. For instance, in 1877, as the House knows, it was in Madras that 5,000,000 died of famine, and in 1897 and 1900 it was in the Central Provinces where the famine seemed to have the worst results. To-day it is in Bombay. It is in these three districts and Presidencies that land assessments are higher than they are in any other portion of

1411
India. The House will ask, "In the face of these facts, what do you suggest?" I do not recommend a universal system. That would be obviously impossible. I do not recommend the extension throughout India of the permanent settlement. I do not recommend the creation of landlords in Bombay and Madras, as in other parts of India. What I do suggest is that an equitable limit should be fixed to the land revenue demanded by the Government, and that reasonable security should be given to tenants that this rate will continue. What do hon. Members think would be an equitable limit to impose with regard to land assessment? I would suggest this practical solution of the difficulty. I should suggest as to the limit that it should not exceed in any single area 20 per cent. of the gross product of the soil. Where you take an entire district into account, the limit should be 10 per cent. It is quite obvious that, if for famine purposes it is necessary to bring about some changes in the way of moderating the land charges throughout India, you must have money to do it. It is perfectly foolish to suggest that these reforms should be carried out and the remedies applied unless you are at the same time to make some suggestion as to the source from which the money required is to come. The remedy proposed in the resolution is for a temporary and exceptional state of things. It does not go to the root of the matter, and will not be a permanent remedy. I would suggest that there is one source from which a large portion of the expenditure of India might be justly and reasonably curtailed, and that is the military charges now imposed on the Indian Exchequer should be reduced. I do not think I should be in order in going into the reasons that obtain—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is discussing a question that does not come within the scope of this Amendment.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I said I would be out of order in going into details on that point. The hon. Member below me who moved the resolution spoke of the claim India had for some reduction in regard to this matter.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That hon. Member in speaking on that matter was speaking on the main question, but
1412
it cannot be discussed on the motion now before the House.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: If I cannot refer to it, it will be impossible for me to give even briefly my suggestion as to where the money required for bringing about this should come from. There was one remark the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his speech which was not in any way sound. In reference to the fact that we are now making use of Indian troops in China and South Africa, he said that we pay in full for these services, and that therefore the Government of this country ought not to be asked for any assistance to India on that account. It seems to me that that is not an adequate reply to the question. The fact that we pay for the services of these troops while abroad does not in any way compensate for the fact that they are held in India, and that such a large sum of money is expended on them permanently for Indian purposes. I feel that in this direction we shall find some day a solution of the financial aspect of the question. I am glad that we have had an opportunity of discussing this question. I am grateful to the First Lord of the Treasury for giving us an opportunity earlier than the last day of the session for doing it. I regret deeply that the Government have found it impossible to acquiesce in the Amendment, but I do not altogether despair that the day is not far distant when they will reconsider their conclusion. If they do so I feel that the granting to India of a generous gift upon this trying occasion in the history of the Indian Empire will have results of the most wide-reaching and salutary effect.
SIR EDGAR VINCENT: It appears to me that the decision come to upon the motion before the House must depend in a large measure upon the opinion which is formed as to the financial position of India. It is quite clear that the decision with regard to the grant of £5,000,000 we are called upon to make depends to a large extent on the opinion we hold with respect to two questions—namely, is India in a position to pay? And, secondly, is it to the permanent advantage of India that England should pay this free grant? With regard to the first question I do not perceive in the arguments brought forward in favour of the motion any real

1413
attempt to prove that the finances of India are in such a condition that they are incapable of standing the strain of the present famine. If we look at the tables presented to us, what do we find? We find that there have been surpluses in the last two years averaging about £2,500,000 sterling. If we look at the commerce of the country, we see no sign whatever of diminution or exhaustion. On the other side of the tables I do see that during the last two years a reform—a great and permanent improvement of financial value—has been carried out. I think insufficient attention has been paid to the reform which has been executed with respect to the currency. It is within the knowledge of the House that during the last twenty years the one great danger of India, the great bane, not only of Indian finance, but of Indian commerce and administration, has been that proceeding from the fluctuations of exchange. I believe that the noble Lord the Secretary of State and the Indian Government are entitled to claim that in the coarse of the year under review they have practically solved that question. It is undoubtedly true that the immediate results of the reform of 1893 were disappointing, but the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton deserve the greatest credit for having perceived, in the midst of apparent failure, those elements which made for final and complete success. The redundancy of silver currency existing in 1893 could only be worked off by degrees. That absorption of the rupee has now taken place, and I believe we have attained a position of assured equilibrium. Surely that is a circumstance which should not be lost sight of in considering any question of a grant to India, or any question affecting the strength or weakness of the Indian financial position. On the second point, namely, whether it is to the permanent advantage of India that England should pay this free grant of £5,000,000, I admit that there are strong substantial reasons, which I do not at all underrate, for being generous, and if I argue the question, I will not do so from the point of view of the English exchequer or the burdens now incumbent upon English taxpayers. I would prefer to view the question from the point of view of Indian financial administration. It has been my fortune to be intimately concerned with
1414
the finance of several countries somewhat similarly situated to India, and I am sure of this, that had similar circumstances presented themselves I should have been opposed to a grant of this kind, and for various reasons, which I will state with all deference to the House. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman who spoke recently said that every country has its dignity in these matters, and that it is undesirable, unless it is absolutely necessary, to go to the English Exchequer in forma pauperis. Were India to fall back upon assistance from England there would be distinct deterioration. Leaving aside the question of dignity let us examine the question of practical administration. I have no doubt whatever that the task of the Financial Minister at Calcutta would be rendered considerably more difficult were this assistance to be given, because it is impossible for assistance of that kind to be given without its being considered, rightly or wrongly, as a precedent. We may say that here the circumstances are exceptional, and will never occur again. I wish I could take so optimistic a view. I am certain that if a grant is given to-night, or in the course of the present year, circumstances generally similar to those now present will recur, and recur very shortly, while the power of resistance will diminish. I believe that the forces which work under all Governments for extravagance, and work with particular strength under a military Government, which I take that of India to be, to a large extent would gain force. The military Members, who have always a great many reforms they desire, would say, "Well, if Indian resources are insufficient you know perfectly well you have only to turn to Downing Street, and from the Treasury you will receive the assistance you require." I am convinced that the Members who have most experience in the financial administration of States will agree with me that it is essentially important that a country should remain financially independent, and that it should sail, if I may be permitted to use the expression, upon its own bottom. It does not appear to me that sufficient proof has been afforded that real difficulty has arisen in India. I rather incline to the view that the present difficulty and the present stress is due in some measure to the fact that the Indian Government, somewhat like the ryot, does not in

1415
the days of prosperity make sufficient provision for those years of famine which inevitably come. Although I differ from the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in favour of a Vote from England, I agree with them to some extent in this, that I do not consider the present system of administration of famine relief and insurance to be altogether satisfactory. It appears to me that the Indian Government have put their case forward somewhat unwisely. Their administration of famine relief may be sound, but in giving an account of their stewardship they have created distrust and suspicion. Mr. Dawkins says that a new departure will be taken in regard to this fund. As the programme of railway works destined to relieve famine has been nearly exhausted, and the programme of irrigation works has been largely reduced, there will be a considerable balance of money unexpended on famine relief. The Secretary of State proposes to devote that sum to public works which without it would have to be met by incurring new debt. In other words, the Public Works Department will borrow from the famine relief fund instead of from the market. Is this a solution of the question? I admit that it is an advance on the present practice. That money will figure as an asset in the books of the Famine Relief Department, and as a liability in the books of the Public Works Department; but I should criticise the proposal from this point of view, that a departmental entry is not a commercial realisable asset in the ordinary sense of the word. I am convinced that the only satisfactory plan of meeting these recurring famines in India is to constitute such a reserve, either from surpluses or from an annual Vote, as shall place the Government of India in a position of assured independence, and as shall enable them to deal with famine in a more free and decided manner than would be now either justifiable or possible. Under the plan which I venture to advocate this annual sum or sums would be placed to the credit of an extraordinary fund, which would be invested in high-class non-Indian securities, and would be available to meet unforeseen emergencies without recurrence to English support. The Indian financial situation appears to me not to want relief by a grant-in-aid from London, but to require broader
1416
treatment. The management of a great exchequer does not consist merely in bringing in money, in reducing balances, and in saving interest. You cannot conduct the finances of a great empire on the same principle as the finances of a money-dealer or a bill-broker. The effect which your measures will have upon the mind of the financial world, and the impression you create upon the imagination of the taxpayers in India, are circumstances which must be taken into account. I hold it to be of supreme importance that in a country like India the population should realise that the Government is strong and wealthy, and disposes of ample resources to meet any emergency. During the recent famine I have seen it stated in an Indian newspaper that it was most undesirable for the Government to appeal to private benevolence lest it should be thought that they were in financial straits, and that they were obliged to appeal to individuals in India and in this country in order to give that relief to suffering which their straitened circumstances rendered them unable to furnish themselves. I contend that the mere fact that such a statement is made shows not that there is anything wrong with the financial administration of the country, but that there is something wrong with the method by which the results are brought before the public. I have a clear opinion regarding the financial soundness and prosperity of India, and I differ by the whole breadth of the heavens from those who think that India is either overtaxed or misgoverned. I differ no less strongly from those who think it is good policy to make India appear poor so as to diminish the financial burdens which may be cast upon her. My conviction is that the only right course is for the Government to make the finances strong and to let them appear strong. I would constitute such a reserve as would put this question beyond doubt, and I would invest that reserve not as is now proposed, in a departmental entry, but in such a manner as to show that it is a financial asset which is realisable, which the Government can fall back upon in times of distress, and which would enable the Government to deal with famine or war in a thoroughly efficient and satisfactory manner. It is within the memory of all that in Egypt, at a time when that country had gone through greater financial straits than

1417
India has ever been placed in, the moment years of prosperity commenced it was decided to apply all surpluses to the constitution of a reserve fund. Those who are acquainted with the administration of Egypt will agree with me that the existence of that reserve fund, which now amounts to about four millions sterling, has been the corner stone of all subsequent financial operations, and that it has imparted to Egyptian finance a strength and vigour and elasticity which appear to me to be somewhat lacking in a country of much greater strength—namely, India. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India has had the rare privilege of having relieved India of one grave financial danger—that of the fluctuation of exchange. I hope that the noble Lord will crown this considerable achievement by establishing in India a reserve which will place the Government in a position of assured financial security. I believe that this is the way in which future famines can be dealt with, and the remedy which I venture to propose is one of a permanent character, and not one merely a temporary relief like a grant-in-aid. The present scale of taxation in India in a normal year should leave at least a surplus of £3,000,000 sterling to constitute a reserve fund, and to this may be added the profit which will be realised upon the coinage of silver. I do hope that we shall in future abandon the practice adopted in past years of dissipating the surplus in small Departmental doles. Let the noble Lord in future adopt the bold and courageous policy of constituting a material and an effective, a public and manifest, reserve. If he adopts this course, I am convinced that the financial clouds which now obscure—and which have for so long obscured—the finances of our great Indian dependency will roll apart, and the peace, the prosperity, and the happiness of the inhabitants of that great Empire will be notably enhanced and confirmed.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I have followed with the closest attention the able speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The only remark I wish to make in regard to that speech is that, so far as my memory serves me, the mode of creating a famine fund which he has just sketched out was, in substance, the
1418
plan upon which the famine fund was originally established, and which successive Governments of India have, for good reasons or for bad, diverted from its original application. But, whatever be the merits of the plan, it seems rather to be concerned with the future than with the immediate present, and it is not, I venture to say, very intimately associated with the question which is now before the House—namely, the condition in which the Indian people are found at the present time. I listened very closely and with much interest a little while ago to the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green, and I may say that I cordially agree with him in the disappointment which he expressed at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I only regret that at the conclusion of his speech the hon. Gentleman announced that he would not have the courage to support his views by his vote in this House.
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I must object to that phrase, because I made my meaning perfectly clear, and explained that in the best interests of India I wished the motion should not be divided on, as it was sure to be defeated.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I am perfectly aware of what the hon. Member said, but I think the excuse he gave for supporting the Government was a very thin pretext.
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a point of order. I am accused of opposing this Amendment upon a thin pretext, when I have absolutely given adequate reasons for the course I intend to take. Is the hon. Member in order in using that language?
MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member has said anything which is out of order.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I say again that it is the thinnest pretext I ever heard advanced. The hon. Member said that the relations between this country and India were the relations of a benevolent Imperialism. The only commentary I desire to make upon the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it seems to me that both the benevolence

1419
and the Imperialism were conspicuously absent. One is always willing to make allowances for the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But after all, a Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Minister of the Crown, and I rather think that when the people of this country read the arguments by which the right hull. Gentleman has opposed the proposal which has been made from these benches they will feel humiliated. What are the arguments which he used? The first was that the present was an unfavourable time for making such a demand upon the national credit. He mentioned the burden which the war in South Africa had laid upon him. All that is true, but it does not seem to me that this unhappy war in South Africa, in which the Government has involved the country, should be permitted to relieve this country from its obligation towards our Indian fellow-subjects. If we are to take the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as representing the views of the Government, then we knew exactly where we stand. We know from his statement that this war in South Africa is not only to prevent the fulfilment of the promises which the Government made to the people of this country, and to stand in the way of much-needed social reforms in England, but it is also to prevent the fulfilment of our obligations to the people of India, and prevent us assuming our proper position in relation to the affairs of China. This South African War seems to mo to have weakened, humiliated, and paralysed the action of the Government in almost every quarter of the globe. The second argument of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to me, if possible, even more extraordinary than the first. The right hon. Gentleman said that he understood the bulk of this money which we are voting would go not for the benefit of British India, which is under the immediate government of the Crown, but as to the bulk of it would go to benefit the Native States. I will show that that is not so; but supposing it were so, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we interfere with the internal affairs of these Native States. To a large extent we prevent them governing themselves according to old Oriental methods, and insist on them adopting Western methods. It shows a curious want of the Imperial instinct when the right hon. Gentleman repudi-
1420
ates all responsibility for these Native States. The Indian Famine Paper issued this morning gives us the means of calculating roughly, but not inaccurately, the proportions in which this fund will go to the benefit of British India and the Native States. The grants which the Government propose to make are to be divided in the proportions of twenty-six lakhs to the Native States and fifty-five lakhs to British India. This question can hardly be decided without considering how far the Government has discharged its duty towards the Indian people. I cordially recognise the self-sacrificing efforts of the Civil servants in coping with this famine. They have not spared themselves; they have given their health, and even their lives, to the cause, and not a few of them have used their own pecuniary resources in aid of the famine-stricken people. What I want to do is to attack the system, not the men who administer it. The right hon. Gentleman stated this afternoon that over 11,000 natives had been crowded in a relief camp, and that terrible mortality had broken out, that the people ran away and carried the infection to other districts. He said that that was an exceptional case, but I question whether it was really exceptional. If we are to believe the testimony of credible and authentic observers, it was not an exceptional case. There were many places like it in the Bombay Presidency. There were camps in which 30,000 people were crowded together, and that was directly contrary to the Code, which lays down that relief works camps should be limited to 5,000 persons. What was the effect of having these large crowded camps? They became the centres of disease. Mr. Nash tells us that the Government of India knew perfectly well that cholera would inevitably break out in these camps, yet they did not take medical precautions which they ought to have taken; nor did they provide an adequate service of medical men in order to cope with the danger. The second point which I wish to emphasise is the incalculable loss of cattle during this famine. Now, could that loss of cattle have been avoided? The cattle died because there was no fodder for them; but there was plenty of fodder in other parts of India, and the cattle died because the fodder was not brought to the spots where the cattle were. If the testimony of competent observers is true, the transport of fodder hopelessly broke

1421
down. Mr. Nash, the correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, says that there was plenty of fodder ready packed for transport. Big stacks of grass running into hundreds of thousands of tons were stacked along the railway lines in the Central Provinces, and the whole of it was allowed to rot, and the few cattle left were allowed to die. The transport was ineffective, and unnecessarily aggravated the loss of cattle. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his very interesting speech, referred to the relations between the rulers of India and the ruled. He said there was an amount of sympathy between the Government of India and the people to an extent which had not prevailed in former years. But I would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his own conscience is altogether clear in this matter, and whether the relations between England and India and between the Government and the governed in India have been improved by the recent changes carried through in the Indian Council. I would ask him whether he thinks that these relations of sympathy were promoted by the harsh treatment given the brothers Natu, who were imprisoned for two years without trial, and in relation to whom the charges on which they were arrested were changed from time to time, and they were at last released without any charge having been established against them. I ask him further whether these relations of sympathy are likely to be promoted by what has happened at Cawnpore? I hope that the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman has shown in his speech this evening will be practically illustrated in the future relations between the Government and the governed in India.
COLONEL MILWARD (Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-Avon): I am sorry that this debate has been rather narrowed down, because there were a great many questions of general interest in the speech of the Secretary of State for India, with reference to currency, trade, military preparations, railways, and irrigation works, all of which would have been very interesting if we could have followed them up. I regret very much the non possumus position taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Free Grant, and I think that the people of this country to-morrow morning will rub their eyes when they see that our Exchequer is so
1422
poor and the Indian Exchequer is so rich. It is perfectly true that India had a surplus for two years, but owing to the famine there will possibly be a deficit this year. On the other hand, I do not think that any nation, however rich, has ever undertaken with so light a heart as we have an expenditure this year of something like fifty millions on a distant war, and I cannot help thinking that under these circumstances we might have spared one million at all events for the relief of the famine in India. The resolution which I have placed on the Paper* differs from that of the hon. Gentleman opposite. My position is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer states that the Government of India have made no. demand on the Imperial Government. That is true, but if they had made a demand on us it would have robbed us of the grace of making a free gift, and we should not then be in a position to voluntarily give this money. But although the Government of India have not made any demand of that kind on us, Lord Curzorn has reiterated over and over again that there are things which public money cannot do, and that the famine victims cannot be helped in the same way out of public funds as by private charity. You cannot administer the assistance that is required in every degree and in every case out of public money. These are the things which a free gift may accomplish, and what I want to plead for is not to assist the finances of India, not to give a million or any other sum to help the Indian Exchequer, but that we should place a million at the free disposal of the Viceroy for the purpose of supplementing the inadequate subscriptions of the people of England. I do not blame the people of England for having inadequately subscribed. The charitable and philanthropic people of this country have been drawn upon from every direction in connection with the war, and it is not only a million that was subscribed to the Mansion House War fund, but I am perfectly sure that at least five millions must have been subscribed to the
* Colonel Milward had on the Paper the following notice:—"To move, That, having regard to the widespread distress in India, and to the comparatively poor result of the appeal for subscriptions for aid in Great Britain, it is desirable to supplement these subscriptions by a free gift from the National Exchequer of one million sterling, and that this sum be placed at the unfettered discretion of the Viceroy."

1423
various funds. Can we wonder, therefore, that the amount subscribed for the famine in India has been singularly small? In 1897 the famine subscriptions were £700,000, and in March, 1898, the date of the dissolution of the 1897 Commission, the receipts amounted to £1,190,000, besides which there were large gifts of grain and clothing also received. What is the state of the Mansion House Fund now? It only amounts to £325,000.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The Mansion House Fund is only about £350,000, but, in addition, £170,000 has been subscribed in Scotland and Lancashire.
COLONEL MILWARD: I did not intend to convey that the Mansion House Fund included all that had been subscribed, but, even taking that fund as it stands, it is quite £200,000 below what it was three years ago, in addition to which there were then great gifts of food and clothing, all of which are now sent to South Africa. What I venture to urge is that we might give a grant to India such as would supplement the small sum subscribed by the public in this country. The Report of the Indian Famine Commission of 1898 states—
"The testimony is unanimous and overwhelming as to the incalculable good the charitable fund has done as an auxiliary of the State system of relief and the universal gratitude it has evoked among the people. Seventy-one per cent. of the fund has been spent in giving a fresh start in life to peasant cultivators and small landowners who have been forced to eat their seed grain and part with their plough cattle, or whose plough cattle had died from want of food, or who had no agricultural resources left or no credit wherewith to procure them."
That is exactly what is taking place in India at the present moment. It is said that there would be no precedent for such a grant, but this very Parliament supplies a precedent. A year and a half ago there was a hurricane in the West Indies. At that time the Colonial Secretary addressed a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he stated that the inhabitants of Barbados were unable to house or feed themselves. What happened? This Parliament gave a free grant of £40,000, and a loan of £50,000 without interest. Surely that was a case precisely on all fours with the present case, and surely the famine-stricken districts of India appeal to us at least as strongly as the Barbados. Then
1424
there is another reason which appeals to me very strongly, and that is the loyalty which has been shown by the people of India. I think the House ought to be reminded that on the 28th of December, the Nizam of Hyderabad offered his purse, army, and sword in the defence of Her Majesty's Empire, and also that the Maharaja of Gwalior offered a troop of horse and transport. On the 29th of December the whole of the 3rd Bengal Sikhs offered voluntarily one day's pay for the War Fund, and it therefore does seem to me that when the Nizam of Hyderabad offered his purse and his sword and the Maharaja of Gwalior offered a troop of horse, we have now an opportunity of showing our appreciation of such loyalty. I wish to associate myself with what has fallen from my hon. friend with reference to a division on this Amendment. I am not going into the lobby against the Government, because I will not be a party to squeezing the Government in order to get them to grant this money. Unless it is done freely there will be no grace in the grant at all. I hope the arguments I have addressed to the House will be considered. I believe that public feeling throughout the country is favourable to this grant. I mentioned it myself at one public meeting recently, and it was most enthusiastically received. What is a million among the many other millions spent in other directions when by it we may create a feeling of loyalty in India, and a feeling also that in the hour of her distress this country came to her assistance?
MR. EMMOTT: I venture to intervene in this debate not only because of the interest which I myself take in this question, but also because my constituents have such a deep interest in all that concerns the welfare of the inhabitants of our great Indian Empire. I speak, of course, to-night my own views, but I am certain I carry with me also the views of the great majority of my constituents. The interest which Lancashire has in India, whatever may be said about isolated matters in the past, is by no means a purely selfish one. In the present dire straits of the Indian people my own constituents have shown their active sympathy, and have extended generous help. Although, like other inhabitants of this country, they have subscribed liberally to

1425
the various war funds, they have also subscribed largely to the Indian Famine Fund, and if the inhabitants of the remainder of the United Kingdom subscribed in proportion to numbers, as much as my constituents have subscribed there would be a fund of one and a half millions instead of half a million at the present time. But I am afraid, even if there were a fund of a million and a half, it would be far too little to relieve the dire necessities of India at the present moment. May I thank the noble Lord for his speech, which was able, luminous, most interesting, and above all intensely sympathetic? Lord Curzon on one occasion made an offer to pay the fare of any rich man to the famine districts in order that he might see for himself the sufferings of the people, and agreed to take a chance of a subscription on his return. I cannot help feeling with my hon. friend that the people of this country hardly realise the extent of this calamity. This famine affects ninety millions of people, or between a third and a half of the whole population of India. At the present moment there is a population larger than that of this great city dependent from day to day on the relief which the Government can give. Largo tracts of country have become desert; there has been an immense destruction of cattle—in some districts as much as 90 per cent.— and comparatively well-to-do people have lost their all, and have been driven from their homes. I am therefore afraid that there must be a greater slowness of recovery than after previous famines. Added to all the misery and disease which accompany famine, there has been a great outbreak of cholera. Just about the time that we were mad with joy over the relief of Mafeking—and I think we did perfectly right to rejoice about it—what was happening in India? An English doctor arrived at one of these cholera camps, and he found 400 people dead, other people scattered about dying on the ground, others struggling in the water, where they had gone to drink, and had been seized whilst drinking, and everyone who could had run away. Could a worse inferno than that be imagined? There were many other places where similar scenes occurred, and I think that we should all remember it to the credit of India that all the misery and destitution of famine and all the agony caused by disease were borne with that silent dignity and uncom-
1426
plaining patience, so characteristic of those docile races whom it is our pride and privilege to rule in India. Such grief and pain borne silently is not, however, less pathetic than a sorrow which cries aloud in the bazaars and proclaims itself at every street corner. I do not wish in the least, however, that we should be governed by emotion in this matter. The loss of life from this famine may be loss than usual, but the exhaustion that will follow it will be very much greater. The number of cattle that have died is simply enormous, and the low condition of the people seems to be so great that many will be unable to do any work for a long time. Lord Curzon, seeing what would occur, appealed first of all urbi to the Lord Mayor, and then practically orbi to the world at large, and among those who responded was the Sultan of Turkey. I almost wish he had kept his money for another object, and that he had saved us the necessity of accepting it. The total response to Lord Curzon's appeal was, however, miserably inadequate, and my own impression is that money must be found somewhere, or very serious permanent injury to India will be the result. There are only two methods of obtaining money, one by a loan in India and the other by gift from England. Large loans have already been made in India on the security of impoverished landowners. Most, if not all, of this money has to be paid back, and I fear the tax collector will appear only too soon after the famine. I think, therefore, that loans in India cannot extend much farther than they have done, and I think it is a case of a gift from England. It is said that would be against precedent, and I do not in the least decry precedent. In a matter of this kind it is easy to relieve our consciences by generosity, and do permanent harm unless we give wisely. But the famine is unprecedented. It is an act of God, not the product of man's carelessness, and any precedent could only affect a future famine of equal proportions. Again, it is the second famine in three years. I further think that the Indian race is not a race with the instincts of paupers. There are other reasons of great cogency which might be urged. In the first place, it is desirable, even from the point of view of our trade relations, that as soon as possible India should return to a normal condition, but I attach more importance almost to the effect this

1427
gift will have on the people of India. A new era is now opening up in the Far East, and it is surely worth our while to try and bind India to us by the chains of affection. But my main argument is a financial one. India is already doing so much to relieve famine that I do not think she can be expected to do any more. She has been paying Rx. 1,000,000 or Rx.1,500,000 per annum for many years for famine insurance, but in addition to that there are the import duties which were put on in 1894. They are practically a famine tax. They were put on because of the fall in the rupee, and were kept on because of war and famine, and I imagine, having regard to the noble Lord's past action, they would have been taken off had not this famine occurred. These amount to Rx. 3,500,000. Therefore India is already paying Rx.5,000,000 for famine at the present time. I will not refer to the Report of Lord Welby's Commission, except to say that it recommends that we should treat India generously, and that a considerable sum is due for past overcharges. I congratulate the noble Lord on the success of his currency policy. I do not want to say one word against that policy, because whatever one's opinion may have been regarding it at first it is now an accomplished fact, and no one would desire to disturb it. But there is a reverse side to it. The rupee was raised from 1s. 1d. to 1s. 4d. between 1895 and now, and that has had the same effect as a contraction of currency. It helped the Government, but I do not think it helped the traders or the agriculturists. We are hearing again from India the same pitiable tale of these silver ornaments being sold at even less than their melting value. This is an extract from the Civil and Military Gazette of Lahore—
"The fact that the Government of India have bought seventy-two lakhs worth of silver more than their programme contemplated means nothing. The fact that the silver comes from Gwalior means much. It means that the people of Gwalior have unearthed their long-buried hoards of silver ornaments and sold them to the bunnias, who have sold them to the Gwalior authorities, who have melted them down and sold the bullion to the British Government. We may expect to hear of other native States in the famine area following in the steps of Gwalior."
I have here a private letter showing that these silver ornaments are being bought for 5 to 8 annas per tola instead of the 10 annas they are worth. Here we
1428
have poor and middle-class people being cheated again, and not even getting the full value of the silver for melting purposes. Even if they had got full value they would have obtained only about 60 per cent. of what could be obtained seven years ago. I have tried to give some reasons why we should help India at the present time. I do not know whether my hon. friends will go to a division, but all I can say is that if they do I will vote with them with the greatest pleasure. I am a new Member of this House, and whether my stay be long or short in it I feel sure I shall never give a vote which I believe to be not only in the interests of India, but also, when rightly understood, in the interests of this country, with greater certainty than I shall vote on this occasion.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No one can have heard the concluding words of the hon. Member's speech without feeling that at all events they came from the heart. The hon. Member stated he was going to vote for the Amendment on grounds which appealed to him as an Englishmen and a citizen of the empire of which India is a part. I believe the hon. Member is absolutely sincere; but, if he will forgive me for saying so, I think he is absolutely wrong; and if he considers this matter in a thoroughly impartial spirit he will come to the conclusion, I think, to which I at all events have been driven—that not only the interests of India, but the interests of England and of sound finance throughout the Empire are really involved in the House coming to a sober and rational decision on the issue presented tonight. But there is one smaller matter on which I must first touch almost parenthetically. My hon. friend the Member for Cardiff in the speech he delivered made an attack on one of the great princes of India—a gratuitous and wholly unmerited attack. The Maharaja of Gwalior has made a most generous offer of assistance in connection with the trouble which we have to face with all the rest of the world in China. I should have thought that that offer would provoke the gratitude and thanks of every man in the House and of every citizen in the Empire. But that is not the way the matter has presented itself to my hon. friend. He says— Why did not the Government

1429
compel the Maharaja to devote the money which he has offered so generously and patriotically to the alleviation of the sufferings of his own countrymen?" My hon. friend spoke hastily and without adequate knowledge of the fact. This prince is still young; but he has had time to show himself one of the most energetic, public-spirited, and patriotic Princes reigning under our suzerainty in India. He has not confined his efforts, as my hon. friend thinks, to extraneous charity or outside the boundary of our Indian possessions. His own subjects, some of whom have been touched by the famine, have received from him the most generous assistance; and, not content with dealing with the subjects within the limits of his own province, he has gone to the assistance of other and poorer Princes in India. And, after all, for whom is this hospital intended? It is in the main intended for that Indian contingent which has gone from India to China to fight the battles of the Empire, and I cannot imagine a cause which would more naturally and more properly appeal to the generous instincts of an Indian prince than that cause to which this prince has so nobly and generously subscribed. I said I would treat this matter parenthetically, but I could not leave it untouched because it involved a personal and most unmerited attack upon a prince who is an example to all who have similar great responsibilities cast upon them within the limits of our Empire. Everyone must fool that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries has been prompted by generous sentiments which have nothing in them of self-interest, but which are dictated purely by a feeling of sympathy with India in the appalling and almost unprecedented calamity now affecting that country. But in this House we have to ask ourselves not whether the sentiments which prompt a particular resolution are generous and praiseworthy or not, but whether its results are likely to be beneficial not merely to the relatively narrow interests of the United Kingdom, but to the larger interests of which the United Kingdom is the principal guardian. I venture to submit that the arguments my noble friend urged in his admirable speech, reinforced as they have been by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have not been replied to. The Amendment as avowedly an attempt to substitute
1430
Parliamentary charity, extracted pro rata from the pockets of the taxpayers, for the spontaneous gifts of those anxious to relieve distress in India or any other part of the world. No doubt there are occasions when a Vote of the House may rightly be invoked in favour of a cause for which charity has been invoked. But the inevitable result of the House accepting the Amendment can only be that never again will any appeal of this kind be responded to by the public. It will be felt that Parliament itself has declared solemnly that it is a matter for the taxpayer and not for charity. Charity will be dried up at its source, and in every case in which hitherto charity has been invoked you will have gentlemen coming to this House and saying, "You have set a precedent which should be followed. This is not a case in which private benevolence should be appealed to. The proper course is to propose a Vote in Committee of Supply, or ask for a loan from the investing public." That is a precedent which, if set at all, should only be set with the utmost caution and in cases of the extremest necessity. Is this a case of the extremest necessity? It would be if the refusal of the House to accept the Amendment were likely to produce any additional loss of life from this famine. But my noble friend has told us repeatedly that if India should be unable to meet the necessities of the case she has behind her the British Exchequer. It is not pretended that the finances of India are in such a condition that she is unable, so far as the preservation of life is concerned in the afflicted districts, to deal with such a crisis of unprecedented magnitude as that with which she has to contend. Under these circumstances any charitable donation made by the House at the expense of the British taxpayer—for that is the proposition—would be made to India without India requiring it, without India pretending she required it, and in advance of any necessity. If indeed the Government were to tell the House that our interests are so alien from the interests of India that we regard India as a possession from which we mainly derive indirect profit and direct glory, but to which we feel ourselves so little responsible that we are not willing to come to her assistance, then hon. Gentlemen would be justified in saying that the British Empire was indeed unworthy of our great Indian possession.

1431
We put forward no such proposal. All we say is that sound principle requires that the financial responsibility of the different parts of the Empire should be kept separate, and it is only when the financial resources of any particular part of the Empire absolutely fail that it is legitimate to call upon the rest of the Empire for assistance. My hon. friend behind me, who spoke last but one, quoted the precedent of the West Indies. He said that in 1891, and again last year, or the year before, a sum was voted by this House to meet the calamity which had desolated the Leeward Islands. But the precedent quoted by my hon. friend is in favour of the Government, and not against it. For the precedent is this— that it was only when a dependency of the Crown was practically in financial extremeties, when it had not at its command the resources which would enable it to meet the strokes of evil fortune by which it was overwhelmed, that this Parliament and people came to its assistance. If ever India is in the condition of the Leeward Islands, this country will come to the assistance of India as it came to the assistance of the West Indies. I would venture to suggest that even the action we took in the case of those islands, used as it has been by my hon. friend, shows how careful we should be in starting new precedents of this character. The late Secretary of State for India, who made so excellent a speech, I remember, two years ago divided the House in favour of a grant to India to meet a famine which was then raging in another portion of that Empire, although at that moment she had a large surplus at her disposal. Now, supposing the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in his endeavour on that occasion to induce the House to subscribe a large sum for that famine, followed as that case would have been by the present famine, would it not be clear that an Indian famine meant a Vote of this House towards Indian needs as regularly as in the past an Irish famine has meant an appeal to this House for Irish needs? Is that a precedent which this House would readily set? Do they desire so to mix up the Indian and British Exchequers as to make it a matter of course that whenever a famine exists in India, even though Indian finance may be in the highest state of prosperity, that is a just cause for coming to this country for financial assistance? That
1432
would be, as has been pointed out by my noble friend, the most certain method of introducing disorder into Indian finance. I am one of those who believe, and, indeed, it will be accepted as a commonplace, that the most fruitful parent of social troubles is financial irregularity and extravagance, and that the country which is reckless of its resources is a country which is rapidly approaching the greatest social and political difficulties. [Opposition cheers.] That appears to be a commonplace accepted by both sides of the House. Can that danger be more certainly produced in India than by that kind of charity which has met with so much favour on both sides of the House tonight? Can you conceive of a temptation which it would be more impossible for any Indian financier to resist than the temptation of appealing to a House, for whose action he was not responsible, to taxpayers whose interests it was not his business to guard, for resources which would enable him to meet difficulties occurring many thousands of miles away? My noble friend certainly did not go beyond the truth when he said that to come forward to Indian assistance when India is not in financial straits would be to infuse into the veins of the Indian financial system a principle of corruption from which it would never recover. I hope the House will never consent to that proceeding. I am reluctant, and I do not mean, to put the matter on selfish grounds. I do not mean to base the main stress of my argument upon the position of the British taxpayer or the burden thrown upon him, but I must say I listened with some surprise to an observation that fell from an hon. friend behind me. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that when we were spending forty or fifty millions upon the South African war, could not we spare one million for the Indian famine? [Opposition cheers.] Apparently the argument of my hon. friend meets with approval on the other side. Let us translate it into simpler language. So translated it comes to this—that the heavier the burdens and the greater the expenditure which Imperial necessities throw upon the British taxpayer, so much more ought the subscriptions of the British taxpayer to be for the financial needs of other parts of the Empire. Surely

1433
that is a financial paradox which can hardly be accepted by the sober reflection of the House. Let it be remembered that this Empire of ours is at present run on a system never tried in the world before. The Empire is one of unprecedented extent in more area, and portions of it are to be found in every quarter of the globe. It is all paid for, as an Empire, by these islands.
MR. MACLEAN: India pays its own way.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. India pays her fair share.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg pardon; India pays more than its own share, according to Lord Welby's Report.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that as soon as Lord Welby's Report was made public the Government announced their intention of paying their quota. I may therefore assume that, according to Lord Welby's Report, the balance of payment between these islands and India is equitable. But the Empire as a whole is run by these islands, and if you are going, in addition to that responsibility, to say that whenever a calamity occurs in any part of that Empire the responsibility is also to fall upon the taxpayer of these islands, I say you are rushing into financial responsibilities of which you may have in a very few years great reason to repent. I am one of those who watch with considerable alarm the growth of expenditure we have to view already. But if to that expenditure, great and growing, and, I fear, likely to grow as it is, you are going to add these additional burdens, then, indeed, even the wealth, the enterprise, and the patriotism of this country may feel itself at last overburdened. I feel most strongly that the resolution which the House has got to take to-night is one of the deepest import for the future of the Empire. What we ask the House to affirm is that the financial responsibility for the various portions of the Empire rests primarily upon those portions of the Empire, and that in particular the financial responsibilities of India are Indian responsibilities and not British responsibilities. We admit, and I would take leave to ask the House to affirm,
1434
that in cases where Indian resources are not equal to Indian needs this House may well be asked to come to its assistance. But at the same time we also ask the House to affirm that, until these needs do become greater than Indian resources can bear, it is not only not true charity, it is not only not sound policy, but it is absolutely suicidal for us to endeavour—in a mood of sentiment with which everybody must sympathise, in response to motives which everybody must feel, to relieve sufferings that go to the heart of every feeling man—to prematurely and unnecessarily burden the already heavily-burdened finances of this country.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I ask the permission of the House to read an extract from a letter which I have received from India this evening. My correspondent writes from Poonah, under date 6th July, and his letter indicates that the extremest point of necessity has at last arisen. He says—
"It is with a heavy heart, with no little sense of responsibility, that I now sit to write to you; and I beg your thoughtful and very prayerful consideration of what I am about to say. The month of June—the first month of the monsoon, and in some respects the most important—has come and gone. The result, as far as the rainfall is concerned, tabulated from the official returns, is shown in the Deccan, Herald, dated 3rd inst. Briefly stated it is this: In the famine affected areas the rainfall has been defective from 71 to 91 per cent.—that is, in regions of the severest distress where 100 inches would have barely brought alleviation, only nine inches had fallen! But this is not the most appalling feature, for assuming a late rainy season, the monsoons with their refreshing freight might be yet looked for; but the affected regions have 'been outside the influence of both monsoon currents.' In other words, both the N.E. and S.W. monsoons have come, and spread feebly, but without bringing the longed-for refreshing and fertilisation to the death-stricken regions. This means—no relief for the present, and hardly any hope for the future. The ominous forecast of this prolonged drought is summed up in the Vanguard of 30th June. 'This famine is, perhaps, the most fearful calamity that has ever visited this earth. The worst is to come. The most reasonable estimates are that from 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 will perish in this dearth now spreading over the whole peninsula. Nothing of the kind has appealed to the hearts of Christian people as the death-cry of these starving millions.'"
If this is not a case of extreme necessity I do not know what is.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not financial necessity.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: It is a financial necessity, because it is quite beyond the power of India to feed the twenty millions of people who are famine-stricken. India is an extremely poor country. The great majority of the Members of the House have no conception of the poverty of that country. The taxation of India is very heavy upon the very poor people, and it is entirely beyond the power of India to cope with this famine. Personally I shall heartily vote with my hon. friend.
MR. MADDISON: It is not my intention to stand long between the House and the division; but I think there need be no apology for any Member of this House at ten minutes to twelve o'clock to rise and express his opinion about the questions which have been discussed all night. I merely wish to say that while we appreciate to the full the kindly spirit which the noble Lord the Secretary for India and the First Lord of the Treasury have displayed —and I am quite sure they are sincere in deploring the terrible calamity to India— I submit that this sympathy does not go far enough. I would humbly tell the First Lord of the Treasury that, in spite of the great cost of the war in South Africa, to which we object, you could not go to a centre of the working class population in any part of England where you would not get unanimous approval of a free grant to the Indian Government for the purposes of famine relief—a grant of five millions, aye, of ten millions, if that sum is needed. I was rather surprised at the peculiar way in which the First Lord of the Treasury dealt with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who thought, rightly, that if we could spend fifty or sixty millions on the war in South Africa, we ought to spare a million or two for the relief of India. The right hon. Gentleman says that that was a policy of the greater the burden in one direction the more extended should the appeal to the British taxpayer be in another. The hon.
Member for Exeter gave us some very wise advice, and told us what was healthy and what unhealthy finance. He is a great authority, doubtless, but I wish that he would apply his finance theories in this country as well as to other countries. He has shown no great objection to grants-in-aid here and grants-in-aid there in England and Ireland. But when he told us of the probable bankruptcy of the British Empire he had to admit that the country for which we ask this grant-in-aid is the one part of the Empire which costs us nothing. We are told in solemn tones that a grant of five millions from this House would rob the people of India of their proper dignity and self-respect. But what dignity and self-respect could these terrible crowds of famished people have? All the argument about sound finance and self-respect was absurd when applied to 300 millions of people who had no more control over their own government than they have over the inhabitants of France. I think that British rule has been on the whole good for the Indian people; but does anybody in this House believe that we hold India for the benefit of the Indian people? No, we hold it for Imperial purposes. I do submit that we would be acting consistently with the highest and soundest finance—that we would be not only giving vent to a healthy sentiment but exercising sound justice in making this grant, and on these grounds I support the motion. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green had been disappointed at the result of his application to the Archbishops, who have referred him to the Mansion House Fund. Nothing could have been more reasonable than such an answer as that coming from such a quarter! I regard this help to India as part of our Imperial obligations, and those who vote against the motion will be the true Little Englanders.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 244.)

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

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

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

Arrol, Sir William

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Balcarres, Lord

Brassey, Albert

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

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Butcher, John George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Bartley, George C. T.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Knowles, Lees

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Lafone, Alfred

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Curzon, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowles, John

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Faber, George Denison

Macdona, John Cumming

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Furgusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

Maclure, Sir John William

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Finch, George H.

M'Killop, James

Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fisher, William Hayes

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir Herb. E.

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E (Kent)

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunt.)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Flower, Ernest

More, Robt. Jasp. (Shropshire)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Gedge, Sydney

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'hsh.)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Morrell, George Herbert

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J (St George's)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Percy, Earl

Wylie, Alexander

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Wyndham, George

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Purvis, Robert

Sir William Walrond and

Henderson, Alexander

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Mr. Anstruther.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

NOES.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Harwood, George

Robson, William Snowdon

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Seeley, Charles Hilton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Shaw, Chas. Edward (Stafford)

Billson, Alfred

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Burns, John

Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burt, Thomas

Lambert, George

Souttar, Robinson

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

Steadman, William Charles

Causton, Richard Knight

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

Clark, Dr. G. B.

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crilly, Daniel

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Ure, Alexander

Dalziel, James Henry

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Leod, John

Wedderburn, Sir William

Doogan, P. C.

Maddison, Fred.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Duckworth, James

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Emmott, Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Flynn, James Christopher

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Woods, Samuel

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Power, Patrick Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Mr. M'Arthur.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the total revenue of India for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, was £67,595,815; that the total expenditure in India and in England charged against revenue was £64,954,942; that there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure of £2,640,873; and that the capital
1438
outlay on railways and irrigation works not charged against revenue was £3,279,316.—(Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)
Resolution to be reported.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE- [LAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,)said that the Amendment he now proposed to move was to be taken in connection with one which appeared a little lower down in the Paper, and was moved in accordance with the pledge he gave approving the recommendations of the Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out 'portion of.'"—(Mr. G. W. Balfour.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out from 'them' to the second 'in,' in line 12."—(Mr. G. W. Balfour.)
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that this was an attempt to prevent by statute the teaching of the Irish language. He had never known of a case in which an Amendment of this kind had been moved, except in the case of the Pigott Commission. Where was the necessity for the Amendment unless it were to limit and restrict the action of the Commission?
Amendment agreed to.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was afraid that the form of the rules would exclude the schools of the Christian Brothers from the benefits of the Act, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he now proposed.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, at end, to insert, 'Nothing in any rule made in pursuance of this section shall exclude from participation in the benefits of the said Acts any school which would be entitled to participate in such benefits if this Act had not passed.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid if the Amendment were accepted the difficulty which the hon. Member believed to exist as to want of a definition of the word "school" would remain. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government did not wish to exclude the schools of the Christian Brothers from the benefits of the Act.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that if he withdrew the Amendment he would like to have a definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this was an improper use to make of the Act. He thought if the Rules were laid on the Table it would be an effective preservation, and therefore he begged to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:—
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid when the original Act was introduced, considerable sums were granted in different parts of Ireland for prizes, but from year to year those sums had been diminished until now, instead of a boy winning a £40 scholarship as a first prize, the amount had fallen so low as to be only some £25. It was said that that was owing to the fund having become bankrupt, but Irish Members found that it could still be drawn upon for other purposes. There was now an attempt to pay pensions to those who had been responsible for education under the Intermediate Education Act of thirty years ago. They were no doubt deserving persons, but if they were deserving of pensions they should be pensioned out of the English funds and not the Irish. It had always been laid down that a pension was deferred pay, and if that were so he did not see how persons who had never entered into a, contract with the State could be entitled to a pension. They were not Civil Servants, and they should not be pensioned out of the Irish Church Fund. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'out of the funds placed at their disposal grant,' and insert the words 'recommend grants of,' instead thereof."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That the words, proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. G. W. BALFOURjustified giving a permissive power to the Board to grant pensions to its officers, stating that a re-

1441
commendation in this sense was made by the Commissioners some years ago, and the proposal was in the interests of education itself. It was very desirable that these offices should be pensionable, and therefore he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
MR. FLYNNhoped the hon. Member would go to a division. He looked upon this clause as an excrescence on the Bill. The officials were paid £800 a year for doing work which was neither continuous nor laborious, and they ought to insure their lives on the endowment policy system. He really objected to this species of foster-father philanthropy towards these poor afflicted officials! It seemed to him that it was impossible to bring in a single Bill dealing with any phase of Irish life—social, educational, literary, or what not —without it being burdened with superannuation clauses or clauses creating or preserving vested interests. If the right hon. Gentleman was determined to create vested interests, he should not rob the Irish Church Fund to do it; he should go to the British Treasury. The Report of the Commission never contemplated such retiring allowances; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would either accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Louth or excise the clause altogether from the Bill.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that this clause had nothing whatever to do with the rest of the Bill, which was intended to improve the educational system of Ireland. There never had been any agitation in favour of these pensions, and they never had been suggested in any public minute, 30 far as he knew. There was, he maintained, a very strong feeling in regard to engrafting on an Education Bill a system of pensions to public servants whose general action had been of no value, whoso names were not known, and whose deeds were not notorious. He did not think the people of Ireland would be much the better off after this Act was passed than before it. It was not going to create a new heaven and a new earth in Ireland. He had no doubt these gentlemen were all most excellent Tories, hut was that a reason for granting them superannuation pensions? When dealing with the Dublin
1442
Corporation Bill, which sought powers to grant certain superannuation allowances, some gentleman connected with Ireland exclaimed "that is a job;" but when pensions were to be given to some gentlemen connected with some particular Tory Department, these same oracles cried, "Oh, they deserve it!" If these excellent and most admirable Tories must be pensioned, let it be done by the British Government, and not out of this miserable Irish Church Fund.
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid that so far as he was concerned he knew nothing of these gentlemen personally, and he knew nothing about their religion or their polities. The proposal was made, not in the interests of any individual, but in the interests of education itself. It was not desirable that they should have gentlemen in the position of assistant-commissioners filling a non-pensionable office under the ordinary Civil Service rules at a certain age. The Government had introduced this provision at the very earnest request of the Commissioners themselves, and it was in the interest of the service that it was submitted.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Why not put it on an English fund?
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid that at the present time these salaries were paid, not out of an English fund, but out of the income of the Intermediate Education Hoard, and a large part of that income was derived from taxation. These persons were appointed on the distinct understanding that their office was pensionable, and it was practically impossible to get rid of any of these officials except they were pensioned.
MR. T. M. HEALYasserted that if they were civil servants they would have to pass competitive examinations in order to secure their appointments, but they had not done so. They were appointed through favouritism, and got their appointments through the nomination of their particular friends in the Tory party. They were appointed because they had obtained the ear and favour of the ruling class in Ireland, and now at the end of their time it was said that these gentlemen who obtained their offices through pure favouritism were to be pensioned because they were

1443
civil servants. They had no claim to a pension. Yet Ireland had to provide for them. It was typical of the way in which Ireland was treated. This was the penalty Ireland had to pay for a new system of education. They had to pension a number of superannuated frauds to the extent of
MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not propose to move the next Amendment, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will incorporate into this clause the words of the preceding clause, and the words "with the approval of the Treasury."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Yes.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, after the word 'grant,' to insert the words 'with the approval of the Treasury.'"-(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
£4,000 a year, because they wished to give their children technical education.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 17. (Division List No. 245.)

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Fisher, William Hayes

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Arrol, Sir William

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goschen, Rt. Rn G J (St George's)

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

Balcarres, Lord

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y)

Purvis, Robert

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Banbury, Frederick George

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l)

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Knowles, Lees

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Smith, James P. (Lanarksh.)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G (Oxf'd Univ.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Maclure, Sir John William

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

M'Killop, James

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Malcolm, Ian

Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunton)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Wylie, Alexander

Curzon, Viscount

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Faber, George Denison

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute)

Sir William Walrond and

Finch, George H.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Mr. Anstruther.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Penn, John

NOES.

Caldwell, James

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Channing, Francis Allston

Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Crilly, Daniel

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Doogan, P. C.

Lambert, George

Flynn, James Christopher

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macaleese, Daniel

Captain Donelan and

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale-

Macdonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that they had now come to the last Amendment on the Paper, and he hoped the Government would not in any way derogate from the undertaking they had given, but would accept it at once. It was a very reasonable Amendment.
New clause:—
"The Board under this Act shall, in addition to the members already appointed, consist of five additional members, who shall be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
Bill reported, as amended; to be considered upon Monday next.

NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
MR. CALDWELLsaid that by the Act of 1859 Parliament specifically stated the number of men to be engaged in the Naval Reserve at 30,000. He believed that up to this time we had not got that number. But this Bill authorised the raising of an indefinite number of men—anything from 15,000 to 50,000 men.
THE FTRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,)said that the number of Volunteers of the second class was fixed at 15,000. The other class included pensioners who were in future liable to be called out for a certain number of days drill in the year, but they could not say what that number of pensioners would be.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he quite admitted that. Under the Royal Navy Act of 1859 they authorised the raising of 30,000. Under this Bill they authorised 15,000 men, and in addition they were going to call out the old pensioners on stated occasions. But what about the artificers? The point, however, to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was that by the Bill they were authorising the Admiralty to raise an indefinite number of men without the authority of Parliament. In that they were departing from the ordinary constitutional rule that Parliament should have the control of the men engaged or enlisted as soldiers or sailors whether in the Regular Army and Navy or in the Reserve. It was a new departure, and whether it was right or wrong, it was a departure that it was hardly right to expect the Committee to discuss at 1.30 in the morning. Every man who was in receipt of a pension was liable to be called out in times of emergency, so that the principle was already in force; but in future the pensioner would have to drill during the year, which made all the difference. He desired to move to leave out Subsection 3, in order to elicit some explana-
1446
tion from the right hon. Gentleman. That sub-section made one important change by making the term of service under the Naval Reserve Act five years and no longer. At the end of that time the men were entitled to their discharge, subject to their being engaged in active service.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,)pointed out that the enlistment was for five years, at the end of which period a man could take his discharge, or could re-enlist for a further five years and continue to do so until he had reached the age of fifty-five. The Reserve was an entirely different one to that which existed under the Act of 1859.
MR. CALDWELLcalled the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that he had lost sight of the fact that it was plainly stated in the Bill that Section 2 of the 1859 Act should not apply to this. It was plain to him that the Government had brought in this Bill having evidently no knowledge of its contents, and no one could tell what the result of it would be.
SIR J. COLOMBthought it was desirable that the House should know what was meant, because it did appear that all the Government was doing was to repeal the Act which would have limited the enlistment for five years. It made a great difference with regard to the efficiency of the Reserve. How was a man to escape from it? Did his service extend until there was a vacancy in Greenwich Hospital for him?
MR. MACARTNEYsaid that after the Bill became law there would be an option given to the men, either to take their discharge or to volunteer for another five years service. At the end of each five years they would be entitled to their discharge, or they could re-enlist. In some cases the enlistment would not be five years, because if a man's time expired when he was fifty-two he would not be eligible to serve for more than another three year's.
SIR J. COLOMBunderstood that the repeal of Sub-section 2 only referred to marine pensioners.
MR. CALDWELLsaw nothing in the Act with respect to five years, and so far as the present Bill was concerned the measure which exempted men from the five years clause—Section 2 of the Royal Naval Reserve Volunteer Act—did not apply to money received under this Act. It appeared to him that a very great change was about to be made. He desired to raise another point under Sub-section 4, the moaning of which was that the men in certain cases would be treated under the Military Services Act, and not under the Act of 1859. In this case another very great change was being made in the existing system by this Bill, and no explanation had been given for that change, nor was the matter limited to service on shore.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FLNLAY, Inverness Burghs)said if the men wore at sea they would come under the Military Service Act, and if on shore, under the Army Act.
Bill reported without amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged, Bill withdrawn.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CALDWELLasked whether teachers in the Isle of Man who had got a certificate from the Department were teachers in Great Britain, or were they under a different' system? Again, were the services of the teachers in the Isle of Man to be regarded as part of the services for pension?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Birmingham,)said that in the Isle of
1448
Man the Education Code was adopted, and the teachers were certificated by the Department in the same way as in England; but they had none of the privileges of the Act of 1898. The object of the present Bill was to provide that the service in whole or in part in the Isle of Man should be recorded as service on which superannuation was based. The Bill was necessary because the education authorities in the Isle of Man had great difficulty in getting good teachers, because their services in the island were not recorded for superannuation purposes. The Bill had been framed by arrangement with the Treasury.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he means to abolish the Parliaments of the Isle of Man and Jersey?
[No reply was given.]
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (JERSEY) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at five minutes before Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR 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 Bill have been complied with:—
London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (Abandonment).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BRAY AND ENNFSKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 13th instant and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed forthwith.
LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY RILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
DEVONPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
  TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.

    GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIAL GAS AND SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES BILL,
    NOW
    METROPOLIS GAS (PREPAYMENT METER) ACT, 1900.
    SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported with Amendments.

    BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
    OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.
    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and. passed, and returned to the Commons.
    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
MARKET WEIGHTON DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION BILL.
  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL.

    CHARING CROSS AND STRAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
    CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
    Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL
    PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons agreed to.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
    LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
GLASGOW BUILDING REGULATIONS BILL [H.L.]
  MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]

    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.]
    ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Stanmore and the Lord Glanesk be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Wolverton and the Lord Aberdare; read, and agreed to.
    PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 26th day of Juno next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
    EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASS) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    PERTH AND PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order). Bills reported without amendment. Standing Committee negatived and Bills to be read 3 to-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA, No. G (1900).
  Preliminary Report by Her Majesty's Special Commissioner on the Protectorate of Uganda.
COMMERCIAL, No. 3 (1900).
Reports from Her Majesty's Representatives in Europe on the metric system. Part I.

TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
No. 2485. Franco (French Indo-China);
No. 2486. Roumania;
No. 2487. China (Tientsin).

NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
Report of the Director of the National Gallery of Ireland to the Board of Governors and Guardians, for the year 1899.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Statistics of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1899.

HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Reports on the manuscripts of—

1. Mrs. Frankland-Russell-Astley, of Chequers Court, Bucks.

2. Lord Montagu, of Beaulieu, Hants.

3. Beverley Corporation.

Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY" OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Order of the Day for the Third Heading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Lord Heneage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)said he felt it his duty to give their Lordships an opportunity of protesting against this Bill. He had endeavoured to frame Amendments which would render this a more reasonable Bill, but had come to the conclusion that there were great objections to any form of amendment. The whole purpose and object of the Bill was vicious. It had been recommended to their Lordships' consideration on the ground that what were called the parties were agreed. That seemed to him a very serious thing, because "the parties" were the shipowners on the one side and the dock and harbour owners on the other. This was a circumstance which ought to put them on their guard against the Bill rather than tell in its favour, because they had these two very powerful bodies combining against the public who owned goods and had their lives and limbs to care for. Moreover, the Bill had not been brought before a single one of those bodies who were supposed to look after the commercial interests of the country. If the Bill were passed and Parliament were thus to affirm
1270
the principle of limitation of liability, it would form an irresistible argument in favour of similar legislation for every railway company in the United Kingdom, who at present were liable to the very last farthing they possessed. Clause 3 of the Bill provided that—
"The limitation of liability under this Act shall relate to the whole of any losses and damages which may arise upon any one distinct occasion, although such losses and damages may be sustained by more than one person, and shall apply whether the liability arises at common law or under any general or private Act of Parliament, and notwithstanding anything contained in such Act."
The measure of liability proposed in the Bill was absurd and grotesque. He really did not know what relation the size of the largest ship which had used the dock or harbour within five years previous to the accident had to the liability of the dock or canal owners. He objected to the mode by which the Bill came to be in its present form. The shipowners wanted additional limits, whereupon the dock-owners said, "We shall oppose you unless we get something too." The Bill was supposed to have received the patronage of the Government in the other House. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General had voted against it, and the President of the Board of Trade, with whom he (the Lord Chancellor) had thought it right to communicate, had informed him that he repudiated any responsibility for the measure, but that as he understood both parties were agreed he would not interfere. That was the extent to which his right hon. friend's support went. He begged to move that the Bill be read this day three months.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out 'now' and insert at the end of the motion, 'this day three months.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL EGERTONpointed out that the two great commercial cities of Liverpool and Manchester agreed in supporting the Bill. Under the Bill as it stood, the liability of Liverpool would be £136,000, whereas by the first suggested Amendment of the Lord Chancellor it would be only £50,000, and by the second Amendment it would be £530,000.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I have not moved those Amendments.
EARL EGERTON: No; but I am showing how difficult it is to frame any

1271
standard other than that in the Bill. In the case of Manchester the limit of the Bill was £104,000, which was reduced to £23,000 by the Lord Chancellor's first Amendment, an utterly in-adequate amount; whilst by the second Amendment it would be £.230,000, which was far too much. The Bill had been very fully considered by all the parties interested, and it was agreed that no difficulty whatever would be experienced in ascertaining the tonnage of the largest vessel using the port. He trusted that the Bill, which had received the unanimous support of the commercial community, would not be rejected in consequence of any precedent which the measure might form. The shipping interest was entirely different from the railway interest, and he hoped that their Lordships would agree to pass the Bill, which was the outcome of long negotiations between the parties interested.
LORD HENEAGEsaid he thought their Lordships would admit that the course taken by the noble and learned Lord was extremely inconvenient. The noble and learned Lord first put down an Amendment to Clause 2 proposing as the limit of the liability of the dock or canal or harbour authority 10 per centum of the value of the dock or canal or harbour. He had endeavoured to find out what would be the effect of that Amendment, and, having gone through an immense amount of figures, he had come to the conclusion that it was utterly absurd, ridiculous, and impracticable. The noble and learned Lord changed his mind and put down another Amendment proposing that the liability was not to exceed the value of the dock or canal or harbour. That, if not more absurd than the first, was more complicated and more impracticable. But instead of moving that Amendment, for which the House had come prepared, the noble and learned Lord moved the rejection of the Bill. However, that did not matter, for if the noble and learned Lord had moved his Amendment and had carried it the Bill could not have been accepted by its promoters. The noble and learned Lord dealt with life and property at sea; this Bill had nothing to do with that subject. It was with difficulty that he was able to hear the observations of the noble and learned Lord, but he under-
1272
stood him to say that he (Lord Heneage) had acknowledged that the bodies representing the commercial interests of the country had not been consulted in regard to this Bill. He acknowledged nothing of the kind. In reply to Lord Avebury, who asked, at a previous stage of the Bill, if those interested in cargoes had been consulted, he (Lord Heneage) stated that he could not recollect from memory whether chambers of commerce had been consulted, but that he was perfectly certain that underwriters had been, and that they approved of the Bill. Lord Avebury himself consulted the underwriters, and said he had no Amendment to move. The second clause was not so illogical as it looked, and there would not be the slightest difficulty in obtaining information with respect to the tonnage of the largest ship that had entered the dock, canal, or harbour. He would not ask their Lordships to take his word only for this, but would quote the opinion of one of the leading lawyers in the Admiralty Court. Mr. Butler Aspinall had expressed the following opinion—
"I am of opinion that the proposed basis of dock-owners' liability, namely, £8 per ton on the largest registered ship, is practicable and can be given effect to by the Admiralty Court without difficulty or undue expense. Dock-owners who propose limiting their liability will institute an action in the Admiralty Division for that purpose. Upon the action coming on for trial, the plaintiff will have to satisfy the judge by evidence that Ins alleged limit is based upon the tonnage of the largest ship. This can be done in accordance with the practice of the court by affidavit and the production of the ship's register. If the defendants deny that the ship in question is the largest ship, this issue of fact can be shortly and cheaply determined, In the large majority of cases there would be no dispute m to which was the largest ship. The basis of the largest ship seems fanciful, but in truth there is net principle in determining the quantum of a wrongdoer's liability, once it is granted that he is to be allowed to limit his liability. The proposed basis is capable of being easily worked, and this to my mind is its great merit.
"I think that the Lord Chancellor's proposal would lead in many cases to great delay and. heavy expenditure. in many cases there would necessarily be an expensive inquiry into what the rateable value was. The Admiralty Court, has no machinery for this purpose and no officials with the necessary special knowledge to enable them to hold such inquiries. It would mean that both parties would be entitled to be heard before the tribunal holding the inquiry, presumably with a right of appeal, which most conceivably might result in the matter not being disposed of till it had reached the House of Lords for adjudication."

1273
The Lord Chancellor said something with reference to the patronage of the Board of Trade. He (Lord Heneage) had spent the greater part of his life in the House of Commons, and had always understood, when a Bill went through that House unanimously supported by every Cabinet Minister and by the Law Officers of the Crown, that the Department had made itself responsible for the Bill, because, if it was a bad Bill, they ought to have opposed it. Even in the House of Lords Lord Balfour of Burleigh stated distinctly that the Board of Trade was in favour of the Bill, and voted against the Amendment of Lord Alverstone which was moved in Committee. The Board of Trade had loyally stood by the Bill, and was at this moment of opinion that the solution in the Bill was the only possible solution of the difficulty. He trusted their Lordships would not reject the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid it was a scandalous thing that the spokesmen of the Government on this question should take up such varying attitudes. Notwithstanding this division of opinion, the Department really responsible had given its opinion in favour of the Bill. It seemed to him that when it was a matter of choosing between the opinion of the Board of Trade-the responsible Department—and that of any member of the Government, the best course to take was to follow the advice of the responsible
Minister. The noble and learned Lord said they must be very careful in passing the Bill, because the two interests most concerned had come to an agreement. Surely one of the first considerations in matters of this kind was whether those in the country who were specially affected by the proposed law were in favour of it.
LORD ALVERSTONEasked their Lordships to consider whether the Bill was one which ought to pass, and not to put the responsibility upon any supposed agreement between shipowners and dock-owners, who were really making a bargain in their own interests without considering the interests of the persons who were really concerned. Not a single argument had been brought forward in their Lordships' House to justify the extended limitation of the liability of dock companies, except a bargain which they had concluded with the shipowners. If this absolutely new departure in the law of England wore to be made, he hoped the Government would be held responsible for the alteration. He did not hesitate to say that, if it were argued on its merits, their Lordships' impartial judgment would lead them to reject this Bill.
On Question whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Northumberland, D.

Harlech, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Heneage, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kelvin, L.

Carrington, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Chesterfield, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lindley, L.

Dartrey, E.

Macnaughten, L. [Teller.]

Egerton, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Massy, L.

Grey, E.

Cloncurry, L.

O'Brien, L.

Kimberley, E.

Colchester, L.

Rathmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Mayo, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Robertson, L.

Northbrook, E.

Cranworth, L.

Sherborne, L.

Spencer, E.

De Mauley, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry).

De Ramsey, L.

Templemore, L.

Yarborough, E.

Dormer, L.

Ventry, L.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Windsor, L.

Falkland, V.

Glenesk, L.

Powerscourt, V.

Greville, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Hardwicke, E.

Brampton, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Morley, E.

Braye, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Waldegrave, E.

Davey, L.

Harris, L.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

James, L [Teller.]

Portman, V.

Norton, L.

Carnwath, E.

Templetown, V.

Sinclair, L.

Cowper, E.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E.Galloway.)

Denbigh, E.

Alverstone, L. [Teller.]

Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

COUNTY AND BOROUGH FRANCHISE ASSIMILATION (LONDON) HILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD CLONCURRYsaid the Amendment standing in his name did not touch any question of ecclesiastical tithes or commuted tithes; it dealt only with a limited number of lay tithes. He had no personal interest in the matter, but was confident that there would be cases of gross injustice under the Bill if the Amendment standing in his name were not inserted.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 3, page 3, line 5, after Sub-section (3) to insert Sub-section (4):—' (4) Where a tithe rent-charge has been varied by any order of a court of quarter sessions made after the passing of the Irish Church Act, 1869, the amount at which it stood before the making of the order shall, for the purposes of this clause, be taken and deemed to be the amount at which it stood on the twenty-second day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four.' "—(Lord Cloncurry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): As I understand, the Amendment has nothing whatever to say to the great numbers that are represented by ecclesiastical tithe-payers, but is confined to a very small number of lay tithe-payers. My noble friend takes exception to the principle of the Bill, which is that there shall be a revision, not, as in the old times, once possibly every seven years, but once every fifteen years. My noble friend seems to think that because there may have been some lay tithe-payers who got a revision in 1872, therefore it would be unfair to subject the owners to another revision even after a lapse of sixteen years. But where is this picking and choosing of dates to stop? I do not think my noble friend has made out his case.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ARRANmoved the omission of Clause 8, which ran as follows:—
"(1) Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any annual sum charged upon land where the estate or interest therein of the person, liable to pay such annual sum has, after the creation of such charge and before the thirteenth day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, been conveyed to a purchaser on a sale.
"(2) Sections 3 and 4 of this Act shall not apply to any tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission out of hereditaments where the estate or interest therein of the person liable to pay such tithe rent-charge has, after the tenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two and before the twelfth day of May one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, been conveyed to a purchaser on a sale.
"(3) Where the estate or interest conveyed was less than the first estate of inheritance this section shall not apply after the determination of such less estate or interest.
"(4) For the purpose of showing that this section does not apply a statutory declaration or such other evidence as the Land Commission may require shall be prima facie evidence.
"(5) The expression 'sale' in this section does not include a mortgage or a marriage or other family settlement or arrangement."
The noble Lord argued that this exclusion spoiled a tardy act of justice, and that the Government could not be enthusiastic in its favour as it did not form part of their original proposal. The clause was designed to exclude from the benefits of the Bill, so far as ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, both commuted and non-commuted, was concerned, certain persons who purchased estates charged therewith subsequent to 1869 and 1872, on the ground that these purchasers had notice when they purchased that commuted tithe rent-charge had been made payable by statute for fifty-two years, or that the non-commuted rent-charge had been deprived of its variable character by the Act of 1872. Admitting that much, it must also be admitted on the other side that most of these purchasers bought at the highest prices of the century; that they purchased titles, which Parliament had guaranteed to be indefeasible with the object of tempting purchasers to come forward; that they purchased inter alia the right to fix the rents to be paid from time to time by their tenants, and that they not only had no notice that Parliament might some day pass the land legislation of 1881, but that so recently as in the debates on the Land Bill of 1870 and on Mr. Butt's Land Bill of 1876, Mr. Gladstone and all

1277
parties in the House of Commons except the Irish Home Rulers declared that such doctrines as fair rents, free sale, and fixity of tenure could not be listened to, and would amount to confiscation which would have to be paid for. Moreover, many tenant purchaser's under the Purchase Acts bought subject to the payment of the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, and in such cases it would be unpopular as well as unjust to exclude them from the benefits of the Bill. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would see the justice of withdrawing the clause and restoring the Bill to its original form.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 8."—(The Earl of Arran.)
THE EARL OF MAYOsupported the proposal to omit Clause 8, failing to see the object of it. The second sub-section contained the sting. It simply meant that people who purchased an estate between 1872 and 1899 were to be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. They all knew that that was introduced at the instigation of a Nationalist Member, but he thought Nationalist Members in the House of Commons quite forgot that a very great number of tenants who had purchased would be hit by it. It seemed hard that landlords, and tenants who purchased between those dates, should not benefit in any way from this Bill. The clause was a niggardly clause, intended, it had been said, to strike at a certain gentleman who has purchased a large plot in Ireland, and the Bill would not be affected in any way if it were cut out.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The position in reference to this clause is one which I think I can state in a very few sentences to your Lordships. My noble friend who introduced the Amendment asked your Lordships not to spoil a tardy act of
justice, and the noble Earl who has just sat down improved upon that by describing it as a niggardly little clause that might easily be left out. The Earl of Arran said this was a clause with regard to which the Government were not called upon to be specially enthusiastic. The Government are never enthusiastic. Their mission is to be just and fair, and to endeavour to present their views in clear and intelligible language. Two particular grievances are sought to be remedied, and are referred to in the section. The first is to reduce the period of payment from fifty-two to forty-five years, and the second is the question of a remedy for the hardships and inconveniences resulting from the abolition of the principle of revision in respect of ecclesiastical tithe. The clause is the outcome of discussion in the House of Commons, where it was urged that the two classes of tithe-payers referred to in the clause did not suffer under the grievance the Bill was intended to redress, inasmuch as the circumstances were fully known and taken into account when the purchases were made. It was pointed out that people who had bought with their eyes open to the fact that there could be no variation of the tithe could not be in the same position as the old owners of property. The Government admitted the force of the argument that these payers had not the same claim for variation and revision, and I hope the House will not yield to the appeal of the noble Earl, but will accept the clause.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Does the noble Lord press his Amendment?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Yes.
On Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Denbigh, E.

Falkland, V.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Feversham, E.

Portman, V.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hardwicke, E.

Kimberley, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Bath, M.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Northbrook, E.

Addington, L.

Powis, E.

Alverstone, L.

Carnwath, E.

Selborne, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Spencer, E.

Balfour, L.

Clarendon, E.

Yarborough, E.

Brampton, L.

Cowper, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Calthorpe, L.

James, L.

Rowton, L.

Colchester, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Sinclair, L.

Cranworth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)[Teller.]

De Ramsey, L.

Lindley, E.

Glenesk, L.

Norton, L.

Windsor, L.

Harris, L.

Robertson, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Macnaghten, L.

Northumberland, D.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Massy, L.

O'Brien, L.

Dartrey, E.

Clonbrock, L.

O'Neill, L.

Egerton, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Rathmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Dormer, L.

Sherborne, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Frankfort de Montmorency, V.

Greville, L.

Templetown, V.

Hare, L.[E. Listowel.)

Templemore, L.

Harlech, L.

Ventry, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork & Orrery.)

Heneage, L.

On Question, That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill, agreed to.

LORD CLONBROCKmoved the omission of Clause 9, which was as follows:—
"Sub-section 1 of Section 37 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896 (which dispenses with the consent of the Treasury to the redemption of tithe rent-charge as therein mentioned), shall not have effect in the case of any tithe rent-charge to which Section 3 of this Act applies."
He had stated on the second reading that he did not propose to move any Amendment, but that referred to the Bill as it then way. He did not know that his noble and learned friend would move the introduction of this new clause. The effect of his Amendment would, he said, be to restore the Bill as it left the House of Commons, and to fix once more the former price at which tithe rent-charge could be redeemed. by the Act of 1869 the price was fixed at 22½ years purchase. This was decidedly exorbitant, for it was well known that before the Church Act the value of tithe rent-charge was only about seventeen years purchase at the outside. The Church Fund benefited by this increase to the extent of something like half-a-million sterling, and the tithe rent-charge payers who redeemed had to do so at this high rate. In 1896 it seemed to have dawned on the Government that the amount fixed was excessive, and a change was made to twenty years, not out of tenderness to the landlords, but simply because they found that the high price at which a landlord had to redeem his tithe rent-charge disinclined him to sell to the tenant, and that the system of purchase in which the Government were so much interested was thereby impeded. This was clearly stated on the introduction of the Land Bill of 1896 by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. In
1280
introducing the Land Bill of 1896 Mr. Gerald Balfour said*—
"How are you to quicken the pace [of the Land Purchase Acts]? First of all we must try in every way we can to oil the machinery. We must study the various impediments in the existing system which make tenants slow to buy and the landlords slow to sell. We must, if possible, remove those impediments, and try to make purchase more attractive to the tenants, and sale more attractive to the landlords. We have in this Bill made various proposals with a view to effecting this object."
Mr. Gerald Balfour then proceeded to describe these proposals, and, on coming to the subject of tithe rent-charge, said-
"Another concession which we propose to make to landlords selling to their tenants has reference to the redemption of tithe rent-charge in case of sale. Under the Act of 1887 the Land Commission were empowered to allow the landlords to redeem the tithe rent-charge in case of sale at less than the statutory period of 22½ years provided the Treasury gave their consent. The Land Commission have, as a matter of fact, repeatedly applied to the Treasury to give their consent, and the Treasury have always refused it. Under this Bill the Land Commission are to be empowered to allow the landlords to redeem the tithe rent-charge at anything over twenty years purchase without asking the consent of the Treasury."
It was this provision in the Land Act of 1896 which would be repealed by this clause. He commended these arguments to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. A landlord could only sell to his tenants at a considerable loss of income; in fact, he usually only did so from a feeling of despair at the unjust manner in which he had been treated, and in the hope that he thus might save some-
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxxix., page 809.

1281
thing out of the fire. The change would therefore add to his previous disinclination to sell Instead of trying in every way to "oil the machinery," the Government were, by restoring the twenty-two and a half years, doing the very thing which would impede the better and freer operation of the purchase system. They were taking away with one hand part of what was given with the other. The fund had gained half a million of money by this extravagant charge for a great number of years, and any loss which would be sustained must be by driblets. Moreover, it could not be absolutely certain that there would be a loss, for in the Treasury Minute of 14th July of last year it was stated that—
"Neither the future annual extent of the operations under those Acts (the Purchase Acts) nor the proportion in which such operations will apply to lands subject to tithe can be predicted With any confidence."
It further stated that the Treasury contemplated that there might be a loss, only at some future period. If this fund had been charged by successive Governments with more than it could bear, it was hard that the tithe-payer should in consequence suffer by having a larger sum extracted from him. If the Treasury thought this clause so important, why was it not introduced before instead of being slipped in at the last moment? He hoped the Government would consent to his Amendment and restore the Bill to what it was when it loft the House of Commons.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 9."—(Lord Cloubrock.)
THE EARL OF ERNEthought they had some reason to complain of the course which had been taken in regard to this clause. The clause was forced upon the Irish Government by the Treasury and would not have been introduced otherwise. There were plenty of opportunities in the House of Commons for the clause to have been inserted, but this was not done. Many noble Lords had left London on the understanding that no alteration would be made in the structure of the Bill and that only drafting Amendments would be agreed to. As his noble friend had told the House, this clause practically confiscated two and a half years purchase of tithe rent-charge when they came to sell, and in that way took away one of the important concessions which were made
1282
to Irish landlords in 1896. Noble Lords from Ireland were placed in rather a difficult position in regard to this matter. He fully conceded that the Government had met them fairly, having pressed this Bill, which would give some relief, through the House of Commons at the expense of other Bills on the whole. He would suggest that his noble friend should be content with his protest and not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid this was an instance of rather sharp practice on the part of the Treasury. Why, he asked, should the Treasury suddenly slip in, in the passage of the Bill from one House to the other, a little piece of legislation which really cut off some of the benefits of the Bill? The tithe rent-charge was expected to be reduced 20 per cent. under the Bill, and £100 paid now would therefore become £80. Twenty years purchase of £80 would be £1,600, but twenty-two and a half years purchase would be £1,800; therefore the purchase money was increased by £200. It had not been possible to debate the matter in Committee because the Lord Chancellor of Ireland suggested that owing to the lateness of the hour the Amendments should be postponed till the present stage. This increase of two and a half years would not affect the Church Fund for a great number of years, and Mr. Balfour said in the House of Commons that it would not be in the least necessary to go into the question of the solvency of the Church Fund thirty years hence. What could be the object, therefore, of the Treasury adding on this two and a half years What he objected to was that the clause had been put in after the Bill left the House of Commons. The Government had, so to speak, through the Treasury, gone back upon the arrangement that there should be no Amendments in the House of Lords. What an outcry there would have been if anything of the same kind had been done in a matter affecting the tenants.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I am very sorry that any noble Lord in this House should for a moment think that there has been anything in the slightest degree unfair or savouring of sharpness or unworthy practice in connection with this Bill. There has really been no change of view on this matter. The Chief Secretary

1283
expressed his views clearly in the other House in reply to an Amendment proposed by Mr. Dillon suggesting that there should be no redemption of ecclesiastical tithe save at twenty-five years purchase. The right hon. Gentleman then said he thought it would be reasonable that the price should not be less than twenty-two and a half years purchase. When I was moving the Second Reading of the Bill I referred to the way in which that matter would be dealt with. What is the history of this question? In the Church Act of 1869, Mr. Gladstone's measure as to the price of redemption was twenty-two and a half years purchase, and that has been the governing figure. When in 1887 a modification was suggested, it was subject to the assent of the Treasury, which was the arbiter. At that period the position of tithe rent-charge payers appealed to the sympathy of the Government. It was felt that the abolition of the power of revision by the Act of 1872 worked harshly. Prices had fallen, the English tithe rent-payer had been relieved to some extent, and therefore in 1896 it was deemed that the position of the Irish tithe rent-payer needed some further measure of consideration, and for the first time the Land Commission was given power at its discretion to say that redemption might take place at twenty years purchase. Under this Bill the power of revision is restored in a largo and substantial way. The Treasury considered that the large reduction of the tithe-payers' payments under this Bill was a great and substantial benefit, and under those circumstances it was right to restore to the Treasury the power of saying whether twenty-two and a half years purchase was not the right figure. Whether you concur or not with the views of the Government or the Treasury, you will see that their action has been uniform and consistent all through, and that ample notice was given in the House of Commons.
Bill to be road 3a To-morrow.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1800) AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
Amendments agreed to.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The promoters of this Bill gave a pledge in the memorandum to the Bill that it should not affect any legitimate sport, such as hunting or coursing, and I was under the impression when I read the Bill that it carried out their intention. I consulted two of my learned colleagues in this House and they agreed with me; but the question was raised in the Standing Committee, and my attention was called to the fact that the Law Officers of the Crown were of opinion that it might be contended that stag hunting or rabbit coursing was included. The object of my Amendment is to remove any doubt on. the subject.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, line 26, after '1876' to insert 'nor to the hunting or coursing of any animal which has not been liberated in a mutilated or injured state in order to facilitate its capture or destruction.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
THE EARL OF CORK: I am glad that my noble and learned friend has moved to insert these words, because there are very grave doubts whether the Bill in its-present form would not put an end to rabbit coursing, a sport of which I am not enamoured, but one which affords much pleasure to many individuals. I am certain those who pursue this sport will thank the noble and learned Lord for his Amendment, and will do everything they possibly can to prevent in future any cruelty being done to these animals.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"To insert as a new clause, 'This Act shall not extend to Scotland.' "—(Lord James of Hereford.)
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) (SALARIES, ETC.) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL [H.L.]
Amendment made; Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

OIL IN TOBACCO BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which, though a small one, is one of considerable importance. Your Lordships will remember that under the Finance Acts manufacturers of tobacco are not allowed to use more than a certain amount of water. If the law is not complied with in this respect heavy penalties are imposed, but manufacturers of tobacco have evaded the law by using oil in addition to water. This is now done to an extent which makes it injurious to the consumer. It also seriously affects the revenue, and works hardly on the honest trader. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced this Bill to stop this practice, which works mischief all the way round. The object of the Bill is to limit the amount of oil used in tobacco, the quantity of oil permitted by the measure as it stands being 3 per cent., but the Government are willing to extend it to 4 per cent. when the Bill gets into Committee.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."— (Viscount Cross.)
On Question agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

MILITIA REORGANISATION.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the general scheme for the reorganisation of the Army which, it is understood, is under consideration, the Government are prepared to pay special attention to the question of the Militia in general, and to the position of the Militia in time of war; whether the matter of Militia battalions volunteering for foreign and for active service will engage their attention, with a view to place the present
1286
uncertain, undefined, and unsatisfactory system on a proper basis; whether, in cases where a large portion of the battalion do volunteer and the minority do not, distinct regulations will be enacted, to govern the acceptance or the rejection by the authorities of the offer; whether the present irregular system will be abolished—that is to say, the system (if it can be so called) whereby the volunteering is made to depend on the success of the persuasive powers of commanding officers, company officers, and non-commissioned officers, and whereby those (many or few) of the men who adhere to their engagement to serve only in the United Kingdom, except their consent is obtained to serve abroad, are placed at a disadvantage in the eyes of their fellow-soldiers; whether clear rules can be officially laid down as to the liability, in future, of the whole Militia to serve without volunteering; or whether, if that is not practicable, certain battalions can be raised and privileged to so serve; or, again, if that is impracticable, whether individual volunteers from Militia battalions will be accepted and transferred to the Regular Army, and incorporated therein; or, if that cannot be, whether any regulation will be framed which, in the opinion of the Government, can meet the desired end. I. also wish to ask how many battalions of Militia have volunteered during the present war; how many of these have had their offers accepted, and how" many rejected; whether any rule governs such acceptance and rejection; whether any battalions are ever asked by the authorities if they will serve or not, or whether the initiative has come, and is expected to come, from the battalions themselves; how many of the battalions who may have volunteered have done so unanimously; how many (if any) partially and conditionally; and how many (if any) have refused to volunteer; whether it is in contemplation to raise the Militia to a, position approximating to the Regular Army, with adequate years of training, and with adequate pensions and foreign service, or to limit its service wholly to. the United Kingdom, or to make any fundamental change in the organisation, of the Militia.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The noble and gallant Lord has adopted

1287
a procedure which is not without its advantage with the temperature at the present point. He has asked his questions in the briefest possible terms, and placed his arguments at some length on the Notice Paper. His questions relate to two matters. He desires, in the first place, to be made aware of our intentions with regard to various questions of importance affecting the Militia force, and he also asks for information as to certain matters of fact connected with the circumstances under which certain Militia battalions have lately been allowed to volunteer for service abroad. It may, perhaps, have escaped the attention of the noble Lord that, on the occasion of a recent debate on the subject of the Militia Ballot, I stated at length that there were certain changes which the Government intended to make at once in the Militia, but that with regard to the reorganisation of the force and the alteration of its conditions of service, we proposed to take no final step until we had been able to consider other questions of Army reorganisation, which, as I tried to show your Lordships, are very intimately connected with the question of the reorganisation of the Militia. I told the House that I, for my part, was much attracted by the idea of rendering the whole of the Militia force liable in time of war for service beyond the United Kingdom. I recognised that that, of course, involved the reconsideration of the question of the Militia bounty and the general conditions under which the force was recruited, and that it would also mean the disappearance of the present system under which Militia battalions are allowed to volunteer for service abroad. If a change was made affecting the whole Militia force there would no longer be any occasion to resort to volunteering. It would disappear with all the inconveniences which are called attention to in the questions of the noble Lord. That being the case, I confess I do not think there is very much advantage in discussing hypothetically the regulations which might or might not be enacted for the purpose of governing the acceptance or the rejection by the authorities of the offer of Militia battalions to serve abroad; nor, of course, is it possible for me to give the noble Lord any information as to the rules which might hereafter be laid down as to the liability of the force to serve with or without volunteer-
1288
ing. Still less is it possible for me to give the noble and gallant Lord any definite assurance of the kind which he seems to expect when he asks his last question as to the fundamental changes in the organisation of the Militia which we may hereafter find it desirable to introduce. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press me further on this point, but will be content with the assurance which I gave the House the other evening, and which, I think, satisfied those of your Lordships who were good enough to listen to me on that occasion. Then the noble Lord asks me some specific questions with regard to the circumstances under which certain Militia battalions lately volunteered for service outside the United Kingdom. The facts are these. Thirty battalions have gone to South Africa, four to the Mediterranean, and one to the island of St. Helena. Of those thirty five battalions, thirteen volunteered without any intimation from the War Office that it was intended to offer them the opportunity of serving abroad. The other twenty-two battalions volunteered in response to an intimation made to them that their services would be acceptable should they be disposed to offer them. But besides the thirteen battalions which volunteered spontaneously, forty other battalions also volunteered without any invitation from the military authorities. The noble Lord asks whether there is any rule which governs the acceptance or rejection of these offers from Militia battalions. There is no fixed rule. The decision rests with the Commander-in-Chief, who is, I believe, influenced by the strength of the battalion, the age of the men of whom it is composed, and by its general reputation for efficiency. Another question the noble Lord asked me was, "How many of the battalions who have volunteered have done so unanimously?" I find that in every battalion there were a certain number of individual Militiamen who declined to serve abroad. There wore five battalions which were offered the chance of so serving and which refused altogether, or, in other words, in those battalions the number of men who offered themselves was not sufficient to justify the acceptance of their services. I think those are the whole of the questions as to matters of fact which the noble Lord has asked me.

1289
I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that I am very far from disagreeing with the noble Lord in the view which I collect from his questions—namely, that there is a certain inconvenience in the system under which at present offers are accepted from Militia battalions. I have indicated to your Lordships that personally I should be very glad to sec a change made in the constitution of the force which would enable us to got rid altogether both of the Militia Reserve, which is so unpopular with Militia officers, and also of the present system of volunteering. I do not think, so far as I am able to learn, that any undue pressure has been put upon the men, but I certainly think there is an objection to a system which lends itself to the suspicion that pressure of that kind may be applied.
LORD BRAYE: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for having put the matter so clearly before the House, and to express my pleasure that the Government have seriously in view the whole question of the Militia force.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—THE COLONIAL TROOPS AND WAR MEDALS.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any truth in a rumour which has been widely circulated that a separate war medal or war decoration will be issued to Her Majesty's Colonial troops, or whether the Colonial troops will receive the war medal issued to British troops, and a fair proportion of all honours, distinctions, and rewards which will be granted to Her Majesty's troops raised in Great Britain and Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is no truth in the rumour that a separate war medal or decoration is likely to be bestowed upon Her Majesty's Colonial troops. The Colonial forces will receive the South African Medal, which will be bestowed upon the whole of the troops, British and Colonial, and it will be a medal of the shape and form usual in such cases. With regard to the other part of the question, I think the noble Lord may rest assured that a fair proportion of all honours, distinctions, and awards which may be granted to Her Majesty's forces will fall to the share of the Colonial troops, who have behaved
1290
with so much credit to themselves during the present campaign. I cannot undertake to discuss what the proportion will be, but my noble friend need have no uneasiness on that subject.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am sure the answer of the noble Marquess will give great satisfaction not only in the Colonies but throughout the mother country. I would suggest that the more promptly the medals can be given after the conclusion of the war the better they will be appreciated. Medals have been given within the last three or four months for services rendered thirty and thirty-four years ago. It would naturally have been more satisfactory to all those who were entitled to receive these medals, many of whom have died in the meantime, if they had been given within a reasonable time. I have no doubt that it will be otherwise in the present case.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven of the clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.