Sitting of 6 June 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Metropolitan Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
Simon-Carves Bye-Product Coke Oven Construction and Working Company, Limited, Bill [Lords]. Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Bristol Corporation Bill, Burnley Corporation Bill, without Amendment.
PETITIONS
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dalziel, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Earlestown; Everton (two); Holt Green; Knowsley; Rainford; Scarisbrick; Seaforth; and Sefton; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Alves; Cawdor; and Paddington; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; From Elms well; Ely; Lee; Truro; and Yeovil; to lie upon the Table
  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Birmingham, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (CONTRACTS) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report and Papers relating to the Training of Teachers for the year 1905– 6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Copy presented, of Statistical Tables for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3814 and 3815 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Public Health Bill.
  MR. BRIGG:To ask the Prime Minister if, in consequence of the importance to local authorities in framing their Bills for next session, he will facilitate the passing into law as speedily as possible of the Public Health Bill [No. 66].
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) No undertaking can be given at present about this Bill; but the. Government are quite alive to its importance.

  Shortage of Engine-Room Artificers.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the total number of engine-room artificers short of those required for manning the ships of the various Fleets, and the reason those returning from foreign service are being asked to give up part of the leave usually granted to such men for recuperation.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) There is no shortage of engine-room artificers, the numbers now borne being sufficient to man the present war Fleet. Nothing is known of any engine-room artificers having been asked to give up their leave on return from foreign service. Two engine-room artificers in H.M.S. "Drake," of the second cruiser squadron, on that ship paying off recently, were asked if they would like to give up their leave for instruction in turbines, for which two engine-room artificers were required at the time, and for which these two men were specially suitable The inquiry was made in the interests of the chief petty officers themselves as well as of the service, and they voluntarily accepted the offer, naming their own date for commencing instruction.

  Salmon Fisheries Sold by Woods and Forests Department.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the number, if any, of salmon fishings that have been sold in Scotland by the Woods and Forests Department, and the prices obtained for such fishings.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the total number of sales is forty-nine, and the total purchase money £32,550.

  Pension of Sir J. Bampfylde Fuller.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state at what ago Sir Joseph Bampfylde Fuller retired, how many years ho was in the service, and the pension he receives.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.)Sir J. Bampfylde Fuller retired at the age of fifty two, after a service of upwards of thirty years. He receives the ordinary annuity of a member of the Indian Civil Service who resigns after twenty-five years' service, viz., £1,000.

  Report on Riots at Comilla.
  Mr. O'GRADY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the second inquiry into the riots at Comilla is yet completed; and, if so, will the Report be laid upon the Table of the House
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have received a Report on the riot which took place at Comilla on the 6th March last. The riot resulted in several cases, which were tried in open court and the proceedings published in the Press. I do not think it necessary to lay the Report on the Table.

  Sale of the Estate of the Misses Cooper.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland is ho aware that negotiations for sale and purchase as between the Misses Cooper and the tenants on the Knocklong property, in county Limerick, have boon for a long time in progress; have the results of those negotiations been placed before the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, with what results; have Thomas Barry and John M'Grath, evicted tenants on this estate, been as yet reinstated in their farms, or have the Estates Commissioners sent an inspector to make inquiries in regard to their rein-statement; and what wore the recommendations of the inspector, if he has carried out his mission.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the sale of this estate were instituted before them in March last, but the case will not reach its turn to be dealt with for a considerable time. The Commissioners have directed their inspector to inquire into the applications of the two evicted tenants referred to, but the inspector's report has not yet been received.

  Sale of Estate of Mr. Stafford Delmege.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say how matters in regard to sale and purchase stand at present between Mr. Stafford Delmege and his tenants on the lands of Garryspillane, Glenbrohane, and the other townlands adjacent to Knocklong, county Limerick; can he say does any person hold from the

  811
  agents, the Messrs. Sanders, of Charleville, a tenancy on the 145 acres on the Garryspillane side of the property, apparently untenanted, and, if so, what is his name and what is the nature of his tenancy, whether judicial or on the eleven months' system are the smaller tenancies, about eleven in number, established about two years since, merely tentative and conditional, or are they on judicial rents; and how are matters in general between the owners and the tenants.
  MR. BIRRELL: Purchase agreements in respect of thirty holdings on this estate wore lodged with the Estates Commissioners in April last. The estate includes forty-eight acres of land described as being in the owner's hands, which it is proposed to sell as parcels. No purchase agreement has been lodged in respect of any holding of 145 acres. Twenty-five of the agreements lodged relate to judicial tenancies, and of these twelve were created since January, 1901. The Commissioners will inquire into all the circumstances of the estate before sanctioning the advances applied for.

  Intimidation of Mr. Byrne, of Lusmagh
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the stock belonging to Mr. Byrne, of Lusmagh, Banagher, King's County, was driven oft' his farm on Friday, 31st May, by order of the local branch of the United Irish League; and whether the Government are taking any, and, if so, what steps to protect farmers in the. King's County against intimidation.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities inform me that Mr. Byrne's cattle were driven off his farm on the date mentioned, but they have no knowledge that United Irish League were concerned in the matter. The evidence in possession of the police is being examined with the view of considering whether a prosecution can be instituted for driving off' the cattle. An extra force of police is stationed in King's County for the purpose of assisting in the preservation of the peace.

  Disturbances in the Kilmore Districts.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  812
  Ireland whether he is aware that, following up the recent prosecutions at Hillstreet, county Roscommon, for unlawful assembly and intimidation, for which eight Nationalists have been imprisoned, the magistrates who constituted the tribunal on that occasion are now subject to the most rigorous boycott; whether ho is aware that all the servants of Mr. G. Kelly, B.L., who was chairman, have loft his employment, Mr. H. Hamilton is subject to similar boycott, and Mr. R. N. Ffrench, who did not attend the court, is similarly treated, all his servants having left him; and whether, seeing that the Kilmore district is in a very disturbed state, ho will say what precautions, if any, the Government are taking to preserve law and order.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received information to the effect that certain magistrates who attended the court at Hillstreet, county Roscommon, when there was a trial for unlawful assembly and intimidation, have been boycotted; under which class of boycott are these justices of the peace suffering, and what steps does he propose to take against the offenders.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I will at the same time answer the Question of the hon. Member for the Rye Division. The police authorities inform mo that one of Mr. Kelly's indoor servants has left his employment and that several labourers have refused to work for him. One labourer has also left Mr. Hamilton's employment, but neither in his case nor in that of Mr. French, have the domestic servants left, as stated in the Question. One of these magistrates has been refused supplies in a local shop, but no other act of boycotting has occurred. Extra police are stationed in the districts in which these gentlemen reside, and every possible measure is being taken to preserve the peace and to protect the magistrates from loss and annoyance.

  Shooting Outrage at Broadford, County Clare.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any information from the

  813
  police as to a shooting outrage at Broad-ford, in East Glare, which occurred on 23 rd May, when the house of a farmer named Molony, living at Fermoyle, was fired into; whether any reason has been assigned for this crime; and whether the fanner has any police protection.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave yesterday to a similar Question relating to the same case. †

  Disturbances in Ireland.
  SIR F. BANBURY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the publication of resolutions passed by branches of the United Irish League in Galway, Sligo, and Roscommon, naming certain persons as worthy of censure; whether such publication is calculated to intimidate those of His Majesty's subjects specified in the resolutions; and whether he will take immediate steps to prevent the publication of such resolutions in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The publication of resolutions such as the hon. Baronet refers to is a very old story in Ireland. Opinion differs considerably as to the amount of intimidatory effect produced by such publication, which, however, is none the less to be deprecated. It is not proposed to take any steps in the matter at present.
  MR. JOHN RUTHERFORD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 27th May three farms on the Ryan Estate at Thomastown were raided by a crowd consisting of several hundreds of persons, whether he will state the amount of damage then done, and how many constables were on duty to protect these estates; whether traders in the district who have hitherto supplied the police with goods have been threatened with the boycott; and whether any traders have on this account refused to supply goods to the police.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is the fact that a crowd of persons drove the
  † See page 087.
  814
  cattle off the three farms mentioned, and took them in each case to the owners residence. No injury was done to the cattle or the farms. The acts were witnessed by two policemen. Twelve persons have been prosecuted for the offence and returned for trial at the assizes. It is the case that several local traders have refused to supply the police with goods.

  Outdoor Relief to Tenants of Union Cottages in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that labourers in occupation of union cottages in Ireland are debarred from obtaining outdoor relief, even when incapacited by illness; and whether, in view of the suffering which the operation of this system sometimes inflicts upon labourers and their families, stops will be taken to enable boards of guardians to grant outdoor relief to the tenants of union cottages when necessity arises.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Occupiers of more than a quarter of an acre of land are debarred by statute from. receiving poor law relief otherwise than in the workhouse. Labourers who occupy cottages with allotments come within the j prohibitions. The relieving officer may, however, afford such persons relief in case of sudden and urgent necessity, and the guardians may admit them to the union hospital in cases of illness. The Local Government Board have been advised that the prohibition referred to applies only to the landholder himself, and there-fore the members of such person's family, if sick and destitute, may be afforded outdoor relief. No amendment of the law of relief in favour of labourers is in contemplation.

  Tenant Purchasers in County Meath
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have, in the exercise of the discretion vested in them under the Land Act of 1903, decided not to make any advance in excess of £3,000 to tenant purchasers; and how many applications for a greater amount have been refused to tenant purchasers in the county of Meath.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not come to any general decision on the subject. Each application for an advance of more than £3,000 is dealt with upon its merits. One such application has been refused in county Meath.

  Kilmeedy National Schools.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say on what grounds the approval which the Commissioners of National Education gave by letter, on 20th December, 1905, to the proposal of the manager of the national schools at Kilmeedy, county Limerick, for a building grant, has not been sanctioned by the Treasury; and whether, in view of the fact that the manager and parents of the children procured building materials at considerable expense on receipt of the Commissioners' approval of their proposals, and also in view of the fact that the average attendance in the boys' school is over forty, and in the girls' nearly sixty, he will take steps to acquire the grant for them without making it a condition that the schools be amalgamated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of the National Education inform me that this case was not submitted to the Treasury, nor did they inform the manager that it would be submitted to that Department. Under the Commissioners' rules, in the case of applications for building grants for adjoining boys' and girls' schools, grants for separate schools cannot be made unless there is an average attendance of at least fifty pupils in each school. This condition is not fulfilled in the case in question, and the Commissioners are, therefore, unable to sanction a building grant for a new school-house except on condition that the schools shall be amalgamated.

  Boycotting of Michael Brady.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the language used by His Honour Judge Drummond at Manorhamilton, on 21st May, when he said that Michael Brady, a. person who is
  816
  rigorously boycotted and has been the object of intimidation, was a nuisance and a pest to the country; and whether, having regard to the disturbed condition of the country whore Brady lives, and to the effect which such a statement coming from a Judge on the Bench must have, he will endeavour to obtain an early day for the discussion of the Motion on the subject which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Antrim, or, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have communicated with the learned Judge upon the subject. He informs me that the matter which came before him on 21st May was an application for a special order to substitute service of a process. He refused that application, not upon the ground of the character of the plaintiffs or their father, but simply upon the ground that certain legal requirements had not been satisfied. In the course of the discussion between the Judge and the barrister who made the application the Judge referred to certain criminal proceedings which had come before him on a previous occasion, in the course of which proceedings it was shown that Brady was not a man of good character. The Judge informs me that ho cannot recall the precise words which ho used on the occasion, but he does not deny that they may have been to the general effect stated in the Question. There appears to be no doubt as to the fact that Brady's character is not satisfactory, but the police will continue to afford him full protection in the exercise of his legal rights, as they have done for some years past. the Government do not see any sufficient reason for taking special stops in regard to the Notice of Motion which stands in the hon. Member's name.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a person named Brady, who lives near Dowra, in the county of Leitrim, where he enjoys the privilege of police protection, is the cause of disturbance in
  † A Motion of the appointment of a Select Committee "to inquire into the conduct of His Honour Judge Drummond in respect of he use by him, at Manorhamilton Quarter Session on Tuesday, 21st May, of language unbecoming in a Judge on the Bench."

  817
  that part of Leitrim; that Brady has been described by His Honour Judge Drummond, K.C., as a public nuisance, who is causing annoyance in a hitherto quiet and peaceful district; that, although he is frequently intoxicated, and has, in fact, been prosecuted for drunkenness by a policeman who is protecting him, yet he is allowed to carry firearms; that he has been recently convicted of driving his car while intoxicated over an old man, who was seriously injured; and whether steps will be taken by the Government to prevent Brady from continuing to disturb the peace in the county Leitrim.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is the fact that Brady, who is a bailiff and the caretaker of evicted farms, receives police protection, and in the opinion of the police authorities this protection is necessary. I have just answered a Question relating to Judge Drummond's remarks about this man. It is the case that Brady has been convicted of drunkenness, and that the police who wore protecting him were the prosecutors. He was also convicted of driving his car over an old man, but this conviction was reversed on appeal. The fact that Brady's character is not satisfactory would not justify the police authorities in withholding from him any protection that may be necessary.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement made by His Honour Judge Drummond, K.C, at Manorhamilton quarter sessions on 12th March, 1907, in which he described as wild exaggerations the accounts appearing in certain newspapers regarding the state of the county Leitrim, and said that, during the two years and a half that ho had been Judge at eleven quarter sessions in Leitrim, there had been altogether only five criminal cases, and (hose of the most trivial character, white gloves being presented to him at each of the four sessions in 1905, and in January and March, 1907, and that he was not aware of any other county in the United Kingdom that is so free from crime; and whether, in view of this statement of the learned Judge regarding the peace of the county Leitrim, he will have the extra police stationed in the county withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) According to the local newspapers the learned Judge made the statement attributed to him in the Question, but prefaced it by saying that he confined his observations to North Leitrim. It is the fact that a considerable part of the county is in a satisfactory condition, but there are other parts of it to which that remark would hardly apply, and in the opinion of the police authorities who are responsible for the preservation of the peace, the presence of extra police is necessary in those parts.

  Yeomanry at Political Demonstrations.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the regulations for Yeomanry permit them giving military displays at political demonstrations; if so, are the troopers and non-commissioned officers paid, and by whom; and whether, in the event of any member refusing to attend, he can be penalised directly or indirectly by the commanding officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Yeomanry regulations do not permit military displays at political demonstrations.

  Small-Bore Bullets
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the investigation into the relative efficiency of small-bore bullets of various shapes and patterns, with regard to muzzle velocity, low trajectory, and stopping power, is yet concluded; and whether, as a result of such inquiry, he proposes to adopt for the British service rifle a bullet different from that now in use.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The investigation referred to is not yet completed.

  Lee Enfield Rifle.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether experiments have recently been made to test the action of various explosives, giving high muzzle velocities, on the rifling of the Lee-Enfield rifle; and whether he is able to announce the results of such experiments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Trials with ammunition to give high

  819
  velocities from various manufacturers are now in progress, and the effects of the explosives on the rifling of the Lee-Enfield rifle will in due course be ascertained. No results of experiments can at present be announced.

  Ammunition for the Auxiliary Forces.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the issue to the auxiliary forces of ammunition of mixed sources of manufacture and date have been discontinued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Since August last the various sources of manufacture have been kept separate. Ammunition completed prior to that date would be of mixed sources, and may have been recently issued to the troops.

  Supernumerary Majors.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many appointments in provisional battalions have been offered to supernumerary majors who have hitherto served in infantry battalions now disbanded.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) One vacancy has occurred for a major. This was offered to all the majors of reduced battalions, who, with two exceptions, refused it. The two officers referred to made, however, certain conditions for accepting the appointment which could net be agreed to by this Department

  Rifle Back Sights.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the converted Lee-Enfield rifles, to be issued to the Auxiliary Forces, will be provided with back sights having screw adjustment for elevation and wind gauge.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The back sights of the converted long rifles will not have any screw adjustment for elevation. The pattern of adjustable wind gauge is still under trial.

  War Department Land at Bexhill-on-Sea
  Mr. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the result of the negotiations for the sale of War Department land at Bexhill-on-Sea.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This matter is about to be referred to arbitration.

  War Department Mortgages.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the Bill will be introduced to confer statutory authority upon the War Office to vest mortgages transferred to that Department in the Secretary of State for War.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The legislation necessary to effect the purpose set forth in the Question will be secured by the inclusion of a clause in the annual Public Works Loan Bill. I am not aware of the date on which it may be proposed to introduce the Bill.

  Cordite in India
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what proportion of the cordite now in possession of the War Office, exclusive of that in India, has been manufactured by Messrs. Kynoch, Limited.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I doubt whether it would be in the public interest to give this information.

  Case of William Emberson
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that William Emberson, a private, was on Friday, 31st May, committed for trial at Portsmouth for shooting Charles Fred Beard, a private in the 2nd Middlesex Regiment; whether, at the inquest, Emberson admitted that he had been drinking heavily; whether the jury censured the military authorities for allowing cartridges in the barrack store-room, and also for serving drink from the canteen to soldiers in an intoxicated condition; and whether the War Office propose to take any, and, if so, what, steps to prevent such occurrences in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has been drawn to this case; but, having regard to the fact that Private Emberson has been committed for trial on a capital charge, it would not be proper for me to make any statement about the circumstances of the case at the

  821
  present time. The case is being closely watched.

  Official History of the South African War
  Mr. BECKETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to proceed no further with the preparation and publication of the official history of the war in South Africa beyond the volume now in the Press; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for abandoning a work of so much public interest and importance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The responsibility for the publication of the history has been transferred to the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the work is steadily proceeding

  Commercial Treaties.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair when the Return, giving particulars of the most-favoured-nation treaties of foreign countries, moved for last session, will be issued.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The work involved in the preparation of this Return is very considerable, owing to the large number of treaties of this nature, all of which have to be checked. No time will be lost, but I am afraid I cannot at present specify any date at which it will be possible to complete it.

  Medical Officers at Embassies.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS:To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state to how many of His Majesty's embassies and consulates medical officers or advisers are attached; what are the medical and surgical qualifications required of candidates for such posts; and what are the salaries and condition of service attached to each of them.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The salaries and allowances provided for medical officers are given in the Estimate for Diplomatic and Consular Services under the names of the various posts. The officers are duly qualified practitioners, and those who receive allowances are usually selected on the
  822
  spot. The following are the principal medical posts: —

  Constantinople

  £700

  Peking

  £650 to £700

  Alexandria

  £500

  Tokio

  £350

  Tehran

  £600

  Bangkok

  £250

  Zanzibar

  £400

  Quarters are provided at Peking and Tehran. Officers who take private practices are not pensionable.

  Transvaal Land Settlement Schemes.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total expenditure charged against the British Exchequer for land settlement schemes in the Transvaal up to the moment of responsible government being established there; and what was the number of cultivating settlers, of holdings, and the total acreage of land so occupied.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The expenditure on land settlement in the Transvaal has been charged against the proceeds of the guaranteed loan and not against the British Exchequer. No later statistics have been received than those which are printed at page 91 of Cd. 3028, of which Paper I am sending a conveniently-marked copy to my right hon. friend.

  Slavery on the Zanzibar Strip.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the approximate estimate of cost submitted to the Treasury for the abolition of the legal status of slavery on the Zanzibar strip.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) An approximate estimate of £40,000 has been received by telegram from the Governor of the East African Protectorate, but, pending the receipt of his full Report by mail, this sum can only be regarded as provisional.

  State-aided Land Purchase in Scotland.
  Mr. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state whether it is the general practice in Scotland, before sanctioning the purchase of holdings with State aid, to fix the then fair rents of the holdings and calculate

  823
  the purchase prices on those rents; the total number of holdings purchased in Scotland with State aid down to 31st March, 1907; the average number of years purchase of rent agreed to be paid for them; the number of these holdings in respect of which arrears of purchase annuities were then due; the total amount of the annuities; and the total amount of the arrears.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair) The general practice is as the hon. Member indicates. The total number of holdings purchased in Scotland with State aid down to 31st March, 1907, was eighty-seven. The number of years purchase of rent runs from seventeen and-a-half to twenty, according to price paid by the Board. The number of holdings in respect of which the arrears of purchase annuities were due at 31st March, 1907, is eighty-two. The total amount of the annuities payable up to that date is 824£2,958 2s 5d., and the total amount of the arrears £753 11s. 6d.

  Board of Trade Labour Correspondent.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Mr. Burnett, chief labour correspondent to the Board, is retiring from that position; and, if so, what steps have been taken to fill the vacancy caused by his retirement.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I regret to say that Mr. Burnett will shortly retire from the service of the Board of Trade. The question of appointing a successor is receiving careful consideration.

  Bankruptcy Delays.
  MR. RADFORD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the practice of the registrars in bankruptcy in repeatedly postponing applications for receiving orders in the case of persons against whom petitions in bankruptcy have been presented, and to the fact that the interval between the bankruptcy petition and the receiving order has, in recent cases, often amounted to many months and sometimes to more than a year; and, in view of the inconvenience caused by this delay, not only to creditors but to third persons with whom the respondent to the bankruptcy
  824
  petition may carry on business and against whom he may institute litigation, he can see his way to take steps to ensure in such cases a more prompt administration of justice.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I understand that the practice of adjourning the hearing of petitions in bankruptcy from time to time is still very common, not withstanding Rules 168 and 169 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886 and 1890. The question of further restricting such adjournments will be considered when the opportunity occurs.

  Westbourne Park Railway Service.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the direct service from Westbourne Park Station to Victoria was discontinued long before the electric service was installed; and whether he will state why through booking was discontinued, as it is possible to complete the journey between the two points by changing carriages and rebooking at Addison Road.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade have invited the observations of the railway companies concerned upon the points raised by my hon. friend, and will Communicate with him upon receipt of the companies' replies.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether ho can induce the Great Western and other railways interested to establish a through service of trains between j Paddington, Westbourne Park, etc., and Battersea, Chelsea, Clapham Junction, and Victoria, for the convenience of workmen and other members of the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade are in communication with the railway companies concerned in this matter, and will inform my hon. friend of the result.

  Belfast Post Office Boy Messengers.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether ho is aware that eighteen boy messengers in the Belfast post office have been informed

  825
  by the Postmaster-General that they must quit the service on 1st July next; that these boys are all of exemplary character, and have served from five to seven years us messengers; and whether, in view of the hardship which their dismissal will entail on the boys and their parents, he will endeavour to arrange that they shall be continued in some capacity in the employment of the post office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I dealt with this matter on the 4th instant in replying to a Question asked by the hon. Member for North Armagh† I regret that, after reviewing all available courses, I cannot but conclude that it is to the interest of these boys to seek other employment.

  Belfast Post Office —Messenger Room.
  MR J. DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the unsanitary condition of the premises in which the messenger boys employed at the Belfast post office are given military drill; whether the boys have been given to understand that they cannot receive promotion to the rank of postman until they have first served in the Army; if so, whether this is due to a determination on the part of the Government to make the Post Office a recruiting ground for the Army; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have made inquiry in regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, and cannot learn that any suggestion has ever been made to the effect that the premises in which the boy messengers at Belfast are drilled are in an unsanitary condition. None of the messengers have been advised to enlist in the Army, and it is certainly not my intention to make the post office a recruiting ground for the Army. At the same time the boys know, no doubt, under a long-standing arrangement with the War Office, that ex-soldiers obtain nearly half the vacant places for postmen.

  Strabane Telegraph Clerk's Illness.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware
  † See pp. 491–2
  826
  that a sorting clerk and telegraphist at Strabane, Ireland, who was seized with serious illness on 16th April last, was accused of malingering by the postmaster of that town, who absolutely refused to allow him to enter a hospital to which his family desired to send him; if ho can say under what circumstances the postmaster and medical officer insisted on the man remaining in lodgings in Strabane till the 27th of April, when the surveyor had to be communicated with by wire by the friends of the patient, who is still lying seriously ill in hospital at Belfast; and whether, in view of these facts, he will have full inquiry made into the whole circumstances of the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Burton.) I am making inquiry, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Poor Law Expenditure.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the inspector of Poor Law District No. 3 has recently issued to the Boards of Guardians in his district a paper headed, Table showing the number of paupers on 1st January 1897 and 1907, and the expenditure upon relief for the year ended Michaelmas 1906, and that instead of showing the expenditure on relief it only shows the expenditure on the two items, out-relief and in-maintenance, and omits altogether the salaries, rations, and superannuations of the officers and servants, principal of loans repaid arid interest thereon, cost of furniture, repairs to building and furniture, and some other items of the cost of relief; if so, will he state what is the expenditure on the omitted items for the Birmingham Union in the above district; whether it has been usual for the Poor Law inspector's half-yearly returns to make the same omissions as the above-mentioned return does; and whether the President will, in future, either arrange that these returns shall give the true cost of relief or discontinue them altogether.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have seen the table referred to, which I understand is in the form which the inspector has been accustomed to use. It is intended to give particulars as to the cost of the maintenance of indoor paupers and of outdoor relief, and not the total expenditure of the guardians as a poor law

  827
  authority. The expenditure of the guardians of the parish of Birmingham in respect of all poor law purposes in the year ended at Michaelmas 1906 was as follows: —

  £

  Maintenance of indoor paupers

  42,393

  Outdoor relief

  7,151

  Maintenance of lunatics in asylums, etc.

  28,169

  Salaries, etc., and superannuation allowances of officers and servants

  33,436

  Principal of loans and interest thereon

  14,491

  Other expenditure connected with the relief of the poor

  15,141

  Some of this information was not in the possession of the inspector at the time the table was issued, and it will be observed that much of the expenditure shown is not of a character which can be controlled by the present guardians. Provided that it is understood that, as regards expenditure, the table only gives particulars relative to the maintenance of indoor paupers and out-relief, I see no objection to it. It may be well that the heading of the table should be so framed as to leave no possible room for doubt as to the nature of its contents, and I will communicate with the inspector on his Point.

  Criminal Appeals—Shorthand Notes.
  Mr. TALBOT: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether it is intended, under the. Criminal Appeal Bill, that a shorthand report of all evidence in the trial of indictable offences shall be taken, and also a shorthand report of the summing up of the Judges and chairmen in such cases; and, if so, whether any estimate has been made of the probable cost.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) Yes. It is intended that a shorthand note shall be taken in all cases; but that such parts only of such note be transcribed as may be ordered by the Court of Criminal Appeal. No estimate of cost has been made

  Artillery in India
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of Stale for India what is the number of batteries of horse,
  828
  field, and mountain artillery, respectively, in the Indian Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) There are in India eleven batteries of Royal Horse Artillery, forty-five batteries of Royal Field Artillery, and eight batteries of Royal Garrison Artillery, Mountain Division. There are also ten Indian (Native) mountain batteries.

  Forestry in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the advantages and profit derived in continental countries from State forestry, and to the statement of the Secretary for India as to the forestry of India as a source of national asset and employment: and whether the Government will take up without delay the reafforestation of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The attention of the Irish Government has been drawn to the matters referred to, and the question of afforestation in Ireland has received much Consideration. I understand that the question has conic before both the Royal Commission on Congestion and the Committee of Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture, and it would therefore seem desirable to await the Reports of both of these bodies before further considering the matter.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the reign of William the Third, a Bill was passed making it compulsory to plant several thousands of trees annually in Ireland for twenty-one years, and that the local authorities were held responsible that this was carried into effect; and whether he will consider the advisability of re-introducing a similar measure, and provide the necessary funds from the Imperial Exchequer out of the amount due to Ireland from over-taxation and the appropriation to British purposes of the Irish Quit and Crown rents.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is the fact that an Act to the effect mentioned was passed in 1698 (10 Will. 3, c. 12), and I understand that during the eighteenth century some twelve further Acts on the subject were passed, but that they

  829
  failed to prevent a decrease of timber in Ireland. As regards the suggestion contained in the latter part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which the Secretary to the Treasury gave to his Question on this subject on 10th April, 1906. †

  Belfast Docks—Inspection of Imported Provisions.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what arrangements at present exist for the inspection of provisions imported at the Belfast docks; whether any complaints have been received as to the inadequacy of the inspection; and whether ho will cause inquiries to be made in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board are informed by the local authorities of Belfast that the port sanitary officer on duty each day inspects imported provisions, and frequently makes seizures of unfit provisions, and obtains magistrates' orders for their destruction. The Local Government Board have not received any complaints as to the inadequacy of the inspection. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a special Commission is inquiring into the general sanitary administration of the city.

  Exchequer Contributions for Ireland.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why it is that the Exchequer contribution under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts is not given direct to the various district councils in Ireland entitled to it, so that it may be applied by them direct towards the repayment of the loans under the Labourers Acts; and whether, if that cannot be done, he will take steps to see that the county councils that receive it use it solely for that purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) All Government contributions to rural district councils are distributed through the county councils, which are the rate-levying authorities, and are placed by them to the credit of the several rural districts entitled to receive them. It would be most inconvenient to adopt a different procedure with regard to the
  † See (4) Debates, elv., 1142
  830
  Exchequer contribution applicable towards repayment of loans under the Labourers Acts. The Local Government Board have no information that county councils divert the sums so remitted to thorn to purposes other than those for which they are intended.

  Labourers Cottages Schemes.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say, when application for a labourer's cottage has been made, under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, by a labourer and rejected by the district councillors of the district at the first meeting of the council to consider applications, without giving the labourer an opportunity of being heard, what is the proper course to adopt that the labourer's application may be considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The representation made by a labourer to the rural district council contains the grounds on which his application is made. In the event of its rejection by the rural district council, the labourer may ascertain, either from the clerk or the councillor representing his division, for what reason his application was rejected. If the rejection should be due to some technical informality or to the labourer's omission to state the full grounds for making the application, it would be open to him to make a fresh representation to the rural district council with a view to their reconsidering his case.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Cordite for the Navy.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give approximately the proportion of the whole supply of cordite in the Navy which was manufactured by Kynoch, Limited.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, DUNDEE): I am informed that no figures are available to enable me to answer this Question with even approximate accuracy.
    Mr. BELLAIRS: Will the Government direct the immediate withdrawal of all cordite on board His Majesty's ships which contain mercuric chloride?
    MR EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must have notice of that Question.

    Totland Coastguard Station.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to abolish the Totland coastguard station in October next.
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This station comes within the scope of the pledge which I gave to the House on the 7th March†The Admiralty have no intention of closing it.

    Naval Victualling.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on Victualling has now been considered; whether it is now proposed to make any, and, if so, what, changes in the naval victualling and canteen system; and whether it is proposed to publish the Report of this Committee.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Navy Vote 2 will be taken first on Tuesday next, and I propose then to make a full statement on this subject.

    New Royal Yacht.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the upholstery work of the new Royal Yacht was supplied by Warings, of London; if a much lower offer was made by a Glasgow firm of upholsterers of high standing; if the higher offer was accepted by the ship builder on pressure of the Admiralty; and, if so, whether in future he will see that the lowest offer, if from a competent firm, will be countenanced by the Admiralty.
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The upholstery of the Yacht generally is being carried out by the shipbuilders or their sub-contractors, except in the case of the apartments intended for the personal use of their Majesties, which are being furnished by Warings. They were selected for this part of the work on account of their experience in fitting up the "Victoria and Albert." No tender
    † See (4) Debates, clxx., 1089.
    832
    was invited and no offer received by the Admiralty for this work from any other firm of upholsterers. Under the contract the shipbuilders have nothing to do with the supply of upholstery for the Royal apartments.
    MR. LEA (ST. PANCRAS, E.): Why take (this exceptional course of not putting the work out to tender)
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Because of the special experience of this firm.
    Mr. LEA: Have not other firms had similar experience?
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No other firm has had the same experience.

    Ships' Magazines
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether refrigerating machinery has already been ordered sufficient to equip the whole of the magazines of our fifty-one battleships, twenty-eight armoured cruisers, and seventy-six unarmoured cruisers, together with the plant for the ships now building; whether provision was made for all this plant in the Navy Estimates, and, if so, where; and whether he can state the estimated cost of fitting such refrigerating plant in the whole Navy or in the case of one battleship, such as the "Agamemnon."
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: As regards the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Guildford on Tuesday. No provision has been made in the Estimates, but if the expenditure during the current financial year cannot be met from surpluses, it will be provided for by a Supplementary Estimate in the usual way. As regards the last part of the Question, the cost of the plant alone in the case of the" Agamemnon" is £1,900; the cost of fitting cannot at present be stated.

    Bengal Taxation.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bengal have yet arranged to relieve the Bengal
    ‡ See page 470.

    833
    agriculturists of the chow-kidari tax, a tax levied for the remuneration of village watchmen.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.): I have ascertained from the Government of India that the Bengal Government has submitted to them proposals for improving the administration of the Act and reducing admitted inequalities of taxation. These proposals are under consideration.

    Indian Tea Estates—Education of Children.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps are being taken to secure the education of children on tea estates in the Central Provinces and Madras respectively.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: There are no tea estates in the Central Provinces. In Madras the area under tea, according to the latest statistics, is only 7,934 acres, and I am not aware that any special measures are necessary to secure the education of children on this area.

    Madras Ryots—Land Revenue Defaulters.
    Mr. WEIR:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many ryots have been evicted in the Madras Presidency in default of payment of land revenue during each of the last five years; and what sum has been realised in each year through the sale of land previously in the occupation of the evicted ryots.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: —

    Number of defaulting ryots whose land was sold.

    Amount realised.

    £

    1901–2

    10,649

    10,162

    1902–3

    7,750

    8,912

    1903–4

    4,946

    6,475

    1904–5

    4,215

    6,201

    1905–6

    5,761

    6,540

    Eastern Bengal and Assam Schools.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if ho will state the nature of the Report made by Captain Kennedy on estate schools for Eastern Bengal and Assam; and the name of the
    834
    officer deputed to report on Bengal schools.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I have not seen Captain Kennedy's report; I have nothing to add to the Answer given on the 14th March last on the subject, f I do not know the name of the officer (if any) who is inquiring into the matter in Bengal, but nearly all the tea-gardens formerly under the Government of Bengal are now within the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant-Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam, and have boon dealt with by Captain Kennedy.

    Sales of Evicted Ryots' Holdings.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many acres of land, the property of evicted ryots, have been put up for auction by Government in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies respectively, in default of payment of land revenues during each of the five years ending 30th June, 1906.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The Madras figures are—

    acres.

    1901–2

    45,712

    1902–3

    30,583

    1903–4

    23,383

    1904–5

    23,018

    1905–6

    26,369

    The Bombay figures are—

    acres.

    1901–2

    175

    1902–3

    404

    1903–4

    3,383

    1904–5

    3,744

    1905–6

    not yet received.

    Bhola district Courts.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the sub-divisional officer attached to the Bhola district of India is irregular in regard to the holding of courts, and alters arrangements for holding a court without any public notice whatever, much to the inconvenience of suitors and witnesses, he will order an inquiry on the subject, with a view to the adoption of some more satisfactory system of holding courts in this district.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The Secretary of State caused inquiries to be
    † See(4) Debates, clxxi, 210.

    835
    made into the statements made in the Question asked by the hon. Member on the 21st February last†as to the alleged un- j punctuality of the sub-divisional officer of Bhola in the Backergunj district, and have ascertained that these allegations wore without foundation, and that the magistrate concerned (who is an Indian) is a zealous and hardworking officer.

    Army Cordite Supply in India.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House what proportion of the cordite now possessed by the Army in India has been manufactured by Messrs. Kynoch, Limited.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: There is no in-formation available as to the proportion of cordite, manufactured by Messrs. Kynoch, now in store in India, but it is probably very small. Cordite is now manufactured at the Indian Cordite Factory, Aruvankad.

    Fines in the Punjab
    SIR H. COTTON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether large sums of money were realised by officers of Government in the Cheerab Colony of the Punjab from the colonists on account of unauthorised fines; and whether it was one of the objects of the disallowed Colonisation Bill to legalise these fines and to deprive the civil courts of all jurisdiction in the matter.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The earlier agreements under which lands were granted in the Cheerab Colony made the tenancy liable to forfeiture if a breach of any condition was committed. In practice the colonisation officers allowed tenants to compound infractions of the conditions by payment of fines, and refrained from resorting to the extreme penalty of forfeiture. The later agreements expressly provide for fines as well as! forfeiture I am not aware that large sums have been thus realised. The Bill provided for the enforcement by means of fines of the conditions of tenancy in the Cheerab and other Colonies, in cases in which forfeiture would be an excessive penalty; it excluded the jurisdiction of
    † See(4) Debates, clxix, 1015.
    836
    the Civil Courts in any matter which the revenue officer was empowered to dispose of, following the analogy of the Tenancy and Land Revenue Acts of the province, and it prescribed the procedure and system of appeal provided by those Acts.
    SIR H. COTTONasked if the fines had not mounted up to ten lakhs of rupees?
    MR. HOBHOUSE'Sreply was inaudible.

    Murder of Mr Howorth at St. Petersburg.
    *Mr. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the death of Mr. Edward Howorth, a British subject, who was shot in St. Petersburg last month; and whether the perpetrator of this outrage has been brought to justice.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): According to a report received from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, on 23rd May Mr. Edward Howorth, the manager of a private spinning factory at St. Petersburg, owned by Mr. Gerhardt, was shot from behind while examining some machinery in company with two workmen, on whom no suspicion rests. The wound unfortunately proved fatal. The police proceeded to the factory as soon as the news was communicated to them, and arrested a man who had recently had a disagreement with Mr. Howorth, and who was suspected of having fired the shot.

    The Hague Conference.
    *Mr. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British delegates at The Hague Conference will have power to adopt, on behalf of the British Government, the principle of the exemption of private property at sea from capture.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I can make no statement on the subject, and would beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on the 20th of March last.
    ‡ See(4) Debates, clxxi, 818.

    837
    It is impossible to anticipate the discussions of the Conference by making public statements beforehand of the line which will be taken or the arguments used by the delegates of individual Powers?
    *MR. REES: Is it equally impossible to assure this House that these matters will not be settled at the Conference?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I should think it is one of the matters which will be discussed.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the sittings of The Hague Conference will be held in public.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: If the precedent of the Conference of 1899 is followed, the sittings will not be held in public. But the matter is one for the Conference itself to settle when it meets.

    Germany and Persia.
    *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the oil concessions made to a German syndicate by the Persian Government were adversely criticised by the Persian Parliament; and whether he can inform hon. Members who are interested in Persia what reliable sources of information, if any, are open to them regarding the important events which are understood to be taking place in that country.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have no information that any oil concessions have been granted to a German syndicate by the Persian Government, and that they have been adversely criticised by the Persian Parliament. I am unable to suggest any sources of information open to hon. Members who are interested in Persia beyond those which are well known to everyone and at their disposal.

    The Sugar Convention
    MR. SEAVERNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when the next meeting of the Sugar Convention is to take place; whether an opportunity will then be afforded for His Majesty's Government to withdraw from the Convention in 1908;
    838
    and, if so, whether the Government will consider the desirability of adopting this course.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Permanent Commission under the Sugar Convention will meet to-day. His Majesty's Government have intimated to the contracting States, through the Belgian Government, that they consider that the limitation of the sources from which sugar may enter the United Kingdom, whether by prohibition or by the imposition of countervailing duties, is inconsistent with their declared policy and incompatible with the interests of British consumers and sugar using manufacturers, and that consequently it will be impossible for them to continue to give effect to the provisions of the Convention requiring them to penalize sugars declared by the Permanent Commission to be bounty-fed. At the same time we have pointed out that we have no desire to give sugar bounties or to see a revival of such bounties, or to differentiate against beet or foreign sugars. Should the Governments of the contracting States consider that our views can only be met by the complete withdrawal of this country from the Convention, we would be prepared to give the necessary notice on the first possible date. We have, however, intimated that if the other contracting States prefer to exempt the United Kingdom by supplementary protocol from the obligation to enforce the penal provisions of the Convention, this would render it unnecessary for us to give notice of withdrawal.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: Are we right in understanding that the view of the Government is they disapprove of bounties, but will do nothing whatever to get rid of them?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Member will study the Answer I have just given, I must leave him to draw his own inference.
    LORD BALCARRESasked when the despatch would be laid on the Table of the House.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that he could not say when the despatch would be laid on the Table. The future action of the Government would depend on the

    839
    view taken by other States of the dispatch; but it would be convenient that the despatch should be laid on the Table after some conclusion was arrived at.
    LORD BALCARRESasked whether it was not probable that no decision could be arrived at before the end of next year, and whether, in view of the uncertainty created by the right hon. Gentleman's answer, it was not desirable that the views of the Government should be made public promptly?
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the whole gist of the despatch was contained in the Answer he had given to the Question. If hon. Members wished to receive fuller information after studying the Answer additional questions might be asked.

    Murder of Shanghai Policeman.
    *Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the claim of the relatives of the late Police Constable Morrow, who was shot dead, in the execution of his duty, at Shanghai, on or about 11th March, by armed Chinese robbers, who ran away into the country; and whether he will instruct His Majesty's Ambassador at Pekin to approach the Chinese Government so that adequate compensation may be granted to the family of Mr. Morrow, who are in necessitous circumstances.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I regret that I can add nothing to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh on the 13th ultimo on this subject. † And much as His Majesty's Government regret the facts disclosed in the Question, they cannot found a claim for compensation on a case which took place in a district policed, not by Chinese, but by the European municipality, and in which it does not appear that any Chinese official was in any way responsible.
    *MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it not the case that the mob came from Chinese territory outside the European municipality, and retreated into Chinese
    † See(4) Debates, clxxiv, 696.
    840
    territory? Am I right in assuming that it was a Chinese mob?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: In this case I think the disturbance was caused by people residing in municipal territory. They were Chinese.
    *MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYpressed the right hon. Gentleman to make further inquiry.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper I will inquire.

    Mr. Abbott's Ransom.
    *MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any answer has been received from the Turkish Government in reference to the repayment of the ransom for Mr. Abbott, who was captured by brigands near Salonica.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No answer has yet been received.
    *MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for an answer?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: It will be settled in time. These claims always take a certain time to settle.

    The Upper Congo.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any information as to disquiet among the warlike population of the Upper Congo, and whether he can say to what the disquiet and opposition to the Government are due; if he can say whether the natives are well armed; and whether he has information which will enable him to estimate the number of rifles possessed by the 200,000 warriors of the Upper Congo.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have no information as to the alleged state of disquiet in the Upper Congo regions beyond what is contained in a Belgian newspaper. Our attention has been called to the existence of traffic in arms and ammunition, but it is impossible to state with accuracy the

    841
    number or quality of the weapons which have been imported, or in whose possession they are now.

    British Shipowners' Claims Against Russia.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the particulars of any claims of British shipowners, in respect of ships sunk, damaged, or delayed by the Russian Fleet or volunteer cruisers during the recent Russo-Japanese War, which are still outstanding; and if he will give the names of the ships involved.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The following are the vessels in respect of which compensation has been claimed from the Russian Government:—"Knight Commander," "Hipsang," "St. Kilda," "Ikhona," "Oldhamia." All the above vessels were sunk during the war. "Calchas," "Ardova," "Malacca," "Formosa," "Hsiping," "Chingping," "Fuping." The above seven steamers were seized and detained during hostilities, and subsequently released. Claims for compensation are now pending as regards all these vessels. I cannot without communication with the owners state the exact amounts.

    Transvaal Loans.
    SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what portion of the £35,000,000 Transvaal Loan, whether allocated by the late or the present Government, has been exclusively devoted to the British population and what portion exclusively to the Boer population.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): I would refer the hon. Baronet to my written reply to him of the 16th May last, and also to my reply on 30th of May, † to which I am not able to add anything.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the special circumstances which distinguish the Trans-
    † See(4) Debates, clxxiv, 1080–2, clxxv., 68.
    842
    vaal at the present time from the other responsible self-governing Colonies which have induced the Imperial Government to guarantee a loan of £5,000,000 for the Transvaal; and whether it is part of the understanding upon which the guarantee is given that the Chinese coolies whose licences expire this summer shall be repatriated and that no licences shall be renewed.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The special circumstances which distinguish the Transvaal from other responsible self-governing Colonies are to a large extent matters of history, but when the proper time comes to introduce the necessary Loan Bill in this House they will be fully examined and explained by the Minister responsible for that measure. For the second part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to my Answer of Tuesday last and to the conversation which arose upon it. ‡
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: At what date will the Bill be introduced?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No such Bill can be introduced until a similar measure has passed through both Houses of the Transvaal Legislature.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the course of the negotiations with General Botha that led up to the promise that His Majesty's Government would ask Parliament to guarantee a loan of £5,000,000 to the Transvaal Government, any attempt was made to secure from General Botha an undertaking that His Majesty's Indian subjects would be treated at least as well as immigrant aliens from Southern and Central Europe.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The question of the position of British Indians in the Transvaal was one of the matters which were discussed with General Botha; but the discussion had no connection with the promise given by His Majesty's Government that they would invite Parliament to guarantee the Transvaal Loan.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Before the Government pledged themselves to give this
    † See pp 483–4.

    843
    guarantee, had any representations been made to them, orally or in writing, by Members of this House, to the effect that the Chinese must be repatriated?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No representations of a special character that I am aware of were made, other than the statements which have been freely made during the last two years.
    MR. LYTTELTON: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by representations of a special character? Were representations made in writing, or by deputations or otherwise, by Members of this House?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I have no knowledge of anything that affords the slightest foundation for such a suggestion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will lot us know the evidence on which he has thought it right to make the suggestion.
    MR. HAROLD COX: This is an Indian question after all. May I ask again whether General Botha gave any assurances in the course of conversation with the Government?
    MR. CHURCHILL: He did give an assurance that, in regard to the regulations to be framed under the Asiatic Ordinance, he and his Government would endeavour to remove from the regulations some of the points on which they have been criticised. But any such changes had better be examined when they are made the subject of public statement in the Transvaal Legislature.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reason for the exceptional course proposed to be taken with regard to the Transvaal loan; and why that Colony, which possesses such wealth and resources, should be favoured more than the other relatively poorer Colonies of South Africa, which are equally suffering from the depression consequent on the cessation of the expenditure of the war.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for York on Tuesday.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if any official record was kept of the discussions and negotiations which took place between the Government and the Premier of the Transvaal relative to the proposed guarantee of the Transvaal loan; and, if so, whether a summary of them will be presented to the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Answer is in the negative.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Are we to understand that before the introduction of this Loan Bill the House is to have no information as to the special reasons which induced the Government to advance, on the credit of the nation, a further £5,000,000 to the Transvaal?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that when a Loan Bill is introduced into the House of Commons substantial arguments must be adduced by the Minister making that proposal, and no doubt the foundation for such an argument would be the publication of Papers. I expect Papers will be laid on the Table before the Bill can be introduced; but in any case the House alone can be the judge.
    MR. LYTTELTON: A moment ago the right hon. Gentleman said that Papers would not be laid.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I stated to the House that no summary of the discussions and negotiations would be laid on the Table; but it is quite possible that, when the Transvaal Government have passed the Loan Bill through both Houses of their Legislature, there will be correspondence between the two Governments of an official character which I should think would very likely be entirely suited for publication.
    MR. LYTTELTON: When will the Loan Bill be introduced in the Transvaal Legislature?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am not always able to predict the course of business in this House, and still less in the Transvaal Legislature.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies,

    845
    whether, having regard to the Customs Union of the South African Colonies, the Premiers of Cape Colony and of Natal wore consulted in the negotiations which took place with regard to the proposed guarantee of the Transvaal loan.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Answer is in the negative. The proposed loan has nothing to do with the South African Customs Union.

    Crime in the Transvaal.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any statistics are published by the Transvaal Government showing the amount of criminality in proportion to numbers among the different races inhabiting the Transvaal; and whether the British-Indian community has more or less criminality than other communities.
    MR. CHURCHILL: A Return was prepared by the Transvaal Government showing the number of persons of different nationalities confined in Transvaal prisons on 30th June, 1906. According to this Return the proportions per 1,000 of the population were: European, 2.75; Native, 2.37; Indian, 3.30; Chinese, 18.50. No later figures are available.

    Imperial Forces in the Transvaal.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether General Botha, when expressing a desire on behalf of his Government that the Imperial forces in the Transvaal should be maintained at proper strength, also expressed any desire to pay for those forces out of the revenues of the Transvaal in the same way that the Imperial forces maintained in India are paid for out of the revenues of India.
    MR. CHURCHILL: My hon. friend will, no doubt, be surprised to learn that the Answer is in the negative.

    Zulu Prisoners for St. Helena.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to send a party of Zulu prisoners to St. Helena for detention; whether it is intended to make this island a penal settlement; and, if so, what steps will be taken to ensure the peace and safety of the island.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Twenty-five Zulu, prisoners have been sent from Natal to St. Helena under the provisions of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act. There is no intention of making the island into a penal settlement. Warders accompany the prisoners from Natal, and there is no reason to anticipate that the presence of the prisoners will in any way endanger the peace or safety of the island.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: How many I warders will be sent?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have no know-' ledge as to that.

    Panama Canal Labour.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to lay upon the Table a copy of the contracts under which Trinidad labourers have been recruited to work on the Panama Canal.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will lay the Paper very shortly.

    Transvaal Civil Servants' Leave.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government of the Transvaal have abolished the system of allowing leave to accumulate, by which Englishmen in the Civil Service of the Transvaal may be able to visit England once in three or four years.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No information has reached the Secretary of State of any recent alteration in the Transvaal Leave Regulations.

    New Hebrides Convention.
    *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the terms of reference to the Anglo-French Commission which has been considering subjects connected with the New Hebrides Convention; who the members of this Commission were; and when the Report will be published.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answers given yesterday, on behalf of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield. †
    † See page 669.

    New Hebrides.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether nations other than France and England are entitled to recruit natives of the Now Hebrides to serve outside the islands.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: So far as I am aware there is at the present moment no power to control persons belonging to any nationality recruiting natives in the New Hebrides for service outside the group. If, however, as seems probable, the hon. Member is inquiring whether nations other than France or Great Britain will be entitled to recruit when the Anglo-French Convention of 20th October, 1906, comes into force, I would point out that under Article 31 the two High Commissioners will have the power to refuse a licence to recruit to any vessel not sailing under the flag of one of the signatory Powers.

    Pacific Islanders' Protection Act.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Bill amending The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1872, will be introduced.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for North West Lanark. †

    Income tax.
    MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average rate of income-tax paid by persons having incomes of £160 to £700 each.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): It is roughly estimated that the average rate of income-tax now paid by persons having incomes of £160 to £700 is 6d. in the £.

    Transvaal Loans
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed guarantee by the Home Government of the Transvaal loan for £5,000,000 will entail the creation of a further issue of stock returning to the purchaser a higher
    † See page 694.
    848
    rate of interest than that now paid on Consols, thus competing with Consols in the market.
    MR. ASQUITH: The manner of raising the proposed loan is still under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to say what precise form the security will take, or what rate of interest it will bear.
    MR. FELL: Will not the issue of the loan have the effect of prejudicing the increase of the Sinking Fund arranged for this year?
    MR. ASQUITH: That is a matter of opinion.

    Workmen's Compensation Insurance.
    MR. W. PEARCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Workmen's Compensation Act will be followed by the establishment of a combined tariff by the insurance offices concerned; and if, in view of the amount of increased premium demanded and the absence of competition, he will consider the possibility of action by the Government.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I have no official information on the subject, but the matter is one of importance, which shall be carefully watched. The question whether the Post Office should undertake insurance against liability arising under the Act is being considered by a Departmental Committee, whose report has not yet been presented.

    The Home Office and Messrs Kynoch.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state why the proceedings against Messrs. Kynoch were taken under Section 74 of the Explosives Act, whereby a charge of breaking a highly technical regulation had to be heard by a local bench of magistrates; is he aware that Section 56 of the same Act gives the alternative of proceeding before a tribunal competent to decide a case involving chemical questions of great difficulty, viz., a legal umpire and two

    849
    expert arbitrators; whether the Home Office inspectors have admitted, in regard to Messrs. Kynoch's Arklow explosive, the purity of the explosive, that the admitted percentage of mercury would have an antiseptic effect, that it did not alter the character of the explosive as an explosive, the use of mercury with nitro-cotton in Germany and elsewhere, and that it had no deleterious effect upon the explosive; whether, in view of these admissions, he will state why exceptional treatment has been given to Messrs. Kynoch; and will he give instructions that in cases of this kind the special tribunal contemplated by the Act will in future be resorted to.
    *MR. GLADSTONE: I laid the whole of the papers in this case before the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the proceedings were taken by him under Section 9 of the Explosives Act, which provides that in the manufacture of explosives the terms of the licence shall be duly observed. The explosive was seized by the inspectors under Section 74. Arbitration, even if admissible in view of the terms of Section 56 of the Act, does not, as I have already pointed out, carry the necessary power to seize, and, if need be, obtain the forfeiture of explosives which may be a source of danger. The inspectors have not admitted the purity of the explosive seized, but have repeatedly stated that this cannot be determined owing to the presence of mercury. The fact that there has occurred a spontaneous ignition of some of Messrs. Kynoch's explosive containing mercury does not bear out the contention as to purity. The inspectors consider it unnecessary and absurd to add antiseptics to gelatinised explosives, and they consider, further, that mercuric chloride is likely to have a detrimental effect upon the explosive. Messrs. Kynoch have not received exceptional treatment; as I have already explained, proceedings were taken against them because it was their explosive which, by spontaneous ignition, first drew attention to the matter. I should like to point out, further, that there is no foundation whatever for the charge of hostility to Ireland and Irish industries which has been freely made against myself and my Department. Messrs. Kynoch have three factories in Great Britain and one in Ireland, and they employ many more people in the former country than in the
    850
    latter. Proceedings were taken against the firm without regard to the locality of their different factories, and as a matter of fact no seizure has been made and no proceedings taken at Arklow. Nothing whatever has been done or will be done to interfere with the manufacture by Messrs. Kynoch's at Arklow of lawful explosives.
    MR. MOONEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last paragraph of his Question.
    *MR. GLADSTONE: I think I have. I have already pointed out that the arbitration clause does not give the necessary power of seizing explosives made illegally.
    MR. MOONEYasked whether it was not the fact that the explosives which were seized were explosives which were manufactured at Arklow, and was it, therefore, correct to say that there had been no interference with Messrs. Kynoch's works; also, how was it, if the inspectors of the Department seized the explosives on the ground that they were dangerous to the public, the case was taken before a tribunal which had only authority to decide whether a technical breach of a Home Office licence had been committed?
    *MR. GLADSTONE: The technical breach obviously involves the question of public danger. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the explosive seized was an explosive which contained an unauthorised ingredient, and any such explosive, whoever makes it and wherever it is found, will be so dealt with by the officials of my Department.
    MR. MOONEY: Are we to understand that manufacturers in England who were manufacturing explosives containing the same ingredients as were those of Messrs. Kynoch had their manufactures passed by the Home Office inspectors, and that they only stopped passing thorn when Messrs. Kynoch's explosives had been seized?
    *MR. GLADSTONE: I dealt with that question fully yesterday, and I repeat that, whenever it comes to the notice and knowledge of the inspectors that

    851
    explosives are being manufactured with this ingredient, they will take action similar to the action which has been taken against Messrs. Kynoch.
    MR. MOONEYasked whether it was not within the right hon. Gentleman's own knowledge that the inspectors of his Department had passed explosives containing this ingredient which were manufactured by English manufacturers, and only stopped doing so when Messrs. Kynoch were attacked?
    *MR. GLADSTONE: I give to that the most emphatic negative in my power.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that in certain circumstances there was a likelihood of the Arklow works of Messrs. Kynoch being closed; whether if that should take place, it must result in the throwing out of employment of several hundreds of men and of causing considerable distress there; and whether, having regard to the great necessity there was of employment, particularly in a place like Arklow, the Government would take steps to prevent any necessity arising for the closing of these works?
    * MR. GLADSTONE: I should be extremely sorry if any unnecessary action on the part of my Department led to any interference with the works at Arklow. I can give that assurance to the hon. Member quite cordially. But I cannot see why the prosperity of the works at Arklow should depend upon the manufacture of an explosive which contains an unauthorised ingredient and which constitutes a public danger.
    MR. MOONEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the very evasive Answers they had received from the Home Secretary in connection with this matter, he would consider the advisability of putting down the Home Office Vote for an early date, so that the matter might be fully discussed.
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir, certainly not. The Answers given by the Home Secretary, so far from being evasive, have been explicit in the extreme.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTasked the Home Secretary whether samples of this dangerous explosive were discovered at the recent convention in Dublin.
    MR. MOONEYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was in a position to state the name of the English firm against which he was proceeding.
    * MR. GLADSTONE: The National.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINasked whether the policy of destroying Irish industries was one of the new policies of the Liberal Imperialists in the Cabinet?
    [No Answer was given.]
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is because Chamberlain's in it.

    Vivisection.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in addition to the two inspectors, Dr. Thane and Sir James Russell, and the Association for Research mentioned in the Appendix to the First Report of the Royal Commission now sitting, he has any other expert advisers in the matter of vivisection licences; and, if so, whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1876 (top of page 17 of Report) to the effect that the names of these advisors should be made known to the public, he will inform the House of the names of these other expert advisers.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, if his export advisers in the matter of vivisection licences consist solely of the Association for Research and the two inspectors, he will, in view of the opinions and advice tendered by the Royal Commission of 1876 in pages 16 and 17 of their Report, add to his advisers some independent persons whose interests are not bound up with those of the vivisectors.
    * MR. GLADSTONE: As I said in reply to a previous Question put by my hon. friend on the 15th May, the usual procedure in applications made to me for licences to perform experiments on living animals is set out in the Appendix to the first Report of the Royal Commission

    853
    now sitting. Occasionally, where questions of great importance have arisen, upon which it was thought advisable to obtain the opinion of the highest authorities, the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the Pharmaceutical Society have been consulted. I do not propose to make any change in the existing practice, pending the Report of the Royal Commission now sitting. The Commission of 1876 said that the advisers of the Secretary of State ought to be persons of competent knowledge and experience, and the inspectors satisfy this description. I may add that no licence or certificate is granted without the recommendation of the eminent authorities mentioned in Section 11 of the Act of 1876.
    MR. SMEATON: If the Commission recommend additional expert advisers is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to appoint them?
    *MR. GLADSTONE: I will wait and see what they recommend.

    Edalji Case.
    MR. F. E. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether the presiding magistrate in the Edalji case took notes of the proceedings; if so, whether such notes have been for some time at the disposal of the Home Office; and whether the Committee which reported upon the verdict had the advantage of having the notes before them.
    *MR. GLADSTONE: The Deputy Chairman took rough pencil notes of the proceedings in the Edalji case, which were sent up to the Home Office in December, 1903. They were returned to the magistrate at his request in January, 1904. The Committee did not have the notes before them nor did they ask for them. They had before them the two letters from the Deputy Chairman reporting on the case, printed copies of the depositions taken before the committing magistrates; and the newspaper reports of the proceedings in court.

    Compensation for Wrongful Conviction.
    MR. F. E. SMITH: I beg ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what cases, and
    854
    to what amounts, compensation has been recommended by the Home Office in the last twenty years in cases where persons have been convicted of criminal offences, and it has been demonstrated that such convictions were unsatisfactory.
    *MR. GLADSTONE: Within the last twenty years there have been twelve cases in which compensation has been recommended on account of the conviction having been found to be unsatisfactory or wrong. In two of such cases the consequences entailed by the conviction were so serious as to justify the payment of substantial sums. In one case the sum of £5,000 was paid, and in the other the sum of £1,600 was divided between two persons. In the remaining ton eases the compensation paid varied from £1 to £40.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: Were free pardons granted in these cases?
    *MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure.

    Government Contracts in Ireland.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Irish Trades Congress requesting the Government to appoint a Departmental Committee to sit in Ireland and to inquire into the question of printing and all other Imperial and Local Government contracts in Ireland, and to report on same; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No such resolution has been brought to my notice.

    Inspection of Factories in Belfast.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Resolution passed by the Irish Trades Council, reiterating their demand for more effective and systematic inspection of workshops and factories in respect of ventilation and sanitation, particularly in the clothing and textile trades; whether ho has any official information showing that the condition of some of the factories in Belfast is very bad, and that the sanitary authorities are neglecting their duties; whether he is aware that many of the girls complain of

    855
    the bad air, and that the death rate from consumption of the workers is very high; and what action ho proposes to take in the matter.
    *MR. GLADSTONE: I have received no resolution on the subject from the Irish Trades Union Congress, nor have I any official information that the sanitary authorities in Belfast are neglecting their duties. With regard to the last part of the Question, I have already stated in reply to a previous Question of the hon. Member that the conditions in the flax and linen factories of Belfast were recently made the subject of a special inquiry, and new regulations have been issued which should lead to a considerable improvement in the ventilation and generally in the conditions under which work is carried on.

    Dangerous Explosives.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Admiralty and the War Office are in the habit of notifying the Home Office of the rejection of dangerous explosives, such as cordite and guncotton, by reason of impurities; if so, whether the practice has existed for some years; whether the Home Office then take into consideration the destruction or isolation of these rejected explosives; and whether there is any regulation to prevent rejected cordite and guncotton being shipped on board merchant vessels.
    *MR. GLADSTONE: The War Office and Admiralty are not in the habit of notifying the Home Office of the rejection of explosives, but would probably do so in any case where they considered the explosive to be dangerous; and the question of what should be done with the rejected explosive would then be taken into consideration. No such case has, however, occurred before the present one. Many of the reasons for rejection are not connected with safety in keeping and conveyance, and would not disqualify an explosive from being legally conveyed in this country. In the case of a dangerous explosive it would be illegal to convey it by rail to a port of exportation, and under the by-laws of most harbour authorities no unauthorised explosive may be brought into the harbour precincts. An explosive which fails to pass the necessary tests or is otherwise
    856
    dangerous would cease to be an authorised explosive.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: What becomes of the explosive?
    *MR. GLADSTONE: If a Committee which has been appointed by me in conjunction with the War Office in reference to this matter decide that this particular explosive is, in fact, dangerous to the public, of course it will have to be destroyed; but they will examine and report as to what can safely be done with it.

    Motor-Cars.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is intended to introduce any measure dealing with motor cars during the present session.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): As I stated yesterday, in reply to my hon. friend the Member for the Reigate Division, there would not seem to be any probability that time could be found for the consideration by the House this year of a measure of the kind referred to in the Question, and hence it does not appear to me that there would be any advantage in its being introduced.

    Registrar-General's Report.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the usual decennial Supplement of the Registrar-General, dealing with the vital statistics for the decade 1891–1900, will be published; and whether, in view of the importance of this publication and the loss of utility occasioned by the delay in its appearance, he will take steps to expedite its publication in the future.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have communicated with the Registrar-General, and find that the first volume of the Supplement is in the press and will be published before the end of the present month, and that the Registrar-General hopes to issue the second about the end of this year. He is fully alive to the desirability of issuing the decennial Supplements as expeditiously as possible, but their value greatly depends on the elaboration of the materials they contain.

    Cromford Canal.
    MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a Report has been presented by the inspector sent to investigate the condition of the Cromford Canal; and whether the Report will be laid upon the Table.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. KEARLEY, Devonport): Sir William Matthews, who has been appointed to inspect this canal, has not completed his inquiry. When his Report is received the question of publication will be considered.

    Small Holdings and Allotments Bill.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, in reference to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, whether the powers conferred under Clause 7 of that Bill include powers for the erection of buildings and the equipment of the holding.
    I beg also to ask the First Commissioner of Works, in reference to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, whether, in Sub-section (2) of Section 19, the word buildings includes a dwelling-house.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. Harcourt, Lancashire, Rossendale): The Answers to these two Questions are in the affirmative.

    Welsh Education Department.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is now in a position to state how far it will be possible or expedient to assign a clerical staff exclusively to the work of the Welsh Education Department.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna, Monmouthshire, N.): It would be impossible to assign a clerical staff exclusively to the Welsh Department while the Board are located in their present offices. When the new building is ready for occupation the question will require further consideration.

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Estates.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether he is in a position to state if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are now prepared to make any changes in their policy with regard to public-houses and the sale of beer, wino, or spirits on their estates; and, if so, what those changes will be.
    MR. TOMKINSON: The Commissioners have not in view any change in their policy with regard to public-houses and the sale of beer, wino, or spirits on their estates. That policy has been to reduce the number of licensed houses wherever practicable, and has fully answered the expectations of the Commissioners.
    MR. LEIF JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman say under what circumstances the Commissioners are willing to reduce the number of licences?
    MR. TOMKINSON: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Agents.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether he has considered the advisability of substituting for the present centralised agency of Messrs. Clutton and Messrs. Smith-Gore local agents more in touch with the Commissioners' estates and with the needs of the localities.
    MR. TOMKINSON: My experience of the question has been too short to justify an expression of any private opinion of my own, but the Commissioners do not think that a change in the system of management of their estates in the direction of decentralisation of agency would be desirable. They are satisfied, having regard to the nature and distribution of the estates and after an experience of more than fifty years that such a change would not conduce to efficiency, economy, or convenience.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Board of Agriculture as to the reasons which led them to

    859
    discard the Services of Messrs. Clutton? May not those reasons be applicable to this case?
    MR. TOMKINSON: I am quite aware of the circumstances under which the connection between the Board of Agricul-and Messrs. Clutton terminated. It has been and still is matter for consideration.

    Scottish Crofter Leaseholders.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Mr. William Mackenzie, of Buck, Tarradale, Ross-shire, although not in arrear with his rent, is now, at the termination of his lease, being summarily evicted by Mrs. Mary Fraser, Carna. chlarsair, Muir of Ord; and will he take steps to introduce provisions in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill to protect crofter leaseholders from eviction pending the consideration of the Bill.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply. He has no information in regard to this case other than that now furnished by my hon. friend's Question. He regrets to say that it is not possible to provide protection for such cases in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. WEIR: I am very sorry to hear that.

    Scottish. Land Values.
    MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any estimates have been called for from the Scottish assessors of the extra cost to them involved in the separation of land values under the Land Values (Scotland) Bill; what is the total amount of such estimates; and how the extra charge will be met.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any estimates have been called for from the Scottish assessors of the cost to the individual owners of land values involved in the separation of such land values under the Land Values (Scotland) Bill; and whether he will print and circulate with the Votes the particulars of such estimates.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (for Mr. SINCLAIR): No such estimates have been called for. The cost of obtaining the new informa-
    860
    tion will be defrayed from the same sources as the existing expenditure on valuation.

    Irish Flax Industry.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been directed to the Annual Report of the Flax Supply Association, submitted at a meeting held in Belfast on the 31st May, 1907, in which it is stated that during the year 1906 Ireland imported over 45,000 tons of flax, and that, with immense capabilities, Ireland only provides about 23 per cent. of the raw material used in one of her leading industries; and whether, in view of the opinion of experts that Ireland is the best flax-producing country in the world, he will say what the Irish Agricultural Department has done and proposes to do to remedy the present state of affairs in regard to flax-growing in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL Bristol, N.): The attention of the Department of Agriculture has been called to the annual report of the Flax Supply Association. The total supply of flax in Ireland in 1906 was about 45,000 tons, the imports amounting to about 33,000 tons, and not 45,000 as stated in the Question. The Department have for several years been doing everything in their power to assist the flax-growing industry, and their efforts have had the cordial co-operation of the Ulster flax growers and local authorities. Their schemes include prizes to growers, scotch-mill owners, and employees, experiments in manures and seed, the dissemination of information, the promotion of co-operative flax societies, and other measures.

    Chairman of Irish Town Commissioners.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to cases in which persons, placed in the Commission of the Peace ex officio as chairmen of Town Commissioners in Ireland, have acted as magistrates outside of the towns of which they are chairmen; and whether, in view of the effect of their participating in the hearing of summonses without jurisdiction upon the decision arrived at, he will say what steps, if any, it is proposed to adopt to prevent the due course

    861
    of law being interfered with by such irregularities.
    MR. BIRRELL: My right hon. friend asks me to reply to this. I am not aware of any case in which a chairman of Town Commissioners has acted as a magistrate outside his district. The Question is probably intended to refer to the case of certain chairmen of district councils in the counties of Galway and Roscommon who have recently acted as magistrates outside the districts for which they are ex officio Justices of the Peace. I am informed that these gentlemen have already been communicated with by the Lord Chancellor, who at present has their cases under his consideration.

    Mohill Post Office.
    MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if anew post office will be built in Mohill, county Leitrim, or if the new building which was recently built and intended for a post office will be used for the same, as the present post, office is too small and unsuited for the purpose, owing to the amount of business that has to be transacted in the office.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): In this case the duty of providing suitable accommodation for the work rests with the sub-postmistress, who arranged some time since for the transfer of the post office work to a house then in course of erection. I find that there has been delay in the occupation of the new building owing to a dispute between the landlady and the local district council in regard to the sanitation of the building, and that litigation has resulted and is still proceeding.

    Belfast Assistant Inspectors of Postmen.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that two assistant inspectors of postmen at Belfast were recently reported for employing telegraph messengers under sixteen years of ago, the official minimum, to deal with public correspondence; and whether, in view of the fact that no older boys were available, he will explain why twenty-one boys, who had been detained from three to five years on the understanding that they would receive permanent employ-
    862
    ment as postmen as vacancies occurred, were a few months ago dismissed from the service, and in some cases warned of impending dismissal, as places could not be found for them.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Inquiry is being made in regard to the statements contained in the Question.

    Irish Councils Bill.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister on what date he proposes to move that the Order for the Second Reading of the Irish Council Bill be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
    MR. ASQUITH (for Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): The date has not yet been decided upon.

    Territorial Forces Bill.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the encroachment on the time allocated for discussion of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill by his speech on Monday, 3rd June, outlining the course of business for this and next session, he will grant extra time on the Report stage for discussion of those parts of the measure so crowded out.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Answer is in the negative.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable dissatisfaction was expressed in Committee yesterday on both sides of the House because insufficient time was allowed for discussing the Bill?
    [No Answer was returned.]

  School Teachers' Emoluments.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state the average salary and emoluments of national school teachers of the various classes and grades in England (including Wales), Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member should put this Question to the Ministers concerned. I would suggest the President of the Board of Education, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Irish Secretary.

  New Hebrides.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will favourably consider the question of advancing £5,000,000, or a lesser sum, for the development of British interests in the New Hebrides, provided the islanders consent to the deletion of such clauses in the recent Anglo-French Convention as sanction recruiting of children of tender years for employment from sunrise to sunset with only one hour's rest in the day.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

  Education (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to proceed with the Education (Scotland) Bill during the present session.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government are most anxious to proceed with this Bill, but the prospect of doing so will depend upon the progress made with other measures before the Scottish Standing Committee.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pledges given in Committee upstairs?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have said we are most anxious to proceed with the Bill.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the Committee has sat seven days it has only passed twenty lines?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of that.

  All-British Mail Route.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will announce, the terms of reference, the nature of the instructions issued, and the official position of the gentlemen charged with inquiring into the establishment of a fast all-British mail route, as recommended by the Imperial Conference.
  MR. ASQUITH: The inquiry which is now being made by the Government with the aid of departmental officials into the matters referred to in the Question is of an informal and confidential character. I
  864
  would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which the Prime Minister gave him on the 29th of May. †

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the business next week.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the Government proposed to conclude the Committee stage of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill on Monday next. On Tuesday, Supply would be taken, the Navy, Vote 2, the Army, Vote 7, and other Votes. On Wednesday and Thursday, the Second Reading of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill would be taken.

STANDING ORDERS.
Ordered, That so much of Standing Order No. 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Three be the quorum of the Committee.—(Mr. Ellis.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Public Rights of Way (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Eugene Wason; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Public Rights of Way (No. 2) Bill); Mr. J. W. H. Thompson.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Probation of Offenders (No. 2) Bill): Sir Thomas Whittaker and Mr. Duckworth; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Probation of Offenders (No. 2) Bill); Mr. Tennant and Mr. Acland Allen.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
† See(4) Debates, clxxi, 1656–7.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Lawrence John Lumley Dundas, commonly known as the Earl of Ronaldshay, for the County of Middlesex (Hornsey Division).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, That the Consideration of the East India Revenue Accounts have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.— (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
Order for Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): I am afraid I shall have to ask the House for rather a large draft upon its indulgence. The Indian Secretary is like the aloe, which, I think, blooms once in 100 years, for ho only troubles the House with speeches of his own once in twelve months. There are several topics which the House will expect mo to say something about, and there are two or three topics of supreme interest and importance for which I will plead for the patience and comprehensive consideration of the House. We are too apt to find that Gentlemen here and outside fix upon an incident of which they read in the news paper: they put it under a microscope, and then indulge in reflections upon it, and they regard that as taking an intelligent interest in the affairs of India. If we could suppose that on some occasion within the last three or four weeks a wrong turn had been taken in judgment in Simla, or in the Cabinet, or in the India Office, or that to-day in this House some wrong turn might be taken, what disasters would follow, what titanic efforts to repair these disasters, what devouring waste of national and Indian treasure lost, and what a wreckage would follow in the train ! I submit that these are quite certain or possible consequences which misjudgment either here or in India, or among His Majesty's Government, might bring with it. Sir, I believe I am not going too far when I say that this is almost, if not quite, the first occasion upon which what is called the British democracy in its full strength has been brought directly face to face with the difficulties of Indian Government in all their intricacies, all their complexities,
866
and, above all, in all their subtleties, and their enormous magnitude. Last year when I had the honour of addressing the House on the Indian Budget, I observed, as others have done before mo, that it is one of the most difficult experiments that have ever been tried, I think, in human history—whether you can carry on, what I think for myself you will have to carry on in India, personal government along with free speech and free right of public meeting. That which last year was partially a speculative question has this year become more or less actual, and that is a question which I shall by and by have to submit to the House. I want to set out the case as frankly as I possibly can. I want, if I may say so without presumption, to take the House into full confidence, so far—and let nobody quarrel with this provision—as public interests allow. I will ask the House to remember that we do not only hear one another; we are ourselves this afternoon overheard. Words that may be spoken here are overheard in the whole kingdom. They are overheard thousands and thousands of miles away by a great and complex community; and they are overheard by others who are doing the service and work of the Crown in India, and by those who take part in the great work of commercial and non-official life in India. We are overheard by great Indian princes who are outside British India. We are overheard by the great dim masses of Indians whom, in spite of all, we persist in regarding as our friends, and we are overheard by those whom, I am afraid, we must reluctantly call our enemies. This is the reason why everybody who speaks to-day, including myself, must use language which is well advised, of reserve, and, as I say again, of comprehensive consideration.
The subject of discussion being the Indian Budget, I must turn for a moment to finance. I assume that all the Members of the House have entirely mastered the statement of details of the accounts and Estimates for the three years 1905–6, 1900–7, and 1907–8. I assume that these are in the mind of every Member of this House. Last year I told the House that I could not regard with patience the salt tax—a tax upon a necessary of life. I am glad to be able to say, as the House already knows,

867
that the salt tax, which was reduced by half a rupee in 1903, and by half a rupee in 1905, has now been reduced in 1907–8. I greatly rejoice, because, after all, the rise in the consumption of salt in consequence of this reduction of duty proved that it weighed upon the people. The cost of these reductions is £.3,000,000. These reductions amount to 60 per cent. of the tax as it stood before March, 1903. After allowing for the effects of the reduction on salt, and the diminution, as computed, of the revenue from opium of £600,000, we anticipate a surplus of £750,000. All surpluses are satisfactory, and this is satisfactory. This surplus is duo to two causes. The first is that the agricultural prosperity of the year has been most favourable; and the second is that we have decided, in consultation with the Government of India, to reduce the military expenditure for the year by £500,000." [MINISTERIAL cheers.) I am glad that that meets with the approval of hon. Gentlemen. The end of it all is that our financial position is sound; and we have a splendid security to offer for all loans that are raised in this country for Indian purposes and on Indian securities. One other particular, which it is hard to mention without controversy, is the cost of the training of the British troops for service in India. Payments by India to the War Office in respect of the training of British troops for service in India amount to £500,000 per annum. The method of calculating this charge has not, I think, been changed for twenty years, and for some time it has been admitted that it should be submitted to investigation. All I can say is that my right hon. friend hero, the Secretary for War, will find me a dragon in his path to the Indian gold mine. In the meantime the controversy is still unsettled, and a Committee has been appointed, with my right hon. friend's consent, which will begin work in the autumn to ascertain the proportion of these charges which should be borne respectively by this country and by India. I am glad to say that Lord Justice Romer will be chairman of that Committee: Lord Welby will be a member of it, and we shall agree upon a third member. There will also be two representatives of the India Office and two representatives of the War Office; and I hope that the result of their
868
deliberations will be that some scheme or schedule of the respective charges will be arrived at which will do justice to the British taxpayer and justice also to the Indian taxpayer. There is one very important subject which I wish to press upon the attention of the House, viz., the extension of the railway system. There, again, I am well aware of the enormous interest taken by traders in this country and the interest taken or not taken, but which ought to be taken, by people living in India, in the extension of railway enterprise in India. And here, again, I have been fortunate enough to get a Committee of experts (some of whom will go to India) for the purpose of examining carefully into the details of railway administration, and how far the complaints are well founded and justified. So much for railways.
The Budget is a prosperity Budget. We have, however, to admit that a black shadow falls across the prospect. The plague figures are appalling. But do not let us get unreasonably excited, even about these appalling figures. If we reviewed the plague figures up to last December, we might have hoped that this horrible scourge was on the wane. From 92,000 deaths in the year 1900, the figures went up to 1,100,000 in 1904, while in 1905 they exceeded 1,000,000. In 1906 a gleam of hope arose, and the mortality sank to something under 350,000. The combined efforts of the Government and the people had produced that reduction; but, alas ! since January, 1907, the plague has again flared up in districts that have been filled with its terror for a decade; and for the first four months of this year the deaths amounted to 642,000, which exceeded the record for the same period in any past year. You must remember that we have to cover a very vast area. I do not know that these figures would appal us if we took the area of the whole of Europe. It was in 1896 that the plague first appeared in India, and up to April, 1907, the total figure of those human beings who have died is 5,250,000. But dealing with a population of 300,000,000, this great mortality, although enormous, is not at all comparable with the results of the black death and other scourges which spread over Europe in earlier times, in proportion to the population. The

869
plague mortality in 1904 (the worst complete year) would only represent, if evenly distributed, a death-rate of about 3 per 1,000. But it is local, and particularly centres in the Punjab, the United Provinces, and in Bombay. I do not think that anybody who has been concerned in India—I do not care to what school of Indian thought he belongs—can deny that measures for the extermination and mitigation of this disease have occupied the most serious, constant, unflagging, zealous, and energetic attention of the Indian Government. But the difficulties we encounter are enormous, as many Members of the House are well aware. It is possible that hon. Members may rise and say that we are not enforcing with sufficient zeal proper sanitary rules; and, on the other hand, I dare say that other hon. Members will get up to show that the great difficulty in the way of sanitary rules being observed arises from the reluctance of the population to practise them. That is perfectly natural and is well understood. They are a suspicious population and we all know that when these new rules are forced upon them they naturally resent and resist thorn. A policy of severe repression is worse than useless. I will not detain the House with particulars of all the proceedings we have taken to deal with the plague; but I may say that we have instituted a long scientific inquiry with the aid of the Royal Society and the Lister Institute. Then we have very intelligent officers who have done all they could to trace the rout of the disease, and to discover, if they could, any means to prevent it. It is a curious thing that, while there appears to be no immunity from this frightful scourge for the natives, Europeans are almost entirely immune from the disease. That is a difficult thing to understand. As to the opium question, I know that an enormous number of Members in the House are interested in it. Judging by the voluminous correspondence which I receive, all the Churches and both political Parties are sincerely and deeply interested in the question, and I was going to say that the resolutions with which they have favoured me often use the expression "righteousness before revenue." But you must not satisfy your own righteousness at the expense of other people's revenue.
MR. LUPTON: We are quite ready to boar the expense.
MR. MORLEY: My hon. friend says they are quite prepared to boar the expense; I commend that observation hopefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer —no, not hopefully. This question touches the consciences of the people of this country very deeply. My hon. friend sometimes goes a little far; still, he represents a considerable body of feeling. Last May, when the opium question was raised in this House, something fell from me which reached the Chinese Government, and the Chinese Government, on the strength of that utterance of mine, made in the name of His Majesty's Government, have persistently done their best to come to some sort of arrangement and understanding with His Majesty's Government upon the subject of opium. In September an Imperial decree was issued in China ordering the strict prohibition of the consumption and cultivation of opium, with a view to the ultimate eradication of all the evils of that evil habit in the space of ten years. A correspondence took place with my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary, and since then there has been a considerable correspondence, some of which the House is, by Question and Answer, acquainted with. The Chinese Government have been always assured, not only by my words spoken in May, but by the Foreign Secretary, that the sympathy of this country was with the objects set forth in their decree of September. Then a very important incident, as I regard it, and one I think likely to prove very fruitful, was the application by the United States Government to our Government as to whether there should not be a joint inquiry into the opium traffic by the United States and the other Powers concerned. The House knows, by Question and Answer, that His Majesty's Government think that procedure by way of Commission rather than by way of Conference is the right way to approach the question. But no one can doubt for a moment, considering the enormous interest the United States have shown on previous occasions, that some good result will come from this.
EARL, PERCY: May I ask whether in this inquiry other

871
Powers are to participate besides ourselves?
MR. MORLEY: Oh, yes, certainly. I think it has already been stated to the House by the Foreign Secretary. The point is that the United States Government wished to be informed whether His Majesty's Government were willing to take part in a joint international Commission of investigation, and whether certain other Powers, were likewise willing. I think the noble Lord will find that all the greater Powers have been consulted. I will not detain the House with the details, but certainly it is a great satisfaction to know that a great deal of talk as to the Chinese interest in the suppression of opium being fictitious is unreal. I was much struck by a sentence written by the correspondent of The Times at Peking recently. Everybody who knows him is aware that he is not a sentimentalist, yet he used remarkable language. He said that he viewed the development in China of the anti-opium movement as encouraging: that the movement was certainly popular, and was supported by the entire native Press, while a hopeful sign was that the use of opium was fast becoming unfashionable, and would become more so. A correspondence, so far as the Government of India is concerned, is in progress. Those of my hon. friends who think we are lacking, perhaps, in energy and zeal I would refer to the language used by Mr. Baker, the very able finance member of the Viceroy's Council, because these words really define the position of the Government of India—
"What the eventual outcome will be it is impossible to foresee. The practical difficulties which China has imposed on herself sire enormous, and may prove insuperable, but it is evident that the gradual reduction and eventual extinction of the revenue that India has derived from the trade has been brought a stage nearer, and it is necessary for us to be prepared for whatever may happen."
He added that twenty years ago, or even less, the prospect of losing a revenue of five and a-half crores of rupees a year would have caused great anxiety, and even now the loss to Indian finances would be serious and might necessitate recourse to increased taxation; but if, as they had a clear right to expect, the transition was effected with due regard to finance, and was spread over a term of years, the consequence need not be regarded with apprehension.
872
When I approach military expenditure, and war and the dangers of war, I think I ought to say a word about the visit of the Ameer of Afghanistan, which excited so much attention, and kindled so lively an interest in great parts, not only of our own dominions, bat in Asia. I am persuaded that we have reason to look back on that visit with the most entire and complete satisfaction. His Majesty's Government previously to the visit of the Ameer instructed the Governor-General in Council on no account to open any political questions with the Ameer. That was really part of the conditions of the Ameer's visit; and the result of that policy, which we, looking back on it, regard as we did before, has been to place our relations with the Ameer—a very important person—on an eminently satisfactory footing, a far better footing than would have been arrived at by any formal premeditated convention. The Ameer himself made a speech when he arrived at Kabul on his return, and I am aware that in that speech I come to a question of what may seem a Party or personal character, which it is not in the least my intention to deal with. This is what the Ameer said on 10th April—
"The officers of the Government of India, never said a word on political matters, they kept their promise. But as to myself, whenever and wherever I found an opportunity I spoke indirectly on several matters which concerned the interests of my country and nation. The other side never took undue advantage of it, and never discussed with me on those points which I mentioned. His Excellency's invitation (Lord Minto's) to me was in such a proper form that I had no objection to accept it. The invitation which he sent was worded in quite a different form from that of the invitation which I received on the occasion of the Delhi Durbar, In the circumstances I had determined to undergo all risks (at the time of the. Delhi Durbar) and, if necessary, to sacrifice all my possession-" and my own life, but not to accept such an invitation as was sent to me for coming to join the Delhi Durbar."
These things are far too serious for me or anybody to indulge in controversy upon, but it is a satisfaction to be able to point out to the House that the policy we instructed the Governor-General of India in Council to follow has so far worked extremely well.
I will go back to the Army. Last year when I referred to this subject I told the House that it would be my object to remove any defects that I and those who advise me might discover in the Army system, and more

873
especially, of course, in the schemes of Lord Kitchener. Since then, with the assistance of two very important Committees, well qualified by expert military knowledge, I came to the conclusion that an improved equipment was required. Hon. Gentlemen may think that my opinion alone would not be worth much; but, after all, civilians have got to decide these questions, and, provided that they arm themselves with full expert knowledge of military authorities, it is rightly their voice which settles the matter. Certain changes were necessary in the allocation of units in order to enable the troops to be better trained, and therefore our final conclusion was that the special military expenditure shown in the financial statement must go on for some years more. But the House will see that we have arranged to cut down the rate of the annual grant, and we have taken care and this, I think, ought to be set down to our credit—that every estimate for every item included in the programme shall be submitted to vigilant scrutiny here as well as in India. I have no prepossession in favour of military expenditure, but the pressure of facts, the pressure of the situation, the possibilities of contingencies that may arise, seem to me to make it impossible for any Government or any Minister to acquiesce in the risks on the Indian frontier. We have to consider not only our position with respect to foreign Powers on the Indian frontier, but the exceedingly complex questions that arise in connection with the turbulent border tribes. All these things make it impossible—I say nothing about internal conditions—for any Government or any Minister with a sense of responsibility to wipe out, or in a high-handed or cavalier way to deal with this military programme.
Now I come, after too long an interval, to what, I am sure, is in the minds of most Members of the House—the political and social condition of India. Lord Minto became Viceroy, I think, in November, 1905, and the present Government succeeded to power in the first week of December. Now much of the criticism which I have seen on the attitude of Lord Minto and His Majesty's Government leaves out of account the fact that Lord Minto did not come quite into a haven of serenity and peace. Very fierce monsoons had broken put on the Olympian heights at Simla, in
874
the camps, and in the Councils at Downing Street; and this was the inheritance into which Lord Minto came— rather a formidable inheritance for which I do not, this afternoon, for one moment attempt to distribute the responsibility. Still, when Lord Minto and myself came into power our policy was necessarily guided by the conditions under which the case had been left. Our policy was to compose the unexampled conditions of controversy and confusion by which we were faced. In the famous Army case we happily succeeded. But in Eastern Bengal, for a time, we did not succeed. When I see newspaper articles beginning with the preamble that the problem of India is altogether outside Party questions, I well know from experience that that is the forerunner of a regular Party attack. It is said that there has been supineness on the part of Lord Minto and other persons—vacillation and hesitation. There have been no supineness, no vacillation, no hesitation from December, 1905, up to the present day.
I must say a single word about one episode, and it is with sincere regret I refer to it. It is called the Fuller episode. I have had the pleasure of many conversations with Sir Bampfylde Fuller since his return, and I recognise to the full his abilities, his good faith, and the dignity and self-control with which he, during all this period of controversy, has never for one moment attempted to defend himself, or to plunge into any sort of contest with the Viceroy or His Majesty's Government. I think conduct of that kind deserves our fullest recognition. I recognise to the full his gifts and his experience, but I am sure that if he were in this House he would not quarrel with me in saying that those gifts were not well adapted to the situation which he had to face. Gentlemen opposite may be inclined to take a view hostile to Lord Minto, but I would just remind them that Lord Minto, happily for me, was appointed by their own Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Why should we be hostile?
MR. MORLEY: I do not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is hostile, but I have seen

875
expressions of hostility from his friends. I would not dream of criticising the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his more serious friends. But that position has been taken up. What was the case? The Lieutenant-Governor suggested a certain course. The Government of India thought it was a mistake, and told him so. The Lieutenant-Governor thereupon said, "Very well, then I am afraid I must resign." There was nothing in all that except what was perfectly honourable to Sir Bampfylde Fuller. But does anybody take up this position, that if a Lieutenant-Governor says, "If I cannot have my own way I will resign," then the supreme Government of India is bound to refuse to accept that resignation? All I cay say is, and I do not care who the man may be, but if any gentleman in the Indian service says he will resign unless he can have his own way, then so far as I am concerned in the matter his resignation will be promptly and definitely accepted. It is said now that Sir Bampfylde Fuller recommended certain measures about education, and that the Government have now adopted I them. That is not so. I should like to say that the circumstances are completely changed. What was thought by Lord Minto and the Government of India to be a rash and inexpedient course in those days is not thought so now that the circumstances have changed. I will only mention one point. There was a statement the other day in a very important newspaper that the condition of anti-British feeling in Eastern Bengal had gained in virulence since Sir Bampfylde Fuller's resignation. This, the Viceroy assures me, is an absolute perversion of the facts. The whole atmosphere has changed for the better. When I say that Lord Minto was justified in the course ho took, I say it without any prejudice to Sir Bampfylde Fuller, or any prejudice to his future prospects.
Now I come to the subject of the disorders. I am extremely sorry to say, that disorder has broken out in the Punjab. I think I may assume that the House is aware of the general circumstances from Answers to Questions. Under the Regulation of 1818 (which is still alive) coercive measures were adopted. Here I would like to examine so far as I can the action taken to preserve the public
876
interests. It would be quite wrong, in dealing with the unrest in the Punjab, not to mention the circumstances which provided the fuel for the agitation. There were ravages by the plague, and these ravages have been cruel. Again, the seasons have not been favourable; and a second cause was that an Act was on the anvil which was believed to be injurious to the condition of a large body of men. Those conditions affecting the Colonisation Act were greatly misrepresented. An Indian member of the Punjab Council pointed out how impolitic he thought it was; but, as I told the House about a week ago, the Viceroy, declining to be frightened by the foolish charge of pandering to agitation, and so forth, refused assent to that proposal. But in the meantime the proposal of the colonisation law had become a weapon in the hands of the preachers of sedition. I suspect that my hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham will presently get up and say that this mischief connected with the Colonisation Act accounted for the disturbance. But I call attention to this fact in order that the House may understand whether or not the Colonisation Act was the main cause of the disturbance. We submit that it was not. There were twenty-eight meetings known to have been held by the leading agitators in the Punjab between 1st March and 1st May. Of these five only related, even ostensibly, to agricultural grievances; the remaining twenty-three were all purely political. Lala Rajpat Rai took part in two of these meetings, of which one related to the Colonisation Bill, and the other was political; and Ajit Singh took part in thirteen, of which only two related to agrarian grievances, and the remaining eleven were political. I hope those who take up the position that this was an agrarian movement and not a political movement in the Punjab will see that the facts are against any such contention. The figures seem to dispose of the contention that agrarian questions are at the root of the present unrest in the Punjab. On the contrary, it rather looks as if there was a deliberate heating of the political atmosphere preparatory to the agrarian meeting at Rawalpindi on the 21st April, which gave rise to the troubles. The Lieutenant-Governor visited twenty-seven out of twenty-nine districts.
SIR H. COTTON: When was that?
MR. MORLEY: I have not got the date by me. It was in March or April. The Lieutenant-Governor said the situation was serious, and it was growing worse. I will not publish broadcast on the floor of this House language of the kind used by Ajit Singh, which can be reproduced afterwards with perfect impunity and scattered all over India. Those malicious incitements to revolt I do not think I can be an instrument in disseminating. The Lieutenant-Governor then declared that the situation was serious and ought not to go on. Sir Denzil Ibbetson described Rajpat Rai as a revolutionary and a political enthusiast who has been carried away by his theories into the most intense hatred of the British Government, but that his private character appeared to be above reproach. Sir Denzil adds that throughout the agitation he has been careful to keep himself as far as possible in the background, while engineering the systematic propagandism of the last few months. In this agitation special attention, it is stated, has been paid to the Sikhs, who, as the House is aware, are among the best soldiers in India, and in the case of Lyallpur, to the military pensioners. Special efforts have been made to secure their attendance at meetings to enlist their sympathies and to inflame their passions. So far the active agitation has been virtually confined to the districts in which the Sikh element is predominant. Printed invitations and leaflets have been principally addressed to villages held by Sikhs; and at a public meeting at Feroze-pore, at which disaffection was openly preached, the men of the Sikh regiments stationed there were specially invited to attend and several hundreds of them, I confess to my amazement, acted upon the invitation. The Sikhs were told that it was by their aid, and owing to their willingness to shoot down their fellow countrymen in the Mutiny, that the Englishmen retained their hold upon India. And then a particularly vile line of argument was adopted. It was asked, "How is it that the plague attacks the Indians and not the Europeans?" "The Government," said those men, "have mysterious moans of spread-
878
ing the plague; the Government spreads the plague by poisoning the streams and wells." In some villages the inhabitants have actually ceased to use the wells. I was informed only the other day by an officer, who was in the Punjab at that moment, that when visiting the settlements be found the villagers disturbed in mind on this point He said to his men: "Open up your kits, and let them see whether these horrible pills are in thorn. "The men did as they were ordered, but the suspicion was so great that they insisted upon the glasses of the telescopes being unscrewed, in order to be quite sure that there was no pill behind thorn But it may be asked," Why do you not prosecute these men?" I think Sir Denzil Ibbetson gave a good reason, and for my part I entirely approve of it. They have found by experience that a prosecution advertises far and wide the matter to which objection is taken and brings it to the oars of thousands who would otherwise never have heard of it. It attracts public attention to the prosecution of men who pose as martyrs for the good of their country and people. The speeches of counsel are often even more harmful than the original libel. Then when sentences are pronounced, there are pathetic scenes in Court, the martyrs hawing their heads to receive the parting benediction of the Party leaders. They are garlanded as they mount the vehicle which is to convoy them to jail; they are attended on the road by crowds who insult Europeans, and they are conducted in triumphal procession through the streets. Think of the emergency and the risk. Suppose a single native regiment had by chance sided with the rioters. A blaze might possibly have been kindled, because accidents in India may lead to dire results. It would have been absurd for us, knowing we had got a weapon there at our hands by law — not an exceptional law, but a standing law—and in the face of the risk of a conflagration, not to use that weapon; and I for one have no apology whatever to offer for using it. Nobody appreciates more than I do the danger, the mischief, the iniquity of what is called "reason of State." I know all about that. It is full of mischief and full of danger; but so is sedition, and I should have incurred criminal responsibility if I had opposed the resort to this

879
law. A right hon. Gentleman opposite wears an ironical look. I will deal with that directly.
I do not wish to detain the House with the story of events in Eastern Bengal and Assam. They are of a different character from those in the Punjab, and in consequence of these disturbances the Government of India, with our approval, have issued an Ordinance, which I am sure the House is familiar with, under the authority and in the terms of an Act of Parliament. The course of events in Eastern Bengal appears to have been mainly this—first, attempts to impose the boycott on Mahomedans by force; secondly, complaints by Hindus if the local officials stop them, and by Mahomedans if they do not try to stop them; thirdly, retaliation by Mahomedans; fourthly, complaints by Hindus that the local officials do not protect them from this retaliation; fifthly, general lawlessness of the lower classes on both sides, encouraged by the spectacle of the fighting among the higher classes; sixthly, more complaints against the officials. The result of the Ordinance has been that down to 29th May it had not been necessary to take action in any one of these districts. I noticed the ironical look on the part of the right hon. Gentleman when I referred with perfect freedom to my assent to the resort to the weapon we had in the law against sedition, and I have had communications from friends of mine that in this assent I am outraging the principles of a lifetime. I should be ashamed if I detained the House more than two minutes on anything so small as my life. That can very well take care of itself. I began by saying that this is the first time that British democracy in its full strength, as represented in this House, is face to face with the enormous difficulties of Indian Government. Some of my hon. friends, perhaps my right hon. friend, look even more in sorrow than in anger upon this alleged backsliding of mine. Last year I told the House that India for a long time to come, so far as my imagination could reach, would be the theatre of absolute and personal government, and that raised some doubts. Reference has been made to my having resisted the Irish Crimes Act, as if there were a scandalous inconsistency between opposing the
880
policy of that Act and imposing this policy on the natives of India and supporting the deportation of these two men, and other men who may follow if it should prove to be necessary. That inconsistency can only be established by anyone who will take up the position that Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, is exactly on the same footing as these 300,000,000 people—composite, heterogeneous, with different histories, of different races, different faiths. Does anybody contend that any political principle is capable of application in any sort of circumstances without reference to conditions? I, at all events, have never taken that view, and I would like to assure my hon. friends that in such ideas as I have about political principles the leader of my generation was Mr. Mill. Mr. Mill was a great and benignant lamp of wisdom and humanity, and I and others kindled our modest rushlights at that lamp. What did Mill say about the government of India? Remember, he was not only that abject being, a philosopher, but practised in government, responsible, experienced, concerned in the government of India. What did be say? If there is anybody who can be quoted as having been a champion of representative government it is Mill; and in his book, which, I take it, is still the classic book on that subject, this is what he says—
"Government by the dominant country is as legitimate as any other, if it is the one which in the existing state of civilization of the subject people most facilitates their transition to a higher state of civilization."
Then he says this—
"The ruling country ought to be able to do for its subjects all that could be done by a succession of absolute monarchs guaranteed by irresistible force against the precariousness of tenure attendant on barbarous despotisms, and qualified by their genius to anticipate all that experience has taught to the more advanced nations. If we do not attempt to realize this ideal we are guilty of a dereliction of the highest moral trust that can devolve upon a nation."
I will ask the attention of the House for a moment while I examine a group of communications from officers of the Indian Government, and if the House will allow me I will tell them what to my mind is the result of all these communications as to the general feeling in India; for that, after all, is what most concerns us. For this unrest in the Punjab and Bengal

881
sooner or later—and sooner, rather than later, I hope—will pass away. What is the situation of India generally in the view of those experienced officers at this moment? I ask the House to bear with me when I say that even now when we are passing through all our stress and anxiety it is a mistake not to look at the thing rather largely. They all admit that there is a fall in the influence of European officers over the population. They all, or nearly all, admit that there is estrangement—I ought to say, perhaps, refrigeration— between officers and people. There is less sympathy between the Government and the people. For the last few years —this is a very important point—the doctrine of administrative efficiency has been pressed too hard. The wheels of the huge machine have been driven too fast. Our administration—so shrewd observers and very experienced observers assure me—would be a great deal more popular if it was a trifle less efficient, a trifle more elastic generally. We ought not to put mechanical efficiency at the head of our ideas. But I am leading up to a practical point. The district officers representing British rule to the majority of the people of India are overloaded with work in their official relations. These relations we know are more likely to be disagreeable than agreeable, and I know there are highly experienced gentlemen who say that a little of the looseness of earlier days is better fitted than the regular system of latter days to win and to keep personal influence, and that we are in danger of creating a pure bureaucracy. Honourable, faithful, and industrious the servants of the State in India are and will be, but if the present system is persisted in they are likely to become rather mechanical, rather lifeless, perhaps I might even say rather soulless; and attention to this is urgently demanded. Perfectly efficient administration I need not tell the House has a tendency to lead to over-centralisation, it is inevitable. The tendency in India is to override local authority and to force administration to run in official grooves. For my own part I spare no pains to improve our relations with native Governments, and more and more these relations may become of potential value to the Government of India. I would use my best endeavours to make these States independent in matters of administration,
882
but all evidence tends to show we are rather making administration less personal, though evidence also tends to show that the Indian people are peculiarly responsive to sympathy and personal influence. Do not let us waste ourselves in controversy, here or elsewhere, or in mere anger; let us try to draw to our side those men who now influence the people. I believe for my part that most of the people of India are on our side. I do not say for a moment that they like us; but no matter; they know that their whole interest is bound up with the law and order we preserve.
But I will come to my point. There is a Motion on the Paper for an inquiry by means of a Parliamentary Committee or Royal Commission into the causes at the root of the dissatisfaction. Now, I have often thought, while at the India Office, whether it would be a good thing to have an inquiry by committee or commission. I have considered this, and I have discussed this with others; and I have come to the conclusion chat such inquiry would not produce any of the advantages such as wore gained in the old days of old committees, and certainly would be attended by many drawbacks. But I have determined, after consulting with the Viceroy, that considerable advantage might be gained by a Royal Commission to examine, with the experience we have gained over many years, into this great mischief—for everybody knows, all the people in India who have any responsibility, that it is a great mischief —of over-centralisation. It seemed a great mischief to so acute a man as Sir Henry Maine, who, after many years experience, wrote expressing agreement with what Mr. John Bright said just before or just after the Mutiny, that the centralised government of India was too much power for any man to work. Now, when two men, quite unlike in temperament and training, agreed as to the evil of centralisation on this large scale, it makes one reflect. I will not undertake at the present time to refer to the Commission the large questions which wore spoken of by Sir H. Maine and Mr. Bright, but I do think that much might be gained by an inquiry on the spot into the working of centralisation of government in India, and how, in the opinions of trained men here and in India, the mischief might be alleviated.

883
But that is not a question before us now. You often hear people talk of the educated section of the people of India as a mere handful, an infinitesimal fraction; and so they are, in numbers; but it is idle to say, fatally idle to say, that this infinitesimal fraction does not count. This educated section makes all the difference, is making and will make all the difference. That they would attack the British system of government has been long known, it was inevitable. There need be no surprise in the fact that they want a share in political influence, they want a share in the emoluments of administration. Their means— many of them—are scanty; they have little to lose and much to gain from revolutionary changes. They see that the British hand works the State machine surely and smoothly, and they think, having no fear of race animosities, that their hand could work the machine as surely and as smoothly as the British hand. From my observations I should say they could not do it for a week; it would break down.
But now I come to my last point. Last autumn the Governor-General appointed a Committee of the Executive Council to consider the development of the administrative machinery, and at the end of March last he publicly informed his Legislative Council that he had sent home a despatch to the Secretary of State proposing suggestions for a move in advance. This was not in accordance with instructions from us; it emanated entirely from the Government of India. Now let us consider this. The Viceroy with a liberal— I do not use the word in a Party sense—with a liberal courageous mind entered deliberately on the path of improvement. The public in India were aware of it. They waited, and are now waiting the result with the liveliest interest and curiosity. Meanwhile the riots happened in Rawalpindi, in Lahore. After these riots broke out, what was the course we ought to take? Some in this country lean to the opinion— and it is excusable—that the riots ought to suspend all suggestions and talk of reform. Sir, His Majesty's Government considered this view, and in the end they took, very determinedly, the opposite view. They held that such a withdrawal from a line of policy suggested by the Governor-General would, of course, have
884
been construed as a truimph for the party of sedition. They held that, to draw back on account of local and sporadic disturbances, however serious, anxious, and troublesome they might be, would have been a very grave humiliation. To hesitate to make a beginning with our own policy of improving the administrative machinery of the Indian Government would have been taken as a sign of nervousness, trepidation, and fear; and fear, which is always unworthy in any Government, is in the Indian Government, not only unworthy, but extremely dangerous. I hope the House concurs with His Majesty's Government. In answer to a Question the other day, I warned one or two of my hon. friends that, in resisting the employment of powers to suppress disturbances under the Regulation of 1818 or by any other lawful weapon we could find, they were promoting the success of that disorder, which would be entirely fatal to all their projects with which they sympathised. The despatch reached us in due course. It was considered by the Council of India and by His Majesty's Government, and our reply was sent about a fortnight ago. Someone will ask —Are you going to lay these two despatches on the Table to-day? I hope the House will not take it amiss if I say that at this stage —perhaps at all stages— it would be wholly disadvantageous to lay these despatches on the Table We are in the middle of the discussion to-day, and it would break up the continuity if we had a premature discussion coram populo. Every one will understand that discussions of this kind must be very delicate, and it is of the utmost importance that these discussions should be conducted with entire freedom. But, to use a word that I do not often use, I might adumbrate the proposals. This is how the case stands. The despatch reached His Majesty's Government, who considered it; and we then set out our views upon the points raised in the despatch. The Government of India will now frame what is called a Resolution. That draft Resolution, when framed by them in conformity with the instructions of His Majesty's Government, will in due course be sent here. We shall consider that draft, and then it will be my duty to present it to this House if legislation is necessary, as it probably will be; and it will be published

885
in India to be discussed there by all those concerned. The proposals I would adumbrate are these. We have given approval to the establishment of an advisory Council of Notables Those who are acquainted with Indian affairs will recollect that Lord Lytton in 1877 set up a council of this kind. It was a complete failure.
EARL. PERCY: Was it actually brought into existence?
MR. MORLEY: I think so, but it never did any good. Then Lord Curzon had the idea of a council, but I think the scope was limited to business connected with the Imperial Service Troops. The Council of Notables would have a much wider scope. It would be purely advisory, but would serve the double purpose of eliciting independent opinion and of diffusing, what is most important of all, correct information as to the acts and intentions of Government. It is remarkable how the Government, on the one hand, knows so little of the mind of the people, and it is deplorable, on the other hand, that the people know so very little about the mind of the Government. It is a tremendous chasm that we have to bridge; and whether political machinery can ever bridge it I know not. The second proposal is the acceptance of the general principle of a substantial enlargement of the Legislative Councils, both the Governor-General's Legislative Council and the Provincial Legislative Councils. Details of this reform have to be further discussed in consultation with the local Governments in India, but an official majority must be maintained. Thirdly, in the discussion of the Budget in the Viceroy's Council the subjects are to be grouped and explained severally by the members of Council in charge of the Departments, and longer time is to be allowed for this detailed discussion and for general debate. One more thing. The Secretary of State has the privilege of nominating members of the Council of India. I think that the time has now come when the Secretary of State may safely, wisely, and justly nominate one, and it may be two, Indian members. I will not discuss the question now. I may have to come to Parliament at a later stage, but I think it is right
886
to say that that is my intention, realising how few opportunities the governing bodies have of hearing the voice of Indians.
I think I have defended myself from ignoring the principle that there is a difference between the Western European and the Indian Asiatic. There is a vital difference, and it is infatuation to ignore it. But there is another vital fact—namely, that the Indian Asiatic is a man with very vivid susceptibilities of all kinds, and with great traditions of a civilisation of his own; and we are bound to treat him with the same kind of respect and kindness and sympathy that we should expect to be treated with ourselves. Only the other day I saw a letter from General Gordon to a friend of mine. He wrote—
"To govern men, there is but one way, and it is eternal truth, Get into their skins; try to realise their feelings. That is the true secret of government."
That is not only a great ethical, but a great political law, and I hope that in all we do it will not be forgotten. It would be folly to pretend to any dogmatic assurance—and I certainly do not—as to the course of the future in India. But for to-day anybody who takes part in the rule of India, whether as a Minister or as a Member of the House of Commons participating in the discussion on affairs in India—anyone who wants to take a fruitful part in such discussions, if he does his duty will found himself on the assumption that the British rule will continue, ought to continue, and must continue. There is, I know, a school—I do not think it has any representatives in this House-who say that we might wisely walk out of India and leave it, and that the Indians would manage their own affairs better than we can manage them for them. I think anybody who pictures to himself the anarchy, the bloody chaos that would follow from any such deplorable step, would shrink from any such decision. We, at all events—the Ministry and the Members of this House—are bound to take a completely different view. I believe that certainly the Government, and I believe certainly this House in all its parties and groups, is determined that we ought to face, that we do face, all these mischiefs and difficulties and dangers of which I have been speaking with a clear conscience. We know that we are not doing it for

887
our own interest, but for the interest of the millions committed to us; and we ought to face it with a clear conscience, with sympathy, with kindness, with firmness, with a love of justice, and, whether the weather be fair or foul, in a valiant and hopeful spirit.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (for Committee on East India Revenue Accounts)."
*EARL PERCY: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman is, in its financial aspect, so satisfactory that I should waste the time of the House if I were to elaborate in less well chosen language conclusions which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn, in his picturesque and comprehensive review of the situation. I shell therefore pass at once to the subjects which formed the greater part of his speech and were of most interest to the House. First of all I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the firmness with which he and the Government of India have acted in the recent emergency. The right hon. Gentleman has been at some pains to show that they went to the utmost limits of forbearance before putting into force the exceptional powers with which the law entrusts them, and which are nowhere more necessary than they are in India. If there is any doubt in the mind of most people cither at home or in India, it is that perhaps action was too long deferred, and that hesitation to adopt measures for checking the propagation of sedition, especially in the schools a year ago in Eastern Bengal, may have been, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, to some extent responsible for the necessity in which the Government find themselves of having to enforce those identical measures on an even larger scale at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman says that the situation with which they are confronted now is entirely different from that with which they were confronted in Eastern Bengal at the time of Sir Bampfylde Fuller's resignation. That maybe the case, and I certainly have no desire to challenge the mariner in which the Executive thought fit to exercise its discretion. I should like, however, to observe that the events connected with Sir Bampfylde Fuller's resignation—which he never
888
discussed in public himself, and which the Party on this side of the House, owing to their consistent desire not to embarrass the Government, refrained from raising— and the recent circular issued by the Viceroy—apparently freeing the provincial Governments from restrictions hitherto placed on their liberty of action in dealing with seditious utterances and writings in the Press, seem to me to suggest that there has been too little close and continuous co-operation between the central and the provincial Governments of India, and too great a tendency on the part of the former to a fitful and spasmodic exercise of its authority. I hope I am right in understanding that the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested has no connection with the inquiry which is mentioned in the Amendment on the Paper.
MR. MORLEYwas understood to assent.
*EARL PERCY: I should regard an inquiry of that kind as utterly mischevious; but I understand that the inquiry which the light hon. Gentleman contemplates is not to be concerned with the policy either of the central Government or of the provincial Governments or with the manner in which they have carried out that policy. Its sole object, as I understand it, is to device methods by which the financial and executive authority of the provincial Governments may be enlarged, and by which the accumulation and congestion of business at Calcutta may be relieved.
MR. MORLEY: I certainly did not accept the Amendment, but I do not want to tie my hands in regard to it.
*EARL PERCY: I do not want to tie the right hon. Gentleman. All I wish to make clear is that this inquiry is concerned with administrative machinery, and has no reference to political disturbances or the causes of unrest.
Mr. MORLEY: No.
*EARL PERCY: I do not feel quite certain that a Royal Commission is a better instrument for that purpose than would be a Commission appointed by the Government of India itself; but if

889
the right hon. Gentleman has decided in favour of a Royal Commission, I hope he will take care that it is practically confined to people who have now, or have recently had, actual experience of administration in India.
Mr. MORLEY: Either here or there.
*EARL PERCY: I agree. Whatever defects there may be in the machinery of administration, it is, at all events, remarkable testimony to the confidence which men of all Parties in this country feel in the handful of men to whom is entrusted the burden of British rule in India that, from first to last, throughout recent events public opinion has refused, and rightly refused, to take an alarmist view of the situation. And, whatever other moral may be drawn from those events, nothing can be more encouraging than the manifestations of loyalty which they have evoked from the leaders of almost every section of native opinion, whether Sikh, Rajput, or Mahomedan. It is obvious that the stories to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded came from the same mint as the scandalous accusations which were trumped up a few years ago against the British soldiers engaged in plague operations at Poona; and, while I quite agree that we need not lash ourselves into any unnecessary anger or fury, I do hope the Government of India will devote their utmost efforts to tracing those stories to their source, and will punish their authors as they deserve. I think the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out with unanswerable force the objection there would be to a prosecution in cases of arrest and deportation like those of Lajpat Rai and other ringleaders; but do not the same arguments apply with equal force to the present method of proceeding against seditious language in the native Press? Prosecution is in very many cases precisely what the local newspaper desires; and I cannot help thinking that power ought to be given to the local Governments, if they do not possess it, to suppress a paper after sufficient warning if it persists in disregarding that warning, without any preliminary prosecution at all. With regard to the reorganisation of the sanitary staff in India, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the
890
desirability of enlisting a certain number of trained native assistants. Passing to the question of reform I suspect that a good many people will think that the concession of any reforms at the present moment is injudicious because it is almost certain to be very widely described as a concession to agitation. [do not approach the question from that point of view, partly for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman stated, but partly also because I hold very strongly the view that the demands put forward by the party of reform in India are totally inadmissible, and therefore if I thought the changes contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman were calculated in any degree to further their aims and objects, I should regard them with equal disapproval and hostility whether they were introduced now, or at a later period. Of course, when I say the demands are inadmissible I do not refer to the demand made for a larger employment of natives in the detailed work of administration. That is a natural and laudable aspiration with which everybody must sympathise, and every effort has been made to give effect to it. Already by far the larger number of provincial posts are held by natives, and a considerable number of the higher posts, especially in the judiciary, are in native hands also. But the demands, even of the moderate section of the Reform Party in Congress, go much further than that. What they really demand is the establishment, sooner or later, of Parliamentary institutions, and the substitution for autocratic rule of the system of government by majorities. The right hon. Gentleman has said that for as long a time as he can foresee British rule in India must be personal and autocratic. I should be inclined to go still further and say that for all time the attempt to govern by majorities in India must in the nature of things be doomed to failure. It is not that we distrust the loyalty of the Indian people. It is not that they are deficient in education or backward in political training. These defects might be corrected by a gradual concession of responsibility, and have never been admitted to be a barrier to the grant of considerable powers of self-government in municipal affairs. The real difficulty, the impossibility, lies in the two facts which are at

891
the root of the Indian problem, and which differentiate it from any other. The first is that India Is not a homogeneous nationality with common sentiments and aspirations, but a congerie of races animated to a large extent by different and even antagonistic ideals, and only deterred, as we see in Eastern Bengal, by the constant interposition of the Central Power from attempting to force their own ideas on other people by violent means. The second is that in this congeries of races nature has chosen to assign the qualities that make for physical predominance to the races which are neither intellectually the most versatile nor the largest in point of numbers. The result is, as it seems tome, that any attempt to govern India on the principle of government by majorities must mean the government of the strong by the weak, a government which could not exist for a day except by the support of British bayonets, of that very Army which is described by the reformers an the instrument of an alien Power. When we are told that British rule is not popular in India, it may be so. I do not believe any western Government is exactly popular with an Oriental people, and I am not sure that they are likely to feel any greater respect for it when it displays so constant a tendency to self-accusation and self-examination, and has such a perfect passion for conducting those operations in public. I daresay our rule is not in the strict sense of the word popular, though I do not believe it that is unpopular; but if you wish to devise a means of making it not merely unpopular, but absolutely abhorrent to the people of India, I can imagine nothing more certain to effect that object than a system under which British authority would be utilised in order to force upon a number of proud and warlike races a Government of intellectuals which they not only hate but despise, and which, so far as those races are concerned, would be no whit less foreign than we are ourselves. If that premise be granted, if Parliamentary institutions are clearly impossible, surely we are deluding ourselves as well as the Indian people if we induce them to believe that the changes adumbrated to - day, or any changes that we can ever introduce, will carry us a single step further in the direction of the real aims of the Congress party. It seems to me
892
to be much better to lay it down at the outset that we start with a wholly different objective, and that however true in the abstract it may be to say, as the Prime Minister said last year—and a most unfortunate observation, I think it was—" that good government is no substitute for self-government," so far as India, at all events, is concerned, it is good government and not self-government that we have in view. And if this be the case, if, in the words of the King's Speech, we can allow nothing which would weaken the strength and unity of the executive power, then it seems to me that any changes that we can introduce into the Councils at home or in India must be framed with the object not of giving these Councils any share in the control of policy, but of making them, if possible, more useful as advisory bodies. I now come to the three reforms which the right hon. Gentleman sketched out. The first was the creation of what he calls a Council of Notables. I do not think that is a fortunate name. My impression is that when this scheme was mooted by Lord Lytton his idea was to provide a means of consulting the ruling chiefs, and as they would form the bulk of this Council, I think that would be a more appropriate designation. It is an idea which has a great sentimental attraction, and I can imagine that such a Council once initiated might develop into an institution of great practical utility. It would afford the Viceroy an opportunity of consulting collectively the natural leaders of Indian opinion, and those chiefs themselves might welcome the opportunity for a mutual interchange of opinion amongst themselves. But it is manifestly a reform the practicability of which depends on the manner in which it presents itself to the minds of the chiefs themselves, and I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will take any step in that direction without ascertaining that the step he is taking has their cordial sympathy and approval. Then comes the question of appointing natives to seats on the Council of the Secretary of State at home. That is, no doubt, a change in one sense, but not in another. I think it has certain advantages, and I believe it would probably be useful to the Secretary of State, that he should have a readier access to the opinions of those who would

893
look at Indian questions from a somewhat different standpoint from those who form the large majority of his Council. But it is not a change in principle. I do not know that there is anything in the existing Act of Parliament which makes it impossible to appoint natives to seats on the Council, and I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman means to make any change in the law as regards either the numbers or qualifications of members of Council.
MR. MORLEY: It might be possible to add to the number, but I am not sure. The noble Lord is aware that the number cannot be less than ten or more than twelve. It might be desirable to make a change of that character.
* EARL PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman's observation has a bearing on what I was going to say. There are two practical difficulties. One is that the number of seats on the Council now is by no means too large to insure the presence of men who have had practical experience of the different conditions of administration prevailing in various parts of India, and the other is that you may not find it easy to induce men of the requisite standing to abandon their professional career in India in order to serve on the Council in England for five or ten years. No one would suggest that if the best men are not available you should go out of your way to appoint a man of inferior stamp merely on the ground of his race or colour. That would be not only detrimental to the public service, but retrograde in principle. But if the right hon. Gentleman does not fetter in any way the discretion of those who may succeed him in his present office, I think there would be some advantage and very little or no disadvantage in the change which he suggests. I now come to the reforms affecting the Legislative Council. I am afraid I did not quite catch the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the change he proposes to make in the powers which are exercised by that Council. He talked of a longer time for discussion. I do not quite know what that implies—whether it means that the discussion of the Budget is to follow a different mode of procedure and whether Members will have an opportunity of discussing it in detail instead of en bloc as they do now.
Mr. MORLEY: The discussion will be under the heads of the Budget, and the details under those heads.
* EARL PERCY: That is a change to which I see no objection in principle, though I am somewhat doubtful of its expediency. The object of discussing the Budget as a whole is to give the members of the Legislative Council an opportunity of discussing the general policy of the Government. The object and effect of discussing the Budget under separate heads will be to focus discussion on particular taxes, and particular points of policy. This is a power which it may be advisable to entrust, and indeed necessary to entrust to an assembly like the House of Commons, or any other constitutional assembly in western countries, which has supreme control over expenditure and taxation, and in which, moreover, the task of criticism is discharged by those who act with the knowledge that if they carry their point they may themselves be called upon to undertake the responsibility of framing a Budget. That will not be the case in the Legislative Council, where the members have no control over taxation or expenditure, whore they cannot even move Amendments, and where, if they had any such control, it would be in my opinion purely mischievous, for the very reason that it would necessarily be divorced from any sense of responsibility. I am, therefore, quite unable to see any practical advantage which will be obtained by the discussion of the Budget in detail which is not already secured by its discussion as a whole; while, on the other hand, I am afraid it is precisely the kind of change which will inevitably be regarded in India as a mere concession in name to a demand, the substance of which we are unable and unwilling to grant. But the change in the composition of the Legislative Council is a matter of even greater importance. I think there is a good deal to be said for the view that the Legislative Council would be more useful as an advisory body if it were more directly representative. It is unrepresentative now, not because it does not represent the majority, but because it does not make sufficient provision for the representation of important classes and minorities. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to devise a means of securing that representation I

895
think he will have introduced a salutary reform. But there are certain considerations which I think ought to be borne in mind before the right hon. Gentleman commits himself to details. If you arc to secure any adequate or fair representation of these minorities, it is obvious that such representation must be based to some extent on racial and religious qualifications which have not hitherto obtained any constitutional recognition That is inevitable, but I think it would be extremely inadvisable that the Viceroy should be mixed up more than is necessary with appointments of that kind, and exposed to the charge of partiality and favouritism. I hope, therefore, that in any arrangement made by the right hon. Gentleman for securing the representation of minorities ho will try to avoid as far as possible the machinery of nomination by the Viceroy, and obtain the result by the creation of special constituencies. Then there is another point—the effect which this change may have on the proportion between the official and the non-official members of the Council. It is very important, I think, that in a change of this land we should not begin by making concessions, the abuse of which might necessitate their subsequent withdrawal. At the present moment, if the Indian Government avails itself of its full legal powers, and assigns half of the additional seats to officials, it can be sure of securing a majority of eight on a Council of twenty-four—the proportion being sixteen to eight. But as a matter of fact the Viceroy has not done so. He has assigned many of the additional seats to non-official members, and the consequence is that at the present moment the Government of India have only a majority of four, the present proportion of official to non-official members being fourteen to ten. I do not think that anybody can reasonably contend that four is an excessive number, if you are to be sure of a working majority. It is quite true that the Viceroy possesses in the last resort the power of veto; he can always over-rule his council; but it is obviously undesirable that he should be driven to exercise that power oftener than is necessary, and therefore, I think that it would probably be injudicious to reduce the standing majority below its present figure. Lastly, I come to the question of the numerical size of the Council. Whatever
896
defects in their constitution there may be, I believe everybody acknowledges that in their practical working the Legislative Councils both of the Governor-General and of the Provincial Governors have been a conspicuous success. I am afraid that there is a certain risk that if you enlarge the number of members of those Councils you may make them unworkable and unwieldy, and impair their legislative efficiency. When proposals of that kind were pressed upon the Government in 1892, they were rejected on grounds which I think have great force now, although no doubt there may be a good deal to be said on the other side. It was pointed out that an increase in the number of members was really unnecessary; that the Viceroy's Council had not to do the kind of work which Parliamentary bodies elsewhere have to do; that a great deal of the detailed examination has already been performed in the Provincial Councils; and that consequently when the measures are afterwards introduced into the Council at Calcutta there is not the same need of a large number of members for committee work. It was pointed out again that the change must involve a large increase of expenditure, because, although members of Council do not have salaries paid to them, yet they are entitled to have the cost of travelling and of residence in Calcutta defrayed out of the Public Exchequer. As regards the official member, obviously any change of that kind, any increase in the total number of the members of the Council, must necessitate a corresponding increase in the number of official members who would be taken away from their offices and administrative duties, which in itself would be an evil; and as regards non-official members, there would probably be a considerable difficulty. Lord North-brook expressed the opinion that it would be absolutely impossible to get competent men, and especially business men, to spare two or three months in the year, which would be necessary in order to attend the Council in Calcutta. I do not say for a moment that these objections arc insuperable, but I have no doubt that they will be duly weighed by the right hon. Gentleman before he commits himself to a considerable expansion in the size of the Legislative Councils. And now I pass to a subject more directly connected with the Budget—I mean the

897
reduction of the salt tax by another eight annas. This is the third reduction of the salt tax, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, in five years. It involves a cost of £3,250,000 of revenue. In one sense I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who views this reduction with unqualified satisfaction, but in another sense I do not. It seems to me that the very fact that the relief from the reduction is so widespread and practically co-extensive with the population is an argument, considering the extreme diversity in the condition of the populations at different times in different parts of India, against resorting more frequently than necessary to this particular method of relieving taxation. When you remember that the incidence of the salt tax per head of the population has been computed at 4d. a year it can hardly be described as oppressive. I do not want to challenge this particular reduction, but what I do want to say is, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said last year, that I sincerely hope that it is not to be taken as an earnest of the total abolition of the tax, which, I believe, in the interests of India, would be a serious step to take. This tax is the only one to which everybody in India can be made to contribute; it is the only one which could be readily expanded in order to meet an emergency. The Indian revenue system is based very largely on the condition of one particular industry, the prosperity of which fluctuates from year to year, and on which you dare not reckon with certainty; and when we bear in mind the fact that if you once do away with the salt tax altogether it would be difficult if not impossible for any Government to re-impose it. I think that is a very strong argument against departing from the principle laid down years ago in the despatch of the Secretary of State in 1869, as the principle which ought to govern reductions of the salt tax, namely, that the expediency of such reductions should be directly gauged and tested by the effect which they produce in increasing consumption. There is another reason why I should regard the abolition of the salt tax with dismay, and that is the enormous demands likely to be made upon the Government for fresh expenditure, and the probable loss of important sources of revenues upon which they have hitherto been able to rely. Mr. Baker
898
has pointed out that during the last five years, whilst you have surrendered revenue to the amount of £4,500,000 in relief of taxation, you have committed yourselves to fresh expenditure of an almost equivalent amount upon military reorganisation, education, agricultural development, and such like, and this apart from grants of a temporary and nonrecurring character. Besides all this there is a sum of £3,500,000 which it will probably be necessary to borrow or spend out of revenue for the provision of rolling stock which is urgently required, in addition to large expenditure which will be entailed in the near future in connection with sanitary improvements. That is a serious outlook. I do not think that anybody will deny that these items of expenditure are all necessary and even urgent. But there is another form of expenditure which I understand the Government contemplate, and which seems to me neither necessary nor desirable—I mean the expenditure in connection with free education. I was perusing the other day the circular which has been issued by the Government of India, and I thought the propositions laid down in that circular to justify free education were singularly unconvincing. Free education would be an entire departure from the principle on which the Government of India have hitherto acted. The principle hitherto has been that no school in India should receive any aid which does not charge fees, whereas the new policy contemplated is that no school should receive any grant unless fees are altogether abolished. The Government say that the old idea that fees were necessary to stimulate interest in education has been disproved by experience in Europe and by the fact that the non-charging of fees in native Sanskrit and Buddhist schools has not produced any falling off in attendance. But the first argument ignores the fact that in Europe free education was preceded by compulsory education, which in India is admittedly impossible; while the second tells against rather than in favour of the inference which the Government have drawn from it. The very fact that it has only been found possible to dispense with fees in India in the case of schools which give religious teaching shows not only that you cannot count upon the same results following from an extension of the same principle to secular schools

899
but that if the Government carry out this new policy they will run a grave risk of destroying just that part of the educational system which appeals most strongly to the religious instincts of the people. It is from this point of view that I regard this policy with the most profound misgivings. The Government admit that this policy will probably result in the ruin of the unaided schools which would have to have the option of being converted into aided schools, and even the aided schools are bound ultimately to be absorbed into the board school system. In other words this policy of free education cannot be carried out without, in the long run, involving the extinction of those schools which desire to be independent, largely because they value the religious teaching given, and are therefore obliged to rely upon the fees which are drawn from the poorest of the population. What schools will those be? In many parts of India they will be the schools of the Mahomedan community. It has often been laid to their charge that they are educationally backward, and there is no doubt some truth in the statement. But what is the reason? The Mahomedan conception of education is fundamentally different from that of the Hindu. The view of the latter is almost entirely secular, but the view of the Mahomedan is profoundly denominational, and it is just because the Mahomedan values denominational teaching while the State in regard to religion preserves an attitude of complete neutrality, giving no religious teaching of any kind in its own schools, that a State system of education in India must be regarded with suspicion, if not with active hostility, by millions of the most loyal of His Majesty's subjects. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this question very carefully before he proceeds any further in this direction. I quite agree that the ignorance of the population is one of the greatest dangers to British rule, and a fertile source of suspicions which give rise to agitation. But let us take care that in attempting to remove the suspicions which have their root in ignorance we do not give rise to the more dangerous suspicions which arise from religious prejudice. It is quite
900
obvious that, in a country like India, where you cannot have compulsory education, and where large masses of the people are debarred by religious considerations from taking advantage of the facilities you offer, free education will in reality be a tax upon the many for the benefit of the few. Greatly as I am in favour of spreading education in India, I do think it is already too much divorced from religious teaching and even moral training. The Government will be much more likely to popularise education by extending the system of grants-in-aid to the schools of the native religious communities than by attempting to foist upon the whole population a State system which runs counter to prejudices very deeply ingrained. I have some difficulty in understanding what is the opium policy of the Government. Last year, on the eve of the Whitsuntide adjournment in a very thin House, the House of Commons committed itself to the proposition that the opium traffic was immoral. So far as I can ascertain, the Government are not going to act in the spirit of that Resolution. They are not going to stop the traffic, and the reduction of cultivation in India is to be strictly dependent upon the action which China takes to reduce the amount of her internal cultivation. That is quite incompatible with the theory that the opium traffic is immoral, that it has been forced upon China against her will, and that our treaties are mainly responsible for the evils of which she complains. If that were the case, the only logical course would be to prohibit the cultivation and sale of opium in India, and repeal the treaties of Tien-sin and Chefoo. But the Government do not propose to take that course. The theory on which apparently the Government has acted has nothing to do with morality or immorality, but is founded on the proposition that China has a right to stop the traffic if she pleases, and that we should do nothing to make it difficult to carry out that object. The action of the Indian Government in reducing the area of cultivation is premature. The first step ought to have been taken by China herself, and our Government ought to have waited until they saw what was the practical effect of that action. Beyond issuing the edict, China has done practically nothing. A precisely

901
similar edict was issued in 1882 prohibiting the cultivation of opium, and Mr. Hosie, our Consular agent, reported as follows—
"I have noticed in several places a proclamation dated the 9th November, 1882, by the Governor-General of Szechuan prohibiting the cultivation of the poppy and enjoining a more extended sowing of the cereals. It was always more or less mutilated, whether intentionally or not I cannot say. At all events poppy was frequently growing on the side of the road opposite to that on which the proclamation was posted. It is one thing to issue instructions—another to see they are carried out."
And writing on the 3rd of June, 1883, he says—
"The whole country reeks and stinks of opium."
In the light of past experience I think we should have delayed action in India until we had some evidence of practical results from the issue of this new edict. China is not the only country to be considered in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to-day to the International Commission on which I understand His Majesty's Government as well as the Government of the United States is to be represented to consider the opium traffic. He said he believed that most of the larger States were to be represented, and I should be interested to know whether the Government of Persia is to be represented on the Commission. There is a very large area of opium cultivation in French Indo-China and there are considerable possibilities of opium cultivation in Persia. I noticed a statement in The Times recently that the Persians were eagerly looking out to see what the diminution in the Indian cultivation was to be in order to supply the deficiency themselves.
AN HON. MEMBER: To confirm the noble Lord I may say that the poppy is already extensively grown there.
*EARL PERCY: The hon. Member is acquainted with a part of Persia with which I am not familiar. It seems to me that the Government ought to have some security that simultaneous action will be taken by the States in the vicinity of China before we commit ourselves to definite action. My second contention is that by reducing the area of cultivation, the Government are inflicting very great hardship on India, with a minimum of advantage to the cause of morality in
902
China. It is necessary first of all to examine in what respect the right hon. Gentleman's policy really marks a new departure. The change does not consist in the curtailment of the amount that is sold, because I believe it has long been the policy of the Indian Government—I think ever since 1893—to reduce the export. But at the same time that they have reduced the export they have deliberately increased the area of cultivation, and that policy when challenged in this House was always defended on the ground that its object was not to push the sale of opium, but merely to prevent the violent fluctuations in price which would result from a temporary shortage in the crop, either in China or India, by keeping a stock in reserve equivalent to a six months' supply. What will be the effect of departing from that policy? If China fails to keep her word or is unable to enforce the edict on her own people, and if other neighbouring States take up the cultivation of opium on their own account, manifestly the result will be that in normal years you will have a far larger area of cultivation and a far greater consumption of the drug than you have at the present moment, and in abnormal years when there is a shortage you will have an enormous increase, as you have had recently, I observe, in the Straits Settlements, of smuggling and of the use of the far more deleterious narcotic morphia. But after all, the interests of morality in China, great as they are, I confess, do not stir me to the same extent as the interests of the Indian people themselves. What is going to be the effect of this policy on India? It is quite true that the opium revenue does not bear so large a proportion to the total revenue as it formerly did. It is still very considerable. It amounts to. £3,500,000 a year, and I do not think that anyone who reads the statement of Mr. Baker can fail to perceive that he does not regard the surrender of the opium revenue with anything like a feeling of equanimity. His argument, if I remember aright, was that it might be acquiesced in provided that it was done sufficiently slowly. But the loss to India would be not merely the loss of revenue. There is the loss to the shipping trade and the loss of a valuable staple export. The Party opposite ought to be particularly careful how they compromise the capacity of India to pay her

903
debts by exports. The opium export trade represents a value of £6,000,000 a year, and if you take in the by-products—the seeds used for food and lighting, soap, varnish, and other chemical preparations—it amounts to a considerably larger figure than that. In addition to that you have the loss to the cultivators themselves—a loss which, I think, is calculated by one speaker in the Legislative Council at £1,500,000 in wages to the Bengal cultivators alone. It is all very well to say, "After all, if we deprive the Indian Government of their opium crop they can grow another crop." It is the same kind of argument that we hear in regard to the fiscal policy. It is the argument which is used by people who are not themselves concerned. But you have to find a crop which is capable of succeeding an autumn crop of Indian corn—and one of such value that it will carry the same wage bill. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has made any independent attempt to calculate the total loss imposed on India by the carrying out of this policy, but it has been calculated by Sir John Strachey at £12,500,000, of which £7,000,000 is debited to the Bengal crop alone. I will not elaborate that further. I now come to the conclusion of my argument. I come to the observation made by the fight hon. Gentleman in the form of a warning, but from which he abstained from drawing the logical inference. If this policy is to be carried out it ought not to be carried out, at all events, wholly at the expense of the Indian people. We must face the fact that it is a policy forced on India. [Cries of "No."] India would never adopt it of her own free will. It is forced on India in order to gratify a number of sentimentalists at home. [Cries of "Oh!"] I do not use the word "sentimentalists" in a bad sense. Most of the people who are opposed to the opium traffic are earnest religious people, but I say that this policy is forced on India in order to gratify the sentiments of people at home. It is a policy which for that reason is precisely analogous to the repatriation of the labourers engaged in the mines of the Transvaal. But in that case you did provide the cost of repatriation yourselves. Why? Only for one reason, that the Legislature of the Transvaal declined to accept the liability themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The fact was stated in a despatch of Lord
904
Selborne's and admitted in this House. Under these circumstances, if we refuse to adopt a similar course in India, I do not see how we can honestly clear ourselves of the imputation that we are forcing this policy on India entirely at her expense, because India has not the rights which a self-governing community possess. I think that is an extremely unfortunate admission to have to make. After all, it is a policy which is likely to be unpopular enough in any case. It involves interference with the native States which produce opium, and with large sections of the Indian people who habitually use the opium leaf for the manufacture of tea. If in addition this policy is to involve a large surrender of revenue which will have to be made good by fresh taxation, and the throwing out of employment of a large number of cultivators. I think you will run the risk of creating a feeling in India which is by no means pleasant to contemplate. In the matter of the Excise duties on cotton the interposition of the home Government was profoundly unpopular, but at all events we could plead, and legitimately plead in that case, that if we were asking a sacrifice from the Indian people it was only a sacrifice proportionate to, and justified by, the sacrifice which we had imposed on ourselves to enable them to raise revenue for their own purposes. That is not a plea which we can by any possibility put forward in connection with the reduction of the opium cultivation, and, I confess, for my own part, that I hold very strongly that if it is persisted in on the present lines, and if the whole cost is to be thrown on the Indian people, we shall have acted in a manner wholly irreconcilable with those broad principles of justice upon which we have hitherto prided ourselves, and which have been our chief claim to the confidence of the Indian people.
*MR. G. A. HARDYrose to move "That this House, whilst affirming the imperative necessity of maintaining peace and order in India, is of opinion that an inquiry by means of a Parliamentary Committee or Royal Commission should be instituted into the causes at the root of the dissatisfaction." He congratulated the Secretary of State for India upon the earnest and eloquent

905
speech which he had delivered. He thought there had been few speeches delivered in the House which had made a greater impression, and which would have a more lasting effect. They knew the right hon. Gentleman's broad sympathy with those who were oppressed at home and in our great Empire of India. They knew also that the people of India were under a great debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done in the past. The fact that the Budget was being discussed to-day, in the very heart of the session instead of being deferred to the close, was one the Indian people were deeply grateful for. The right hon. Gentleman had shown his friendship to India by the reduction of the salt tax, and by conferring various other advantages. When they listened to the right hon. Gentleman they realised that the people of India would recognise that at last they had a Minister in the House of Commons in whom they might have confidence. In moving the Amendment standing in his name he fully recognised that it was the duty of the Government to maintain law and order in India at all costs. Ho would not criticise in any way the work of the Government and their efforts to carry out that work. But there was a feeling amongst a large part of our own fellow-countrymen that the recent trouble might have been avoided with a little care and thought, and had perhaps been brought about by methods which were alien to the spirit which Englishmen extended to other races with free institutions. Fears had been expressed to him as to the advisability of moving this Resolution, but it would be an evil day when an Englishman could not be a friend of India without being an enemy of his own country. They had lately received alarming reports of riots, boycotting, and meetings where fierce denunciations of the Viceroy and his policy were indulged in. The native Press has been unfortunately like some of our own newspapers, stirring up the people by appealing to their baser passions. There had been conflicts between Mahomedans and Hindus. They also knew that there was never smoke without fire, and the consequence was that he and his friends had brought this Motion forward that afternoon to ask His Majesty's Government to consent to an inquiry by either a Parliamentary
906
Committee or a Royal Commission in India into the causes which had led to this serious unrest. The late Lord Randolph Churchill, supported by Mr. Gladstone, desired that the Government should, like the old East India Company, inquire into the methods of the Government of India every twenty years. The Secretary of State had stated that he would grant such an inquiry, and they were delighted to hear it. What were the causes which had led to this spirit of unrest? There had been disturbances in Eastern Bengal and in the Punjab. Though those disturbances had occurred at the same time, the reasons for them were entirely different. The original cause which had culminated in the late unhappy episode, had been the failure of the educated classes of Hindus to obtain the slightest recognition by constitutional methods of their demands for reform. Twenty-two years ago they started their great Annual Congress. Educated Hindus from all parts of India assembled, at great expense and inconvenience, and in a perfect constitutional manner they stated the needs and wants of the Indian people. Sometimes the Congress was presided over by English gentlemen of the highest reputation, and Members of this House. In the Congress the hopes and aspirations of the educated people of India centred. England to them was the Mecca of freedom. They had studied English institutions and English history; and they believed that if they adopted constitutional methods, the Viceroy would listen sympathetically and use them as a method of finding out the needs of the people. For twenty-two years they met, but their resolutions which were sent to the Viceroy were ignored, and their receipt was only officially acknowledged. Slighted and snubbed they steadily kept in view the true constitutional side, believing that in the end they would succeed. The moderate party, always telling the Congress that the time would come when their demands would be listened to, kept within constitutional limits and trusted that they would eventually attain their end. But hope deferred maketh the heart sick. When the present Government came into power, much was hoped and looked for. The expectations which had arisen from the bold statesmanlike manner in which the Government had dealt with

907
the Transvaal were dashed to the ground, although they felt that the time was ripe, and that at last they would be able to obtain some of the reforms they had been asking for so long. Then occurred the difficulties which brought about the present trouble. It should be remembered that throughout the Congresses there had always been a small section of members who were extremists, and the danger was that those extremists might persuade the people of India no longer to follow constitutional methods, but to try agitation. He did not think that there was the slightest fear that when the people of India found that the reforms which he and his friends advocated were going to be granted they would feel they had come from the policy of agitation. We were bound in retaining our hold on India to keep our conscience clean. We were bound, if we were to justify our claim to rule, to give the people of India something more than a slow sort of justice. We were bound to give those people an opportunity of rising to a higher plane of civilisation and comfort than they at present enjoyed. We could not do that unless we listened to their requests. We could not put down by force those who only demanded justice or equality. After all, it had to be remembered that righteousness exalted a nation, and we should do right to the inhabitants of India so that, if at any time we had to fight, we should have a good cause. The danger was that from the Himalyas to the plains of India, if the people found that they could obtain no redress for their grievances by using constitutional methods they would follow the most advanced leaders. Another great cause of unrest was the partition of Bengal. It might be a question of sentiment; but sentiment was a great factor in the government of the world. What would the people of Scotland or of Ireland say if their country were to be split in half? The heather would be on fire with a vengeance. The Bengalees felt that in some way or another this partition was a dismemberment of the mother-land; and the result was that ever since it had taken place the unrest had steadily increased. The authorities might drive that unrest under; that could be easily done. But, all human experience taught that a great governing nation
908
should allow constitutional steam to blow off rather than compress political gas. To show the intensity of the feeling of the people over the partition of Bengal, when the day arrived for its accomplishment hundreds of thousands went into mourning. No fires were kindled, no shoes or stockings were worn, and only a loin cloth was wrapped round the body. The constitutional party held over one thousand meetings to protest against the partition. The request was this, and it was made to day—
"Even if you cannot give us back Bengal, give us some modification of the present position of affairs, so that we may not be a country cut in half."
It had been said that the agitators were a microscopic minority, but the House must remember that they appealed to a mighty host. They must recollect that these educated and advanced men who were using constitutional means to secure what they wanted, having been educated and knowing town life, went back to their native villages once a year. They were therefore acquainted with the condition of their people, and realised their needs. Indeed, there were no other people in India who had a greater opportunity of doing so. How much better it would have been if the policy which had been declared that night had been declared five years ago! It would have saved trouble and unrest. They had, he thought, to thank the Secretary for India for his timely and bold action. He would not speak further about Bengal, where the trouble had arisen from a certain governor publicly declaring in the form of an eastern allegory that he had two wives, and that as his Hindoo wife was sulky, he was determined to pay attention to his Mahomedan spouse. He also issued circulars instructing his subordinates in making appointments to give preference to Mahomedans, even if better Hindus were available. Taking their cue from their master, the Mahomedan officials openly showed partiality and spoke disrespectfully, and mischief had been done which it would take a generation to put right. Then there was the great fact of the poverty of the people. Lord Curzon had slated that the average native income was 40s. per annum and the taxation 3s. 6d. per head. The death rate was also terrible. In forty years there had been ten famines

909
which had killed 15,000,000 of people, while plague had carried off 55,500,000. In 1884 the death rate was twenty-four per 1,000, in 1894 it was thirty, and in 1904 it was thirty-two. To-day 50,000 a week wore dying from plague. The ignorant people thought there must be someone to blame, and they therefore accused the Government. For these: reasons he earnestly hoped the Government would grant their request for an inquiry. He hoped the result of these discussions would be to show the people of India that they had the full sympathy of the people of this country.
*DR. RUTHERFORD: seconded the proposal. Although, he said, the noble Lord thought they would do some injustice to the cultivators, he was grateful to tie Secretary of State for reducing poppy cultivation. The cultivators had a time limit, extending up to ten years, and surely during that time they could arrange their affairs, and take up the cultivation of other products. Then the noble Lord was afraid that the Indians themselves were opposed to this step as they had not been directly consulted, but Mr. Gokali, who was an Indian member of the Viceroy's Council, had said that his fellow countrymen were in favour of the abolition of the opium traffic. This was a great moral issue, because it was a trade which was degrading this country in the eyes of the world, and they rejoiced that the stigma was going to be removed from the nation. As to the plague, they felt a thrill of horror run through the House when the appalling figures were mentioned by the Secretary of State. He said there were 641,000 deaths for a third of a year, but he did not mention how that state of things affected particular provinces. For instance, in May there were 80,000 deaths a week, 50,000 of which were in the Punjab In the Punjab as in other parts of India whole villages had been swept away. The angel of death, grim and greedy, lifted the latch of every house, and carried away all the residents. The villages were converted into silent sepulchres and catacombs, and the desolation was far beyond the imagination of anybody in that House. What that meant to the Indian people was at all events beyond his powers of description. Tears, mourning, and wailing everywhere.
910
They had now to acknowledge that plague was a preventable disease. It had been exterminated in most countries of the world, and it was only in India that it had such a tremendous effect because the Indian Government had not taken adequate steps to meet it. Ten years ago, Professor Simpson, one of their medical officers of health, advised that they should have a sanitary army, and that it should be composed of Indians so that there should be no degradation of Indian homes by the entrance of foreigners, to see that the sanitary requirements were carried out. The Royal College of Physicians two years ago presented a memorandum to the Secretary of State urging these sanitary reforms. They had no sanitary army, and although it would cost a considerable amount of money the work should be undertaken. The Lancet recently emphasised the seriousness of the situation by saying—
"It seems to us that every thoughtful citizen will agree that motives of political expediency call as loudly as those of humanity for action."
It added—
"It is doubtful whether the Government of India has ever realised its grave responsibility in this matter of plague, and it cannot be congratulated upon having awakened to it even now. It is not oriental procrastination or slow formulation of schemes, but action that is required; not resolutions of which there have been many, but money and machinery."
He trusted the Government and the Secretary of State would move the Government of India in that direction. As to the partition of Bengal, he believed it was the unalterable opinion of the people of Bengal that it was a deliberate blow aimed at their national life and their political aspirations. He would regret if the Secretary of State did not see his way to remedy that grave injustice, and he thought it was not too late. The step had never received the sanction of the House or of Bengal, and it was essential for the peace and prosperity of British rule in India that the wrong should be remedied without delay. He was torn by his conflicting allegiance to the charming personality of the Secretary for India and Liberal principles. The Secretary for India always commanded his profound respect, but he felt that the greatness of this country depended upon its devotion to great principles and particularly to the principle of liberty. He

911
had always looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as an apple of gold in a filigree of silver, but he was afraid that through the Secretary of India's coercive measures they were losing the brave, strong, valiant champion of freedom that the right hon. Gentleman had always been. The Ordinance of 1818 under which the right hon. Gentleman proceeded was the direct negative of all law, for it permitted arrest and deportation without trial. The action of the Secretary of State brought contempt upon British justice not only in India but throughout the world. Lala Rajpat Rai, who was deported, was a distinguished citizen, occupying in India a position as moral teacher tantamount to that filled in this country by the late Dr. Martineau. Agit Singh was only a little over twenty, whose youth should be taken into consideration. What he felt was that these men should be tried. There were Judges in India in whom both the Indians and the people of this country had confidence, and the question was why were not these men tried? The Secretary of State had said a prosecution would have advertised them. That was exactly what a prosecution should do, advertise the wrong a man had done and the punishment meted out to him in consequence. Would that not be better than banishment? The effect of the banishment of Louis Kossuth and Joseph Mazzini only strengthened the hands of the movement for Hungarian and Italian liberty. He and others had no desire to defend the authors of inflammatory speeches, but they felt that a serious mistake had been made in banishing these men without a civil trial; that such an action would tend, if they were not revolutionary before, to make them revolutionary now. The conflict in India was the counterpart of that in Russia, a struggle between the intellectuals on the one hand and the bureaucrats on the other, and we did not hesitate to use fierce language in denunciation of the Russian bureaucracy. After all, the intellectuals of India were fighting a good, honourable, and righteous cause if they would only keep to constitutional methods, and he hoped they would keep to constitutional methods, and that the outcome would be that they would win greater freedom and justice for their country. He regretted that the Secretary of State had found it necessary to repress the Press. That he
912
believed to be a great danger to law and order in itself. If there was to be repression of the Press the right hon. Gentleman had better turn his attention to some of the newspapers in this country. Much of the Press of this country, particularly the Conservative Press, was playing the part of mischief makers in India. It was lacking in the spirit of truth, mercy, and justice, and made charges of ignorance and unfitness. Calling the people rebels and levelling such epithets at the Indian patriots as sedition-mongers and rebels, was not likely to soothe and calm them. Yet how futile it all was. How was the right hon. Gentleman going to prevent Liberal newspapers going to India? Was he going to try and prohibit that? Was he going to try and stamp out the national influence which these papers might have in encouraging the young people in a good, wise, and proper course? The cruellest act of all was the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the students in the colleges and their teachers. It was a great humiliation to the present democratic House of Commons, which had been committed to this course of action without it being discussed. It was a dreadful thing to see the doyen of intellectualism in this country adopting the methods of Russia in this respect. The Secretary of State had better try to stop British history being taught in the schools in India. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thought it would be wise to keep the Bible out of India. He know no book more subversive of empire. The right hon. Gentleman had entered upon an unwise course, and he hoped he would retrace his steps and establish freedom in all its fulness, so that if a man did commit a crime or a political wrong he should be brought before a judge and have a fair trial. In this connection he would like to quote what the right hon. Gentleman himself said on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill of Ireland—
"Coercion will have the inevitable effect—and I believe you know it in your hearts as well as we know it—by reason of the traditions and the strongest passions in Ireland, of throwing the whole sentiment of the country against your remedial legislation, and giving strength to what you are pleased to consider a lawless organisation. ["National Congress. National League."] Anybody can pass a Coercion Bill. But it is not anybody who can undo the mischief which Coercion Hills have often done, and which this Coercion Bill will do more than

913
any of the others. It is because we believe that it will do none of this good which you anticipate, and that it will do enormous and irreparable mischief at a critical moment in the relations between England and Ireland, that we protest against it.''
He protested against the policy which had been adopted in India. He felt that it was out of accord with the justice, wisdom, and honour of the English people. As Carlyle said, injustice paid itself with frightful compound interest, and he feared that that might happen in the present case. They wanted to avoid a mutiny, but were they not rather sowing the seeds by their action? He protested against the way the House had been treated in the matter. They were trustees for the people of India, and yet at a critical time their sanction to serious steps was not invited. He supposed it was part of the pathology of Empire. The restriction of liberty in one part led to the restriction of liberty at home. It was the same as when the late Prime Minister was in power, discussion was burked, the Executive was exalted and the House was humiliated. He thought the Secretary of State should have consulted the House by moving the adjournment himself before adopting the repressive recommendations of the Government of India He was glad there was to be a Royal Commission, and he hoped no man tainted with officialism would be made chairman of it. The policy of reform was a step in the right direction. India had been waiting for a long time; it had been treated with a cruel reaction by the late Government, and it was time this Government showed it was capable of acting liberally. He was glad there was going to be some reform. It was neither wide nor extensive, but it was the opening of the door to better things. The Viceroy's Council was to be increased, and he hoped its functions would be extended. But the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing about what was equivalent to the Cabinet of India. He thought it was time Indians were trusted in the very highest Departments of the government of their own country. It was time there were one or two Indians on the Viceroy's Executive. He would like to see half the Council of the Secretary of State, which was only an advisory body, consisting of Indians. The Secretary of State would have the wider knowledge that these men brought of the great
914
affairs of India. The right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned anything about the municipalities, in which he hoped there was to be some alteration. Under the benign influence of Lord Ripon Calcutta had seventy-five members on the municipal Council, of whom fifty were elected and twenty-five were nominated, Lord Curzon took, in his opinion, a false step when he reduced the elected members of the body to twenty-five. He hoped that the Secretary for India would establish the principle of public election in its entirety in all the municipal and provincial councils throughout India. They knew what the present Government had done in that direction. It had given to South Africa, to the late republic, self-government, and they believed self-government to be the secret of success in all countries. They welcomed the advance that had been made, and they trusted that the advance would be still greater before this Bill became an Act of Parliament, and that India would look with greater hope and greater joy and greater love towards this country, and the union be cemented, not in fear, but in love and good will.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'that,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'this House, whilst affirming the imperative necessity of maintaining peace and order in India, is of opinion that an inquiry by means of a Parliamentary Committee or Royal Commission should be instituted into the causes at the root of the dissatisfaction.' "—(Mr. George Hardy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. A. E. W. MASONsaid the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had given many reasons for the course which he proposed, namely, that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the dissatisfaction in India. He was glad that the hon. Member had given as one of the reasons of the unrest which undoubtedly existed, the fact that there was a political agitation. He was glad to know that, because he supposed that everybody in the House had received a circular making a sincere appeal to put the good of the Empire above Party. In his speech introducing the Budget the right hon. Gentleman

915
the Secretary for India had given a very so earn warning. In the circular to which he referred, there was no allusion from beginning to end to a political cause for the unrest. It was entirely attributed to the land revenue of India. But the explanatory Memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman, in one important and essential particular absolutely contradicted the statement in the circular. It would be seen that the land tax had increased by 30 per cent. in nineteen years, and that a tract of country, which fifteen or sixteen years ago was absolutely waterless and uncultivable, had been brought into a state of high cultivation, and supporting 800,000 people. The hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division had admitted that there were political causes for the unrest, and it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman had given a very good reason for opposing the Amendment when he told them that a successful agitation would be regarded as an opportunity and a ground for further agitation. He did not think that the carrying of the Motion would be regarded in any other way in India than as a proof of the success of the agitation and of the fear of the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman had delivered a very solemn warning about the disasters which such a belief would inevitably entail. The mover and seconder of the Amendment had spoken of the objects which the political party in India had in view, and it seemed to be suggested that freedom and equality were really their aims. They had spoken as though the agitators were really looking after the future prosperity of India. He thought it was right to put before the House a somewhat different view. He could himself find no evidence whatever that those who were most prominent in the political agitation in India were concerned for the relief of poverty in India. So far as one could find out they were seeking to obtain the satisfaction of a very natural ambition, the ambition of self-government. A certain Mr. Benip Chondra Pal had been quoted in The 'Times only a few days ago. From what appeared in that journal rather a lurid light was thrown upon the object of this political agitation. Mr. Pal said that the agitators were to contemplate with absolute equanimity increased distress among the Indian peasantry for a generation, because Mr.
916
Pal believed that perpetual good rule on the part of the British Government destroyed and crushed the desire for self-government, which it was chiefly his aim to extend When they saw the aims which the agitators had in view he did not think the House could have any great sympathy with them, or believe that they would in any way promote prosperity and peace in India. Mr. Pal looked forward to a complete boycott of English capital and English good, to the keeping of the English out of the country, to self-government without the ægis of English rule, and to a very heavy prohibitive protective tariff on all British goods coming into that country. He doubted if the majority of the House would regard such a prohibitive tariff as likely to be a boon to the Indian peasant. It was fair that they should realise what were the objects definitely put forward in India by a leader of the movement, and the aims they had in view. When he heard proposals for self-government thrown out in that casual way, he wondered how any man could forget that there were other people in India also with a natural ambition. They had spoken of the natural ambition of educated men for self-government. Everybody admitted at once that the movement for self-government was a natural ambition on the part of educated men. He asked the House to remember another class of people, not educated, up in the hills, who also had a natural ambition-the ambition of conquest. Between the hills and the plains, arresting the almost invariable practice or rule of history, stood the British power. If the gentlemen in India desiring self-government without the ægis of English power obtained their end, he thought that what the right hon. Gentleman had prophesied as a very dire result would come about in an exceeding short space of time. In every problem of Indian affairs the tribes beyond the frontier must become increasingly burdensome. They were accustomed by their traditions to come down to the plains. It was the sole-place for the surplus population of Afghanistan. He believed that last year 31,000 crossed over from Afghanistan into the hill districts from which the only outlet was to the plains; and we were the only power which stood between the hill tribes and the people of the plains. At the present time many of them came

917
down to Bombay. When he was on the frontier he was told that of one particular tribe of 2,000 men, 700 or 800 were in Bombay serving in factories or finding their emoluments by the help of derided British capital. The right hon. Gentleman who had brought in the Budget had warned them that their proceedings in that House were overheard everywhere, and he would like to make a suggestion—he did not know whether it would be carried out, but he believed it would be of some use, because the papers at home and in India and everywhere unintentionally did a great deal of harm. In that House, for instance, out of sixty or seventy questions one would be asked in regard to India, and the answer would occupy about ten seconds of Parliamentary time; but that question and its answer would appear in the Indian newspapers as the only item of Parliamentary intelligence. It might be a question referring to the agitation, and the agitator would be flattered by the idea that he was occupying the whole attention of the House, whereas, in reality he had occupied only ten seconds out of proceedings lasting eight hours. He thought that in future some arrangment should be made by which, at all events, in our self-governing colonies, some sort of official précis would be issued through some press agency. It would enable matters to fall into proper proportion in the history of the day's Parliamentary proceedings, and be of great advantage to the Empire as a whole. Returning to the policy of the agitators in India, he thought that when the House compared their aims with the policy enunciated by the Secretary of State for India they would not be inclined to sympathise with the agitators at all. In the reduction of the salt tax and in measures of irrigation there was evidence of a definite and distinct desire to promote prosperity in India, and those efforts indicated very great sympathy, not only on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but, he was sure, on the part of the Governors-General and of all those capable men whose prestige was bound up with the successful handling of the difficult machine of government in India. They would find in these men greater sympathy with the poor and distressed population of India than among the ambitious and educated men who were carrying on this agitation.
*MR. O'GRADYsaid that at the present moment they were discussing the Indian Budget under a totally different set of circumstances from those which obtained upon the last occasion. Everyone knew that there was a state of unrest at present existing in certain parts of India During the whole of last session, and the present session up to a certain point, hon. Members had been trying to impress upon the Government that there was growing unrest in India, and that if it was not tackled it would develop into a very serious concern. That state of things had come about, and what had been the action of the Government in regard to questions on the subject? The reply of the Government had always been an absolute denial that there was anything of the kind existing in India. Upon this point he would like to quote the reply of the Secretary for India to a supplementary question put to him by the hon. Member for Gravesend last session, who asked in regard to the alleged hooting at Europeans at Lahore—
"Whether this incident was to be attributed to the general unrest in India."
To this question the Secretary of State for India replied—
"No; he did not believe it had the slightest connection with what the hon. Gentleman was pleased to call the general unrest in India, as to which he was rather sceptical."
That answer must have been given because the officials in India had not been supplying correct information to the Secretary of State. Were they going to allow their affairs to be carried on by a group of officials who either would not or could not give them correct information? He thought it was quite time the matter was fully inquired into. Ho did not dispate the honesty of Indian officials, but from the very nature of their occupation they were isolated. Their duties were continually increasing and they were gradually getting out of sympathy with the people. Last session he asked the light hon. Gentleman a question in regard to a statement made by Sir Andrew Fraser in a speech before the Asiatic Society of Bengal, in which he stated that—
"At the present moment Anglo-Indian officials know considerably less of the people than the officials of old."
Looking at the thing from the broadest point of view he should say that the

919
statement made by Sir Andrew Fraser was correct. He wished to put this proposition to the House. Supposing he had handed his business over to be conducted by other people and it was not correctly carried on, the course he would adopt would be to write out their discharges immediately. He thought some inquiry ought to be made into this matter. Not long ago when travelling to Swansea in a railway train, there happened to be in the same carriage two officials, one of them from the Straits Settlement and the other an Indian official. They began to talk about how they got on with the native population, and one of them replied "Very well indeed, but of course you want to treat them as you would treat an animal you love; you want to be severe to them in order to be kind." One of them condemned in the strongest possible terms the natives acquiring an English education, because he said that if the natives were educated the position of the officials of India would become intolerable. That struck him as verifying what Sir Andrew Fraser had stated before the Asiatic Society. The Amendment asked for an inquiry into the causes of unrest in India. What were those causes? He should say that first of all there was poverty; then there was famine, plague, ignorance of the masses, excessive taxation, and certainly the discouragement of executive ability. What were the facts in connection with poverty? He had previously stated that the total income per head of the Indian people, including the salaries of the Viceroy and the whole of the officials in India, the Native Princes, and the great traders and merchants, amounted to £2 per head per annum. Mr. Wm. Digby had put the amount down at £1 per annum. If those figures were correct it was a lamentable state of things, and if they were incorrect there was all the more need for inquiry. After all, the question of famine and plague was in the main a question of poverty. If the poverty of the common people of India was not so abject they would be better able to resist plague, and consequently plague was largely the outcome of poverty. Upon the question of famine and plague he would like to quote the figures issued by the hon. Member for Walworth. There had been two famines in the Punjab in the last ten years.
920
During the last five years the Punjab had been swept by plague. This year no less than 52,000 persons died in a single week in that province. That would prove his proposition that after all plague was but a poverty disease. Again it has been stated that—
"During the first four months of this year the plague victims throughout India numbered 495,000, an increase on the previous worst record (1904) when the total reached 1,022,000.''
But the case was more gloomy still, because the right hon. Gentleman had said that the deaths during the first four months of this year amounted to 626,000. He could not contemplate those figures with equanimity, and on those grounds alone, quite apart from what he had already indicated, there was an absolute need for inquiry. With regard to the ignorance of the masses of the people, he thought hon. Members would agree with him that no country could develop along right lines if the people were steeped in ignorance. It was a fact that an average of only 2¼d. per head was spent on education in India. Last year there were 18,000,000 boys in India of school age and only 3,500,000 were attending school. The Government ought to consider the advisability of adopting compulsory primary education, and he thought something might also be done not only for primary but for technical education as well. With regard to excessive taxation, he would like to quote the reply of the Under-Secretary for India to a question by the hon. Member for Walworth, in which he admitted that the land tax in India was 50, 60 and in some cases 65 per cent. of the net profit to be assigned as the Governments share to land revenue. They grumbled in this country at having to pay 1/- in the £income tax, but if the figures he had quoted were correct the Indian agriculturist had to pay over 10s. in the pound of their income in taxes. That position of things had now become almost intolerable. With regard to the discouragement of executive ability, he thought it would be agreed that the natives of India were equal in intelligence and ability to those belonging to any other race, and yet on every possible executive concern of their country the native was debarred from occupying any official position. They had asked again and again that one or two natives should be admitted to the Viceroy's Executive Council.

921
Some hon. Gentlemen appeared to think that that claim should not be put forward in view of the fact that India was an Empire in which there were many races, speaking different languages, and holding different religions, and also caste distinctions, it being believed that the natives themselves would object, and that they would prefer Europeans on the Council rather than men who possibly spoke a different language from themselves. What was lost sight of was the fact that there was a growing national life in India gradually breaking down the barriers of caste and creed, and Indians would not be satisfied until they had representation in the Executive Council. Another matter that he desired to bring before the attention of the House was the unfortunate riots at Commilla. These he attributed to causes having their origin in the colossal blunder of the Viceroy in partitioning Bengal. The Mahomedans thought that something had been conceded to them, and they construed it as a licence to do as they liked. He had asked Questions on the matter, and he regretted to say that they had not been satisfactorily answered. The Nawab of Dacca went down into the locality, and held pro-partition demonstrations for the purpose apparently of showing his loyalty but, like the player Queen in Hamlet, he protested his loyalty too much; it was said that somebody threw a brick at him. That charge afterwards dwindled down until it was said that only a stone was thrown. He spoke subject to correction by the right hon. Gentleman, but it was reported that the Mahomedans, after the change in the administration, maltreated the Hindu traders, strewed their goods about their shops in the bazaar, and committed acts of common robbery. However that might be, the fact remained that as the result of the partition of Bengal great religious disturbances took place. The gentleman he had named went back to the Viceroy's Council and talked of the reign of King Demos being ended, and had the temerity to use these words—
"We only appeal to the Government to put down with a firm hand every attempt to sow the seeds of disaffection, and to seduce the people from their faith and belief in your Excellency's Government."
Personally he thought that gentleman was the greatest agitator in the whole
922
of the unfortunate disturbance. On the question of the riots alone there was need for inquiry. He came to the most important part of what he had to say, namely, the arrest and the deportation of Rajpat Rai and Ajit Singh. The light hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way to apologise for the circumstances under which the arrest was made.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no, he did not apologise.
*MR. O'GRADYsaid that was a matter of opinion. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did. What were the facts in connection with that matter? In his judgment the arrest was a mistake. Rajpat Rai was perfectly honest in his views, and was in no sense a revolutionary. He was an ordinary land reformer, such as we had in this country. What was the part of the agitation in which he was supposed to be concerned? First of all there were letters and articles which appeared in the Civil and Military Gazette. The prosecution of the Punjabee—the Colonisation Bill, the Land Alienation Act Amendment Bill, the increase of canal rates on the Bari-Doab Canal, and the appalling mortality from plague—these were the points of a perfectly constitutional agitation and ought to be taken notice of by the Government. He wished to point out that there was absolutely no connection between Rajpat Rai and Ajit Singh. He admitted that Rajpat Rai might have been indiscreet, but let any hon. Member attempt to throw the first stone on a matter of indiscretion. After all there had only been two meetings at which Rajpat Rai and Ajit Singh had appeared on the same platform. If those facts were correct, they entirely disposed of the statements made as the reason for the arrest and deportation of Rajpat Rai. There was not a single line in the Regulations of 1818 that would justify the arrest and deportation of Rajpat Rai for the agitation in which he was engaged. When he was arrested he should have been specifically charged and given a fair trial. He felt sure himself—and the feeling could not be removed until he heard something more definite than the right hon. Gentleman had given in the way of evidence—that a trial would have proved up to the hilt wh he had attempted to convey to the

923
House, that Rajpat Rai did not preach sedition, and that he was engaged in ordinary constitutional agitation for the removal of undoubted grievances and for land reform. The right hon. Gentleman in his arrest of Rajpat Rai had in principle justified every tyranny committed by Dublin Castle or the Russian Autocracy. He could not understand an act of that kind on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in view of his past record. He was astonished that the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench should have got up and said that the right hon. Gentleman had done the right thing. He was profoundly dissatisfied with the proposals of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were extreme difficulties in the way of their doing what they would like to do. It was for statesmanship to overcome difficulties. There did not exist a difficulty in the whole world which could not be overcome by the application of human ingenuity, wisdom, and brain power. He knew that the difficulties were great, but he and his friends did not ask that complete self-government should be conceded to India, but that some measures should be conceded which would lead up to the larger policy of self-government. There was only one alternative to revolt, and that was self-government. The whole feeling of the world to-day was in the direction he had indicated. Persia was granting self-government, and Russia had been compelled to grant some form of self-government; therefore they could not expect the large number of the intelligent and intellectual people of India to be content with the present state of things. Their desires and aspirations were legitimate, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to grant the inquiry now asked for.
*MR. SMEATONsaid it was rarely that he differed from his hon. friends the Members for Brentford and Leeds, and he greatly regretted that in one very important matter under discussion he could not agree with them. He had had personal experience in every province of India with the exception of Madras, and speaking from that experience he felt compelled to differ from what had been said by his hon. friends as to the application to the Punjab of the Regulation of 1818. He himself
924
had had to enforce that Regulation and another Regulation of a local character on the same lines, and he had seen its effects as well as its defects. The crisis in the Punjab he had never regarded as anything but a passing crisis, but he was of opinion that the most merciful and most effectual way of terminating that crisis was to use the means afforded by the Regulation of 1818—and let it be remembered, it was the law of the land "broad based upon the people's will." The two agitators who had been deported had gone about the country tampering with the loyalty of the people and (in the case of Ajit Singh at least) with the loyalty of the troops, and, in the opinion of all those who knew India, as well as of the people of India themselves, that was an intolerable public wrong. It was an unwritten but customary law in the village communities of India that the executive authority represented by the headman and elders should have power to expel or prevent the entry of any undesirable character. Such a law had existed for 2,000 years in India, and the Regulation of 1818 was based on the transmission of that power from the village headman to the executive of the State. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was wholly inexpedient to have State sensational trials, the incidents connected with which would be scattered broadcast throughout India to inflame further the passions that had been roused by the seditious meetings. He maintained, therefore, that power should always be held in reserve to prevent such a recurrence of events as had lately shocked all classes in this country, and he begged his hon. Friends not to forget that the reservation of this power was in the interests of the people and of the public peace, and designed to prevent lawlessness and outrage; it had been sparingly used, and only on occasions when in the public interest it was clearly demanded. In his experience of a similar Regulation in Burma he had invariably found that the communities affected had themselves urged or assented to executive deportation of the disturbers of the peace, with the result that peace was immediately restored. No colleague of his could ever say that he had not stood up for the rights of the people of India, even often to his own hurt. There was a population in India of nearly 300,000,000,

925
with a paltry British population of 170,000 or so, and the Executive were bound to have a reserve, in the last resort, in the shape of a Regulation like that of 1818 to prevent what might develop into a very serious crisis. The noble Lord the Member for South Kensington had objected to the method of the Secretary of State for India in enlarging the various Legislative Councils, including the Supreme Council; and his Lordship appeared to advise that the various religious and semi-religious and social sects should be separately represented; that in fact the members should be selected from different religious denominations. That was exactly what they in India wanted to prevent. What they wanted was to harmonize the different religions and to exclude religious differences from the political arena in India as well as in this country; and he was disappointed to hear such reactionary opinions coming from the noble Lord. The noble Lord further deprecated free education, and seemed to say that it should be paid for, if given at all! By whom? By families who lived on l½d. a day! The only inference he could draw from such an utterance was that the noble Lord representing the opposite Party did not wish the poor of India to be educated at all! The noble Lord had referred to the question of opium culture, and appeared to blame the Government for reducing the area of cultivation of the drug, and said that he did not see how substitutes could be found for the opium crop. The noble Lord was entirely mistaken, and evidently did not know the circumstances of the country. He (Mr. Smeaton) knew the ryots thoroughly, and ho could say that they would be only too delighted to get rid of the cultivation of the poppy, but the reason why they continued to cultivate it was that they got advances from the Government upon the crop, and they would do anything to get an advance to enable them to pay their debts. The Motion on the Paper asserted the existence of dissatisfaction in India. He was aware that there was dissatisfaction, but be differed from the opinion of many of his hon. friends as to its causes. The causes of the present dissatisfaction and unrest lay deeper than had been described by previous speakers. He was sorry to say, but he said it with a full sense of responsibility, that the unrest was largely due to what he was bound
926
to call the maladministration of the late Government of India, the late Viceroy. The late Viceroy, Lord Curzon, unfortunately did not know, and never learnt, what kind of people he had to govern. He (Mr. Smeaton) admitted and appreciated the high ideals which, at the outset at least, Lord Curzon had set before himself. But he completely failed throughout, and particularly during the last half of his administration, to understand, and indeed on certain occasions resolutely refused to understand, the particular temperament of the people with whom he had to deal. There had been a long series of most regrettable incidents during the last two or three years of the late Viceroy's term of office, due largely to his own blundering; but they had had the effect of raising the temper of the people in India to a lever heat, of causing uneasiness and distrust everywhere; so that bitter dissatisfaction had been the heritage bequeathed by Lord Curzon to Lord Minto, the present Viceroy. That was the reason of the intense feeling of irritation which caused the people of India to view everything done by the Government as wrong. The first incident to which ho attached importance was the meretricious show in 1903—that Field of the Cloth of Gold—that Delhi Durbar. That incident shocked the people of India, because at the time 25,000 to 30,000 people were dying every week of plague, and millions of them were only recovering from famine. The National Congress pronounced a severe condemnation of that extraordinary pageant, and its condemnation found an echo in every village. Several of the Native Princes resented the way in which they were summoned, and the Ameer of Afghanistan (as the right hon. Gentleman had stated) point blank refused. The Official Secrets Bill and the officialisation of the universities were untimely measures and were quite unnecessary, and irritated the educated classes. The latter was regarded as an attempt to render education more expensive, and to prevent the poorer classes of the people from obtaining it. Then there came the destruction of the representative elective system on the Calcutta Municipality, followed by the invasion of Tibet. The latter event had had a much more far-reaching effect than had ever been understood in this country. There was not a native State in India which did not feel that its position and

927
safety were jeopardised by that invasion. It was an open secret that in consequence of it the Ameer of Afghanistan would not visit India during Lord Curzon's Viceroyalty. Then there were the extraordinary scenes in the Legislative Council. There were recriminatory debates and attempts to stifle independent statements of opinion. Then followed the refusal of the Viceroy, perhaps on bond fide ground, but it was difficult to say what they were, to receive a deputation of the National Congress. Lord Curzon declined to receive that deputation or to have anything to do with the very temperate and moderate representations of the Congress—a body which, whatever its other characteristics, could fairly claim to represent millions of the educated and law-abiding and loyal people of India. On what possible ground dared he refuse to listen to a deputation from such a body? Then there was the partition of Bengal, and—what was perhaps the worst sin of all—the speech delivered at the convocation of the University of Calcutta, in which the Viceroy compared most unfavourably the people of the East with the people of the West, and declared that the people of the East were unfit for government, and that the only people who were entitled to govern were the white people from the West. That speech was accompanied by vituperative epithets which deeply offended the people of Bengal, and were rebuked even by the English Press in India. All this culminated in the partition of Bengal. He differed from his hon. friends the Members for Nottingham and Walworth in the opinions they had expressed about the partition of Bengal. No doubt it was unfortunate and untimely, but he thought there were grounds for at least a redistribution of territory, and if it had not been for the extraordinary secrecy, if not trickery, with which the measure was consummated he was inclined to think that the partition, or rather the redistribution of the Province of Bengal might have been accomplished without raising the fierce resistance which it had now encountered. If there had been honest candour, a free interchange of opinion and a frank disavowal of all sinister intentions—had there been all these, and had not the partition been carried out away up in Simla out of reach of the people concerned—had these steps been taken,
928
he believed the partition would now have been effectually accomplished and the province would have settled down contentedly. But those steps were not taken, and the result was to excite combative and fierce resistance which would go on for some time. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had told them of the reforms which he meant to introduce, and parenthetically he might say that if only the Viceroy had had on his Executive Council at Simla an Indian gentleman when he decided on the drastic measure of deportation his hands would have been greatly strengthened throughout the country. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had been very well advised in those moderate measures of reform which he had adumbrated. The presence of one or two Indian gentlemen of experience on the Council of India in London would be a really valuable acquisition, and would act as a useful tonic to the Administration. As to the Advisory Council, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would go still further than he had done and would give to that Council a certain amount of independent authority, subject of course to a veto of the chief executive, and not confine them merely to the function of advising. If that were done he was convinced that there would be a much greater future in store for India than it had experienced in the past.
*MR. ELLISsaid the House had listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because the hon. Member spoke with first-hand knowledge, which was always more valuable than that which could be gleaned from papers. They had been treated earlier in the evening to one of those fascinating speeches for which the Secretary of State for India was noted and of which they now had too few. He was not certain if his right hon. friend would not be well advised if he lifted the curtain from what was in his mind rather oftener, and let the House and the public more into his confidence. He had listened with admiration, and on the whole with satisfaction, to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He sometimes wondered whether any of them realised the enormous magnitude, variety, and complexity of the problems connected with the government of India. Three

929
out of four of the King's subjects lived in India, and the two greatest cities in the British Empire after London were in India. The Secretary for State was not like other heads of Departments in this country. He was not merely the head of a Department of State, but he was the head of a State with a population of 300,000,000. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Home Secretary, and so forth. They were dealing that day with the Budget, which showed revenue £50,371,000, and expenditure £49,045.000, or a realised surplus of £1,326,000 on last year's figures. That was satisfactory. Turning to one or two items of revenue, he had listened with surprise to what the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington had said upon the opium question. A more belated speech he had never heard, and the noble Lord did not seem to have read up the latest information on the subject. He did not seem aware that the Viceroy had said in Council that this country could not follow behind the rest of the civilised world in this matter. His right hon. friend had responded to the request of the Chin se Government sympathetically, and they looked to him with confidence to see that the extinction of this traffic from India was carried out. He had listened also with some surprise to what the noble Lord said about the salt tax, because everybody who had looked into the matter even cursorily would know how the salt tax had eaten into the vitals of the poor of India. Leaving that aside, he turned to another aspect. He regretted very much to see £20,000,000 was down for military expenditure. It was of course a matter of policy, and nobody knew better than himself how strenuously and patiently the Secretary of State had set himself to curb and minimise the military expenditure. How fruitfully he had done so time would show. He regarded the £140,000 per annum for the expenses of the India Office here as a very large sum indeed, and his right hon. friend, he thought, might very well appoint a committee thoroughly to overhaul and sift that great establishment. He also thought a saving might be made in the cost of the stores department, which now amounted to more than £20,000 per annum. There was no question whatever but that there must be economy, but true
930
economy did not consist so much in cutting down the expenditure as in seeing that value was received for that expenditure. Turning to the remunerative expenditure he came to the railways of India. There were now 30,000 miles of railway, and they were building at the rate of 1,000 miles per annum. The importance of the railway system in India could not be overestimated, and he read with some regret the reply of his right hon. friend to the deputation which waited upon him recently to ask whether he could see his way to spend on construction and equipment of Indian railways at a more rapid rate. Of course, he was aware of the difficulties in the money markets, and that Indian finance soared into regions which only those at the India Office could adequately appreciate. As soon as opportunity afforded, he thought they might well spend £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 sterling on the further construction of railways in India. He could not use too strong words in condemnation of the complicated machinery of boards and committees now having the management of the railways in India, and he was glad that the Secretary of State had decided to have the subject investigated. Turning to irrigation, a capital sum of £28,000,000 had been spent on it, and the expenditure of that sum had resulted in the irrigation of 20,000,000 acres of Indian territory, which was not much' less than the area of the whole of England. In agriculture also we were assisting the Indian peasant. He believed in these three ways—railways, irrigation, and agriculture—we were undoubtedly raising the standard of comfort in India. After all, the root of the whole matter was sound finance. He was glad that at the Colonial Conference India's adherence to free trade had been presented and reaffirmed in such a masterly manner by Sir James Mackay on her behalf. Wise outlay, with true economy, was a vital element of good government in India as well as in this country. He did not forget that there were other things to be considered besides £ s. d. and rigid economy. Our influence in the East must be judged not only by the economical position of the people, but by their moral growth and general contentment. One who did not carry them out in practice wrote these strong words: "Moral failure alone

931
can shatter the prospect that awaits this country in the impending task of regenerating the East." The prevalence throughout India of peace and law and order was a very great and vital benefit; but when they came to education they were on rather more debate-able ground. He thought that in India we had made the mistake that we had made in this country—the education was too literary; it did not build up character. That applied to elementary education, for the young were not taught a trade; but it applied still more strongly to University education. He was afraid the scores of Indians who came to this country got little good from it. They got a smattering of Western notions; but many of them left our shores worse than they came here, and he looked with alarm upon this veneer of Western civilisation. With regard to the unrest in India, there as anywhere else, force was no remedy, and it was the bounden duty of those in authority to look into the causes of the unrest, and to see if they could apply a remedy to the root of the matter, rather than put a plaster on the outside of the wound. After all, the main difficulty in this constitutional matter was surely the great gulf there was between the East and the West. Westerns did not get to the bottom of the mind of the Oriental. He had been much struck, in this connection, with some words quoted in Lord Cromer's last report on Egypt—
"Those who have been in the East and have, tried to mingle with the native population, know well how utterly impossible it is for the European to look at the world with the same eyes as the Oriental. For a while, indeed, the European may fancy that he and the Oriental understand one another; but sooner or later a time comes when he is suddenly awakened from his dream, and finds himself in the presence of a mind which is as strange to him us would be the mind of an inhabitant of Saturn."
But that was no reason why we should not attempt the problem, and try to satisfy their legitimate and reasonable aspirations. That problem was how we, a democracy, were going to reconcile a more or less autocratic rule with the English notions of freedom and justice and liberty. He held very strongly that all really good government must contain some element of self-government. It might be a small element, but there must be the germ and the seed of it if they were to remain true to their principles.
932
He welcomed the reforms adumbrated by his right hon. friend, who, speaking with all the responsibility of his high office, had probably gone as far as they could expect him to go at the present moment. From the experience he had during twelve months at the India Office, and his long personal acquaintance with the right hon. Gentleman, he could trust the Government in this matter. The important matter was not the pace, but that the head of the ship should be in the right direction. They must suppress sedition and disorder with a firm hand; they must deal out to these different peoples and races in India even-handed justice. And they must set their faces steadily towards the promotion of all that contributed to the economic, material, and moral welfare of the country. They must religiously abstain from trying to impose upon the Indian people western ideals and standards with regard to religion, manners, and customs. The watchwords, "patience, justice, sympathy" ought to be their guides in this matter. When the Prince of Wales addressed the country at the Mansion House he spoke of sympathy as the keynote of policy. Of the three watchwords—patience, justice, and sympathy—he believed sympathy was the greatest. He thought Lord Minto had that fully in his mind, and he firmly believed that the cloud of the moment would pass away. The unrest in India was largely due, in his opinion, to the steps taken by the Government of India long before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose took office. He welcomed the assurance of his right hon. friend that the Government would not swerve from the path of reform. He had seen his right hon. friend day by day in the India Office, not sparing himself, effacing himself as far as the public were concerned, doing his level best and with great success, to turn the head of the ship in the right direction. He congratulated his right hon. friend on what he had already achieved, and assured him, on behalf of those whom he represented in the House, that he had their grateful thanks, and would receive from him as their Member the fullest measure of confidence and support.
*SIR H. COTTONsaid that he spoke with a sense of considerable responsibility for he had held office in India, and it was difficult for

933
anyone who had been so long associated with that country as he had been not to feel that an occasion of this kind was a critical one in its history. He regretted that the Secretary of State was not then present and had not heard recent speeches which had been made, because he thought that it would be beneficial and useful to him and to the Government if he was in closer touch with the Members of the House who interested themselves in India, and who, if he might venture to say so, were sometimes in a position to give him valuable advice. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman to a large extent was a very disappointing one. As to the Royal Commission to be appointed to inquire into decentralisation, he confessed that he did not understand that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He, for one, certainly did not know why it had been found necessary to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into decentralisation in India. The point was not gone into by the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks, and if the Under-Secretary was going to give any reply that night he hoped that he would give a little further explanation on this point. If it was intended to give further powers to local governments in India, then he heartily deprecated the appointment of the Commission. Local governments in India were all petty despotisms. He ought to know something of this. He had been a local governor in India himself. They were not officers responsible to the people, but to the Government of India. The control of the Government of India was an absolutely necessary provision, and they ought not to deprive the people of India of the right of appeal to the Government of India, which they always regarded as a great privilege and safeguard. If he had correctly interpreted the objects of this Commission, he could only say that he deprecated it thoroughly. The right hon. Gentleman implied that it was a Commission to do something to alleviate the unrest in India. He failed completely to see any connection between the unrest in India and this desire to give larger powers to the heads of local administration. The causes of unrest in India were obvious. Those who ran might read. We had extended education among the people of India; new ideas and new aspirations had arisen among them, and there was a
934
demand on all sides for a larger share in adminstration and government. Radical changes, they might be called revolutionary changes, were demanded by the educated classes in India. They had gone so far as to demand the introduction of representative institutions on the Western form of government; and that reminded him of a famous speech made in the House of Commons seventy-four years ago by one of the most brilliant Englishmen of the last century—Lord Macaulay. At that time the House took more interest in India than it did now. Before a crowded and sympathetic audience Lord Macaulay uttered the following memorable and prophetic words—
"It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown our system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may in some future age demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come, I know not. But never will I attempt to avert or retard it. Whenever it conies it will be the proudest day in England's history."
That day which Macaulay said would be the proudest day in the history of England had dawned. How had the Government of India, how had successive Secretaries of State welcomed it, and what encouragement had they granted to those concessions which the people of India demanded? What consideration had they shown for those annual gatherings which were held in India where the wishes and aspirations of the people of India were fully ventilated, and by means of which the fullest opportunity was afforded to the Government of becoming acquainted with the feelings and desires of the people? He referred to the annual meetings of the Indian National Congress, which had been ignored and treated with contempt. He knew something of the National Congress, for he had been offered the presidency of one of its meetings. He recalled the recommendation of his noble friend Lord Courtney, who advised that on going to India they should address the Viceroy, and communicate to him the resolutions they might pass, which would no doubt receive the most favourable consideration at His Excellency's hands. A resolution to that effect was accordingly recorded at Bombay, and he was instructed by the Congress to wait on the Viceroy and present

935
him with an address. He was told that he could not give this in, and that the resolutions were to be forwarded in the ordinary way by post. He forwarded them by post, and he received an answer from the Secretary to the Government of India as follows—
"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the resolutions of the National Congress forwarded with your letter dated "
so and so. That was the only recognition accorded to the educated opinion of India. Strange as it might seem to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that policy did not give satisfaction to the people of India. The only effect it could possibly produce on the minds of the people was to make them discontented, uneasy, and unrestful. He had quoted one instance; let him quote another. There was the question of the partition of Bengal. More than a thousand public meetings, attended by hundreds of thousands of persons, had made a protest against that partition. Had they received the smallest consideration, the smallest attention from the Government of India or the Government in this country? How many memorials had been presented to the Secretary of State, how many telegrams had he received from India? What action had the right hon. Gentleman taken? The people of India were flesh and blood like ourselves, and when they found themselves treated in this way their feelings were very much the same as ours would be if we were placed in a similar position. The educated classes openly and avowedly were drifting to the opinion that constitutional agitation was becoming useless, and asked why they should waste their time in annual congresses and memorials. Constitutional agitation having failed it was now being said, "Let us see if other measures will not attract a little more attention to our grievances." He could not but deprecate the present state of things. He had always urged the people to agitate on strictly constitutional lines, and personally he deeply lamented that there should be found an increasing number of educated Indians who regarded constitutional agitation as useless. That it was so there could be no doubt whatever. And it was these men who were the leaders of the present movement. The Secretary of State had missed a unique opportunity. If when
936
the right hon. Gentleman came into power he had only taken the trouble to look himself into the origin and source of the trouble in Bengal and had thoroughly examined it, he would have found that it was entirely due to the unfortunate partition of the province, and if he had only reversed that partition or modified it, he would have avoided all the troubles and the present regrettable situation in Bengal. Unfortunately, constitutional agitation produced no effect on him whatever. He regretted to see the state of things which had arisen in Eastern Bengal. Nothing like it had ever occurred during the thirty-five years he was there. He knew the people of Eastern Bengal. They were the most law-abiding and docile in the whole world. A child might lead them, and yet in that province there had been the most terrible disorder, riot, and bloodshed; robberies had taken place, and most belated measures had been taken in order to restore the semblance of peace and order in the province. That state of things was not creditable to the Government. It was sad to contemplate the state of Bengal now. The feelings between the people and the officials who ruled over them were quite different from what existed during the time he served the country there. The relations between the officials and the people of Bengal had become strained, and it was a common thing to hear the officials speak in language of the greatest bitterness in regard to the people over whom they ruled. That was a new feature, pregnant with misfortune in respect of British rule in India. He admitted that in the Punjab there had been some political excess, and he had no doubt that at the twenty-nine political meetings which had been held violent language might have been used. But he was convinced that the Government of India were unable to produce evidence implicating Lala Rajpat Rai with any of these seditious speeches. The Secretary of State had in his possession only general statements that Lala Rajpat Rai was revolutionary, that he was the leader of the political organisation, and the like. Lala Rajpat Rai was a religious reformer. He held a position in the Punjab somewhat similar to that of Dr. Clifford in this country. He was the leader of the most influential religious sect in the Punjab. Two years ago he came to this

937
country and was interested in the political life he saw about him; and on his return to India he identified himself with political as well as with religious propaganda. But he was a man with a sense of responsibility, and with a character and position at stake. He was a successful lawyer, a man of business, with property, and he had never identified himself with violent schemes or with any seditious movement. There were seditious people in India. From information he had received he had no doubt that Ajit Singh, who had been recently arrested, was guilty of grave sedition. He had delivered speeches at most of these twenty-nine meetings. There was nothing secret about the movement in India. Everything was public and above board. Ajit Singh had spoken at many of the meetings in a most seditious manner; he was not stopped. No notice was taken until the meeting in connection with the assessment of the RawulPindi district. After that there was rioting and he was arrested. He had no doubt fallen within the meshes of the law. He wished the Government had proceeded against him legally instead of by an exceptional measure. But Lala Rajpat Rai and Ajit Singh were wide as the poles apart. They were not properly described as captain and lieutenant. Ajit Singh was only twenty-three years of age; and it was unworthy of a great Government to invoke so drastic a Regulation against a mere boy. He had had practical experience of this Regulation and could tell the House how it worked. Twenty years ago, when he held the office of Commissioner of Police at Calcutta, he received a warrant from the Government of Lord Dufferin for the arrest of a Sikh gentleman who was expected to arrive from England, and the warrant was sent by him to an inspector of police for execution. The Sikh, on his arrival, was met by this police officer, who, under the guise of taking him for a drive, brought him to the police station, whence he was deported to a fortress. Not a line about what had taken place got into a single paper in India. Not a whisper was heard in the bazaars. The man was simply spirited away. Whether this Sikh gentleman was in the fortress now, or had died, or was released, he did not know. The incident showed how the Regulation of 1818 worked, a law of which any British
938
Government should be ashamed. It recalled the times of Richelieu and Mazarin and the pages of Dumas. The House of Commons was abnegating its functions with regard to India. The Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench had practically been empty during the debate. Such a state of things was a disgrace both to the present Government and the last. The House of Commons was the final arbiter in regard to Indian affairs. On the Ministerial Bench the Postmaster-General was present, but other Members of the Government had by their absence shown how little interest they took in India. The same was true of the Opposition Benches. He remembered that a right hon. Gentleman who sat on the Front Bench of the Opposition admitted colossal ignorance of India. That was probably true of both Front Benches then and now. He wanted to see a Committee of the House appointed as had been done in the past when Parliament really was interested in India. The reports of such a Committee appointed some years ago were invaluable. He remembered how the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy had once declared in the House that they were all Members for India. How far that was true or untrue they knew for themselves. He urged the Government to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the very grave and serious condition that had been described that day by the Secretary of State. Such a Committee was needed to reaffirm the responsibility of members for the good government of India. A Royal Commission would not produce half the good which might be produced by a Select Committee.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.)said he could assure the House that it was with feelings of very real diffidence that he ventured to reply on the debate raised by hon. Members. He was speaking at the box at which the right hon. Member the Secretary of State for India, who in language which he could not pretend to emulate, and with an eloquence which he could not hope to rival, had adddressed the House in a speech which was of great importance and which dealt with questions affecting India from a very high standpoint.

939
Whatever might be the opinions held by hon. Members, he was sure that there would be no disagreement as to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had put his views before the House. He himself suffered another disadvantage. He did not pretend to that local and lengthened experience of the administration of the Government which was possessed by many Members on both sides of the House. But he had such advantage as might be obtained by a close and sympathetic study of all the information in the India Office, a storehouse of treasure to every student of Indian affairs. The terms of the Resolution which had been moved by the hon. Member for Stowmarket asked for an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee or Royal Commission. There had been a certain number of examples of such inquiries in past years. He need not go back to the days of John Company. Since 1871 there had been several inquiries, not into the whole system of government in India, but into various portions of that administration. In 1871, 1872, 1873, and 1874 Select Committees of that House inquired into the finance and financial administration of India. In 1879 there was a Select Committee on the East Indian Railway Bill, in 1892 there was a departmental inquiry into the Indian currency, in 1893 there was another departmental inquiry, in 1894 there was a Royal Commission on Opium, in 1895 there was a Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, and in 1898 there was again a departmental inquiry into the Indian currency. Since the time when Parliamentary inquiries were held into the whole administration of India an enormous amount of annual information had been given to the House such as was not afforded to the House during the time when it was found necessary to hold those inquiries. The report on the Moral and Material Progress of India, the Statistical Abstract and Trade Tables, the Financial Statement of the Government of India, and the Administration report on railways would be read with interest. On nearly every point of administration in India which could affect the people of this country in the guardianship of India information was constantly afforded through the House of Commons. Reasons had been urged why this inquiry should be granted. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion laid
940
stress on the fact that there had been agitation in Bengal largely caused by the partition; that for a long time that agitation had been conducted on constitutional lines, and that only when constitutional methods failed was recourse had to unconstitutional methods. There was no man in the House who had right or reason to complain of constitutional agitation, but was the fact that the agitation had attained to unconstitutional methods a reason for granting this inquiry? He thought it might well be a reason for refusing a demand which they might otherwise be glad to deal with. Excuses had been made for the conduct of Mr. Rajpat Rai, but he thought that his speeches showed that if he had been indiscreet he had been deliberately indiscreet, if he had been headstrong he had been deliberately headstrong, and that a gentleman of his ability must have known what he was doing and was not carried away by excitement. It was said he was sincere. Nobody denied his sincerity, but it might take a form dangerous, not only to this country, but also to the country in which he lived; and, if he wished to promote an agitation of the nature he advocated, he must be prepared to take the risk incurred. There had been other gentlemen not so deliberately restrained in their language. Some had gone to the extent of deliberately preaching the assassination of Europeans. Such language would not be tolerated by the democracy in this country for a moment. He did not believe that to be the feeling or desire of the democracy in India, and it was the duty of the democracy in both countries to put a stop to such a state of things. The second reason urged for an inquiry was that there had been a great ravaging of India by the plague. No one could fail to sympathise with the people of India in the horrible infliction of plague which had fallen upon them. But that was not the hand of man; it was the hand of God. No man was more moved by the sufferings of the people of India than his right hon. friend. [An HON. MEMBER: Don't blame God for it.] Let them consider what the Indian Government had done to mitigate this misfortune. The subject had been engaging their attention. They had made careful inquiries, and had taken such measures as were within their power, and as the inclinations of the people

941
would permit. They could not press the people too much because that might rouse more dislike for the measures of relief than was likely to promote their success. The success of all their measures depended upon the co-operation of the people themselves. It was freely admitted that in some ways the executive which dealt with the plague wanted strengthening. They were prepared to supply native doctors acquainted with the habits and customs of the people, and sufficiently trained in sanitary science to cope with this great evil, and also to supply native assistants well acquainted with the measures to be taken for the relief of plague. One point greatly excited the interest of the people of India. They asked how it was that, while natives died in millions, Europeans died by single individuals. It was easy to understand how in the minds of an ignorant and easily excited population suspicion might be aroused by the disparity in the numbers who died. Scientific investigation had proved that plague was largely disseminated by the agency of rats, and of fleas which infested the rats, and it was a fact that rats were mostly found in native houses. A further cause of contamination was germs in the soil, and the natives, who walked barefooted, took up those germs from the earth as they walked, while Europeans were protected by their shoes. Laboratories were being widely established to meet all the demands for inquiry, and all possible means which human ingenuity could suggest and science could devise were being taken by the Government of India to cope with the evil. Passing to the suggestion that a cause of plague was the poverty of the people of India, he reminded hon. Members that it was almost impossible to prove the poverty or wealth of a country by the income per head; but some indication as to whether wealth or poverty was increasing might be obtained from the accumulation of wealth by trade and by the amount of credit which bankers and moneylenders were prepared to give to individual agriculturists and traders. Applying the test of trade he found that in 1902–3, the total trade of India, imports and exports, was £166,000,000, in 1903–4 it had grown to £199,000,000, in 1904–5 to £212,000,000, in 1905–6 to £214,000,000, and in 1906–7 to £229,000,000, so that there was an increase of trade of
942
£63,000,000 in four years. It was quite evident that a people whoso trade had grown in that manner could not be said to be growing poorer as years went by. He passed from that and gave the increase of cultivated land, not laying too much stress on the figures, because they varied from year to year. He took ten-year periods and excluded Burma. In 1884, the land under cultivation was something-like 161,000,000 acres; in 1894, the area under cultivation had gone up to 188,000,000 acres; and in 1904, the last year for which he had the figures, the cultivated area of India had gone up to 195,000,000 acres. If these two sets of figures were put together it would be seen that the cultivated land of India—and India was very largely an agricultural country—had enormously increased in area side by side with the extraordinary increase in trade to which he had referred. That was an indication—he did not wish to drive the illustration too far—it was an illustration of the general progress in prosperity of the people of India. He passed to the question of land revenue, upon which Members had spoken with requests for information. He did not suppose there was ever a more complicated system of land assessment for revenue than that which obtained in India; the multiplicity of races had led to a corresponding multiplicity of customs, and if his description was not germane, not applicable, to every province and every tribe, the House would understand it was the best summary he was able to give of a most difficult subject. The system of land revenue in India—and he thought that in this respect there was a good deal of misunderstanding among Members of the House who were not personally conversant with Indian customs—was practically this. Rent was paid by the occupier to the owner, and the owner out of that rent paid the land revenue, which was assessed at the highest at 65 per cent. of the rent, which was offically referred to as the net asset or the surplus. The occupier paid the rent to the owner, where the occupier was not owner, and the owner paid the land revenue, which at the very outside was 65 per cent. of the rent, and far more generally 40 per cent. and in a great many cases went down to 24, 25, and 26 per cent. The case of Rawalpindi was a little complicated by the fact

943
that since it was taken over from the Sikhs the district had been split up and divided, but, roughly speaking, its taxation was this, taking it as a typical case. When the Rawalpindi district was under the Sikh rule the land revenue raised by them amounted to ten lakhs of rupees. When we took over the district the revenue was reduced to seven lakhs, and so remained for twenty years. In 1884 the revenue went up to9¾ lakhs, and in 1904 rose to twelve lakhs, so that, using round figures, the assessment under the Sikh Government was ten lakhs and now had risen to twelve lakhs. The acreage had increased faster than the land revenue; so that, while the increase in the net revenue was about 20 per cent., the increase in the area of cultivation since Sikh days was at least 50 per cent. It would thus be clear to the Committee that in a district where so much had been heard about the iniquity of taxation the increase in the area cultivated would far more than cover the increase in the land revenue rents.
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid that. in answer to a Question, the Secretary for India had told him that the increase was 33 per cent. in the first twenty years and 25 per cent. in the second twenty years.
*MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEreplied that his comparison was with the assessments levied by the Sikhs. Since the first British assessment the increases had been as stated. The question was also complicated by the fact that the Rawalpindi district then did not correspond with the district that the Government had taken over. It was possible, however, that the assessment was too large for the means of the occupier. The right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe division had drawn attention to a fact which must be apparent to everyone who had followed the course of instruction undertaken by the Hindus who came to this country, and their experience when they arrived here. He did not think that the whole of their surroundings in this country were always the best that might be provided. He was not sure that they were always on the best terms with their European fellow students at the University. It was a subject that had occupied the attention
944
of his right hon. friend for some time, and though he could not say that any definite suggestions were actually under his notice, an inquiry had been instituted by him which they hoped might lead to a better feeling of camaraderie between Indian and European students at the University, and which he hoped would have a beneficial effect on their career when they came to be administrators. What the Secretary of State offered to the people of India was a great extension of local councils. The hon. Member for Nottingham had said that the only way to benefit the people of India was to accede to the demands of the National Congress. He differed from the hon. Gentleman entirely. The essence of all administration in India was to bring home to the people of each province that the Government which really controlled them was the Government which was in daily touch with their concerns. That consideration had influenced his right hon. friend to propose the inquiry into over-centralisation, and to that extent the Government and the supporters of the Resolution which had been moved were in accord. He wished to point out that the Resolution which was supported by his two hon. friends asked either for a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, and it was the second of those alternatives which his right hon. friend had accepted. In conclusion he wished to say that it was consonant with Parliamentary conditions to grant an inquiry, not into the general administration of India, but into a particular aspect of it. This inquiry was granted not because of unrest in India, or because there had been pressure in the House of Commons, but because his right hon. friend wished to bring homo to the different peoples of India that the people of this country desired so to manage their great heritage in India not only that their rule would be recognised as just, but that it should also contribute to the moral and material advantage of the people of both countries.
*Mr. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid that with regard to India ho was conservative as the people of India were conservative. The most successful Viceroy, the most clear-sighted and altogether the best in recent years was Lord Lansdowne, and he was very glad to say that Lord

945
Minto was following exactly on his lines, so that hon. Gentlemen opposite would see that he was prepared to treat India on an absolutely non-Party basis. When Lord Elgin left India, now some seven years ago, there was not only peace, but good humour. Lord Curzon when he landed was received not only by the Europeans, but by the natives in a most friendly manner. But that had all been changed within the last seven years while Englishmen had been thinking of South Africa and the Education Bill and other domestic interests. The Government of India had been in the hands of an able, kindly, and just man, for so he regarded Lord Curzon, but, unfortunately he was also a visionary and an autocrat; he was full of ideas; he was going to change this, and he was going to change that; he was going to be a sort of Haroun-Al Raschid, and the result was that he had fallen foul of pretty well everybody. He dismissed his Foreign Secretary and his Home Secretary, he drove the hon. Member for Nottingham out of Bengal and the hon. Member for Stirlingshire out of Burma. He started a number of crude reforms, and with the powers of an autocrat, he created a good deal of friction. But he knew that the noble Lord had had trials and he sincerely respected his feelings. He felt, however, that Lord Curzon had failed in India, and he had left behind him a heritage of trouble. [Cries of "No, no."] He regretted to say that it was true and even the British Army in India thought so. [An HON. MEMBER: It is not true.] What about the 9th Lancers? With the very best intentions Lord Curzon punished that gallant regiment instead of punishing the officers who neglected to investigate the murder. He was sorry to say anything unkind of Lord Curzon, but he was made to do so by hon. Gentlemen opposite who interrupted.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The 9th Lancers formed an escort to Lord Curzon at the Durbar.
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid he would turn to another question referred to by the Secretary of State for India. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks with regard to Lala Rajpat Rai practically meant that there was no evidence in the hands of the Government that he committed any offence, because, as a matter of fact, Rai had been careful throughout his career, though a strong and clear thinker, to proclaim his regard for the Government of England. These men knew that it would mean absolute ruin for India if the English Government were withdrawn. They regarded the Government of India with affection, the great mass of them, but they felt that now and then some acts of administration were unwise and that the pressure of taxation was more than the peasantry could bear. With regard to the Royal Commission on decentralisation, he agreed with the hon. Member for Nottingham; he thought it was a matter between the supreme Government and the local governments. But it did not touch the grievances of the people. Whether the Government had more decentralisation or less decentralisation was a matter of perfect indifference, and it in no way met the request of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House that they should really try to find out what was really worrying the people of India at the present time. One characteristic of the Indian character was that above all things he liked to have his case heard fairly. If his case was fairly heard he was often contented. Let them not talk about sympathy, but let them give proof of it. As to the Council of Notables, he thought that it was an admirable idea. He would be delighted that not only the Viceroy would have the advice of the great nobles of India, but that the Lieutenant-Governors and the Governors of India should also have the advice and assistance of leading Indians. As to the increase of the number of members on the Legislative Councils, he was afraid that he could not speak so much, because he thought

947
that the Indians were well represented at the present moment. It was quite true that they had not a majority, but he did not think that they could carry on the government of India if it was so. He did not see that there was much difference whether the Legislative Council was twenty or thirty, if the natives were always in a minority as they must be. There was no mention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech of the partition of Bengal. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman plainly that until there was a modification of the partition of Bengal there would be no peace in Bengal. At first the people of Bengal rejected any partition, but the hon. Member for Nottingham and himself had done their best to persuade the people of Bengal to accept partition, and in that they had succeeded. They were perfectly prepared to accept partition with a modification that would keep all the Bengali-speaking races under one government. It was a simple thing to do. They would have an intelligent arrangement with 45,000,000 on one side and 30,000,000 on the other. Why did they go on hurting the national feeling of these people? It was perfectly objectless. The only result was this intense bitterness which had grown up. The officials of India were in some cases self-willed bureaucrats, and they had resisted any modification of the partition arrangement. Only one Mussalman nobleman had supported the Government in their partition policy, and that man was a bankrupt who only a few weeks ago had to be provided by Government with a sum of money to pay his debts. The 16th of October was treated by the Hindus as a day of sorrow, and they showed their grief in every way they could. The Nawab gave a great dinner which was attended by the leading European officials. Was not that a shameful thing to do when the great mass of the people were showing their grief? It should be remembered that the Hindus numbered
948
230,000,000, and it should be the aim of the Government not to raise bad blood with them. He might be accused of stirring up sedition. He was trying to save the Empire from the greatest danger that could befal it, and that was an internecine struggle between the Hindus and the Mussalmans. If the present policy was persisted in the time was not far distant when the Hindus and the Mussalmans would unite, then the trouble would be greater than ever. The local officials had put in the Government Gazette that wherever there was a vacancy only Mussalmans should be accepted. That was calculated to cause as much discontent in India as if the local authorities of Ulster were to say that only Roman Catholics would be appointed to public positions in that province. The Secretary of State knew very little about India, and he did not blame him for taking the advice of the officials in the India Office. No notice had been taken of the petitions of the people of Bengal. To use the words of an Indian ex-Judge, "The door of British justice was slammed in the face of the people of Bengal." It had been said that the people of Bengal were slapped on the face with a shoe. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech last year said they ought not to hand over Indian administration to the supervision and criticism of the House of Commons. He thought that was wrong. The House was the arbiter not only in domestic but in Imperial affairs, and it would be false to its great traditions if it handed over so vast a population without supervision to a group of temporary officials, however able, however honourable, but possibly unwise.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
Adjourned at three minutes after Eleven o'clock

BARON HOOD.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Grosvenor Arthur Alexander Baron Hood of Gathering ton, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
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: —Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
London and North-Western Railway Bill—A petition of Messrs. Martin and Leslie, of 27, Abingdon Street, West-Minster, Parliamentary Agents, praying for leave to present a petition of the Middlesex County Council, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93, for presenting such petition has expire, read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered on Monday next, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
Colne Valley Water Bill [H L.] — Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H L.]. —The Order made yesterday for the commitment of the Bill, discharged.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill [H L]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H L]. —Committed for Tuesday next
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H L]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H L.]. —Committed.
The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H L.] —Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be road 3a on Monday next.
Canal Toll and Charges (New Junction Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Education Hoard Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, etc.) Bill [H.L] — Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Oregon Mortgage Company Limited, Order Confirmation Bill—To be read 3a on Monday next.
Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill. — Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Craven be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Viscount Ridley; read, and agreed to.

RETURN, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report and papers relating to the training. of teachers, for the year 1905–1906.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Statistical tables for the year 1906.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee—

  L. Muskerry.

  L. Montagu of Beau lieu..

  L. Ellenborough.

  L Brassey.

  L. Ampthill.

  L. Joicey.

  the Committee to meet on Monday the 17th instant, at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

LORD PLYMOUTH AND SMALL HOLDINGS.
*THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments in order to make a personal explanation with regard to a paragraph which appeared in a Paper recently issued by the Government referring to allotments and small holdings. I should like first of all to apologise to the House for not having been in my place on either of the two occasions when this question was raised by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. On the first occasion I was out of England, and on the second I had a long-standing important engagement in the country, and so was unable to be here. Therefore it is that I ask your Lordships' indulgence to refer to the matter now by way of a personal explanation.
The paragraph in this Paper to which I allude was extracted from an appendix to the Minutes of Evidence which were given before the Committee presided over by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, Lord Onslow. It appears at the top of page 13 of the Memorandum, and is as follows—

APPENDIX NO. XII
Report on the visit to various Small Holdings in Worcestershire, & c.
They (i.e. the Nail Makers at Catshill in Worcestershire) endeavoured to obtain land from a neighbouring landowner, but a rule on the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers; that was found insufficient.
What is the natural inference from that? I think the natural inference to be drawn from that statement is that a landowner in Worcestershire declined to cut up his lands into small holdings, and, moreover, made it a rule on his estate not to let more than one quarter of an acre to labourers.
The facts, briefly, are these. First of all I find on investigation that this application for land by the gentleman who gave the evidence occurred in 1889, or thereabouts, no less than eighteen years ago, so that it cannot be called up-to-date evidence. In the second place, it had no reference whatever to the whole of my estate, where I may say holdings have for a long time been encouraged, and are still encouraged but it referred specifically to
800
an isolated small piece of land, thirty-two acres in extent, at Catshill, inhabited by nailmakers, whose industry, I am sorry to say, is a decaying one. There was, and has been for a long time, a, large demand for garden allotments, and, in order to accommodate the greatest number of applicants possible, I have no doubt that in 1889 or thereabouts the answer was given to this gentleman that it had been found desirable on this particular piece of land of thirty-two acres to limit the size of holdings to a quarter of an acre. For fifteen years past, however, there has not only been no such rule on the estate, but there has been no limitation whatever on the thirty-two acres of land. On this piece of land there are now sixty-three tenants with holdings varying, I believe, from a quarter of an acre to three acres, by far the largest number holding a quarter of an acre, as it has been my policy to accommodate as many applicants as possible.
It is clear from these facts that if this case has any application at all in the present discussion and in the discussions that have taken place— and I confess I think it is a very remote one— it tells in exactly the opposite direction from that which is given to it in the Paper. It should, I think, really be quoted as evidence that a certain landowner in Worcestershire declined to allow his land for small holdings to be entirely absorbed by a few persons. We have been told that no attack upon landlords as a class was intended, but, in spite of this assurance, I am quite unable to persuade myself that the Worcestershire landowner whom I personify has not been very unfairly treated in this instance. My noble friend the Lord President of the Council—I am sorry the noble Earl is not now in his place, but I think I am referring correctly to what he said—protested against the Government being accused of unfairness in the compilation of this Paper; but I do think I have very good ground of complaint of the manner in which this extract has been made use of. An obscure portion of a paragraph of an appendix to a Blue-book was taken out in order, it appears, to justify a statement that had already been made, but I protest against this Laving been done

801
and a Worcestershire landowner being pilloried in this way without any further investigation
It is perfectly true that I am not mentioned by name, but that really has nothing whatever to do with the point. I have no objection whatever, nor has any noble Lord an objection, to being mentioned under these circumstances by name so long as the facts that are given are correct. I do not deny the accuracy of the evidence quoted. This gentleman may have asked at that time for more land than I was able to give him, but, after all, it is a common experience of us all to ask on some occasions for more than we can get. I think even His Majesty's Government know what it is to ask for more than they can get. I complain that this quotation as it stands in the Memorandum—and it is in very much larger type in this Paper, I may say in passing, than in the Blue-book from which it is extracted—set out with some pomp and circumstance, is exceedingly misleading and inaccurate; I complain that it is evidence eighteen years old, and therefore not up to date, and [submit that if it has any application at all in the discussion with regard to small holdings and allotments it tells in exactly the opposite direction from that which is given to it in this Memorandum. I thank the House for the indulgence they have accorded me in allowing me to make this personal statement.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am, of course, responsible for all that appeared in the Blue-book to which the noble Earl has referred, and more particularly for the, appendix from which this extract has been made. It is a report of a visit which I made, in company with other members of the Committee, to these particular small holdings in Worcestershire; and I think it shows how hard up His Majesty's Government must have been for evidence to support their case that they should have extracted this particular isolated paragraph. All that was said was that Mr. Ambrose Waldron, one of the tenants, and formerly a nailmaker, had stated—his evidence of course, could not be tested—that—
"they had endeavoured to obtain land from a neighboring landowner, but a rule on
802
the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers; that was found in sufficient."
When I saw the quotation I wrote at once to the Chairman of the Small Holdings and Allotments Committee of the Worcestershire County Council, Mr. Frank Smith. Mr. Smith was returned as a member of that council expressly on the platform that he would do all he could to obtain small holdings for these nailmakers, and I venture to say that if there is one county council in the whole of England that does not need the ginger which His Majesty's Government propose to apply to the county councils it is the Worcestershire County Council, and more particularly can this be said of the chairman of the Small Holdings and Allotments Committee of that council. Mr. Frank Smith sent me a reply, from which I will read to your Lordships an extract—
"They were put out as allotments, some of them, I think, as little as plots of one-eighth of an acre. This portion was put out by the present Earl's grandmother, Baroness Windsor, many years ago. It was and still is the cheapest allotment land in the neighbourhood. I do not think the rents have ever been increased since they were first fixed, when allotments wore not as valuable as they are now, nor so much thought of. I am speaking of thirty to thirty-five years ago, perhaps longer. The Birmingham market was very different then from what it is now, as well as the whole of our neighbourhood."
I leave it to your Lordships to judge as to how far this justifies the statement that there has been in all parts of the country a "blank denial" of land to those who sought it.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have only one or two words to say in reply to the speeches we have just heard, as I believe there is nothing before the House at the present moment. I must express regret that the letter from Mr. Frank Smith was not put into our hands previously, in which case there would have been no reason to put the information in question in the Memorandum.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The letter was the outcome of what appeared in the Memorandum.
EARL CARRINGTON: With the information now available I must

803
honestly say that I think the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, was quite justified in bringing the case before the House and making the statement to which we have listened. I do not think I need go again into the question of the alleged attack on landlords, the House having already generously accepted the statement of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who said that no attack was intended on landlords as a class. I am quite sure my right hon. friend Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had no intention whatever of attacking landlords. I will read to the House, from Hansard, what the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees said, on 25th April, in the debate on small holdings which was initiated by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Earl then said—
"The document deals with the Report of my Committee, and quotes this extract from my report on a visit to the small holdings in Worcestershire, viz.:—the men endeavoured to obtain land from a neighbouring landowner, but a rule on the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers.' "
That is not my statement. That is the statement of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. The noble Earl proceeded—
"I do not wish to mention names, but I may say that that landlord is Lord Plymouth. The ruling referred to is well known on the estates of many of your Lordships, but it does not follow from that that my noble friend Lord Plymouth was unwilling to let land in larger portions for small holdings on other parts of his estate."
Nobody has ever said that the noble Lord was unwilling. The only thing I quoted, and I accept the entire responsibility for it, was the statement of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees that the rule on the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers. I honestly think I was justified in bringing forward that evidence, which I thought was pretty strong evidence, and which had been already included in a Parliamentary publication on the authority of the Chairman of the Small Holdings Committee, who went down accompanied by two of his colleagues and got the information himself at first hand. Nobody regrets more than I do that there should be any unfair accusation against any Member of your Lordships' House,
804
and I protest against any charge being made against the Government that we have in any way strained anything or tried to take an unfair advantage against any noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to ask the noble Earl a question, but if he wishes for notice I shall be glad to repeat it another day. It is whether, having regard to the discussion of the other day, the personal explanation to-night, and the statement the noble Earl has made, he will not now favourably consider the propriety of issuing an amended copy of his Memorandum which will give not, as he says, an ex Parte statement, but a complete statement of the facts in question.
EARL CARRINGTON: I have answered that question before and my answer must be the same as before.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the Motion for the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, having moved the adjournment of the debate the other day I wish to say a word or two with reference to the Memorandum which has been laid on the Table and for which I asked. This Memorandum, I presume, is intended as an explanation of the contents of the Bill, but I would call the attention of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who is responsible for the Memorandum, to the fact that it does not correctly represent the contents of the Bill. It is stated in this Memorandum that—
"Any Provisional Order will require confirmation by Parliament, and the parties interested in the river will therefore, in addition to the consideration of their views by a Government Department, have as a further protection the right to petition against the Order and appear before a Committee."
From that, of course, one would naturally suppose that the Provisional Order would have to be presented, and that the parties objecting would have an opportunity of being heard, but that is not what is in the Bill. If your Lordships will look

805
at Clause 4 of the Bill you will see that it provides that—
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, if they consider that a prima facie case is made out by the applicants for the making of an order under this Act, shall hold a local inquiry (of which due notice shall be given) by an inspector or other officer of the Board, who shall report the result of his inquiry to the Board, and the, if satisfied of the propriety of making an order, shall prepare a draft, and shall once in each of two successive weeks notify the making of the draft order in some newspaper in general circulation within the area to which the draft relates, and the notification shall specify the place where copies of the draft can be inspected and obtained, and the time within which and the manner in which notices of objection to the draft are to be sent to the Board. The Board may, if they think it expedient, hold a local inquiry—
that is a second local inquiry—
"by an inspector or other officer of the Board with respect to any objections made to the draft order, and shall, after considering all such objections, and the report of the officer who held the inquiry (if any) thereon, settle the order."
That gives to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries absolute power to settle the Order in any way it likes. Clause 5 of the Bill proceeds—
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may submit to Parliament for confirmation any provisional order made by them in pursuance of this Act."
Then it is provided by Subsection (2) that if, while the Bill confirming any such Order is pending in either House of Parliament, a petition is presented against any Order comprised therein, the Bill, so far as it relates to such Order, may be referred to a Select Committee. But a person objecting to the Provisional Order will have absolutely no power in the matter. In the first place it rests with the Board itself as to whether a Provisional Order is introduced at all, and if it is introduced, the Board may place it before Parliament and Parliament may appoint a Select Committee. The noble Earl will sec that that is entirely different from what is stated in the Memorandum. I merely call attention to this now because in Committee, if nobody else does, I shall move the insertion of words to put that right.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think I can explain the matter to the noble Earl. The Bill will work in this way. Under Clause 3 there is an application to the
806
Board for a Provisional Order. Then comes a local inquiry, which is followed by the preparation and deposit of the draft of the Provisional Order by the Board, thereby affording opportunity for objection. Then there is a further local inquiry, if necessary, to consider objections.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But it is permissive.
EARL CARRINGTON: After that there is the completion of the Provisional Order and its submission to Parliament. Of course, if any objection is lodged the same procedure is followed as usually applies to opposed private Bills. I have spoken to the draftsmen on the point raised by the noble Earl. Though it is a little difficult to understand, if there is a Provisional Order the people concerned will be protected in exactly the same way as in ordinary cases. The provision that the Board may submit a Provisional Order to Parliament for confirmation secures that if they do submit a Provisional Order the parties are protected in exactly the same way as in ordinary cases.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: But supposing they do not?
EARL CARRINGTON: There is nothing new in this. It works out exactly on the old lines. But if the word "shall" were substituted for the word "may," as the noble Earl wishes, it would be compulsory to have a Provisional Order in all cases.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then the statement in the Memorandum is not correct?
EARL CARRINGTON: Yes, it is perfectly correct.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then I do not understand it, but I will raise the point when we reach the Committee Stage.
On Question, Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.