Sitting of 26 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Little Hulton Urban District Council Bill,
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till to-morrow.
Yorkshire Registries and Driffield Navigation Bill,
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill,
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill,
Rhondda Urban District Council (Tramways Extension, etc.) Bill,
Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 25th July, considered, and agreed to.
Bradford Corporation Bill,
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till to-morrow.
Fylde Water Board Bill,
Eastbourne Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 25th July, considered, and agreed to.
Southampton Corporation Bill,
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till to-morrow.
London United Tramways Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.] Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
Falkirk Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Highland Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Fraserburgh Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills,
Ordered, That, in the case of the Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords], Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords], Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords], Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords), and Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Berks, &c.) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bills have leave to sit and proceed to-morrow.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Sidlaw Sanatorium (Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Sidlaw Sanatorium," presented by the Lord Advocate; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered to-morrow.
Warrington Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A).
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, without Amendment:—
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm and give effect to an Indenture between the Llanelly Harbour Trust, the Urban District Council of Llanelly, and the Governor and Company of the Bank of England; to amend The Llanelly Harbour Act, 1904; and for other purposes."—[Llanelly Harbour Bill [Lords.]

HIGHWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B. Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow (Wednesday).
HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B. Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills. Bill to be taken into consideration tomorrow.
JURY TRIALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills. Bill to be taken into consideration tomorrow.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills. Bill to be taken into consideration tomorrow.
IMPORTS INTO UNITED KINGDOM.
Return ordered "showing, for each of the years 1900–1909, the quantity of the imports of the following into the United Kingdom, distinguishing the imports from each principal foreign country and British possession, and from foreign countries as a whole and British possessions as a whole, namely: (1) Pork, bacon and hams; (2) beef and mutton, including live cattle and sheep at their estimated meat equivalent; (3) wheat; (4) wheat flour; and (5) total of wheat and flour expressed in their equivalent in grain."—[Sir Albert Spicer.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  British Occupation of Egypt.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he was aware that the official statements that there would be no further progress in Egypt during the agitation in that country had aroused anxiety, and had been understood as meaning that the
  1916
  British Government would oppose during the continuance of that agitation all projected schemes for municipal self-government and autonomy; whether, having regard to the repeated assurances of Lord Cromer that the policy of the British Government was, in due course, to establish autonomy in Egypt, he would be able to give an assurance that no change in that policy would be produced by any agitation for other objects in Egypt; (2) whether the announcement made by Lord Granville in his circular to the Powers of January, 1883, that the British Government was desirous of withdrawing from Egypt as soon as the state of the country and the organisation of proper means for the maintenance of the Khedive's authority admitted of it, represented at the present time the attitude and policy of the British Government towards Egypt; and, having regard to the anxiety or apprehension entertained in Egypt that the British occupation of that country which began as a temporary occupation was designed to be permanent, he would state whether the occupation was regarded as still temporary in its character?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): In reply to these questions, I would point out to the hon. Member that my speech in this House on the 13th ultimo contained a full statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the affairs of Egypt. I have nothing to add to that statement.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Am I to understand from that speech the policy is to retain Egypt and that the declarations made in 1883 are now null and void?
  Sir E GREY: I noted that very point in my speech last week if the hon. Member will read it and study it.
  Mr. MacNEILL: The people of Egypt will read it and understand.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether, having regard to the anxiety and apprehension entertained in Egypt lest the British occupation of that country which was originally temporary should be other than permanent, he will make any statement calculated to allay such anxiety and apprehension?
  Sir E. GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to the replies which I have just returned to the two questions of the hon. Member for South Donegal.

  Slavery (Portuguese Dominions).
  Mr. FELLasked if the treaty with Portugal of 29th April, 1858, which provided that at the end of twenty years slavery should be altogether abolished in the Portuguese dominions, is still in force, or if it has been cancelled or annulled by either the Berlin or Brussels Acts?
  Sir E. GREY: The instrument of 29th April, 1858, which provided for the abolition of slavery in the Portuguese dominions was not a treaty, but a Portuguese Royal Decree. It has not, so far as I am aware, been cancelled or revoked.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, acting under the powers given in the treaty of 1858 between the Governments of Great Britain and Portugal, Her Majesty's ship "Swallow" captured in 1878 a Portuguese brig carrying slaves, or so-called indentured labourers from Angola, on the West Coast of Africa; and if this capture was upheld?
  Sir E. GREY: A Portuguese brig was boarded, in 1878, by a boat from Her Majesty's ship "Swallow," with a view to verifying the status of certain negro passengers who were being transported to San Thomé. The "Swallow" was acting under provisions of the Treaty of 1842, which, since the Brussels Act came into force, no longer apply to the West Coast of Africa. There was no attempt to capture the brig, and the investigation led to no further action in the matter.
  Mr. FELL: Have not the British Government frequently declared quite apart from these treaties that vessels engaged in this trade are pirates?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice, as I shall have to look the matter up.

  Japanese Tariff Bill.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received representations from British traders with Japan as to the uncertainty introduced into their trade with that country by the power given to the Japanese Executive in the new Tariff Bill to alter the specific rates at six months' notice without consulting Parliament; and whether he would make any representations to the Japanese Government so as to remove this element of instability in British trade?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): My right
  1918
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has asked me to answer this question. The hon. Member appears to be under a misconception. The Tariff Bill in the form in which it was introduced into the Japanese Legislature included an Article providing that in cases in which duties were to be levied ad valorem, such ad valorem rates might be converted into specific duties on the basis of the average values for a period of six months. In the measure as passed, however, this provision of the Bill was entirely omitted.
  Mr. LLOYD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) from what chambers of commerce and other public bodies he has received representations in regard to the proposed Japanese tariff; whether these representations have been considered by the Commercial Intelligence Committee; and whether, for the information of the public, he can now lay these representations upon the Table of the House, with or without the Report of the Committee; and (2) whether the principal changes of the new Japanese tariff, which is to come into force on the 1st July, 1911, are the greatest in the case of goods such as cotton and woollen yarns and cloths, iron and steel goods, leather goods and paper, in which the imports of Great Britain generally predominate over those of foreign countries; and whether, under these circumstances, any steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to secure for British traders at least as good treatment as that given to any other country?
  Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the probable effect of the new Japanese tariff, on leading British industries; and whether he can now state the average rate of the new Japanese tariff on dutiable British products as compared with the average of the present duties, and an estimate of the amount of British goods which is likely to be excluded by this enormous increase in duties?
  Mr. LLOYDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the estimate that the proposed new Japanese duties on British goods represent an increase of 66 per cent. on present rates,

  1919
  whereas on goods from all countries the average increase of the new duties is only 50 per cent.; and whether, under these circumstances, he will take action to prevent a larger proportion of British goods than goods from other countries being excluded under this tariff?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Board of Trade are fully alive to the detrimental effect likely to be produced on British trade with Japan by the new Japanese tariff in its present form. On this subject very careful inquiries have been made by the Board in consultation with their Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence. In the course of these inquiries a large number of chambers of commerce, trade associations and individual experts have been asked for information, and many representations have been received, which are still engaging the earnest attention of the Board of Trade and the Committee. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is in communication with the Japanese Government on the whole subject, and in these circumstances it does not appear desirable for me to go into further details or to lay any Papers on the Table at present.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose the Foreign Office will be more successful in this case than in the case of the French tariff?
  Mr. ARBUTHNOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain why it is, if the consumer always pays the tax, the exporters of this country are so concerned about this tariff?
  Mr. Lloyd: Is the most-favoured-nation clause likely to operate here?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: My former answer practically covers these questions.
  Mr. LLOYD: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to state whether the facts enumerated in my question are correct, and will he take action?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not prepared to accept the figures given in the question. It is admitted that the tariff will raise the duty, and that is a point which is under the careful consideration of the Foreign Office and of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. PETO: If it is admitted the new Japanese tariff will raise the duty on the average on goods imported from this country more than on goods imported from any other country, does not the right hon. Gentleman see the advisability of taking some action?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not admit the premises of the hon. Member's question, but I think my first answer really covers the point.

  Free Education (India).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Lahore municipal council in May last carried a resolution making education free in the primary municipal hoard schools; whether the local government has refused to sanction this resolution; and whether he can explain the grounds upon which this decision to refuse sanction was arrived at?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has no information on the matter, but he is inquiring.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the information was published in this country nearly a month ago?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The first time the Secretary for India's attention was drawn to it was when my hon. Friend put his question.

  Birthday Honours List (Bengal Officers).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the inspector and acting superintendent of police, by name Babu Lall Mohan Guha and Maulvi Mazharul Huq, who were selected for distinction in the recent Birthday Honours List, are the same two officers whose conduct was commented upon by the High Court of Bengal last year; and, if so, whether they have been cleared from these reflections by the Report of the Commissioner appointed to investigate the charges made against them?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; as regards the second, I have already explained that it is impossible to make any statement on the subject pending the disposal of the suits that have been instituted raising substantially the same issues as were before the Commission. The Governor-General had to decide the

  1921
  matter on his own responsibility according to the practice in these matters, settled in correspondence between the Governor-General and the Secretary of State in 1860. On this occasion no fewer than 187 subordinate officials in various provinces were advanced. The Secretary of State refuses to suppose, and I trust my hon. Friend will agree, that the Governor-General meant to take part in any whitewashing of the police at the expense of the High Court. He must be assumed to have found nothing in the language of the High Court to cause him to interrupt the ordinary course of routine in conferring one of these minor titles upon men who, however they may emerge from the proceedings now pending, have hitherto served the Government with credit, and often at the risk of their lives.

  Indian Police Commission Report.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the recommendation contained at the end of paragraph 25 of the Indian Police Commission Report, about disputes about land, water, crops, and cattle pounds in Bengal being settled by revenue officers and taken out of the hands of the police, has been given effect to?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The question referred to by the hon. Member is under the consideration of the Government of India in connection with the important changes in the law recommended by the Police Commission.

  Wireless Telegraph Stations (India).
  Mr. LLOYDasked how many wireless telegraph stations there are at the present time in India, and where; and how many there are in the course of preparation and construction?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There are at present wireless telegraph stations at Bombay, Calcutta, the pilot vessel, Sandheads, Bengal, Port Blair, Table Island, Diamond Island, Morgui, and Victorian Point. As stated on 29th June, in reply to the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, a scheme for the establishment of certain inland wireless telegraph stations has been sanctioned by the Secretary of State, to be constructed as funds become available. The Secretary of State is not aware that construction under this sanction has commenced.
  Mr. LLOYD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect to have any of these stations constructed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Construction will begin almost immediately now that the scheme has been sanctioned, but I cannot give the particular date of the finishing of any particular station.

  Indian Forest Service.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of now defining clearly the special consideration promised to candidates for the Indian Forest Service who possess a forestry diploma from a university other than Oxford, so that students at other universities may have some assurance that their studies will not be ultimately ineffective; and whether, in the event of a special examination in such cases, provision will be made for an independent examining body instead of one constructed on the present lines?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The general question of the selection and training of probationers for the Indian Forest Service is at present under discussion, and the Secretary of State will take care that the particular point to which the hon. Member refers is fully considered.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Territorial Army is still short of about 38,000 men, and that it has been stated on the highest authority that no larger number of men, if so many, can be obtained in the future, he proposes to continue to rely on the Territorial Force as a defence against the invasion and ruin of our country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The reply is in the affirmative. At the present time any estimate of the future strength of the Territorial Force is, of course, a matter of speculation, but in this respect I think I have reason to be more hopeful than the authority mentioned.

  Cavalry Regiments (Horses).
  Major ADAMasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the total number of horses in Cavalry regiments, stationed in the United Kingdom, which have been cast as unfit for service
  Mr. HALDANE: The figures for the year 1909–10 amounts to 732 for the seventeen regiments, including Household Cavalry, stationed in the United Kingdom.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is any scheme in contemplation for the retaining of mares for breeding purposes?
  Mr. HALDANE: That does not arise out of this question.
  Major ADAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion the number he has just stated bears to the number of horses now borne on the establishment?
  Mr. HALDANE: I should like notice of that question.

  Government Employment.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked what was the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who had been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in his Department, other than military positions, with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what was the total annual amount of their salaries?
  Mr. HALDANE: The total of such appointments in the War Office, Royal Army Clothing Department, and Ordnance Factories amounts to nineteen and the total annual salaries amount to £5,250.

  Letter-cards.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that the most numerous class of people who would use letter-cards if procurable for 1d. each are precluded from using them by the present price of 1½d. each, farthings not being generally current, whether he is now in a position to hold out any prospect of stamped letter-cards being for sale at 1d. each?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Letter-cards are at present sold at the rate of 9d. a packet of eight, the price of a single card being 1¼d. The question of the selling price of letter-cards is under consideration with other analogous questions, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  Postmen (Use of Lifts).
  Mr. WILESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state that all owners of blocks of offices, flats, and other high buildings
  1924
  fitted with lifts have given permission for such lifts to be used by postmen in the discharge of their duties?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question of the use of lifts by postmen in blocks of offices, flats, and other high buildings has received constant attention in the Post Office for some years past. Permission is asked for the use of the lift to convey the postman to the highest point at which he has to deliver. He commences his duty there and subsequently walks down, delivering at the various flats or offices as he passes by. Such permission has, I am glad to say, invariably been given in the provinces, and has been conceded throughout London in all but a few instances. I am advised that the legal obligations of the Postmaster-General would be fulfilled if letters for persons residing in such buildings were tendered to the hall porter; and I now propose, in the case of the few buildings whose owners, after repeated requests, still withhold the desired facilities which are readily granted by the great majority of owners, and which are of much value to the postmen, to issue instructions that letters for the tenants need no longer be delivered from flat to flat, but should be tendered to the hall porter for distribution.
  Lord BALCARRES: May not that inflict a great hardship on the tenants who live in those flats? The tenants themselves have no control whatever over the management of the lifts.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: How will that act in the case where there is no hall porter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I doubt whether there is any such case. Where there is a lift there is generally a person to work the lift. If there is not, then special arrangements will have to be made, and the landlord must make a distribution for his tenants.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how much land has been acquired to supply the 9,557 applicants for 146,050 acres of land who were referred to in the Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners, dated 12th March, 1910, as being approved by the county or county borough councils, but not yet supplied with land?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): It was pointed out in the Report to which my hon. Friend refers that for the reasons therein given the figures cited could not be regarded as representing the existing outstanding demand. I am glad to say, however, that since 31st December last Schemes and Orders for the acquisition of 13,099 acres have been submitted to the Board, and they continue to come in almost daily.
  Mr. WINFREYasked whether any action has been taken, or is about to be taken, by the Board under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, Section 20, which enables the Board to acquire land to demonstrate the feasibility of small holdings in any locality; and whether, in the opinion of the Board, there are any localities in which the Board intend to demonstrate such feasibility?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board do not think that any further action on their part is necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of small holdings. The success of the Small Holdings Act of 1907 has afforded sufficient evidence on the point.

  Anthrax (Outbreaks in Russia, India and Egypt).
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the President of the Board of Agriculture will ask the Foreign and Colonial Offices to procure reports on the history and outbreaks of anthrax in Russia, India, and Egypt, and inquire whether there is anything exported from those countries to this country that might carry the disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Investigations as to the possibility of the introduction of anthrax into this country by means of materials imported from abroad has been carried on by the veterinary officers of the Board in their laboratory for the last three years. Some information as to the position in the particular countries named is already available, and steps are being taken to supplement it as far as possible. The Board do not think that they need ask for the assistance of either the Foreign or Colonial Offices in the matter.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Can the hon Baronet tell me whether there is any hay or straw imported from those countries?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.

  Poor Law Children (Boarding-out).
  Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will cause that any new Order regulating the boarding-out of Poor Law children within the union shall require that every child shall be under the regular and constant visitation of a woman or women?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): In connection with any new Boarding-out within Unions Order I shall be happy to consider whether the provisions of the existing Order as regards the visitation of children require strengthening in any respect.

  Faversham Almshouses.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN (for Mr. Parker)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is yet able to give a decision in regard to the appeals from the inmates of some almshouses in Faversham whose old age pensions have, by decision of the local committee, to be reduced from 3s. to 2s. weekly; and whether he is aware that these old people have received no pensions at all since 17th June?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I am in communication with the pension officer with regard to these cases, and I hope to be in a position to decide the appeals at an early date.

  Printing (Postage Stamps and Postal Orders).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if any consideration has been given to the idea of the Government undertaking itself the work of printing postage stamps and postal orders; and, if not, will the Treasury and the Post Office consider the matter, with a view of following in this respect the practice of every other great nation?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): As regards postage stamps, the alternative of the Government itself undertaking the printing was before me at the time that tenders were invited, but I came to the conclusion that it was preferable to put the work out to contract. Consideration was also given to the question when the existing arrangements with regard to the supply of postal orders were made.

  Tobacco (Import Duty).
  Mr. HUNTasked what would be the import duty at ½d., per ounce paid to the Government out of £100 worth of raw tobacco of the value of ½d. per ounce; and what would be the import duty at 1s. per pound paid to the Government out of £100 worth of cigars of the value of £6 5s. per pound?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The duty at ½d. per ounce on £100 worth of raw tobacco of the, duty free, value of ½d. per ounce would be £100. The duty at 1s. per pound on £100 worth of cigars of a, duty free, value of £6 5s. would be 16s.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that in proportion to value in the extra taxation of the present Government the rich man only pays 1 per cent. on his cigars, while the poor man has to pay 100 per cent. on his tobacco?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that the hon. Member has been explaining to his friends that the foreigner pays the duty in all cases.
  Mr. HUNT: I merely asked the right hon. Gentleman a plain question.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: And I think I gave the hon. Member too plain an answer.

  Poaching in Scotch Rivers and Streams.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware of the prevalence of trout netting by night poachers in the rivers and streams of the county of Roxburgh, whereby the waters are being seriously depleted of river trout; and whether he will institute some inquiry into the matter with a view to regulation by law of the sale of such fish?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): As my hon. Friend is probably aware, there is great diversity of opinion among anglers as to the best means of dealing with the trout-netting difficulty. The question whether an inquiry would be likely to be of use will be carefully considered.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: Has the hon. Gentleman received information of a great catch by a Jedburgh boat in the River Teviot with a net nine feet long?
  Mr. URE: I have no information of that.

  Brodick Fair (Fatal Accident).
  Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the Lord Advocate if he is aware that there was a fatal accident from a shot fired at a
  1928
  shooting gallery at Brodick Fair on 21st June; and what steps he is taking to ensure the safety of the public from such danger in future?
  Mr. URE: I am aware of the accident referred to in the hon. Member's question. A public inquiry was recently held into the occurrence under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Acts, when the jury returned a verdict, inter alia, finding that the rifles and ammunition used were unsuitable for shooting at a fair where crowds were collected in the immediate vicinity. I am considering what steps, if any, can be taken under the existing law to prevent such accidents in the future.

  Procedure of Royal Commissions.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he contemplates acting on the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Procedure of Royal Commissions by issuing instructions or advice to future chairmen of such Royal Commissions to follow the recommendations of the Departmental Committee; and whether such action will hamper independent investigation and prevent most Minority Reports from being published?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The recommendations of the Committee are under consideration by the Treasury and other Departments concerned as well as by myself. The primary object of a Royal Commission is collective as distinguished from independent investigation, and I gather that the recommendations of the Committee aim not so much at the suppression of Minority Reports as at their limitation to reasonable length.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the House have an opportunity of stating what they think on the subject before the Home Office takes the matter into their hands and acts on the report of the Departmental Committee?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall not promise that. I do not gather that any immediate action will be taken by the Home Office in the matter.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether British nationality can be presumed in the case of a man aged seventy-seven, who served in the British

  1929
  German Legion in the Crimea, and who can be proved to have settled in England immediately after the war, and to have been in the employ of the same firm for the last forty-five years in England; and whether the refusal of an old age pension on the sole ground of failure to prove British nationality will be re-considered?
  Mr. LEWIS: I am advised that British nationality cannot legally be presumed in cases of the kind referred to. I may say that it is one of the statutory requirements of the Old Age Pensions Act that a person must satisfy the pension authorities that he has been a British subject for at least twenty years, and I am not empowered to dispense with any such requirement.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the facts in this question are correct, the man who is an applicant for the pension has been resident in England, and has been in the same employ for forty-five years, which is in excess of the statutory period?
  Mr. LEWIS: That does not constitute the individual in question a British subject.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if, after the Poor Law disqualification in the Old Age Pension Act has ceased to operate, the receipt of poor relief by a wife under seventy years of age will disqualify the husband over seventy, and in all other respects eligible for a pension, for the receipt of an old age pension on the ground that he is in receipt of poor relief through his wife, or vice versâ, if the positions of the husband and wife were reversed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The expiry of the disqualification in respect of past receipt of poor relief on 31st December next will operate to remove the disqualification (where it at present exists) in the cases to which the hon. Member refers, if and when the actual receipt of the disqualifying relief ceases. Otherwise, in the absence of an amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act, there will be no change in the present position. The point is, however, one which will receive careful consideration when an opportunity arises for the introduction of a Bill to amend the Act.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In the case of the pension not amounting to 5s. a week and the Poor Law guardians making it up to that sum, will that be a disqualification?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That, I gather, is one of the points that will have to be considered.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Do we understand that next year, in the case of a man who had received Poor Law relief but otherwise was eligible for an old age pension he will be barred if his wife, she being under seventy years of age, continues to receive relief?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think an amendment of the law may be required in that respect. If there is any doubt we will make it clear in the Act that there is no intention to disqualify in such a case.

  Cotton Trade (Exports to Japan).
  Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked what was the value of the exports of cotton yarns to Japan in the years 1889, 1899, and 1909; and whether the almost complete extinction of this trade with that country is due to the development of the cotton industry in Japan?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: The declared value of the exports of cotton yarns from the United Kingdom to Japan was £1,042,000 in 1889, £580,000 in 1899, and £71,000 in 1909. No doubt this decline is largely due to the development of cotton spinning in Japan, the quantity of yarn spun in that country having increased from a weight of 28,000,000 lbs. in 1889 to 358,000,000 lbs. in 1908, the latest year for which the information is available.

  Westmeath Assizes (Selection of Jurors).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether it was by his direction, and, if not, by whose and on what authority the court official at the Westmeath Assizes in the present month took up the cards of jurors carefully from the top without having shaken them together, as required by the Juries (Ireland) Act, 1871; by whom were the cards which the Crown desired to have drawn selected and arranged on the top for that purpose; whose duty is it to report illegal practices having the effect of jury-packing; and when his attention is called to them why are the facts denied without investigation?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): The Clerk of the Crown and Peace informs me that no such practices as are suggested in the question were resorted to on the occasion referred to. When the ballot cards were received from the sheriff they were thrown into the ballot box, which was thoroughly shaken up, and the only jury required was

  1931
  empannelled strictly according to law, no complaint having been made by any one concerned.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the hon. Gentleman admit or deny the allegations contained in the question?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Yes, a very definite denial.
  Mr. GINNELL: Then I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that he is telling the House an untruth?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make use of an expression of that kind. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
  Mr. GINNELL: What is the Parliamentary word, If you please?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the expression or not?
  Mr. GINNELL: What I mean to convey—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the expression or not? It is not a proper expression to use.
  Mr. GINNELL: The hon. Gentleman has used untrue information.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not withdrawn the expression. I ask him once again: Does he withdraw the expression?
  Mr. GINNELL: He has used untrue information.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member declines to withdraw the expression?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think the hon. Member said he would withdraw.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then I understand the hon. Gentleman withdraws the expression?
  Mr. GINNELL: I withdraw the expression as regards the hon. Gentleman, and no further.

  Criminal Trials in Ireland (Changes of Venue).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland in what way a miscarriage of justice is possible or can be apprehended in the trial of certain criminal cases in Ireland in which the alleged offence is not denied; and in
  1932
  whose interest besides that of Crown lawyers did he instruct his representatives at the recent assizes to apply for adjournment, with a view to change of venue in those cases, without having asked the defendants whether they denied the charge or not?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I do not know to what special case the hon. Member refers. I am not aware that a plea admitting the offence is intended to be put in in any of the adjourned cases. The postponement was applied for solely to secure a fair trial.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman since this question appeared on the Paper inquired whether or not the statements are correct?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: It is impossible for me to anticipate what pleas accused persons will enter to an indictment.

  Appointments in Office of Works.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Commissioner of Works what was the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who had been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in his Department with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what was the total annual value of their salaries?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): Five such appointments have been made, the total initial annual value of the salaries being £1,350.

  Civil Service Appointments (Patronage versus Competition).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if the practice of filling appointments in the Civil Service by patronage is spreading; if since 1904 a system of employing hired clerks at the Admiralty has been adopted and is extending; that these appointments are filled by patronage, and such clerks have replaced open competition clerks, and, moreover, that established posts have been provided to which these hired clerks may be promoted; if he aware that at the Board of Education the principal administrative appointments are all filled by patronage, and that the number of such appointments is constantly increasing, to the detriment of the open

  1933
  competition men, if the clerical appointments in connection with the recently created Labour Exchanges have all been filled by patronage; why this departure from the spirit and intention of the Order in Council of 4th June, 1870, establishing the principle of open competition, is being made; and will he cause an inquiry to be instituted into the whole question of patronage appointments in the Civil Service?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As regards the hired clerks at the Admiralty and at the dockyards I understand that most of the vacancies are now filled either by open competition or by promotion from ranks recruited by open competition. The facts as to the Board of Education and Labour Exchange appointments are substantially as stated, but I am informed that these posts require special personal qualifications which cannot be tested satisfactorily by a written examination. His Majesty's Government attach great importance to the maintenance of the principle of open competition as a general rule, and I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry into patronage appointments generally. It is the established policy to restrict within the narrowest limits the number of exceptional cases in which the system of open competition is abandoned.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: What special qualifications are required by the Board of Education?
  The PRIME MINISTER; I cannot answer that without notice.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great inconvenience is caused to Members of Parliament by appointments being filled by patronage, and that public competition relieves hon. Members of a good deal of persecution?

  Imperial Defence Committee (Lord Kitchener).
  Captain COOPERasked the Prime Minister whether any member of the Imperial Defence Committee has commanded the forces in India or acted as Sirdar; and whether he will consider the advisability of enlarging the Committee so as to include some officer of Indian, Colonial, or Egyptian experience?
  The PRIME MINISTER: None of the present members of the Committee of Imperial Defence have commanded the
  1934
  forces in India or acted as Sirdar; but some of them, in particular the Chief of the General Staff, have long and wide Indian experience. The constitution of the Committee is elastic and admits of distinguished officers being invited to attend meetings when expert opinion is required regarding matters of which they have special knowledge. Both Field-Marshal Sir George White, formerly Commander-in-Chief in India, and General Sir R. Wingate, the Sirdar, have so attended meetings.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would it not be as well to utilise Lord Kitchener's abilities as soon as possible, in view of the recent statement in the Press that he has been invited by a foreign Power to reorganise its forces?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see how that arises out of the question on the Paper. I strongly deprecate this putting forward of the names of particular officers.

  Accession Declaration Bill.
  Mr. LUTTRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conflict of opinion upon the Accession Declaration Bill he will consider the desirability of withdrawing the Bill and introducing a Bill to remove any religious test in the Accession Declaration?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.

    MOTOR CAR LICENCES.
    Mr. RAPHAELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if motor-car licences issued in January last or since that time have ceased to have effect; if, as a result, a large number of motor cars are being used without a licence; if he is aware that persons who desire to comply with the law and to take out their licences are unable to do so on account of the conduct of the authorities in not having supplied the postal authorities with the necessary forms for declaration; if he can estimate the loss to the Exchequer which will be occasioned by this failure to obtain licences; and if he will immediately issue the forms of declarations for licences to the postmasters, in order that they may be able to cope with the responsibilities imposed upon them by Statute?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Section 86 (8) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, provides that any licence to keep a motor car

    1935
    granted for the year 1910 before the passing of this Act shall, if the motor car is a motor car charged with duty under this Section, cease to have effect from 30th June, 1910. The preparation of the necessary new forms of declaration and licence has been unavoidably delayed owing to the congestion of work in the Departments concerned resulting from the delay in passing the Budget, but every effort is being made to have them available at an early date. I do not anticipate that there will be any appreciable loss of licence duty in consequence of the new duties coming into force before the necessary forms were available.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in accordance with the Parliamentary Paper recently issued and which estimates the preliminary cost of valuing 760,000 hereditaments in the metropolis at 6d. per hereditament, the cost of valuing 7,740,000 hereditaments in England and Wales at 5d., and the cost of valuing 1,250,000 hereditaments in Scotland at 3d., respectively, the assessors of taxes, on whom the duty of preliminary investigation will devolve, will be furnished on application free of charge with any necessary information by overseers, assessment committees, or other local officials, or whether such officials will be entitled to a fee for supplying this information; if so, whether the probable amount of the fee has been allowed for in the respective charges of 6d., 5d., and 3d.; whether any similar preliminary investigation will be required in the case of any Irish hereditament; and, if so, what will be the number of hereditaments and estimated cost?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In Great Britain the work to be performed by assessors of taxes and others who act as land valuation officers is practically confined (1) to copying into valuation books particulars already in the possession of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and (2) to the distribution and collection of the forms of return. These duties are not such as to entail upon the officers expense for obtaining extra information from local officials. In Ireland, where extensive information is already in the hands of Government Departments, the detailed arrangements are still under consideration. The approximate number of hereditaments in that country is 1,300,000.
    Mr. NEWMANasked if Form 4, in connection with the general valuation of land under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, will be issued to owners of land in Ireland, and, in the event of the answer being in the negative, by what means the necessary data for the compilation of an Irish Domesday Book will be arrived at; and the total number of rated hereditaments existing in Ireland in 1907–8 or any subsequent year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I may refer the hon. Member to the latter portion of my reply to his previous question as to the number of hereditaments in Ireland.
    Mr. NEWMANasked to whom the preliminary work in connection wth the general valuation of land under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, will be entrusted in the cases where the assessors of taxes, owing to the inadequate remuneration offered or from other reasons, have declined to undertake the responsibility; by whom Form 4 will be issued to the owners of hereditaments throughout the country on the first day of next month, the method of service that will be adopted, letter or personal service, and, in the case of the first service proving ineffective, whether the owner will be again served by registered letter or otherwise before procedings are instituted against him for failing to make a return; and whether any estimate has been made of the total cost of serving Form 4 on the owners of 9,750,000 hereditaments?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Suitable persons, in many cases assessors for neighbouring parishes, who are able and willing to perform the work, have been appointed in the cases referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part, both the methods referred to will be adopted as circumstances require; and with regard to the third part, forms of reminder will be issued in all cases where no return has been made in response to the original application. No separate estimate of the cost of serving the forms referred to in the fourth part has been made, but such cost is included in the general estimate of £230,000 for the preliminary work in connection with the valuation.

    LICENCE DUTY (TIED LICENSEES).
    Sir JOHN ROLLESTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to enable wholesale traders under Section 46 of The Finance (1909–10) Act,

    1937
    1910, to come to some equitable and satisfactory arrangement with licensees who are tied or under any obligation to such traders in regard to the supply of liquors, and to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and delay which must result from sending many thousands of cases to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for their determination of the proportion of the increase of the Licence Duty recoverable, and also to relieve the existing uncertainty and make it practicable for licensees to be parties to an agreement as contemplated in the Section, he will give the necessary instructions for the issue by the Commissioners without delay of rules or instructions which will clearly indicate upon what basis the Commissioners intend to act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Darwen Division of Lancashire on 20th June.

    MOTOR SPIRIT DUTY (COST OF COLLECTION.)
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to Section 90, Subsection (3), of the Finance Act, 1909–10, what sum has been certified by the. Commissioners to be the cost of collecting the Motor Spirit Duty for the year 1909–10, as well as the net proceeds of the duty?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith on Thursday last. The cost has not yet been certified by the Commissioners.

    Dornoch (Sutherland) House Valuation.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a complaint from a number of taxpayers at Dornoch, Sutherland, stating that the surveyor of taxes had increased the valuation of their houses without having seen such houses and without having made reasonable investigation, and that the surveyor had informed the complainers that the Income Tax Commissioners for the county had fixed the valuations complained of; whether the appeal against the surveyor's valuation is to the Commissioners who had apparently fixed the valuations; if so, is that regular; and whether he will grant an inquiry into these allegations?
    Mr. MUNROalso asked whether, assuming the surveyor's statement to be correct that the Commissioners had fixed the valuations in question, it is regular
    1938
    and proper that they should do so, seeing that any appeal against the valuations falls to be taken to the Commissioners?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the first part of the question, a complaint was received in May last from three taxpayers at Dornoch. With regard to the second and third parts, the question is one for the decision of the responsible District Commissioners of Taxes, to whom an appeal against the valuation lies, and I have no power to interfere in the matter.

    Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries.
    Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee are handicapped, through lack of funds, in their efforts to improve, by scientific research and otherwise, the sea fisheries within their jurisdiction; and if he will make a Grant under the terms of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, in order to assist the committee in this work?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An application has been received from the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee for a Grant under the terms of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and this application has been forwarded, in accordance with the terms of that Act, to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for transmission to the Development Commissioners. No report has been yet received from the Commissioners.

    Distribution of Untenanted Lands (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for what purpose the Irish Constabulary some months ago inquired and took notes of untenanted land let on the eleven months' system; whether a Return of that land will be presented to Parliament; and, seeing that such use of land in the neighbourhood of congested and landless people is a natural cause of turmoil, whether he will, in the interest of law and order, have it compulsorily acquired and distributed before the end of the present year?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have no knowledge of the inquiries referred to, which may have been made by the police with a view to prevent cattle-driving or for similar police purposes.
    Mr. GINNELLfurther asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many occupants of uneconomic holdings and how many landless men applied for portions of the untenanted land on the Pakenham estate, Westmeath; what defence is there of the conduct of Mr. Campbell in getting graziers to select applicants and bring them to meet him at a newspaper office in Mullingar, where he prepared his scheme giving Anne Shaw, an occupant of forty-eight acres, Poor Law valuation £38 5s., a new holding of twenty-one and a half acres, and her only son Matthew Shaw, residing with her, a new holding of nineteen and a half acres, while giving none to eligible applicants on the boundary in need and entitled by Statute, but not recommended by graziers; whether it will be annulled and the holdings given to applicants selected in accordance with the intentions of Parliament; and, seeing the importance of an impartial distribution of land in a country devoid of manufacturing industries, whether he will take steps to have it carried out in future free from the influence of ranchers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received a very large number of applications for parcels of land on this estate, including many from persons ineligible under the Act of 1903. All applications received from persons resident within two and a half miles of the estate were inquired into, and the Commissioners allocated the lands in the exercise of their discretion. Parcels were allotted under Section 2, Sub-sections (1) and (2), of the Irish Land Act, 1903, to Mrs. Shaw and her son, the former being a tenant on the estate. The Commissioners are not aware of any justification for the allegations made against the inspector by the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELL: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for land supposed by Act of Parliament to go to be distributed among people in need of it going to persons who, on the face of it, are not in need of it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is very difficult to say exactly who is in need of land. Matters of this sort have of necessity to be left to the discretion of the Commissioners acting upon the advice of their inspectors. I have made inquiries, and I find that this particular inspector has generally given great satisfaction.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does not the Act of Parliament say that the people who are in
    1940
    need of land are those who have none? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider a rancher's newspaper office is the proper place to prepare a scheme for the distribution of land?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It depends on what the scheme is.

    Levinge Estate, Knockdrin, Westmeath.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Estates Commissioners make themselves acquainted with the terms upon which a landlord agrees to sell and his tenants to buy, and afterwards enforce those terms by withholding the price until the terms have been carried out; whether they are aware of the rights of pasture on the Tubberquill untenanted farm, secured by the terms of sale to small tenants on the Levinge estate, Knockdrin, Westmeath; and whether they will require either those rights to be continued or that farm to be distributed among those most in need of it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Irish Land Acts and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Any claims made by the purchasing tenants on the estate referred to will be inquired into when the Commissioners are dealing with the estate.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the Chief Secretary say when will that be?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No.

    Pollard-Urquahart Estate, County West-meath.
    Mr. GINNELLasked why tenants on an estate in course of sale are not, as parties having rights, informed of the main stages of the transaction in time to enable them to protect their interests, and the sale of one portion of an estate is completed rendering it impossible afterwards to relieve congestion on another portion; whether the congested sub-tenants on a portion of the Pollard-Urquahart estate, Westmeath, apparently not offered for sale, who have appointed a representative to communicate on their behalf with the Estates Commissioners, will be informed in time of the date of inspection and allowed to state their circumstances to the inspector on the ground; and whether the Commissioners, before declaring the property an estate, will hear the claim of those sub-tenants to be included in the sale, and to have their holdings enlarged from the adjoining non-residential land and from Cammagh bog on the same estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question appears to be based upon a misapprehension. When the estate referred to in the latter part of the question is being inspected the Commissioners will cause inquiries to be made as to the other matters referred to by the hon. Member.

    Massey Estate, County Leitrim (Reinstatement Application).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from John Clancy, an evicted tenant on the Massey estate, at Derryhirk, county Leitrim; and, if so, whether they intend taking steps to reinstate him or provide him with a suitable farm elsewhere?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The application referred to has been received by the Estates Commissioners who will consider it when dealing with the estate.

    Congested Districts Board (Leitrim).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that an application was made to the Congested Districts Board for a Grant-in-Aid of the making of a new road from the townland of Aughnahoo to the townland of Curraghy, in the county of Leitrim, which, if made, would have the effect of opening up the congested district between the towns of Drumshambo, Ballinamore, Keshcarrigan, Leitrim, and Carrick-on-Shannon, and thus accommodating at least 400 families residing in these backward districts, some of whom are compelled to carry on their backs all their marketable farm produce and necessary household goods for a distance of one mile to and from the county road; whether he is aware that the Drumshambo (No. 1) Rural District Council passed this road in January last on condition that the Congested Districts Board would contribute one-half the cost of making it; and, as the road would be beneficial and reproductive and as county Leitrim has not yet received any Grant from the new Congested Districts Board, whether he would, in the interest of the poor people struggling to eke out an existence in these districts and for the public convenience, recommend this application to the favourable consideration of the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The application in question has been received by the Congested
    1942
    Districts Board. I understand that the Carrick-on-Shannon Rural District Council have sanctioned the construction of this road conditional upon the receipt of a sufficient contribution from the Congested Districts Board. The Board will consider the application when dealing with estates situated in the neighbourhood.

    Appointment of Justices of the Peace (Vice-Regal Commission).
    Mr. ARBUTHNOT (for Mr. Newman)asked whether His Majesty's Government contemplate the appointment of a Vice-regal Commission to inquire into the appointment of justices of the peace in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As stated in my reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for South County Dublin on the 19th instant, I have not had time to consider the matter fully, and I do not propose to take any action at present.
    Captain COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter into consideration, and inquire into it.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly.

    Agrarian Crime (Ireland).
    Captain COOPERasked in how many cases of agrarian crime since January, 1906, have proceedings been taken before petty sesions; in how many cases have informations been refused; and in how many cases where informations have been refused has the Attorney-General sent up a Bill to the assizes on his own initiative?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that between January, 1906, and 30th June last proceedings were taken at petty sessions in 156 cases of indictable agrarian offences. In twenty-nine cases informations were refused, and in Seven of these bills were sent to the assizes.

    Cattle Disease.
    Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can see his way to reduce the size of the scheduled area in the North Riding of Yorkshire, owing to the fact that all the affected animals have been slaughtered?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I regret to say that it is not possible to reduce the area as desired by the Noble Lord in view of the fact that since I came into the House a telegram has been received at the Board

    1943
    reporting a further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease to-day. One stirk is affected in a field adjoining North Close Farm, where the first outbreak occurred.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the very serious inconvenience caused to farmers and residents in the neighbourhool by the recent prohibition, endeavour to diminish the area as soon as possible, if he considers it safe in the interests of the neighbouring farmers to do so?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I think the Noble Lord will see that, in view of the fresh outbreak, that is impossible.
    Mr. STANIER: In view of the danger to the herds of this country, arising out of this fresh outbreak, can he tell us how far the outbreak goes outside the limit of the four infected farms?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Member is wrong in saying that there are four infected farms. There is only one infected farm, and there is a field adjoining this farm. The area is the usual fifteen miles, which has been found in other cases always effective.
    Mr. STANIER: Did I not understand the hon. Gentleman to say the other day that there were other farms, because two of the animals from this first farm had been sent to those farms.
    Sir E. STRACHEY: That is so. I said that two beasts had gone off this farm, but when examined they were found perfectly healthy, and had been slaughtered, and there has been no other outbreak on that farm.

    Indian Press Act (Bombay and Karachi).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary for India whether he is aware that the "Gujarati," a bi-lingual weekly paper published in Bombay, has had to find security in 2,000 rupees under the Press Act; what convictions have been obtained against this paper or its publisher, proprietor, or editor; what warning had been sent to them; and what were the reasons which led to the security being demanded?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Security was demanded from and was furnished by the printer and publisher of the "Gujarati" on account of an article which infringed Section 4 (1) of the Act. No warning was given. The Government of India's Orders
    1944
    regarding the desirability of giving warning were not issued until a later date.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Under-Secretary say what were the terms of the article in regard to which this gentleman was asked to find security for 2,000 rupees.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I should not like to quote the article off-hand. The hon. Member is aware of the nature of the article, which comes under Section 4 (1) of the Press Act. I will consider the matter of laying it on the Table.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he is aware that the "Phœnix," an old-established paper published in Karachi, has had to deposit 1,000 rupees as security under the Press Act; what convictions have been obtained against this paper or its publisher, proprietor, or editor; what warning had been sent to them; and what were the reasons which led to the security being demanded; whether the "Sind Gazette," an old-established Anglo-Indian paper published in Karachi, has had to deposit 1,000 rupees as security under the Press Act; what convictions have been obtained against this paper or its publisher, proprietors, or editor; what warning had been sent to them; and what were the reasons which led to the security being demanded; and whether the "Karachi Argus," an English weekly paper, published at Karachi, has received an intimation that security is required to be deposited under the Press Act; what convictions have been obtained against this paper, its publisher, proprietor, or editor; what warning had been sent to them; and what were the reasons which led to the security being demanded?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Security was taken from the "Sind Gazette," the "Karachi Argus," and the "Phœnix "when declarations were made by their printers and publishers under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the object of the magistrate being to secure equal treatment to all classes of newspapers. His Order was, however, inconsistent with the instructions issued on the subject by the Government of India and the Government of Bombay, which did not reach him till after it had been passed. On receiving, intimation of the Order, the Bombay Government telegraphed instructions to the magistrate to reconsider it. This was done, and the security deposits were refunded.

BILL PRESENTED.
  FISHING RIGHTS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To make provision for Fishing Rights on the sale of land under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts," presented by Mr. JOYCE; supported by Mr. Clancy, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. MacVeagh, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Sir Walter Nugent, Mr. Boland, and Mr. Nannetti; to be read a second time upon Thursday.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CIVIL LIST BILL).
Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Second Reading of the Civil List Bill be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]

COPYRIGHT.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Copyright.
I shall not, of course, in the short time at my disposal, attempt to argue the various points which arise out of the Bill which I venture now to introduce. I am anxious that it should be placed before the House and the country, as well as our self-governing Dominions, in order that they and the public may have an opportunity of considering the matter before the further stages of the measure are reached. I do not think there is any objection found to the principle of the Bill, which I therefore assume. I also assume the advantages of International uniformity in regard to this matter.
There are three strong reasons for the introduction of the Bill. This country is a party to the Berne Convention of some twenty or thirty years ago which deals with the copyright question. The fundamental principle on which that Convention was founded was that each State should extend to the citizens of other States, and to works first published in those States, the benefit of its own copyright legislation. A few years ago there was a further Conference and Convention at Berlin which carried the matter further. The object of that Conference and Convention was to
1946
bring the domestic laws of the countries concerned into harmony with one another so as to obtain international uniformity of treatment. The ratification of that Convention necessarily involves certain changes in our law in regard to copyright, and therefore it is necessary to introduce a Bill for that purpose in order to bring the existing law into conformity with the Convention of Berlin. So far as we are concerned, it requires a larger change in our law than in any other country, for the simple reason that most other countries have brought their Copyright Law up to date, while we have had no copyright reform for very many years past. The second reason for asking leave to introduce this Bill is that our Copyright Law very urgently requires amendment, simplification, and codification to place it on a better and simpler basis. It consists of some twenty Acts of Parliament, dating back as far as 1735, and the different works and different authors have been treated in different ways, apparently without any reason or any particular ground for the differences which exist. The result is that the Royal Commission of 1878, which inquired carefully into the matter, condemned our present system of copyright emphatically, and stated that it ought to be codified and simplified. But we have so far taken no action in regard to reform. On the contrary, we have since then added to the Statute Book certain other Acts of Parliament which have made confusion worse confounded.
The third reason was the Imperial reason, namely, that any attempt to deal with this Copyright Law necessarily raises somewhat delicate constitutional questions between ourselves and the self-governing Dominions. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the difficulty of the Colonial question has been largely the stumbling-block which has caused the delay in reforming our domestic Copyright Law. The first step, therefore, after the Berlin Convention, was to summon a conference of representatives of the self-governing Dominions, of Canada, Australia, of the Cape, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, who, together with representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Colonial Office, and the Board of Trade, under my presidency as President of the Board of Trade, have been sitting to consider this question. I am glad to say I may congratulate my colleagues on that Conference and the House of Commons on

1947
arriving at a unanimous conclusion as to the best method of treating the question from an Imperial point of view. I do not propose to discuss these points now—they are somewhat intricate—but I propose to circulate to-day a Paper which will show the proceedings of that Conference and the conclusions to which they came, and which will put the House in possession of the matter. In addition to that, the Imperial Conference considered carefully various points in connection with the Berlin Convention and various suggestions for the reform of our Copyright Law; and they were very materially helped in their deliberations by the Report of a strong Departmental Committee which sat last year under the chairmanship of Lord Gorell. That Committee went very carefully into the whole question from the point of view of the Convention, and recommended the acceptance of the Convention subject to a few alterations and with as few reservations as possible.
I will sum up the effect of the alterations involved by the ratification of the Convention and by the proposals contained in the Bill. In the first place, there is the abolition of what are called formalities—registration and the like; indeed, the Convention, as a whole, is based on that principle. These formalities are anomalous and vexatious, and the Gorell Committee condemned them as
"anomalous, uncertain, productive of great disadvantage and annoyance to authors, while of little or no advantage to the public."
Most other nations have already abolished these formalities, and unless we do so also our authors will be placed at a considerable disadvantage as compared with foreign authors. Secondly, there will be uniformity of treatment of various works coming under the operations of Copyright Law. At present the period and conditions vary greatly, and books, music, sculpture, painting, plays, and artistic works, for no apparent reason except that they are dealt with under different Acts, receive varying treatment. Thirdly, certain species of works will receive improved treatment, such as translations, lectures—I think at present a lecturer has to go before two magistrates before he can protect his lecture—original adaptations and arrangements, works of artistic craftsmanship, including architectural works of art. On the other hand, the right to dramatise a novel, and, if I may coin a word, to novelise a drama, and
1948
the public performance of musical works will be reserved. Then, further, musical works are to be protected against unauthorised reproduction, without payment, by mechanical means. On the other hand, the record itself will receive protection. The Bill introduces amendments and extensions, and consolidates about twenty enactments, and brings copyright entirely under statutory law.
In addition to that the Convention dealt with the question of the basis on which copyright should be placed, and the length of the period to be allowed. Here, as regards books and some other matters, the period of copyright is life and seven years, or forty-two years, which ever is the longer. The shortest period of copyright is, therefore, forty-two years. Nearly every other country bases its Copyright Law on the period of life, in addition to a certain number of years, and practically, as regards the present position, all authorities are agreed that that is the best basis. It is an advantage that the whole of the works of an author should fall out of copyright at the same time; and it is, from the public point of view as well as that of the author, an advantage that earlier editions, which do not really represent the matured views of the author, should not fall out of copyright before the later edition.
Then, as regards the question of the period, there are some countries in which the copyrights are perpetual. Taking European nations—Union and non-Union countries—in Spain it is life and eighty years, and in Italy it is forty years. In Germany, Switzerland, and Austria it is life and thirty years, which can be put off against them. But much the largest group has life and fifty years as the basis of their Copyright Law. France, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, and Russia all have life and fifty years as the basis of their Copyright Laws. The proposal of the Convention is life and fifty years, and it is quite clear from the figures I have given that that is the only possible basis on which anything in the nature of International agreement can be come to with reference to the period of copyright. The Convention is not compulsory, but it proposes the adoption of such a period as that. Under these circumstances, and with a view to obtaining, as far as we can, International uniformity, the period proposed in the Bill is that adopted by the Berlin Convention. That period may seem somewhat long, but I think the more it is considered

1949
the more it will be seen that there is a great deal to be said for it, and I shall be prepared to defend it on its merits. The extended period will only apply, of course, to a very small fraction of the works involved. It will not add a day to any of the works which under ordinary circumstances would not survive forty-two years. But those that do survive are the works of authors—using "authors" in the larger sense—who are deserving of encouragement and consideration, and who are entitled to this addition to the period of copyright. In regard to the question of cheapness, the evidence given before the Gorell Committee was to this effect, that copyright really had little or no influence on the question of price; and that in these days of cheap editions, as a matter of fact many copyright books were actually produced at a cheaper rate than non-copyright works. But in order that the public may be protected from any possible abuse, the Bill will provide that after the death of the author, if the work is withheld from the public, or too high a price is charged for copies or for the right to perform, so that the reasonable requirements of the public are not satisfied, a licence may be granted to an applicant to publish or perform the work. Therefore, in view of the opinions of the authorities I have quoted and also the recommendations of the International Convention, I desire the support of the House to the proposals in the Bill in reference to the period of copyright.
There is one point which I wish to mention. Under the Convention it is proposed to give non-Union countries equal rights with Union countries in connection with the privileges of the Convention. The Imperial Conference over which I presided considered that that was not a politic position to take up. They did not think that non-Union countries should be allowed the privileges of the Convention without exacting reciprocal obligations from them. But, on the other hand, by Order in Council, the embodiments of the Convention can be extended to any foreign country, and they will be extended, as a matter of fact, to the Union countries; and also to other foreign countries such as the United States if they, on their part, give us reciprocal treatment.
In introducing the Bill in the very few remarks I have had the opportunity of making, I have indicated the lines on which it is based—the International
1950
grounds which alone would justify it, the Imperial grounds which would fully justify it, and the domestic grounds, which I think would give it complete justification. I think, taking all these together, there is an overwhelming case for dealing with the Copyright Laws. It will be found, I think, that the proposals in the Bill can be adopted with advantage to authors—using authors in the largest sense of the term, who are a not undeserving class—and without injury to the reading public and others concerned.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Buxton, the Solicitor-General, Colonel Seely, and Mr. Tennant. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS (INDIAN BUDGET).
Order for Committee read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I beg to move "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (for Committee on East India Accounts.)"
This Motion would not sound to a stranger to our proceedings a highly controversial one, but the discussion which will arise upon it is rather inaccurately known as the Debate on the Indian Budget, and it gives the House an opportunity, somewhat markedly inadequate, for a review of the whole circumstances of Indian government and conditions. In the very large draft which I shall have to make upon the patience of hon. Members I trust they will make all allowance for certain obvious disadvantages under which I labour. My Noble Friend, Lord Morley, has now been Secretary of State for five years. It was only during the first two of them that he was able to make his own annual statement in the House, and for the last two years and on this occasion the House has to listen to what I believe it will agree is a story of conspicuously successful administration from different spokesmen, each one of whom—and I hope I shall not be guilty of any disrespect to my predecessors when I say it—has felt the almost insuperable difficulty of adequately representing not only a great administrator, but so gifted and individual a personality as Lord Morley of Blackburn. Concerning my own predecessor (Master of Elibank) I can

1951
only say that I regret, and never more than at this moment, the fact that he has been translated from the India Office, with those gifts of lucidly expounding any case he has to defend and gone to another sphere of action.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much about the foreign affairs of India. The North-West Frontier has been in a peaceful and undisturbed condition during the year that has just closed. There have been a few small raids which are the ordinary features of frontier life. The Amir of Afghanistan has appointed Afghan representatives to the Joint Commission which has been constituted to consider, with a view to settlement, various boundary disputes and claims of many years' standing. The Commission met for the first time last month, and the attitude of the Afghan representative was such that I do not think it is too sanguine to expect that the Commission will soon be able to arrive at a satisfactory settlement. On the North-East Frontier the chief events of the year have been the conclusion of a new treaty with Bhutan and the flight of the Dalai Lama from Thibet. With regard to the treaty with Bhutan the effect is to give Great Britain control over the foreign relations of the State. It may be taken as an indication of the firm determination of His Majesty's Government in no circumstances to allow foreign interference in the frontier States of Nepaul, Sikkim, and Bhutan—a determination which I am glad to be able to say is fully shared by the rulers of those States themselves. The flight of the Dalai Lama from Lhassa was apparently due to the despatch to that city of Chinese troops. Hon. Members will find a complete account of all the events in the Blue Book on Thibetan affairs which has just been presented to the House. His Majesty's Government have found nothing in them to necessitate a departure from their policy and the policy of their predecessors of non-interference in the internal affairs of Thibet or, with the domestic relations between Thibet and China, but they have made it clear to China that they will require a strict conformity with the provisions of the Anglo-Thibetan Convention of 1904 and with the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, and they have no reason to doubt the good faith of the assurances which have been received from the Chinese Government. The avowed purpose of the
1952
despatch of troops to Lhassa was to maintain order in that city and at the trade marts.
Coming to internal affairs, I am not in the position of my predecessor, who had to describe India in March, 1909, as still under the effects of famine and distress. The autumn rains of.1909 were eminently satisfactory, and the autumn harvest has been followed by an equally fine spring harvest. Almost all the crops have been exceptionally productive. The cotton crop gathered in the winter months of 1909 was one of the best on record. The estimated yield is 4,500,000 bales, being an increase of 22 per cent. on the yield of the previous year. The rice crop has been equally good. In the province of Bengal, where rice is the staple article of food, the yield is put at 78 per cent. better than that of the previous year, and 47 per cent. better than the average for the previous five years.
4.0 P.M.
The wheat crop of 1910 now coming into the market is one of the best of recent years. In 1908 the yield was 6,000,000 tons. In 1909 it was 7,600,000 tons. This year the final estimate is no less than 9,500,000 tons. The agricultural prosperity of India may thus be said to be completely reestablished, and it immediately begins to have an effect on the increase of exports and of imports, and a diminution of prices of the commoner food grains. The export trade has increased from £100,000,000 sterling in 1908–9 to £123,000,000 sterling in 1909–10. Should wheat and seeds continue to be exported through the autumn and winter months to the extent anticipated, the export trade of 1910–11 will be on a very large scale indeed. Of course, the import trade has been slower to move because there was a great accumulation of stocks, and the slump of 1908 was so severe that recovery cannot be expected very quickly. In 1909–10 the imports fell from £86,000,000 to £82,000,000, but in the closing months of the year there was a considerable upward movement. The third sign of improvement, the fall in general food prices, is in some degree the most important to large portions of the population of India, particularly those who dwell in towns, and is a most gratifying sign of improvement, when we recollect that the common food grains are 20 per cent. cheaper now than they were a year ago. But, of course, it must not be forgotten that the agriculturists of India have benefited very largely by the

1953
increase in the prices of what they have sold, while the land revenue and other taxes have remained stationary. Twenty years ago it took 40 lb. of wheat to pay the land revenue on an acre of land in the Punjaub; now it takes only 29 lb., and meanwhile the average sale price of a cultivated acre of land has risen from 38 to 98 rupees, and it is a much higher figure in the canal irrigated colonies This picture that we have been able to sketch of a practically wholly agricultural community is a very satisfying one, but I have something rather less optimistic to say upon two subjects which have always to be mentioned in Debates on Indian affairs—they are the plague and the malaria. Last year my predecessor was able to say that plague was decreasing, that it had shown diminishing virulence in 1908 and 1909. Experts thought that the worst had been seen of this disease in 1906, which had shown the biggest rate of disappearance of its virulence. The mortality in that year dropped from 1,000,000 to 375,000. In 1907 it rose again to 1,300,000. In 1908 it decreased to 156,000, and in 1909 the mortality was only 175,000. But this year it has flared up once more, and to the end of June the mortality was 374,000. As in former years, the death-rate has been most severely felt in the United Provinces and the Punjaub.
It is a local disease in the sense that it seems always to recur in particular provinces and in particular districts of particular provinces. But, on the other hand, scientific evidence all seems to show that it is unconnected with any peculiarities of local circumstances, such as soil and drainage, and it is wholly unconnected with the comparative wealth or poverty of the inhabitants. The extermination of rats and fleas, the prevention of their importation from an infected district to a district not infected seems to be now agreed as the essential way of tackling the disease. Inoculation and the temporary evacuation of infected premises are used as subsidiary measures. Although the statistics are not hopeful, it is satisfactory to think that the population of India are getting more and more to realise the necessity for co-operating in the administration of remedial measures and in carrying on the continual war which the Government of India have undertaken against the ravages of the plague. But I may point out that in British India, with a population of 226,000,000, the death-rate
1954
annually is 8,000,000, so that in most years the contribution which the plague makes to the death-rate is a very small one. Malaria is far more important to the population of India at large. It is very difficult to gauge accurately the ravages of this disease, because the death returns under the heading "Fevers" in India are not very scientific; but, of course, in years when malaria is active the death-rate under that heading "Fevers" in British India reveals the fact. In 1908, when malaria was very severe in Upper India, the death-rate from fever rose from 4,500,000 to 5,424,000, or an increase of 900,000, which may roughly be set down to the ravages of this disease. The causes which bring about epidemics are obscure. They seem to be connected with excessive rainfall that floods the country and increases the facilities for the breeding of the infecting mosquito. In October, 1909, a Committee was convened by the Viceroy at Simla, and the results of this Conference are such that when they are adopted we may hope for a very profitable and satisfactory effect. In the towns site improvement may be made that will have the effect of limiting the breeding places of the mosquito. In the country I fear that we must still have resort to prophylactic measures such as the distribution of quinine. This has always been provided by means of plantation as widely and cheaply as possible, and the supply is now being largely increased and cheapened and more effectively distributed, while at the same time, by Grants in Aid of various municipal bodies for drainage and improvement of sites, remedies are being attempted in the towns where the malarial mosquito abounds and breeds.
So much for a general view of the material conditions of the people of India. I now come to the financial position of the Government of India, which, after all, in this Debate must occupy some place. With the permission of the House I do not propose to go in great detail into the financial position. The Blue Books which have been laid before the House on the subject contain a full account of it, and for the first time this year they contain, it addition to the financial statement of the financial member of the Viceroy s Council, and the ordinary tabular statement, the very instructive debates in the Viceroy's enlarged Council, and I would recommend to all students of Indian affairs a perusal of these books. They will find

1955
them of exceptional and absorbing interest. At the beginning of the year 1910–11 the chief topic of interest is how far the results of the past year actually coincide with the Budget Estimate of March 1, 1909. This Estimate shows a surplus of £231,000, while the revised Estimate shows a surplus of £290,000, and I am happy to say that later figures show the surplus as £526,000, so that the difference between this final figure and the £231,000 estimated for is inconsiderable, having regard to the large amount of expenditure involved. But the resemblance is only superficial, and the discrepancies between the results of the year and the Budget Estimate are very large indeed. There was as the Budget had anticipated a great improvement in revenue as compared with the preceding year, but, with the exception of opium, the improvement fell very far short of what had been anticipated. Land revenue, taxation, and commercial undertakings produced together £470,300 less than the Budget Estimate, and a deficit was only avoided for two reasons. First, expenditure on both civil and military work was kept well within the Budget Estimate. Having regard to the very great importance of economy in India, this is not only satisfactory in itself, but augurs very well for the future of the finances of the country. The second reason was that owing to the fact that higher prices than were expected were obtained at the sales, opium produced £900,000 more than the Budget Estimate. The House will agree that this sum, exceptional as it was, was rightly treated by the Government of India as a windfall, and a large portion of it was expended in making Grants to those local Governments whose finances had been depleted by the famine arrangements of three years ago. After making these Grants to local Governments they are able to show, as I was saying, a surplus for the year 1909–10 of £526,400. As regards the present financial year, 1910–1911, new taxation is necessary for the first time in sixteen years. Since 1894–95 there has been no new taxation in India, while the relief granted to the taxpayer in land cesses in 1905–6 and the reduction of the Salt Tax in 1903, and again in 1905, and again in 1907, and the reduction of the Income Tax have relieved the taxpayer and have cost the State no less than £4,500,000 a year. This year, in order to show a balance of £376,000, additional taxation to bring in £1,126,000 is being
1956
imposed. The main cause of this additional taxation is that while the revenue, owing to the remission of taxation under certain heads, has not expanded in the last three or four years, there has been a very large increase in the expenditure under certain heads with which the revenue has not been able to keep pace. I will not make a comparison with the revenue of 1907–8, because that was a year of famine, or of 1908–9, which was a year of exceptional depression in trade, or of the year 1909–10, in which there were abnormally high opium prices. The last normal year was 1906–7, and if I compare the Estimate for the year 1910–11 with that year, I find that while land revenue, stamps, Excise, and Customs have increased, railways, salt, Post Office, and irrigation have decreased by almost the same amount, so that if there was no increase in taxation the revenue would be very nearly the same as in 1906–7. Let me explain for one minute, briefly, this question of the decrease in revenue.
First, as to railways. The gross receipts have increased by £3,000,000, but the working expenses and interest charges have increased by £4,750,000, leaving a net decrease of £1,750,000. These increases and expenses were fully explained by the chairman of the Railway Board during the discussion in the Viceroy's Council. They are attributable partly to increases in wages and salaries, partly to improvements in facilities, and to a large expenditure in strengthening and doubling lines and improving and enlarging stations. Such expenditure is not immediately productive, but there is every reason to hope that, in course of time, its value will be very great. I am spared the necessity of developing further the subject of railways, because a few months ago I was able to lay before the House, in introducing the Loans Act of this year, an account of the convenience and profit to India of this, which is one of the best examples of Socialistic undertakings which the world has to show. As regards salt, the loss of revenue is due to the reduction of the duty in 1907–8 from 1½ rupees to 1 rupee per maund. If the reduction of the duty had caused the revenue to fall in the same proportion the loss would have been £1,365,000, but there has been a considerable increase in consumption in this necessary of life, reducing the loss to £967,000. Of the £481,000 loss under the heading of "Post Office, Telegraph, Mint and Exchange" there was a reduction in postal rates in 1907–8 which cost £200,000 a year.

1957
When I turn to the expenditure figures I find an increase for 1906–7 of £2,485,000. Nevertheless, I would point out that there is a decrease under the heading of "Military Services" of no less a sum than £463,900, although the figures for 1910–11 include the cost of the increase granted to the pay of the Native Army, £426,000. The chief cause of this economy is that the expenditure on Lord Kitchener's scheme for the improvement of the Indian Army has been greatly reduced, owing to the completion of some measures, the modification of others, and the improvement of the international situation.
As regards the increases, expenditure in the Education Service has increased by half a million, in the Medical Service by £300,000, in the Scientific and Agricultural Departments by £224,000, and in buildings and roads by £185,500. I do not think I need defend these increases. In addition to this there has been an increase of £881,300 in the cost of the police force, in accordance with the recommendation of the Police Commission of 1903. There have been also increases in the pay of subordinate establishments employed on the collection of the land revenue and in other departments, necessitated in some cases by the general upward movement of prices and wages. There is one aspect of the growth of expenditure which I ought to mention, because it was referred to at some length in the financial statement of the Government of India—I mean the increased amount assigned to the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam. The income assigned to the Province in 1906 was found to be inadequate for its needs; the Province was somewhat backward in educational facilities, in medical establishments, in means of communication, and so on, and the experience of the last four years has shown the necessity for increasing the funds available for its development. The Government of India has, accordingly, made to it a Grant of about £255,000 a year, with effect from 1910–11, and this is the charge which has to be met in this year's Budget.
The Finance Member of the Viceroy's Council also laid especial stress upon the prospective loss of revenue from opium, compared with 1908–9 and 1909–10. It is a fact well known to Members in all parts of the House that new sources of revenue will have to be discovered to replace the opium revenue which is to be lost to India during the next seven years. Actual receipts for any particular year may vary, because the reduction in the output may lead to
1958
an increase in price, but the larger the receipts in any year the greater the loss that will be felt when the trade is ultimately stopped and that source of revenue disappears. During the five years 1901–5 the average total annually exported from India to countries beyond the seas was 67,000 chests, of which China took 51,000, and this amount the Government of India undertook, with effect from 1st January, 1908, to reduce by 5,100 chests per year for three years. The Chinese Government on their part undertook to reduce progressively in the same way the production of opium in China. There are no returns as to the amount of this production, but recent estimates put it at eight or ten times the amount of the Indian import. It was further agreed that if the Chinese would fulfil their share of the agreement, the Indian Government would continue to reduce their export by 5,100 chests annually for seven years more. The present year is the third year of the agreement. The Indian Government have limited the export of opium, and the Imperial Chinese Government on their part claim to have reduced production by more than three-tenths of the area formerly under poppy. Although this cannot be substantiated by statistics, there is no reason to doubt that it is true. But the Foreign Office, before agreeing to the renewal of the agreement, have deputed Sir Alexander Hosie, lately Consul-General at Tientsin, to make inquiry. The condition that statistical proof should be furnished has been waived, and the Chinese Government have been offered an extension of the existing agreement for another three years.
As regards the average annual net revenue, before the agreement with China it was £3,500,000 sterling. In 1908–9, the first year of the agreement, it rose to £4,645,000; in 1909–10 it was £4,232,000. This improvement, despite the reduction of export, is due to the higher prices obtained for Bengal opium, to the decrease on expenditure in Bengal, owing to reduced operations, and the fact that Pass Duties on Malwa opium have been received in advance on opium that will be exported up to the end of 1911. In 1910–11 there will be no receipts from Pass Duties, but a higher price has been estimated for Bengal opium, and the revenue budgeted for is £3,550,000 sterling. In 1911–12 receipts on account of duty on Malwa opium will not commence until January, 1912, and there will then be monthly sales from that date of the rights

1959
to export the fixed number of chests of Malwa opium. Assuming that Bengal opium will continue to fetch 1,750 rupees a chest, a net revenue of about £3,000,000 a year may be hoped for in 1911–12 and 1912–13. It will thus be seen that the first half of the agreement with China will pass without injury to the Indian revenue, but the second half will be more serious.
The Secretary of State is receiving representations from Members of this House, urging the shortening of the ten years' period. This period was proposed by the Chinese Government themselves, and the Chinese have suggested no alteration. I can only say that any alteration would lead to serious financial and administrative questions. I would urge Members to be satisfied with the very satisfactory arrangement that has been made, and to forbear to ask that an excessive strain should be placed either on the finances of India or on the temper of the opium cultivators, the taxpayers, both in British Provinces and in native States, and the relations of the Indian Government with the Native States.
It is generally known that the United States Government have issued an invitation to His Majesty's Government to take part in a proposed International Opium Conference to he held at The Hague, in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Shanghai Commission and to consider otherwise the opium question. His Majesty's Government, in examining in a friendly spirit the tentative programme which the United States Government has suggested, is inclined to think that it may require some revision before it can usefully serve as a basis for a Conference, and that some preliminary understanding between the Powers as to the subjects to be discussed may be desirable. His Majesty's Government, for instance, could not agree to submit to discussion at the proposed Conference the diplomatic relations subsisting between this country and China, and it may probably desire to know whether the Powers, accepting the principle of a conference, will assent to the Conference dealing fully with the cognate question of regulating the export of morphia and cocaine to the East, and will undertake to have the necessary information collected if it is to arrive at a useful decision.
However that may be, the fact remains that despite the prosperity of India, the increase in its expenditure on subjects such as I have mentioned, the condition of
1960
the revenue, owing to remission of taxes and the prospective loss of revenue from opium, account for the necessity for new taxation this year. To meet a deficit of £750,000 and to turn that deficit into a surplus of £376,000, the Government have proposed new taxation amounting to £1,126,000. This money is to be found by increasing the Customs Duties on imported liquors, to yield £135,000 with a corresponding excise on beer manufactured in India to yield £33,000; an increase in the duty on silver to yield £307,000; on petroleum to yield £105,000, and on tobacco to yield £420,000, with an increase on Stamp Duties to yield £126,000. No increase, it will be seen, has been proposed on any necessary of life, and the easy expedient of once again increasing the Salt Tax or the land rates has been very properly avoided. There has been little discussion of the Liquor Duties, an increase in which will have satisfactory results if it stops some of the import of cheap foreign spirits with their corrupting and demoralising effects on the natives in some parts of India.
The duty on silver has been seriously canvassed, and the Debate thereon in the Council is one of the most valuable and instructive. The duty was formerly 5 per cent., but the increased duty is 16 per cent., or a rise from about 1¼d. to 4d. per ounce. One incidental effect of the duty will be to raise the value in India of the large amounts of savings held by the Indians as silver. It was expected in some quarters that, in consequence of the imposition of the Indian duty, the prices of silver outside India would fall, and this would involve a fall in Indian exchange on China. It was argued that, in consequence of this, the exportation of goods from India to China would become less profitable, while the Chinese producer, not being exposed to this same disadvantage, would gain. I will not go now into the question as to whether the trade of one country is permanently fostered, or that of another injured by a rise or fall in the rate of exchange; but these objections to a very good revenue-producing duty have been answered, and the question has become academic only because the price of silver and the Indian exchange on China have risen since the imposition of the increased duty. The price has risen from 23 7–16d. per oz. to 25⅛d., and the China exchange has risen from 129½ rupees to 132¾ rupees per 100 dollars.
The increased tax on petroleum is not likely to cause much comment. The im-

1961
port of petroleum is increasing, and rose in India from 84,000,000 gallons in 1904–5 to 97,000,000 gallons in 1908–9. There has been considerable objection to the new duties on tobacco. These were imposed for revenue purposes only. The amount of tobacco imported into India in 1908–9 was five and a half million pounds. If duty had been paid on this import at the rate now in force in the United Kingdom it would have produced £1,449,000, instead of £39,000. It was only reasonable that, when in need of revenue, an attempt should be made, as in other civilised countries, to obtain from this source a substantial amount. The new duties are less than half those now in force in the United Kingdom. In so far as they will stop or reduce the importation of inferior cigarettes into India, cigarettes which sell for ¾d. per packet of ten, or even cheaper, and do something to check the growth of cigarette smoking, no one will be sorry. If they were protective they would defeat the object of the Secretary of State, and the Government of India, in raising revenue.
I may add that the Indian tobacco which is alleged to compete with the imported article is of very poor quality. The natural conditions in India are hostile to good curing, for the climate is too dry, and the fermentative changes necessary do not take place. The average value of such unmanufactured tobacco as is produced in, and exported from, India, is shown by the Trade Returns to be about 1¾d. per lb. As I have so often said, their effect has been watched, and is being watched, with the greatest of care, and the desirability and possibility of a corresponding Excise will always be considered. I may remark, before leaving finance, that the need for economy is obvious from what I have said. The Secretary of State is now considering what steps may be desirable in order to secure a more economic administration. I have now done my best to enable the House to form some opinion of the material condition of the people of India. There remains the even more important task of examining the political condition of the Empire. Western people, bred in the tradition of self-government, do not easily realise the complexities that involve the ruling power in India, the diversities of interest through which the path of compromise must be found, the multifarious elements that must be welded into a large and steady policy. The conflicting claims of different classes may bulk largely at
1962
home, but underlying them there is an essential unity of religion, of tradition, and, on the whole, of interests. In India are associated under a single rule varieties of races far wider than can be found in the whole of Europe, as many different religions as Europe contains sects of Christianity. Stages of civilisation range from the Hindu or Mahomedan gentleman on the Bench of the High Court to the naked savage in the forest. Grafted on to this diverse population, numbering nearly 300,000,000, is a European element, numerically insignificant, less than 200,000 in all, a population in no sense resident in the country, but of an importance in the spheres of education, commerce, and administration wholly disproportionate to its numbers.
The responsibility for the government of such a country rests ultimately on the people of Great Britain, and is exercised through the Secretary of State in his Council. We have got to yoke a Government, as complex and irresponsible to the peoples which it governs as the Government of India, to a democratic system in England which every year becomes more determined to do its share in the government of this great dependency. The mechanism for performing this duty lies in this House. The views expressed in it on an infinite variety of subjects must be duly considered by the Secretary of State, who is, in effect, the servant of the House. This responsible task to be achieved in the House requires dignity, reserve, and a sense of proportion difficult to attain. In the last Parliament there was one who was accustomed to take a prominent part in Indian and Imperial affairs, who differed widely from me and my Friends in his views, whose methods might well be taken as a model for such discussions as these. I should like to add a word expressive of my personal sense of loss on the death of Lord Percy, which has already been widely lamented.
I fully realise that my words, and, indeed, the words of all who follow me, are not only likely, but certain, to be overheard, and that our discussions are awaited thousands of miles away by people of little experience of political government, of growing political ambition, with inherent and acquired characteristics totally different from our own. Our words must be chosen not only for Englishmen accustomed to Parliamentary Debates, but for Englishmen impatient of Parliamentary Debate—not only for English audiences, but for Indian audiences.

1963
I know full well that recent changes in the Indian attitude are confined to a very small portion of the population. Nine-tenths of the vast population of India are still uneducated and illiterate. All talk of unrest, of which one hears so much, is talk of the small fraction of a vast number of people which has been educated, and within this small fraction are to be found all those divergent forces which are classed together as political unrest. We must remember, however, that the amount of yeast necessary to leaven a loaf is very small; when the majority have no ideas or views the opinion of the educated minority is the most prominent factor in the situation. How much earnest thought and hasty judgment centres on the word "unrest." Of course there is unrest. It is used by some, adorned by instances of the inevitable friction of complex government, as a proof of the failure of the British occupation. It is used by others, ornamented with details of crime statistics, as evidence of the lack of strength of British rule, of the lack of firmness of a particular political party in this country, and it is, of course, used by that portion of the Press which considers only its own circulation for sensational purposes.
May I say how strange it seems to me that a progressive people like the English should be surprised at unrest! You welcome it in Persia, commend it enthusiastically in Turkey, patronise it in China and Japan, and are impatient of it in India! Whatever was your object in touching the ancient civilisation of the Indian Empire, whatever was the reason for British occupation, it must have been obvious that you could not bring Eastern civilisation into contact with Western without disturbing its serenity, without infusing new ingredients, without, in a word, causing unrest. And when you undertook the government of the country, when, further, you deliberately embarked on a policy of educating the peoples on Western lines, you caused the unrest because you wished to colour Indian ideals with Western aspirations. When you came into India you found that the characteristic of Indian thought was an excessive reverence for authority. The scholar was taught to accept the assurance of his spiritual teacher with unquestioning reverence; the duty of the subject was passive obedience to the ruler; the usages of society were invested with a divine
1964
sanction which it was blasphemy to question. To a people so blindly obedient to authority the teaching of European, and particularly of English thought, was a revelation. English literature is saturated with the praise of liberty, and it inculcates the duty of private and independent judgment upon every man. We have always been taught, and we all believe that every man should judge for himself, and that no authority can relieve him of the obligation of deciding for himself the great issues of right or wrong.
The Indian mind was at first revolted at this doctrine, then one or two here and there were converted to it. They became eager missionaries of the new creed of private judgment and independence, and the consequence is that a new spirit is abroad wherever English education has spread, which questions all established beliefs and calls for orthodoxy, either political, social, economic, or religious, to produce its credentials. We are not concerned here, except in so far as they are important causes of political unrest, with either religious or social unrest. It is not necessary for me to do more than state the platitude that religious unrest produces among those who have experienced it political results. There can be no departure from religious orthodoxy without its being accompanied by its fierce reaction to orthodoxy. Side by side with the unrest produced directly by English example comes as an indirect result a religious revival. The activities of those who are questioning the teaching they have inherited call into action those who fiercely combat the new religious heterodoxies, abominate the Western example producing them, emphasise the fundamental and, they say, the unconquerable differences between the east and west, and demand freedom from alien influences. These two counterforces—the reform movement and the revival that opposes it—involve not only those directly affected, but their parents, relations, and friends, and cause political and social unrest.
For an example of social unrest I would call the attention of the House to the social reformers who are devoting their attention to the education of women, the abolition of infant marriage, freedom of travel and sea voyage, and similar social work, with far-reaching effects on the domestic sphere, and the result of questioning the usages which claim divine sanction, and were hardly in olden times distinguishable, from religion. Despite ostracism and sometimes boycott, pecuniary

1965
loss and moral obloquy, the efforts of the reformers are in a small degree bearing fruit. And just as religious reform produces religious revival, so social reform brings its counter movement. Those forming it resent interference with old-established usage, disapprove of the reforms achieved and proposed, and hate the teaching which has produced them and those who gave the teaching. And then there is, of course, economic unrest—the necessary concomitant of an advance in the material well-being of the masses, indicative of impatience with the incommodities of life which were once accepted as inevitable, of changes in industrial conditions, of increasing wants and of quickened desires. There is a perceptible advance in the general well-being; but the start is from a very low point. The enlargement of the wants of people accustomed to an extraordinarily simple standard of living is bound to manifest itself in ways which are indicative of economic unrest.
Viewed broadly, India may be said to be passing from the stage of society in which agricultural and domestic industries of the cottage order have predominated, in which each village has been an isolated community, and each individual attached to a particular spot and hereditary occupation, to the stage of organised over-seas commerce and capitalised industry. As yet the transition is visible only in a few exceptional districts, where factories or coal-mining have taken hold, and in the maritime cities through which the commerce of India to other countries pours. Indirectly, the whole continent is affected the demand for labour of the industrial centres penetrates to the most secluded villages, raising the local wage rates, and increasing the farmer's wage bill. The demand of foreign countries for the food grains, the oil seeds, the cotton and the jute of India raises local prices, widens the cultivator's market, and changes the crops he grows. The competition of machine-made goods with hand-loom industry impoverishes the village weaver, or converts him into a mill hand and drives him into a town.
These three movements—the religious movement, the social movement, and the economic movement—and the counter movements of those who abominate the new teaching, resent the alteration of the time-honoured social customs, dislike any departure from orthodox religion, question the teaching that produces it, and also
1966
show resentment to those who teach it—all these things together make that curious, differently produced force in India which is known as political unrest. It would be very surprising indeed if the religious and social reform movements, such as I have described, together with the opposition to them, the desire for economic trade, the tendency to preserve uneconomic and ancient industries, together with the spread of education and the growth of the Native Press, and the fermentation of new ideas, stopped short of the political sphere. Of all forms of liberty England has always shown the most jealous solicitude for political liberty, and I think we can regard political unrest in India as being but the manifestation of a movement of Indian thought which has been inspired, directly or indirectly, by English ideals, to which the English and the Government of India themselves gave the first impetus. It is constantly being nourished by English education given in Government schools and colleges. In so far as this political unrest is confined to pressing the Government to popularise the government of the country, so far as the conditions of India will permit, I do not believe that anybody in this House will quarrel with it. You cannot give to the Indians Western education from carefully chosen and carefully selected teachers, trained either in Europe or in India; you cannot give to the Indians Western education either in Europe or in India and then turn round and refuse to those whom you have educated the right, the scope, or the opportunity to act and think as you have taught them to act and think. If you do, it seems to me that you must cause another kind of unrest, more dangerous than any other, among those bitterly dissatisfied and disappointed with the results of their education, who use methods which have been taught them in Western countries to vent their disappointment. For this reason, it seems to me, if I may say so, that the condition of India at the moment is one which, handled well, contains the promise of a completer justification of British rule; handled ill, is bound to lead to chaos. English thought may be responsible for the fundamental principle of revolt against authority, but it cannot be responsible for all the changes which that principle has undergone in its adaptation to Oriental environment. It would be absurd to suppose that old beliefs can be unseated and old usages altered without some element of danger. There have been recently in India manifestations of political unrest with which no one can

1967
sympathise, and with regard to which difference of opinion is not legitimate. There have been assassinations and conspiracies to murder; there have been incitements to violence in the Press; there have been attempts to create hatred against certain sections of His Majesty's subjects. If this pernicious unrest was allowed to spread it would result in widespread misery and anarchy; it would produce a state of things in India which would be more inimical to progress than even the most stringent coercion. It would bring chaos, from which society would seek refuge in a military dictatorship. For these reasons, if the Government was hindered from doing its duty in preventing this, it seems to me it would be a great step backwards, and a tragedy in history. I have only to add that the majority of the Indians themselves, as the House well knows, realise fully the danger, and will exert themselves to suppress those extremists who are jeopardising their position. I do not want to risk any assurance which the conditions do not justify, but I can say that within the last six months there has been a considerable revulsion in our favour. Horror at the assassinations and political outrages, which are wholly repugnant to the true spirit of Hinduism; the strong line taken by the Government and the Rajahs in regard to sedition; the general feeling that political agitation carried on by students and schoolmasters is doing infinite injury to the rising generation, and attempts that have been made in public and private life to promote more intimate relations between the different races—all these, combined with the liberal policy pursued by the present Government in affording to Indians a wider entry into public life, have had their effect.
But I would ask the House to consider what, in the face of these different spirits of unrest arising from the complex and contradictory causes that I have tried to show, should be the root principle of government in India. The answer is easy to give, if difficult to act up to. True statesmanship, it seems to me, ought to be directed towards separating legitimate from illegitimate unrest. The permanent safeguard must be a sympathetic government, which realises the elements of good as well as the elements of danger, and which suppresses criminal extravagances with inflexible sternness. His Majesty's Government, acting upon this principle,
1968
are determined to arm and to assist the Indian Government in its unflinching war against sedition and illegitimate manifestations of unrest, while it shows an increasingly sympathetic and encouraging attitude towards legitimate aspirations.
I propose, if the House will permit me, to give the latest example of the two branches of policy which I have outlined. The latest example of the first part of the policy is the new Press Act. After full debate in the new Council this has become law, and has been in force for some months—I believe already with beneficial effects. Its object may be said to have been to create a responsible instead of an irresponsible Press. In this country public opinion may usually be trusted to produce this effect; but in India, with its differences of race, of creed, and of caste, public opinion in this sense can hardly be said to exist. Therefore something is required in the manner provided by this Act, which I propose to examine in some detail, because I recognise frankly that it is an exceptional measure which the House is justified in demanding should be thoroughly examined, and because I believe that a large amount of the criticism which has been directed against it is due to a misapprehension of its provisions. May I assume that it is common ground that a certain section of the Indian Press has done incalculable mischief during the last two years? It was certainly common ground in the Viceroy's Council when the Bill was under discussion. There was criticism of the remedy proposed by the Government, but nobody questioned the necessity for some remedy or the existence of the disease. I think it would be difficult to exaggerate the dangerous effect of seditious literature on the unformed and impressionable minds of students. I need not labour the point; it will be admitted by all who have a knowledge of Indian affairs, and terrible tragedies have brought it home to us. No one better realises than the Indian parents themselves the gravity of the evil, or more earnestly seek to remedy it. I would ask permission to read to the House a leaflet which has recently been disseminated in Bengal:—
"Dear Readers,
"We have made our appearance at this juncture as the situation is one of extreme importance. Do not be led away by false hopes and temporary conciliations. Let not any conciliatory measure of the Government pacify you and scare you away from your path. Sacrifice white blood unadulterated and pure to your gods on the altar of freedom; the bones of the martyrs are crying for vengeance, and you will be a traitor to your country if you do not adequately respond to the

1969
call. Whites, be they men, women or children, murder them indiscriminately, and you will not commit any sin, but simply perform the highest Dharma. We shall appear again with more details. Adieu!
"EDITOR."
Then follows a postscript:—
"The editor will be extremely obliged to the readers if they translate this into all languages, and circulate it broadcast."
I say, by way of preface, that being an example of the sort of thing that is sometimes circulated among schoolboys in village schools, it is absolutely necessary that the Government should seek some weapon with which to try and prevent the dissemination of such nauseous stuff. Of course, the question presents itself, "Why not be satisfied with the existing law? You can punish sedition under the Penal Code and you can prevent sedition under the Criminal Procedure Code. Two years ago you passed a very stringent Press Act, which enabled you under certain circumstances to crush newspapers out of existence." To this the reply must be that, notwithstanding careful trial, the existing law cannot cope with the evil which the new law is designed to meet. The policy of prosecution under the Penal Code has been given a thorough trial during the last three years; its result has been to make martyrs of misguided and insignificant youths; to advertise sedition, and to enhance the circulation of offending newspapers. Its deterrent effect on the worst class of papers has been negligible. The preventive clause in the Criminal Procedure Code is not much good. It empowers a magistrate to call upon a printer or publisher to furnish security to be of good behaviour. This is easily evaded. The person bound over ever has only to cancel his registration as a publisher and to register a dummy publisher and the newspaper goes on all the same. The Act of 1908 has been successful in preventing the open advocacy of murder; but the Act only concerns itself in open incitements to violence. What we have now to deal with as well as that evil are methods which are just as dangerous even if less flagrant—incessant misrepresentation, the imputation to the Government of malevolent motives, incitements to revolution under the guise of religious exhortation, implied justification of assassination by reference to revolutions in other countries. This preaching by innuendo has proved just as mischievous to the Oriental imagination as any direct incitement to murder which would have come under the Press Act of 1908.
In these circumstances the Government determined to make an effort to create a sense of responsibility and to prevent rather than to punish. Let us see what the Act does. Instead of concerning itself with the individual, like the clause of the Criminal Procedure Code referred to above, it transfers the security to the newspaper or the Press itself. No security is exacted from any registered newspaper which was existing when the Act was passed, unless it is guilty of publishing seditious matter. All new publications alike, so that it does not involve any insidious distinction, furnish security varying from £33 to £133, unless the magistrate thinks fit to grant an exemption, on the ground, for instance, that, in his opinion, the funds of the newspaper are not sufficient to find the money necessary.
5.0 P.M.
In the event of a newspaper which has given security, publishing seditious matter, the security and all the copies of the offending issue may be declared forfeit, and a newer and larger security demanded. On a subsequent offence, subject to appeal to the High Court, the press itself, as well as the security, is forfeit. Such are the main provisions of the Act. I would submit to the House that this Act really provides a far more humane procedure than the procedure by prosecution, which some Members seem to prefer. Instead of putting the offender to the ignominy of prosecution and imprisonment, he is, on the first offence, merely warned in a friendly manner. If he proceeds in his infringement of the law he does so with his eyes open. Even then he is only asked for a modest security, upon which he can obtain interest from the Government. Even after a further offence, if his security is forfeited, he has only to furnish a further security in order to have a further chance. Nobody can represent this as drastic. The Act certainly will not prevent anarchy of which the Press is not the cause, but only the instrument of propagation. We only hope that by this means we shall be able to check the contamination, by deliberate misrepresentation and inflammatory doctrine, of those who might otherwise be useful members of the community.
The Press remains free to publish what it likes. Honest papers will not be affected by it. Those papers which have anything to fear from it will have so abused the full measure of freedom, previously granted, that the continuation of their unfettered freedom will become impossible. The fear that the smaller concerns

1971
may be extinguished by their liability to find security has been met by the orders issued by the Government of India that in these cases the requirement should be waived, and no security should be taken. Personally I am not impressed by the picture some have drawn of the nervous editor, not knowing whether he may have incurred the displeasure of a crotchety Government. The Act enumerates very definitely the sort of writing that constitutes an offence, and it expressly exempts from its purview the honest expression of disapproval of Government action. May I quote to the House a remark of Sir FitzJames Stephen, which was quoted in the Debate in the Viceroy's Council. It runs:—
"I do not believe that any man who sincerely wished not to excite disaffection ever wrote anything which any other honest man believed to be intended to excite disaffection."
I believe there is nobody in this House who will not in his heart of hearts agree with that remark. I can only say that the Government of India have always kept prominently before them the necessity of avoiding, at all costs, what might impair the right, which is not less valuable to the Government itself than to the governed, of frank and honest criticism of Government measures and action. They have issued Administrative Orders with a view of securing uniformity of obligations, and with a view of avoiding, if possible, hardships. In the circular in which they issue instructions to refrain from demanding security in the case of papers whose resources cannot supply it, it is also stated, or laid down, that existing newspapers should be warned before demanding security, and that the security should be fixed at the minimum that may reasonably be expected to enforce obedience to the law. I should like to quote one parapragh of the recent Order, because I do not think you can find better evidence of the determination of the Government not to use this Act in any harsh or oppressive way:—
"It is the earnest wish of the Governor-General in Council that the Act should be administered with careful discrimination between those newspapers and Presses which are generally well conducted and those which transgress from a deliberate intention to excite disaffection. No order of forfeiture should be passed without previous consultation with the Law Officers, and in coming to a decision due weight should be given to other articles published by the offending journal which indicate the nature and tendency of its writings."
I am going to ask the House's permission to quote an opinion from an Indian
1972
paper on the way in which the Act is being administered. The editors of certain vernacular papers had been warned by the Deputy-Commissioner of Lahore against continuing to publish matter which might excite disaffection and cause a disturbance of the peace between the Hindu and Mahomedan populations. The "Tribune," a daily paper edited in English by an Indian gentleman, commented as follows:—
"Where the authorities think it necessary to move, it is certainly wise and far-sighted to put in friendly council before taking action under the law. The fact that the Deputy-Commissioner of Lahore has demanded an undertaking in the first instance, is a clear and welcome indication that the authorities have no desire to work the law in a harsh or rigorous manner."
That is a welcome tribute with which I trust the House will agree. Let no one imagine that this Act has been thrust upon an unwilling India. If there is anyone who thinks that I would beg him to study an account of the Debate in the Viceroy's Council, which has been issued as a White Paper, and note the way in which speaker after speaker arose and acknowledged the lamentable necessity for such action. I believe that the Act, taken in conjunction with the Seditious Meetings Act, will complete the armour necessary, so far as one can foresee, for the repression of the campaign of calumny and of sedition. It will, at any rate, prevent that horrible form of sedition-mongering, which consists in disseminating cruel misstatements among young boys at school. May I ask the House to consider for one moment how difficult it is by quoting words to decide what is and what is not seditious. Let me give an example. It is constantly said by seditious people that the English have caused malaria. There are apologists who say—and on one occasion I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester adopt this attitude—"But this is an interesting scientific fact. Canals are the breeding places of anopheles. The English build canals. It is a good wind that blows nobody ill; they, therefore, produce malaria. This statement, which is seditious in your opinion, is merely an attempt from the man who utters it to disseminate an interesting scientific result incontrovertible and remarkable." But what sophistry all this is! How harmless is the sentiment if this were all! But when it is uttered with the deliberate attempt to make the ignorant believe that the British Government have introduced malaria deliberately, by building canals and even railroads to diminish the troublesome population, it

1973
ceases to be a scientific fact; it becomes a dangerous, libellous, and malignant calumny.
I will take again, as another example, the subject of the Indian police, and I will say, as I have so often said in the House, that no one can deny the imperfections of this force. But you cannot produce a complete reform of a faulty force in a year, a decade, or even fifty years. The improvement has been the most earnest attempt of the British Government—yes, and of the Indian people—during the last sixty years, during which the police have formed the subject of a series of Commissions of Inquiry, the last of which was appointed in 1902 by Lord Curzon. It recommended comprehensive reforms in all branches of the service, the annual cost of which was estimated at over £1,000,000 sterling. Its findings were adopted by Government Resolution; effect has already been given to most of the proposals, and the work of reorganisation is still in progress. Let us consider for one moment the force with which the Report deals. The Civil Police in British India number 176,000 men, who have to deal with a population of nearly 232,000,000, scattered over 1,000,000 square miles. Let me give a typical district. In a district of Bengal there is a European superintendent of police, with the assistance of an Indian deputy-superintendent, who has to control nine inspectors, seventy-nine sub-inspectors, eighty-three head constables, and 778 constables. The area of the district is 5,186 square miles, the population is nearly 3,000,000, there are twenty-six police stations and twenty-one outposts, some of them very difficult of access, and in 1908 4,170 cases of serious crime to investigate. These statistics illustrate, far more than any words of mine, the difficulties under which the police work is done in India, and when one reflects that educated Indians regard police duties with abhorrence, that to "work for a confession," as it is euphemistically termed, has been inherited from pre-British times as the best mode of procedure in a criminal trial, that little help is obtained from the people in bringing criminals to book, some faint idea of the difficulties will be realised. Having regard to all these circumstances, it is not surprising that isolated instances of abuse may sometimes be found. But by improving the police, by the vigorous prosecution of malefactors, by the expenditure of money, reorganisation must be gradually effected, and is going on with a determination which no honest man can doubt.
Let me ask the House to compare some extracts which I have taken from the Commission on Torture in Madras in 1855 with the Report of the Curzon Commission of 1902. The Commission of 1855 quotes and endorses the words of an official witness:—
"The so-called police of the Mofussil district is little better than a pollution. It is a terror to well disposed and peaceable people, none whatever to thieves and rogues, and if it were abolished in tote, property would not be a whit less secure."
The Commission of 1902 say:—
"It is significant that a proposal to remove a police station from any neighbourhood is opposed by the people. They know that, on the whole, the police are for their protection."
The Commission on Torture in Madras in 1855 spoke of—
"The universal and systematic practice of personal violence,"
and said:
"It is still of enormous proportions, and imperatively calling for an immediate and effectual remedy."
The Commission of 1902 wrote:—
"Deliberate torture of suspected persons and other most flagrant abuses occur occasionally, but they are now rare."
Again, I say a marked improvement has been seen. Nevertheless so keenly and rightly sensitive are the English people about reform in the police force that defects are quickly pointed out. To point out defects in the police force, if it is considered that they still require pointing out, and to suggest new remedies and palliatives which have not yet been discovered, if there be such, is useful work, demanding the sympathy of all men, but to collect instances of abuse, many unproved, some proved to be false, to take quotations from their context and garble them, to represent as findings of a Commission what is merely report of popular opinion, to quote a statement of an interested party as being "an account of what happened in the very words of the official resolution," to say that the Indian Government has never prohibited torture, when it is punishable with seven years' penal servitude, to ignore any Government action to stop these abuses, and to represent the Government as ignorant or supine, callous, and tolerant of bad practices, I say, whether this be the work of a Hindu agitator or an ex-Member of Parliament, it is seditious, dangerous, and ought to be stopped.
The House will agree further, that, hand in hand with any repressive measures designed to deal with manifestations or symptoms, the root causes must be dealt with too, and chief among these

1975
we must look for an improvement in the matter of education. The worst danger which threatens India is the lawlessness or disregard of authority which exists amongst students or schoolmasters. Now, I have described the political difficulties which exist to-day as largely the consequence of Western education. If there is a solution it is surely to be sought in some reconsideration of the system which caused it, both in India and England, even at the cost of other economies or new taxation and large expenditure from the revenues of India. Let me first deal with the position of the Indians who come to England for purposes of study. The number now in England cannot be less than 1,000; they are far removed from the influence of their parents and guardians; they often arrive wholly friendless and ignorant of Western customs. Their position is one of great difficulty and considerable danger, and they afford a problem urgently demanding solution. Last year my predecessor outlined the means by which we hoped to deal with the question, and the House will expect to hear what progress has been made.
These measures fall under three heads, namely: (1) The appointment of Educational Adviser to Indian students at the India Office; (2) the appointment of an advisory committee; (3) the provision of a house for the National Indian Association and the Northbrook Society for the purpose of a joint clubhouse. The educational adviser, Mr. T. W. Arnold, was appointed in April, 1909. His duties are multifarious. He must be a store of information upon educational matters of every kind. He must advise students as to their residence if they do not become members of a residential university or college. He is a standing referee for educational institutions as to the qualifications of Indian applicants for admission. A doubt was entertained whether Indian students would be willing to avail themselves of the assistance of an official agency situated at the India Office. This doubt has been resolved in a most satisfactory manner. The students come in very large numbers, and the immediate problem is to cope with the very large amount of work with which the educational adviser has to deal. In the last twelve months his personal interviews with Indian students have numbered
1976
upwards of 1,300. In addition to the work which was originally assigned to him, he has been entrusted by parents in India with the guardianship of their sons in no less than seventy cases. This entails closer supervision than is attempted in ordinary cases, and involves, among other duties, the care of their money.
The Advisory Committee, appointed in May, 1909, consists of Lord Ampthill as Chairman, six Indian gentlemen of standing, resident in this country, and two English members of the India Office, with correspondents in the various provinces in India. This Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary of State upon all questions referred to them regarding Indian students and holds receptions from time to time in the India Office of students recommended to them by the University Committees in India. The Committee, and especially the Chairman, have thrown themselves with ardour into their work, and have proved very useful to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has leased a house (No. 21) in Cromwell Road, facing the South Kensington Museum, to which the Northbrook Society and the National Indian Association will shortly be transferred. The educational officer will also have his office in this building. Bedrooms will be reserved for the use of Indian students upon their first arrival in this country. Arrangements have been made for meeting students on their first arrival, and, instead of wandering about as at present in search of lodgings, they will be welcomed at the house in Cromwell Road, and given a bed and meals at once. Subsequently they will be given information about the many details which a stranger wants to know on arrival, and advice as to their studies; and they will be furnished, it is hoped, with introductions to English friends and see in fact that they are not friendless in London. The Northbrook Society will run a social club in the rooms assigned to it. Both the societies give receptions at regular intervals, to which Indian and English ladies and gentlemen are invited, and where opportunities of making acquaintance are frequent. The house will be opened, it is hoped, in August, and will be available for students who come to this country at the beginning of the next academic year.
A good start has been made on the right lines. The Secretary of State intends to proceed vigorously on these lines, and as time goes on and opportunity offers to enlarge the scope of organised effort. Let

1977
me add one word, addressed not so much to those within these walls as to such audience as I may have outside them. Our efforts cannot bear real fruit unless we have the co-operation of those among whom the lives of Indian students are thrown. Many a friendless, sensitive lad looks back, I fear, on the period that he spent in England as one long spell of loneliness and unhappiness. Nothing that the India Office can do will remedy that. The remedy lies in the endeavours of those among whom their lives are spent to overcome insular reticence and reserve, and to extend a real welcome which, if it is given in the spirit of true and frank comradeship, and not in patronising tolerance, will meet with warm-hearted reciprocation and will bear fruit of which the giver did not dream.
Turning now to India, we must make the teaching more practical, encourage and extend technical instruction, for which there is a great demand, supervise and improve the hostels. The educational system now in existence has undoubtedly been successful in purifying the judicial service. It is capable of great extension in improving the moral tone of the country, spreading discipline and disseminating useful knowledge by means of well-paid and contented teachers. Now education is left to the Member in charge of the Home Department. He is overburdened with work as it is, and his duties will be multiplied by the enlargement of the Council. Adequate consideration of educational questions touching the foundations of life in the many communities of India cannot be reasonably expected from a Department placed in such circumstances as these. A responsible Minister for Education has been an indispensable Member of a British Cabinet for some time, and there is no reason why the same necessity should not be just as strong in what I may call the Cabinet of the Government of India. Steps are needed to secure a coherent policy towards education and to control the expenditure of the money allotted for this purpose.
We have, therefore, decided to revive the sixth membership of the Council, dormant since the abolition of the Military Supply Department, and to appoint a member of Council for education. The head of an Education Department will be all the more likely to perform his work in a broad and comprehensive spirit if he is brought into living contact with the currents of Indian affairs, and this is most
1978
effectively secured by knowledge of the general deliberations on public business. It is no object of ours to take a step towards centralisation, but I would remind the House that the Decentralisation Commission have given their reasons for thinking that the general control of educational policy is within the legitimate sphere of the Government of India, and does not hamper development in accordance with local needs and conditions. I may say that such a man, it is confidently hoped and believed, has been found, and His Majesty has approved the selection of Mr. Butler—a man who has been occupying up till now the position of Foreign Secretary to the Government of India. He will, I am sure, become the head of a Department which will ensure to India one of its greatest needs—a better and co-ordinated system of education.
Whilst I am on the subject of the Viceroy's Council, I desire to put an end to public anxiety, by announcing that Mr. W. H. Clark, of the Treasury and the Board of Trade, has been appointed, and His Majesty has approved his appointment, as Member for Commerce and Industry. No one who knows his high attainments and conspicuous achievements in this country and in the East, and certainly no one among his friends, of whom I am glad to think he has many in this House, will question that he brings to a difficult and important task great qualifications which will be invaluable to the Government of India. I pass now to deal with the other branch of the policy I have outlined, to give some account of the latest contribution in the direction of meeting legitimate aspirations by saying something of the Indian Councils Act, the working of which has done much to improve the condition of affairs in India during the last six months.
I think I may claim for the Indian Councils Act that it has been a great success. The House will expect me to make a few remarks, necessarily brief, on its working. It provided, it will be remembered, for a large increase in the number of the various legislative councils in India, introduced a true system of election, making its members more widely representative, and greatly widened their deliberative functions. At the same time, though this did not form part of the Act, it was decided to abolish for the future, in all councils save that of the Governor-General, the practice of maintaining a majority of official members. The Act

1979
also provided for the enlargement of the Executive Councils of the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and the establishment of an Executive Council to assist the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. Our proposals were subjected to much criticism, both here and in another place, and, although we met with no actual opposition in the Division Lobby—except on one point, which was eventually settled by compromise—the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition deliberately disclaimed on behalf of his party any responsibility for the consequences that were likely to follow the passing of the Act. We are quite content to accept sole responsibility for the consequences, which so far—though it is early yet to speak—not only falsify the gloomy anticipations expressed in some quarters, but I might almost say actually surpass our expectations.
The Regulations that were necessary before the Act could come into operation were published on 15th November last. No time was lost in holding the elections, and the new councils were able to meet early in the present year. Since then there has been no inconsiderable amount of legislation. In every council a budget has been discussed and passed, and full use has been made of the newly granted right to move resolutions on matters of public importance. So, although the time is short, the material for forming a judgment on the working of the Act is not wholly inadequate. There are two salient points in which particularly the fears of our more conservative critics have been falsified. The one is the admirable dignity and sense of responsibility displayed by the non-official members; the other is the conspicuous and gratifying success with which the official members, after the manner of old Parliamentary hands, have explained and defended their policy in debate.
Let me take one illustration—an excellent illustration, for it is drawn from a case in which the circumstances were such as to have strained the system to breaking point if it had possessed the defects that some saw in it. About a year ago, before the revised councils had come into existence, a Bill to amend the Calcutta Police Act was introduced into the Bengal Council. It was largely uncontroversial, but certain of its provisions which in the opinion of the Government were needed for the efficient discharge by the police of the duty
1980
of maintaining order, excited the liveliest disapproval from a certain class of Indian politicians, and a certain section of the Indian Press; disapproval which found an echo in this country and within these walls. Even after its stringency had been modified in certain respects this opposition continued and the Lieutenant-Governor wisely decided not to pass the measure at once but to reserve its final stages for the reformed Legislative Council.
Now, of all the revised Councils, Bengal has the largest unofficial majority, and, as everyone knows, what I may call, for want of a better term, the "spirit of independence" is more active in Bengal than anywhere else. We had therefore the interesting experiment of a Bill that had excited vehement protests as an encroachment on liberty being considered by a council with a large unofficial majority drawn from, politically, the most progressive Province of India. What happened? The Bill became law after a reasonable and temperate debate. Only one amendment was put to the vote, on a point which must, therefore, presumably be considered the most contentious in the Bill, namely, the proposal to empower the Commissioner of Police to prohibit processions if likely to cause a breach of the peace. The amendment was lost by thirty-six votes to five, nineteen non-officials voting with the Government. I have dwelt upon this example because in it were present in a peculiar degree all the elements of danger that our critics apprehended and because a single actual instance is more illuminating than a profusion of generalities. Incidentally, I may observe how much stronger is the position of a Government when they rely on legislation passed in such a way than when their legislation bears the quasi-executive stamp of an official majority.
As in legislation, so in non-legislative discussions the debates have, on the whole, been notable for moderation and reason. Such debates, especially the preliminary debates on the financial statement, have an educational value that must not be overlooked in that they bring home to non-official members the real difficulties of administration. Every question has been fully discussed; all opinions have been represented, and the Government has had ample opportunity for stating its views, explaining its motives, and bringing out the difficulties of a particular line of action. And in these discussions there has been no sharp

1981
line of cleavage between officials and non-officials; the old idea that non-officials must necessarily be in opposition seems to have disappeared. I would commend many of these debates—as, for instance, the debate on primary education in the Governor-General's Council on 18th March—to the careful attention of students of Indian matters. The House is aware that in fulfilment of the other part of the Act of 1909—the part relating to Executive Councils—we have appointed Indian gentlemen to the Executive Councils of the Governors of Madras and Bombay. We have also sanctioned proposals for the establishment of an Executive Council for the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal; I hope an announcement will be made on this subject at a very early date.
In effect, the Councils Act has resulted in producing excellent debates, creating opportunities for the ventilation of grievances and of public views, creating public opinion, permitting the Governors to explain themselves, giving to those interested in politics a better and a more productive field for their persausive powers than the rather more sterile and discursive debates in Congress. I have now described not only the latest measure for dealing with disorder, the measure to create a responsible Press, but also the latest measure for an attempt to popularise the Councils. The material which I have now laid before the House will give the least imaginative Member ample food for profitable thought on the most difficult problems which the science of government has ever offered to students. I am fully conscious of the impossibility of presenting a true picture, and of the audacity that I have been guilty of in endeavouring to analyse nations and attempting to assign causes for their emotions. Let me frankly tell the House that I could never have found the courage to make these attempts or to occupy the attention of those who have survived so long, did I not find strength, courage and inspiration in the supreme importance, overwhelming interest and great complexities of my subject. The dangers that beset the future of India are the sources of its possibilities. They can only be avoided by acknowledging and fostering the germs of progress, and they can only be really aided to a healthy growth by war upon the internal evils in which they are embedded.
Let me only point out frankly some of the dangers that I think I see: first here in this House. Do not, on the one hand, oppose all agitation for reform because
1982
you are led astray to confuse it with seditious agitation. Do not use your murderer as an excuse for your conservatism. And I use that term in no party sense. It is as applicable to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Boroughs as it is to those who sit on the opposite benches. You cannot foster sedition more surely than by driving to it, or confusing with its advocates those who look to you with confidence for sympathy with their legitimate aspirations. You see clearly the seditious man and his seditious writings, and you are led to say, "This is Indian unrest; this House can have no sympathy with it. Let us put it from us, let us uproot it vehemently." But when you put it from you, do not put away with it the man who is deserving of your respect and sympathy.
And aided by this, and because of this, the other danger comes into being. Do not fear that you are lacking in sympathy with the true reformer because you refuse sympathy to the anarchist. Of course, nobody in this House really sympathises with anarchy. But because you are afraid that some reformer may be called an anarchist, because you fear that you will be accused of refusing to assist those who are animated by some democratic ideals similar to your own, you are led sometimes to appear to throw a protecting cloak over the malefactor in order to proclaim aloud your sympathy with the reformer; to resist the efforts made to cope with the anarchist because you will not trust the Government of India to differentiate between the anarchist and the reformer. These divergent, contradictory, and equally dangerous tendencies would, either of them, if they prevailed, subvert order and dissipate the promise to be found in Indian affairs at the moment; and it is because of their existence that all parties in the House should help the Government in segregating violence and incitement to violence which mask, hinder, and might render impotent real efforts for reform.
What of those at the other end of the machine? I trust implicitly, from what I have seen of the public-spirited men who administer India on the spot, that they are determined to meet the changing spirit of the time generously and sympathetically. Paper reforms are useless if given grudgingly and made the excuse for tightened reins in administrative action—punitive measures become as dangerous as the evils they are to cure if used indiscriminately for repression and not for punishment, to

1983
drive honest men to despair instead of sinners to repentance. But I am positive—and this House will, I hope, find evidence of this in the study of Indian affairs on all hands—that lessons and examples of the past and the high purpose and loyalty which are the cherished possessions of the Service I am discussing, ensure the avoidance of such obvious dangers as these. The ranks of the Civil Service are, however, recruited yearly from our universities, and to those who are going to India to the responsible tasks they have chosen I am bold enough to say, mainly because I am fresh from the university and know vividly at what I am hinting, banish as quickly as you can the intolerance of boys and the prejudice of undergraduates, imbibe the traditions of the great Service you are joining, adapt them to modern demands, and go to administer a country in virtue and by the power of the sympathy you can implant in its people. Remember that the best intentions of the Government may be frustrated by the most junior members of the Service, called upon, as they are, immediately to assume great responsibilities. I can conceive no more important career than the Indian Civil Service, and I would urge that it should be the object of all those who enter it to permit not even the must unfriendly examination to detect any deterioration in the Service. This is a suitable moment for taking so comprehensive a survey as I have wearied the House with this afternoon.
Lord Minto, after a difficult reign, is returning to England, and I believe will receive, when he returns to this country, the gratitude which he has so richly earned from those upon whom the ultimate responsibility for Indian Government rests. The relations of a Viceroy to the Secretary of State in Council are intimate and responsible. The Act of Parliament says:—
"That the Secretary of State in Council shall superintend, direct and control all acts, operations and concerns which in any way relate to or concern the government or revenues of India, and all grants of salaries, gratuities and allowances, and all other payments and charges whatever out of or on the revenues of India."
It will be seen how wide, how far-reaching and how complete these powers are. The Secretary of State is separated from this task by the sea, hampered by the delays of communication, often checkmated by the lapse of time. The cable and the steamer alone render them possible, and for a successful administration of India
1984
the most liberal-minded, hard-working Secretary of State is helpless without a loyal, conscientious and statesmanlike Viceroy. Lord Morley and his Council, working through the agency of and with the help of Lord Minto, have accomplished much. Taxation has been lightened to the extent of millions of pounds; famine has been fought and frontiers have been protected with unparalleled success and speed. Factory conditions, general health, education, the efficiency of the police, have all been improved; the pay of the Native Army has been increased. Our relations with native States have been improved and were never better. The rigidity of the State machine has been softened, while liberal measures of reform have opened to the educated classes of the Indian community a wider field for participation in the government of the country. This is a great record for five years, and contains many abiding results of a conspicuously successful administration of Indian affairs. I believe that men of all parties will be grateful that Lord Morley remains to carry out the policy he has initiated, and the new Viceroy, Sir Charles Hardinge, goes to India amid the almost universal welcome of those who recognise his high attainments and great qualifications. I cannot do better than close by addressing to him with all respect the words that were addressed to his grandfather on a similar occasion by Sir Robert Peel, because I believe they embody now as then, as shortly as it is possible to put them, the essential needs of the continued success of English Government in India. The Prime Minister wrote in 1844:—
"If you can keep peace, reduce expenses, extend commerce, and strengthen our hold on India by confidence in our justice and kindness and wisdom, you will be received here on your return with acclaims a thousand times louder, and a welcome infinitely more cordial, than if you had a dozen victories to boast of."
Mr. WYNDHAM: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to follow the Under-Secretary of State for India in this Debate. It is a custom of this House that someone should rise from this bench whenever an important statement has been made by a Minister on behalf of the Department for which he is responsible to this House. It is not always easy, and in this instance I think it is impossible, to defend that custom, but perhaps it may be said that in the case of what is popularly known as the Debate on the Indian Budget this convention is

1985
something more than an act of inter-party courtesy; it is a symbol of the fact that both of the historic parties in this House wish to be associated in what is the annual ratification of the vast work accomplished each year by the Government of India. But even that reflection would serve in no degree to dispel my difficulties in being called upon at short notice to intervene in a Debate on a subject of this magnitude with which I am not familiar. I will not dwell upon that. Any such personal feeling on my part is altogether overshadowed by my regret for the cause which made it necessary for my right hon. Friend to depute another of his colleagues to fulfil this duty. The Under-Secretary for India has referred in eloquent terms to the loss which this House, and which he was good enough to say India, has suffered by the death of Earl Percy. It is even less than a year ago—it was on 5th August last—that Lord Percy spoke on behalf of the Opposition in the Debate on the Indian Budget. He gave one of those brilliant speeches which lent distinction to this Assembly, and which were characterised by that keen intellect which added weight to the conclusions to which we arrived. It was not only his brilliant intellectual gifts which commanded the admiration of this House. His transparent sincerity and his unselfish devotion to public duty, without one thought of personal advancement, gave him a position in this House which will not be forgotten, and have placed all his countrymen under a debt of obligation to him. I find it almost impossible to state in words that would satisfy my desire our regard for the memory of Lord Percy.
I pass from that to congratulate the Under-Secretary most heartily, if he will allow me, upon the manner in which he has discharged his difficult task. This discussion affords but very limited opportunity to this House to review the numerous and important subjects which have been detailed this afternoon, but even this opportunity is rendered of great value when the Minister in charge lays his statement before us, as the Under-Secretary has done this afternoon. Let me say again I repudiate any profession of special knowledge on the subject we are debating, but, though with far less confidence, I think I may also congratulate him on the matter which he was privileged to unfold. He gave, and I believe was entitled to give, a more favourable account of the condition of India than was possible in the case of his predecessor last year. He
1986
dealt first with the purely financial aspect of the question, and, although it is not easy to follow any Budget, and difficult to follow the Budget of a country with which one is not familiar, I think the facts in his explanatory Memorandum, supplemented as they are by his statement to-day, corroborate the anticipation to which Lord Percy gave utterance last year. He then reviewed the financial part of India, and was able to say, speaking as a critic from this side of the House, that he discovered only a temporary set-back, which was due to universal trade depression. I think the account we have heard this afternoon completely bears out the view for which Lord Percy then made himself responsible. After the authoritative information contained in the Blue Books to which the Under-Secretary has referred, it is quite unnecessary for anyone, speaking from this bench, to dilate upon the more favourable aspects of the financial figures that have been presented. I would perhaps, however, not altogether neglect the small opportunities I have of making a useful contribution to this Debate if I put a question on this point or that as they arise, and with which the Under-Secretary may be able to deal later on when he comes to reply.
I recollect last year Lord Percy pointed out that the principal direction in which economy was apparently to be sought by the Indian Government was in respect of railways. This year we find a larger capital sum of money is to be expended on railways in India than last year, but I did not gather from the Under-Secretary—and this is the point to which I would direct his attention—that the capital sum allocated to the Indian Railway system will be largely spent upon new extensions. I infer that suspension in the development of the railway system of India by the construction of new lines to which Lord Percy referred last year still continues, and that the financial position of India, although it enables India to improve the existing railways, does not enable India to carry forward new extensions with the rapidity which characterised an earlier and more favourable financial period. Lord Percy also in his speech of last year found that there had been some economy effected in respect of education. I think I am right in saying that this year larger sums of money are to be devoted to education, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to tell us a little more fully than he has done whether that provision will do more for

1987
the higher branches of education in India. I listened with great attention to all he said about the provision of education in this country, and about the new membership of the Council, but in the Debate last year Lord Percy brought forward some interesting and even some discouraging figures. I think he was able to say that, although there had been an increase of 80 per cent. in the last twenty years in the number of children attending the elementary schools in India, the number of those who reached the higher standard had not only relatively but absolutely diminished. We would like to hear from the Under-Secretary whether the further provision of money for education in India is in his opinion and in that of Lord Morley likely to make good that falling off in the number of children in India who receive higher education? I would also ask whether efforts are being made in connection with Indian education to give an equal opportunity to those of every nationality and of every creed. The Under-Secretary, in his most interesting speech, has adverted more than once to the immense difficulty inherent in any government of India, owing to the fact that we have to deal with so many nationalities and with so many different creeds. Lord Percy pointed out last year that in this matter of education facilities which might be valuable for, and acceptable to some classes of the Indian community were not so valuable and acceptable to other classes of that community. That, again, is a point upon which, perhaps, I may ask for a little further light.
Coming to pure finance, I would take up and associate the Opposition with the views set forth by the Under-Secretary upon opium. At first blush the satisfaction which we naturally feel owing to the fact that the revised Estimates were better than the Budget which preceded it may be disturbed when we find the increase is due to an increased revenue of £918,300 from opium. We associate ourselves entirely with the views expressed by the Under-Secretary. As I understand the matter, the increase of revenue is due to an increase in price, which, in turn, is due to the very policy of restriction which the Government of India has recently adopted. Looking at it from the financial point of view, we must bear in mind that any increase in revenue due to that inflation of price is not a permanent increase to which we can look in the future. It will and
1988
must of necessity be succeeded by a great drop in the revenue derived from opium. It is, I imagine, the prospect of this great drop in the revenue derived from opium which largely accounts for the necessity to impose new taxes in the Indian Budget.
I cannot refrain from dwelling for a moment upon a point of such interest, at any rate to us, which arises out of the new taxation which has been imposed. I know a little more about the Indian Budget now than before the Under-Secretary spoke. When I read his Memorandum, I found the announcement that there were to be new Customs duties upon wine, beer, and spirits was accompanied by a perfectly explicit statement that there was a corresponding increase in the Excise duties upon wine, beer, and spirits. We were further told in the Memorandum of the new Customs duties upon tobacco, silver, and petroleum, but that announcement was not accompanied by any similar statement. There was not a word in the Memorandum about these Customs duties being accompanied by a similar increase in the Excise duties. When the Under-Secretary came to deal with that, he felt it necessary to announce his Free Trade principles in the clearest possible terms. I thought he was going to slide away from the subject without telling the House definitely whether those three Customs duties on tobacco, petroleum, and silver were, or were not to be accompanied by corresponding Excise duties.
6.0 P.M.
I gather from him that they are not to be accompanied by any such corresponding Excise duty, and that he defends that from the point of view of the orthodox Free Trader by saying that, in his opinion, these taxes will have no protective effect and will do nothing to benefit those who are concerned in India with the tobacco industry, with silver, or with the refining of petroleum. That is the way in which these taxes are presented here in London when we review the Indian Budget. When the Budget is presented in the Viceroy's Council, however, the Finance Member, although also declaring his Free Trade convictions, accompanies that declaration by saying that if the outcome of the changes he has laid before the Council result in some encouragement of Indian industry, he for one will not regret it. I understood from the Under-Secretary, however, that if the changes did result in the encouragement of Indian industry, then the Indian Government would have

1989
to consider whether those changes would not have to be abandoned. We have a complete gradation of tone. We have the Under-Secretary saying that if these taxes do encourage Indian industry they must be considered, and we have the Finance Member of the Viceroy's Council saying that he will not regret if they do encourage Indian industries. In the Debate on the Budget referred to with so much satisfaction by the Under-Secretary I find that a Member who is representative of Indian opinion goes a great deal further than the Finance Member of the Viceroy's Council, for he says that:—
"Now-a-days, we hear a good deal of Tariff Reform. There is a swinging back of the pendulum of Free Trade, and why cannot the people of this country hope to share in that reform. There is a general feeling in favour of protection and a judicious protective tariff is demanded by intelligent public opinion in the interests of undeveloped industries."
There you get a more emphatic expression of Indian opinion upon these new taxes and upon the process of having further and more fundamental changes in the fiscal system of India. When we are discussing the reforms the Government have undertaken in order to associate Indian subjects more closely with representatives of our own race in the personal responsibility for the government of India, when we are told that the repression of crime must be accompanied by a sympathetic and intelligent attitude towards the wishes of the people who are governed, why are we to neglect this direct expression of wish on the fiscal system of India which the Under-Secretary will hardly be able to say does not represent the opinions of those whom he governs in India and whom we do not allow to govern themselves?
I pass from that, and, if I may, I will pass entirely from the purely financial aspect of this question, upon which the Under-Secretary himself has dwelt at comparatively little length. The hon. Gentleman dealt in greater detail with the political aspect of Indian controversies which we all notice in the diversities of race and religion in that country. We agreed with him when he stated that the almost infinitesimal proportion borne by our race, responsible for the government of India, to those to whom it is responsible, is a salient feature which nobody can ignore. I am certain that we echoed his sentiments when, in dealing with this question, he said the gifts of dignity, reserve and sense of proportion were required. That being so, I am sure the House will understand that I do not
1990
commit myself upon these very difficult matters, not having had an opportunity to do that which he said we should all do, that is to choose my words. If he will allow me to say so I think he has very properly chosen and weighed his words. But in one sentence which, if taken out of its context, was not so well advised as the context from which it was extracted, he reminded the House that anything said here was not said merely in this House but was said to all in India. The one sentence which did not come up to that high standard of judicious choice which characterised the whole speech was that in which he said he thought that the British attitude towards unrest in India was different from the British attitude towards unrest in other countries which he named. Undoubtedly it is true. And why? Because we Britons have a deep sense of responsibility in matters for which we are responsible. Therefore, our attitude towards unrest is characterised by a good deal of reserve. On the other hand, we are not endowed very largely with a gift of imagination which enables us to understand how other persons may view it, and that is why we so freely criticise the government of other countries when they find themselves face to face with unrest not altogether dissimilar to that unrest which comes up in India. The only criticism I venture to make on the manner in which the Under-Secretary dealt with this part of the subject is to say that he showed his sense of responsibility when he spoke of the necessity of distinguishing between pernicious and illegitimate forms of unrest and that form which springs from the starting of new ideas through the awakening intelligence of the population. We were glad to hear that there has been a revulsion of feeling in our favour. I take it that the Under-Secretary, when he said that, meant that a large number of our fellow-subjects in India are, in his opinion, rallying to the Government when the Government carry out their primary duty, which is to stamp out unflinchingly crime which masquerades as politics or reform. By all means let that distinction be drawn. We do not cavil with the manner in which it has been drawn this afternoon.
The Under-Secretary proceeded to deal in some detail with the Press Law. His arguments seemed to be addressed almost exclusively to those who consider that that law is too drastic. But will anyone who heard the shocking, inhuman document read out by the Under-Secretary for India

1991
for one moment entertain the idea that the law is too drastic to meet such an outrage against our common humanity? Perhaps one ought not to support the case of such a law by citing only such terrible evidence as that which he gave. But I would go further, and I say, when the Under-Secretary gave as an example the statement that the English were responsible for the introduction of malaria into India, that is also a form of malicious slander carrying with it grave political consequences in such a country as India which must be adequately met by any Government responsible for the interests of India. If we are to govern India, then the Government of India must protect India from evils which are far worse than the evils of so-called coercive legislation.
I may, on behalf of the Opposition, associate ourselves fully with the Under-Secretary's defence of the Indian police. We were glad to hear that, in the view of the Government of India, the people of that country are beginning to recognise that the police of India are there for their protection. The cruel attacks on the police as a whole, because, it may be, some excess or crime has been committed by an individual policeman, are not only wrong in themselves, but they come with a singular lack of logic and common sense from those who say that they desire to associate the people more closely with ourselves in the administration of the laws of that country. The police are Indian fellow-subjects, who have been put in a responsible position—one of the most responsible positions which a man can occupy, next to that of being a judge, or sitting in the Councils of the nation. Those who are responsible for the life and property of their fellow-subjects are discharging one of the most necessary and also one of the most laudable functions that fall to the lot of civilised man. Therefore, if we are ever to associate the people of India more closely with the Government of India we shall not succeed in that object if we tolerate these cruel and malicious attacks on that body of the people of India whom we have associated with ourselves in the great mission of civilisation for which we are responsible in that country.
The Under-Secretary turning from that part of the duty of the Government which consists in protecting the lives and property of those committed to its charge, went to another part equally important,
1992
the duty of any Government to deal with the subject of education. I have already touched on that, and I will not revert to it except to this extent. The hon. Gentleman informed the House that membership of the Council is to be given to a new Minister of Education. I am not now speaking from any knowledge of my own on the subject. I should not presume to do so. But I would tell the Under-Secretary that one whose views on India are entitled to respect mentioned this matter to me only this morning, and, without directly criticising the step which the Government has taken, said we ought to be very careful that we did not over-concentrate in this matter of education in India. He asked me to suggest to the Under-Secretary for India the question also of whether the local Governments in India are in agreement with this step, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to deal with these points when he comes to reply. Of course, in our enthusiasm for education, we may advance at a pace which cannot be maintained in India, and I would remind the House once more of what Lord Percy said last year: that in any advance in India we must see that the education provided is suitable to all the natives and all creeds in India, and is not of such a nature that some can avail themselves of it and others cannot.
The Under-Secretary mentioned another appointment which has been made—that of Mr. W. H. Clark to the Department of Commerce and Industry. It would be ungracious on the part of anyone to criticise the appointement of a young man to a post of great distinction and responsibility. The sympathy of all is with youth, but we cannot look at this matter merely as a personal one to Mr. Clark, or decide that the appointment is a good one merely because of his qualifications for it. I think other matters must be borne in mind. This post of Minister of Commerce and Industry was, I think, originally created with the idea that it would be filled by some great merchant in India—some man conversant from practical experience with the commerce of that country. I think it was found that it would be very difficult to secure the services of such a candidate, and consequently another appointment was made. But is it necessary because it was found difficult to discover the particular man of that kind in India, to go outside of India altogether and outside the Indian Civil Service altogether? Those who are in the Indian Civil Service lead laborious lives, and they are voluntary

1993
exiles for the greater part of their years. The Indian Civil servant is one of those creations of which I suppose England has most reason to be proud; and why should he have been overlooked? It may be that the Government will give us some reason for this exceptional step, but it is an exceptional step, and it is one which, in our opinion, cannot fail to give umbrage to that devoted band of servants in the Civil Service of India. Then while I am speaking of these appointments to the Council, am I not right in saying that there are three Hindus appointed to positions on the Council and not one Mahomedan?
Mr. MONTAGU: Only one Hindu has been appointed, and he is the first elected to the Council. So far, there has been no Mahomedan; only one Hindu gentleman.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I mean in Madras and Bombay, and I am informed that there Hindu gentlemen have been given important positions, while so far no Mahomedan has been appointed. That is a matter which, I think, deserves, and ought to claim, the attention of the Government. I remember, again, that last year Lord Percy was speaking for the last time before the Indian Councils Act came into operation, and he contended that the ultimate success of that measure would depend upon whether the Government could meet the legitimate expectations of our Mahomedan fellow-subjects, and he developed his argument at a length which I shall not venture to reproduce by saying that it was not sufficient to offer them opportunities at the top of the scale of administration and government, but that opportunities must be found for them also in the lower scale of responsible situations, otherwise they would not qualify for those higher appointments with the ease with which their Hindu fellow-subjects can qualify for them. Having had that warning last year, I think we are entitled to ask the Government whether they are giving it all the attention which I think it obviously deserves. The immediate result of the Indian Councils Act is hailed by the Under-Secretary for India with satisfaction. I think he is entitled to express that satisfaction. I think the debates which have taken place in the Viceroy's Council are of a character which justifies a great deal that has fallen from his lips this afternoon. He tells us that some projects of the Indian Government which were criticised before the Councils Act came into
1994
operation are now criticised with fan less sharpness and asperity; and in some cases he went so far as to say they have been acquiesced in or accepted by public opinion of India. If that is so, all must rejoice. I notice in one of those debates a vindication on the part of Mr. Lyons of the partition of Bengal, another instance which might be given.
Surely such instances encourage the belief that sincere work in India will extract a modicum of acquiescence in the long run, and that sincere work undertaken for the benefit of India should be prosecuted without regard for the criticism or the maledictions of that particular form of unrest to which the Under-Secretary alluded this afternoon. There has been criticism, and there will be criticism of the Government of India, and I understand that this evening we are to have speeches of that character, but it comes, if I may say so with respect, from a school of political opinion which believes that it is possible to apply representative institutions and judicial procedure which has been developed in this country during centuries at once and almost in their full development to the wants of even an older civilisation, extending for a greater number of centuries, which in the course of all its existence has never spontaneously given birth to anything of the kind, either in the case of legislation or in connection with the administration of justice. I think we all gathered from the speech of the Under-Secretary that he for one will not be swayed by such criticisms as we may have to listen to later on. His statement followed many notable pronouncements by Lord Morley, which show that the Government of India are concerned in preserving that authority and that lenity which are involved in good government, and where we are concerned with the government in a country where, whatever the reasons may be, the sympathy of the population is not entirely with the administration of the law, then the proportion of authority must be increased in proportion to the lenity in the administration of justice. I take no exception to the concluding part of the Under-Secretary's speech. We are prepared to draw with him a distinction between the different classes of reformers, but I say that the unflinching repression of crime is a necessary concomitant to even the consideration of the necessary reforms, and that the intelligent and sympathetic consideration of the proposals

1995
for reform is perhaps one of the ways which best enlists the support of the unflinching repression of crime.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman who has just concluded his speech in congratulating him both upon the matter and the manner of his speech. That, of course, my hon. Friend will perfectly understand does not mean that I agree with everything he has said, and in fact the great difficulty which I have in venturing to rise to address the House at the present moment is the enormous field which he covered and the tremendous wealth of subjects which open to receive our attention. I begin with a protest against the Government not for anything it has done in India, but for what it has not done here. One day in this House is not at all adequate either for the representative of the India Office to develop his case in favour of that Department and to explain its work to the House, and it certainly is not adequate for those of us who are critics of the Indian Government to explain our case to the House, so that the Members of the Indian Government may be benefited and we ourselves enlightened as the result of the Debate. There are many points which he has raised which really ought to be considered, but which it is impossible to do justice to in a speech here. But let me just indicate one or two points. My hon. Friend, for instance, took great credit to the India Office for making special arrangements for receiving Indian students in London. I quite agree with him. I am simply amazed that the India Office did not do that years ago. However, they have done it now, and I am not going to make any grudging criticism on what they have done, but those who know India best know perfectly well that that is just the beginning of one of the greatest difficulties that the Government of India has to face. What happens? An Indian student comes over here, he is conducted by someone in authority whom he holds in respect to the India Office, he sees Mr. Arnold, and he is taken under official care to a place in the West End of London. Whilst he is with us he is received in our drawing rooms. He is regarded as being one of our equals, and he is in short patted on the back and sent home to India, where every door that was open to him in London is closed against him, where he is not regarded as an equal,
1996
and where he is compelled to associate with society which he himself has been taught rather to look down upon during his stay in this country.
That is one of the most extraordinary and difficult problems that the Government of India has got to face, and consequently it is not enough for the Government of India to pride itself on this excellent work that it has done. Had my hon. Friend clearly surveyed the whole situation, he would have indicated that while as a matter of fact that is very good for the student here it is the source of a very difficult problem for the student and us as soon as he goes back. I should like to congratulate the Government in regard to its decision to appoint an Education Minister. The advantage is very great. The right hon. Gentleman who has preceded me pointed out that over-centralisation is bad in every Department, but it is particularly bad in education. I am bound to say, however, when we were told who was to be the first Minister, I felt perfectly satisfied. Those of us who know and have taken opportunities of examining the work Mr. Butler has done during his connection with the Indian Civil Service I think will feel that nobody is more aware of the dangers of over-centralisation in education than Mr. Butler, and we are content to let him work out his experiments in the way which seems best to him. I should like also to associate myself with my hon. Friend in his congratulations to India on the appointment of Mr. Clark. There is no use in hiding our heads to avoid seeing a fact, but this appointment has been the subject of a most unwarrantable and most malicious attack. Mr. Clark is fully qualified for the position and his experience is precisely the experience that Indian commerce wants at the present moment. Mr. Clark's experience in the Civil Service will be of the most profound benefit to him and to the Indian Civil Service. I hope the Government of India will lay it down that these appointments in India are not going to be preserves of the Indian Civil Service. I hope the Government will make it perfectly clear that there are certain appointments in India, like the Finance Minister and the Minister of Commerce, which are peculiarly fitted to be held by people who have Parliamentary experience in this country and who go to India not merely as Civil Servants accustomed to deal with the heads of the Departments but as men who have had to

1997
study public opinion and Parliamentary institutions and to manipulate Parliamentary Government here. That the higher posts Of the Indian Civil Service should be held by such men, with such experience and with such minds, is all to the good of India, and will, I am perfectly certain, be very much to the benefit of the Indian Civil Service itself.
On the vexed question of the police I have to say practically nothing, but I protest against the language that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham) used. He talked about the cruel and malicious attacks. The cruel and malicious attacks have been the attacks of High Courts and of Commissions, and when he goes on, after professing to be a peculiarly exemplary exponent of good logic, to say that those of us who are in favour of associating the Indian people with us in the Government of India cannot surely attack the police, surely he forgets the most fundamental principles of representative and responsible Government. Will he say that we ought to say nothing about the peculation, bribery and corruption practised by the lower grades of officials in the Canal Services? We have been complaining about that and we have been criticising that as "maliciously" and as "cruelly" as we have been criticising the conduct of the police in India. Everyone knows that the lower grades of the Irrigation Service are simply riddled and honeycombed with bribery and corruption and inefficiency. The criticism on the police or any body of Civil servants is precisely the door through which we are going to find association between the Indian people and ourselves in the Government of India. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman associated himself with the special Mahomedan demands. It seemed to me that he did not quite see what he was putting his foot into. We know perfectly well the quarrel that is going on in India at present between Hindus and Mahomedans. We know perfectly well what happened both in the Reform Bill and more particularly in the rules and regulations which followed the Reform Bill, but I think it is an exceedingly improper thing for Members of the Front Benches in this House to associate themselves in a partisan way with either side. The less party capital is made out of it the better, and the less one of the great historical parties or the other associates itself here with either pro-Mahomedanism or pro-
1998
Hinduism the better it will be and the sooner this unfortunate trouble will be settled by natural events.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that those who are going to criticise the Government of the day are going to do it because they hold two fundamental tenets. The first is that representative Government ought to be applied to India in precisely the same way that it has been applied here, and the second tenet, which we are supposed to hold, is that we are in favour of the Western judicial procedure being adopted in its fulness in India. Really it is perfectly amazing that the right hon. Gentleman should make such a proposition or should live under such delusions. As a matter of fact, if he would characterise us accurately and properly, he would say that we do not believe that representative government can be applied in India in the same way as it has been applied here, that, as a matter of fact, one of the most important sections of our criticism against, not this Government and these holders of office, but against English rule in India, has been that those responsible for English rule have never quite made up their minds whether they are in favour of representative government or not, and that from the point of view of political theory and political education we hold that one of the greatest blunders that ever has been made in the education of India has been that the system has never discriminated between what is political education in the East and what is political education in the West. On the judicial point, as a matter of fact, we have taken opportunity after opportunity in this House for the purpose of pointing out that one of the most serious things that has happened in India has been the application of Western judicial methods to the administration of the law. You have upset the whole idea of the judicial foundation of property in India, you have created the false witness by an absurd adaptation of the method of the law of evidence to Indian conditions which are not natural to such a law of evidence, and to our methods of taking evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman had desired to distinguish us by two qualities which are exactly the opposite of those qualities which do distinguish us, he could not have selected two better points than he has taken.
It is impossible to deal with my hon. Friend's speech without spending some time upon its political aspects, because, after all, although we should like to have

1999
heard a great deal more about India itself, although we should have liked his optimism to be somewhat toned by a wise pessimism both regarding the economic and the political outlook of India, although we should have liked him to remember that the best description ever given of India was that it was a land of poverty-stricken people, at the present moment the great topic and the overshadowing thought is the political situation in India now. How is the Government going to meet all its troubles? I agree with that part of the speech of my hon. Friend, which really struck me as being much more directed to the Government of India than to this House, when he traced its origin and explanation, and tried to define what really unrest and sedition are. How does the Government propose to deal with the situation? Briefly, the theory is this: The Government says, We are doing the very best we can under the circumstances; we are honest, we are sincere, and we are hardworking, and they, as it were, challenge us to deny it. I never have denied it. The Government is honest, it is hardworking, and it is sincere. The Government is not deliberately sowing tares in its own wheat-field. If my hon. Friend really thinks we are proposing to challenge him on his virtues I beg that he will pass suspicion out of his mind altogether. But they go on to say one of two things, sometimes one and sometimes the other. The mild thing they say is, If you criticise us you are increasing our difficulties. Of course we are. All criticism increases one's difficulties. We increase your difficulties in this country if we criticise you. If our Friends from Ireland, when the state of Ireland is in an unfortunate condition, criticise the Government, of course it may be said they are hampering the operations of justice in Ireland. But we must criticise the Government. We cannot possibly sit quiet here and see the Government deport people without a trial, pass Press Laws, and do practically nothing to put the police on a satisfactory footing.
Their other point is that all criticism is malign. The criticism that is passed in India upon them is malign. It is often twisted and misrepresented by officers, and the Government produce, as my hon. Friend, I exceedingly regret to say, produced to-day, that Bengal bill. But between saying that the criticism encourages sedition-mongering in India and
2000
that all criticism is malign, the Government tries to close our mouths and to close everyone's mouth who expresses an independent opinion about them. Let me remind my hon. Friend of the difference between the situation now and in 1878. In 1878, when a Conservative Government made itself responsible for a Press Law much milder than the present one, Mr. Gladstone was leading the Liberal party. He asked for and got Papers. The Conservative Ministers at the time went out of their way to provide this House with every scrap of interesting evidence that they could lay their hands upon. As a matter of fact, they rather put themselves about to place in the possession of Members of this House arguments and information opposed to the Press Law, and the India Office insisted upon being informed step by step as the Press Act was being considered in India. Despatch after despatch passed and repassed between Whitehall and Calcutta, but we were told the other day that apparently all that the India Office did whilst this Press Law was under consideration was to sit quiet and hold its tongue and then defend the Government of India when the time came for it. The Blue Book which has just been published has been published so late that those of us who are interested in the subject have not had time to read it. If I had not read the debates which took place in the Governor-General's Council when the Press Act was under consideration, I should not have known a single word which had been said, but fortunately I read them in a newspaper before, and the Blue Book which was published for the purpose of informing us in this Debate still lies unopened on my desk. Not only that, but the whole Liberal party then opposed the Press Act. Mr. Gladstone himself made one of his most eloquent speeches in opposition to it, and Lord Morley, in his "Life of Gladstone," refers to this incident in his career as his attacks on "the wrongful laws about the Press in India." That is the change that has taken place. Now instead of criticism, instead of the Government welcoming criticism, it tries to suppress it, and instead of giving us despatches, it says, "We have had none." Instead of giving us detailed, full information, it simply says, "We present you with a Blue Book which gives you the debate which took place in the Governor-General's Council," and, fortunately, those interested in Indian affairs have read the debate quite fully before the Blue Book was even printed.

2001
I think the Government might have saved public money in this respect. What is going to happen in this matter? The Government is going to pursue, in the face of the great difficulties in which it finds itself in India, the old method of more drastic and repressive legislation. This Press Law which has been passed is not the sort of thing my hon. Friend has described. It is all very well for my hon. Friend to rise in this House and in very carefully chosen language to describe to us the provisions of this Press Act. To begin with, we are Members of the House of Commons, we are accustomed to English liberties and English Press methods, we are accustomed to English magistrates and English legal processes. Of course, these provisions to us are most innocent and almost the most inoffensive things that could be enacted. But supposing we were editors of Indian papers, supposing we were accustomed to live the lives of the critics of the Indian Government. Supposing we were living in Lahore, and felt this Act was the most objectionable and offensive ever passed by the Government of India, I think for our own sake we should have been compelled to write such a leading article as my hon. Friend quoted this afternoon. As a matter of fact, no magistrate can equitably and judicially administer this Act. What is going to happen? The Gujarat case has been referred to. In that case the magistrate has been instructed by the Bombay Government to refund the securities, but the Bombay Government has not issued an instruction in the same terms as the explanation given by my hon. Friend. The Bombay Government instruction says that in future the past of these papers must be taken into account. If the past of these papers is to be taken into account, all papers without committing any serious act of indiscretion, certainly without being guilty of publishing seditious matter, may be asked by the magistrates to find securities. Take the case of criticism. There is a pretty well-known paper, the "Barisal Hitaishi," which published a leading article of a humorous character to the effect that everybody ought to be pleased with the partition of Bengal, because it had increased the rates and the number of public offices. The paper said that those who criticise the partition on the ground that it would be expensive should be pleased, and those who supported the partition, because it would provide new
2002
offices, should be pleased. I have a complete translation of the article. The magistrate actually warned the paper that it was publishing seditious matter, and that if it did not turn over a new leaf he would be compelled to ask it for some security. That is not all. Cases are already on record where magistrates have given general warnings. They have warned the editor of a paper that he was publishing seditious matter, and they have declined to state what the seditious matter was. Moreover, it is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that the magistrate has discretion not to take guarantees from papers too poor to give them. Case after case has already occurred where editors have appeared and said that they cannot find guarantees, and the publication of the papers has had to cease. One would say that that of itself is evidence that in the opinion of the magistrates the papers were seditious.
I say seriously and honestly that we are not going to govern India in that way. After all, we are not going to allow papers of small capital, which may be suspected by magistrates, to be treated in that way. I do not say that the magistrates are to blame. They are surrounded by all sorts of irritating circumstances. They are subject to the policy of pinpricks, their temper is not of the best, and their whole life is one of worry. These are not men who can sit calmly down when a little irritating sheet is brought before them, and say it is written in the interest of the good government of the people. They are not the men who can say, "We are willing to regard this as an inoffensive paper." As a matter of fact, the impulses moving the magistrates are impulses which make them think that the very least thing is the beginning of sedition, and that it ought to be stopped. There is another point to which I wish to refer, and it is one on which I think hon. Members opposite ought to associate themselves with us, namely, the absolute impossibility of applying this law to the Anglo-Indian Press. The Anglo-Indian Press is far more seditious than the native Press. I have stayed just outside Calcutta with native gentlemen. Day after day you can buy, as I have done, a certain newspaper that calls itself "The Englishman." Day after day, in that paper most offensive, most irritating, most unjust, and most ignorant things about native Indians are published. The paper seems simply to delight in badgering the native. If it can misrepresent him, it does; if it can

2003
vilify him, it does; if it can irritate and enrage him, it does. Does the Government of Inda propose to apply the Press Law to this paper when it publishes in the most reckless manner articles which are a menace to civil order? Will this paper be asked to find security? I do appeal to those who believe in fair play in India to associate themselves with our criticisms, because we think that the very foundation of law and order and peace in India is the conviction on the part of the people of India that our laws are fairly administered, that what is justice to the Hindu is justice to the Anglo-Indian, and that. when criticism published in a vernacular paper is regarded as sedition, it will, if published in an Anglo-Indian paper, also be regarded as sedition.
I will sum up my criticism on this part of the policy of the Government. This method, which is expressed and emphasised by the Press Act, does a great deal to undo the good that the Reform Act did. It unsettles the mind of the Indian Press. The optimism of my hon. Friend in that respect is misplaced. This method weights down the safety-valve which the Government ought to keep open as long and as much as it possibly can. It hampers the expression of opinion by moderate native organs. It increases the importance of the papers which have to find security, because we know perfectly well that in the present state of feeling any small sectional Indian paper itself becomes a sort of hero when it has to find security at the dictate of the local magistrate. Above all—and this is the most serious effect which is going to happen—it is going to destroy that great middle party of moderate constitutionalists upon whom ultimately the Government of India is going to rest. It is going to make it easy for, and as a matter of fact invite, a lot of men whose character is not particularly good to profess loyalty which they do not feel, and to simply hang about the Lieutenant-Governor's, the Governors', and the magistrates' verandahs in order to see what is to be picked up by this profession of loyalty. It is going to invite this expression of insincere and cheap loyalty on the one hand, while on the other hand it is going to drive below the surface that feeling of objection to, irritation with, and disagreement with, the action of the Government, which is always much more dangerous to civil liberty when silenced than when it is allowed to find expression in the public Press.
2004
7.0 P.M.
I would like to say a word about a circular issued by the Government of India, and which is being supplemented by covering circulars issued by the various Provinces. In this circular the admission is made that sedition is not widely spread. That is a very important admission. Three chief things are laid down in it. First of all, that the district officers should keep in touch with the important people of their districts. I wish the district officers would do so. I feel perfectly certain that if the district officers did keep in touch with the important people of their districts sedition and unrest would be much less prevalent than it is at the present time. At the same time I want to put in a plea for the district officers. The Government of India is putting far too much clerical and other work on the district officers. If an officer gives up his morning to interviews, as is suggested in the circular, he has to work far into the night in order to do the clerical work that falls upon him. If a district officer is to keep in touch with the important people in his district, the Government must devise some new adjustment of the work imposed upon him. The second point in the circular is that the district officers are asked to have better manners. The Government say they are going to issue a circular telling them what good manners are. I welcome that, and everybody does. The well-authenticated stories one hears in India of the way our officers treat native gentlemen is in itself a sufficient explanation of much of the unrest that India suffers from at the moment. Even if the rest of the circular goes, I hope the Government of India will stick very closely to that part. The third point in the circular is that the district officer should understand the economic nature of the so-called drain in India. A more absurd thing it would be difficult to mention. Of course, it can be twisted, as everything can be twisted. It can be twisted, as Free Trade and Tariff Reform are twisted here. Are the Government officers to stand at street corners or to interview conferences and deputations in their own houses, and lay down the economic explanation of why there appears to be a drain from India to England? The whole thing is absurd. If the Government of India would simply trust to ordinary educated intelligence, and see that the intelligence was real and was educated, then they might allow all those criticisms to go by the board. But, as a matter of fact, in

2005
the text-book of political economy, which is used in at least one of the universities, one of the leading universities in India, the drain is explained, and statements are made which indicate that, in the opinion of the author of the text-book, the drain is a real drain, and the author is an English political economist.
If the Government of India, instead of issuing those somewhat silly, pettifogging, and nonsensical instructions, sought simply to take a survey of the educational work that it is doing, and remember that by reconstructing that work and making it much more efficient than it is, it will be knocking out of the heads of the young people, in India in particular, all the economic heresies that have found their way there. Finally, the circular asks the officer to keep an eye upon sedition. Now, again, what is sedition? Go to the Punjaub, to our own officers in the Punjaub, even to the men who tell you they know everything about the Punjaub, and 90 per cent. of them will tell you that the Arya Somaj is a seditious organisation. Well, the opinion of the other 10 per cent. is that it is not a seditious organisation, and as that 10 per cent. includes those from whom I personally received the greatest enlightenment on the Indian problem, I am bound to associate myself with their opinion. But take the Patiala sedition case, where you find men simply hauled promiscuously before a court on a charge of sedition. When the charge was formulated it was found to amount to this, that they were members of the Arya Somaj, and the men had to be discharged. As a very old Indian official, a man who, when he goes into a village is received by every child and old woman in that village as a father, and is regarded by everybody who comes in contact with him as a sort of protector of all they have, and as a sort of personal friend, said to me with reference to this question of the sedition of the Arya Somaj, "I always test my own officials by asking whether they consider the Arya Somaj seditious or not. If they think it seditious, then I come to a certain conclusion, if they think it is not seditious then I come to the opposite conclusion, and congratulate myself on having a good, promising officer under me." Take the case of malaria which has been referred to to-day. Exactly the same point occurs. It is perfectly true that there have been cases of seditious agitators who went about various parts of India and said that the English brought malaria, and that it is a sort of magic which has been introduced
2006
by them into India in order to destroy the fighting, robust qualities of the race. Then my hon. Friend said that the only way you can deal with these people is to convict them of sedition, and put them under lock and key, or if they are editors you can ask security from them. My hon. Friend seems to forget the Poona case and a score of other cases.
When the late plague campaign was going on in Poona some years ago that sort of statement was made. The agitator was about, and our officials were murdered. What did we do? We had the good sense and the great wisdom not to embark on repressive measures. We appointed Sir O'Moore Creagh to take charge in Poona. His experience with the natives was simply invaluable. The men who were there before him were murdered. He himself settled the whole thing just by his skill and sympathy, and by exercising that capacity for explanation, and that capacity to sympathise which are so characteristic of his qualities. Although the only knowledge that Poona had of him was precisely the same knowledge it had of the two men who were murdered, and he went away, and for some years had not set his foot in the place, yet when he returned to India the other day and happened to go to a station a few miles from Poona he found to his great amazement, and to the amazement of everybody else, that every public official in Poona turned out to welcome him, and reminded him of the very pleasant time they had had together when he was in charge there. That is how we have got to meet those silly stories about malaria and other things. If you get an individual case undoubtedly you should prosecute and deal with it. But simply to say you are going to adopt a general Government policy of repression because a handful of men say you poison a well, or another handful of men say you are responsible for malaria, and so on, is to enter on a path which is bound to lead to destruction. I feel I have already kept the House too long. It is a very crowded, difficult subject, a subject to which justice cannot be done in the course of one afternoon, and when one desires to take part in a Debate like this one naturally- wishes to raise what seems to himself at any rate to be the large and important questions, and it cannot possibly be done within the limits of decency, if I might say so, which we all try to observe in addressing this House and remembering that other Members at the same time desire to express their

2007
opinions. But the House will bear with me if I make one other point, and that is in reference to the Birthday honours.
I think I do know a little about how these honours will be regarded by some of what my hon. Friend called the most dangerous and undesirable element in India at the present moment. He chastised me, and I am not quite sure that he would now repeat the chastisement, for raising the question of the issue of a warrant in this House on a Motion to adjourn over the Whitsuntide holidays. A warrant was issued against Mr. Arabindo Ghose tor having published certain seditious articles. My hon. Friend objected because he said the matter was still sub judice. I think that that is an exceedingly bad constitutional argument. Nevertheless I want to pay him back in his own coin. Those of us who have been following Indian affairs know about the Midnapore case. We know that very severe censure was passed by the Chief Justice upon the two policemen who bore the most important part in the getting up of the evidence in that case. We know that their honesty was doubted by the High Court, and we know that everything they did and all the methods they employed were regarded by the High Court as very doubtful and not at all honourable. As a result of that a civil suit was entered against those two policemen by a certain gentleman who had been arrested by them, and the Government also instituted an independent inquiry. The position up to to-day is this. The civil suit has not come off. The gentlemen who are responsible for it are exceedingly anxious that it should come off; they want the whole thing settled. The Government inquiry has been held and finished by Mr. MacPherson, the gentleman who made the inquiry, but the report has not been published, and nobody knows what is in it. What has the Government done? First of all they have promoted temporarily one of the policemen who are under this cloud, but that is not all. They have given them both decorations, honours which are valued in India, and which are supposed to mark very emphatically and very decisively the good will and pleasure of the Government. I would submit to my hon. Friend that he cannot defend the Government for such action as this. It is surely quite impossible, and would it not be very much better in the interests of good Government and good feeling in India if the
2008
India Office quite honestly and sincerely tells us what it thinks about it? It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say, as he did in reply to a question to-day, that one of these men has served thirty years as a policeman. Surely it is not too much to have asked the Government, while this civil suit was pending, and while the inquiry was incomplete so far as the public are concerned, and while the whole of this case was in suspense, and the only thing we did know was that the High Court had censured both policemen, surely it was only decent, and it would have been policy and would have been wisdom for the Government to have withheld those honours. If they have got private information, if they know what is in Mr. MacPherson's report and are perfectly certain that these two policemen have been wronged by the decision of the High Court then all the more value would be attached to the honour if it had been given after the whole matter was settled and the matter had been taken out of the hands of the court altogether. But that is the sort of thing that is doing the Government of India so much harm. It is not the big things. The people of India are much less influenced by large blunders than they are by small blunders like that. It is just the little things that can he gossiped about that arouse suspicion. It is just the infinitesimal things that everybody understands. When the Indian Government makes these blunders it throws into the shade the large liberties given by the Reform Bill and various other great measures which my hon. Friend went over to-day. My appeal to the Government is this. Let the Government apply liberal experience and liberal wisdom to the Government of India to-day. The Secretary of State, one whom I for one honour myself by calling one of my teachers, really ought not to depart in his administration of India now from those principles of civil liberty and political wisdom which he enunciated when he was Mr. Morley, writing his books on French Revolution characters and on Burke, and even up to the time he was writing the life of Mr. Gladstone. The Government has got itself into this difficulty. Our control in India has resulted in a system of education which has created in the words of the document which I have just been criticising "intellectual unsettlement." Intellectual unsettlement in India is much more serious for the Government than economic unsettlement. Though the intellectual people

2009
of India are a very small section—I do not care about your hundreds of millions of uneducated people—that small section, restless, seditious, active, full of Eastern peculiarities, yet directed by Western philosophy, will give you no rest, no peace, and will deprive you of all the honours you hope to get from your administration in India. I appeal to the Government to remember that the people of India ought to be consulted, and that it ought to submit to criticism, which, after all, is the greatest safeguard. I appeal to the Secretary of State to do nothing more in the present crisis than apply his Liberal principles rather than assume the methods' of the benevolent tyrant; who, feeling perfectly justified, feeling that he, and he alone, can govern India, says, "I am going to suppress criticism, to suppress meetings, to look for sedition, to instruct my officers to become spies, to become policemen, to report to me all the tittle-tattle about seditious movements in their districts." It is bad. It looks all right on the face of it, but it will land the Government in disasters, and will defeat these beneficial and humane ideas and ideals which, I am perfectly certain, animate my hon. Friend.
Sir SEYMOUR KING: There is one part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down with which I entirely agree, namely, the difficulty of dealing with so vast a matter as the government of India in one day. So many branches require criticism that it is impossible to keep on one line as one would wish to do or to keep to one topic and settle it. It is necessary to sandwich into the discussion questions which are apparently irrelevant to those with which we have been occupied; yet it is the only opportunity one has to call attention to matters which are worthy of consideration by the Secretary of State. I desire to call attention to an administrative question of considerable interest to the parties concerned, and somewhat vital to the Indian Revenue. Of late years there has been unfortunate friction between the Railway Board and the Railway Companies of India. The Under-Secretary in his most interesting speech made but one brief allusion to the Indian railways, and that was to mention the diminished revenues they were giving. It is somewhat owing to the diminished revenues coming from the Indian railways that the question at issue has arisen. The Railway Board was established in 1904 by Lord Curzon with the object, if I understand aright, of giving greater elasticity,
2010
if possible, to the management of railways in India. It set to work with the energy of a new broom, and the result was that admirable improvements, as it thought, were introduced into the Indian railway administration. A good many posts were created, the expenses went up, and the Indian revenue went down. The Finance Minister was alarmed, and he called for immediate reduction in the expenditure of the railway boards. Apparently in a panic they issued what I think was an extremely foolish and ridiculous order to the railway companies. For a long time there has been only one principle as to the attitude which existed in the Department of the Indian Government towards the Indian railway companies. It was that while keeping the strictest view on general policy and the strictest eye on expenditure the management of the railways should be left to responsible boards—boards which have managed the railways in a manner highly creditable to themselves and highly fruitful to the revenue of India. The orders to which they take exception are these. The Railway Board request a budget estimate for which hitherto the companies have hardly taken any responsibility at all, and that this should be sent in in December in four watertight compartments; in other words, that they should divide the year into quarters, and that the estimates for each quarter should be taken by themselves, and dealt with, and not departed from.
But they have gone further than that, and they have said that savings under one head should not be available for expenditure under another. To anyone who has had a large business experience and has managed big commercial concerns it must be at once obvious how ridiculous such a suggestion is. Here is a great railway, liable to all the variations coming from the monsoon, liable to the effects arising from change in trade, from famine, plague, or floods which may breach its line, yet it is not allowed, apparently, to apply the savings under one head to work which may be necessary under another head. The railway might be broken down or breached, and under the old system money saved under other heads could be spent in the engineering or other departments. But now money saved under other heads may not be spent in the engineering or other departments unless there is a long correspondence with the Railway Board, which may last for six months, as in a case of which I know, that of one of the

2011
great railways in Madras. The whole thing seems to me to have arisen from some misunderstanding. In the first place, there was no consultation whatever between the railway boards and the Board itself. These Orders were issued without consultation, whereas it seems to me the greatest and most friendly co-operation should subsist between the two powers. In the next place, the railway boards communicated with the India Office nine months ago, and except a purely official acknowledgment, they have received no reply, and no attention whatever has been paid to their complaint. They say, "We cannot carry on our railways under this system; it is absolutely impossible that railways can be carried on under the system you propose." And for this reason: The Budget Estimate has to be forwarded in December. It can only be formed on the working of the railway for the year in which you are or the year before that, in other words, two years back. The Railway Board is asking for accurate estimates, not to be departed from, to be supplied by the companies on 5th April this year for next year, on an estimate the creation of which has commenced last August and is to be ended in December. The old system was to send a rough estimate in the gross, as a rule formed by the Government auditors themselves, on the railway. There were also most careful half-yearly estimates under established rules, and they were never formed until they had the working of the corresponding half-year in their hands to deal with, and on this they could form fairly reliable estimates.
The Government of India did not suffer, and month by month they knew how the railways were going on, and what would be the result to the Indian Exchequer. But not only have these Orders been issued, but the Indian Railway Board has taken to threatening. They threatened in one case to cease to issue any further funds to carry on the railway, and when they were told the railway would be stopped they withdrew the notice. Now they threaten not to certify the accounts—a course which everybody knows would prevent the shareholders from getting their dividends until three months after they were due. I hope the Secretary of State will have the goodness to direct his attention to this matter, which is urgent, and which is leading almost to a deadlock between the railway boards here and the Railway Board in India. It is most necessary that the
2012
boards should work in intimate relationship and in friendly co-operation with the Board in India, and if that be done I think it will soon be seen how impossible it is that the railways can be carried on under the system which it is attempted to devise. I think if the Railway Board would only deal with the beam in their own eye they would not find so much fault with the mote in the eyes of their neighbours, because the State Railways are the worst managed in India so far as expenditure goes. Anyone who looks for a moment at the gross proportion of expenditure will find that the State railways have lost since the year 1908 70 per cent. in Eastern Bengal, 83 per cent. on the North-Western Railway, and 68 per cent. on the Oudh and Rohilkund Railway. The average is about 50 per cent. on the company-worked railways.
I think if the Under-Secretary of State will consider the figures he will see where considerable additional revenue might be saved for the Government of India, and at the same time perhaps come to the conclusion that the railway boards know their business perfectly well, and that the result of their working has not been altogether bad for the Government of India, for whom they have earned vast profits in the past, and are likely to earn large profits in the future; but they must be trusted; you must give them the discretion which they have merited by the way in which they have carried on their business in the past. You must not tie their hands in this childish fashion, so that they cannot even say that the estimates which they put down for boilers may not be reduced if they find it necessary to spend a little more on permanent ways. At present the only result of the new system is that it is obvious that you must not apply any saving under one head to something under another head; and everything will be estimated at the highest possible point in order to make quite certain that they will get as much money as they require for any possible conceivable purposes, and when once they get the money in the Budget Estimates it is perfectly certain that it will be spent. That is not the way in which you will increase your revenue. I feel that this is, in its way, quite as important a topic for the consideration of the Secretary of State as even those higher political matters, because revenue is the basis of all social improvement, and it is the Indian railways which are the greatest contributors to the revenues of the Government of India.
Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I desire to refer to a subject which was given great importance in the financial statement of the Indian Minister. The very first paragraph of the Finance Minister's statement alludes to the fact that fifty years ago the then Finance Minister referred to "the precarious nature of the opium traffic." That was a pretty long warning, but we now have the present day Finance Minister saying that "the most dramatic feature in the present situation has been the sudden and unexpected development of opium revenue," that is a development after a warning given fifty years ago. This rise in price is but a pale reflection of a real drama that is going on somewhere else, but it is in China and not in India. There is a drama in China where a reform moral and social is taking place, which is dependent very largely upon the extinction of this revenue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in his extremely able speech attributed the increase in the selling price to three causes, the restriction of production and sale in India, less cost involved, and, the largest item of the three as regards India, the large amount of duty paid ahead on Malwa opium. He said nothing at all about the chief cause of the increase in the price of Government opium in India. The chief reason for that is the restriction of the production in China where he estimates that there used to be from eight to ten times as much produced as in India. But the reduction of production in China, where he estimates that eight or ten times as much has been produced as in India, instead of being three-tenths as in India is, I do not hesitate to say, something like 70 or 80 per cent. Where production has been most reduced is the cause that has the most effect on price.
Nobody is more alive than I am to the very great difficulty of this question and nobody acknowledges more freely than I do the readiness with which Lord Morley has agreed to carry out the policy—the declared policy of this country in the House of Commons—in the agreement that was made with China three years ago. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stated that there were no statistics about the reduction of opium in China. If he were as well informed on the subject of the restriction of the production of opium in China as he is in his own subject he would know that the evidence is positively overwhelming that in
2014
China opium production is very very much restricted. That has a bearing on the point raised by the Under-Secretary as to the reduction of price which affects so greatly the revenues of India. Be that as it may, whether India or China has the larger share in producing this increased price, the increased price is there. Contrary to the general impression that has been assiduously circulated by interested parties that we have already made a great financial sacrifice of Indian revenue to help China out of her difficulty, the fact is that it is not so. The fact is, as we have heard this afternoon from the Under-Secretary, our revenue from opium in India since this agreement was made with China about three years ago has very largely increased. In 1908 the Indian Finance Minister anticipated a loss of revenue of £200,000 from this source, and that that loss would continue for three years certain. The predecessor in office of the present Under-Secretary had, however, to explain a year ago that, instead of a reduction in revenue of £200,000 there was an actual increase of £1,250,000. This year the Finance Minister has told us that the revenue exceeds the Estimates by £1,100,000. Those may seem small figures, but when one remembers that the actual average net revenue for opium in India, and I am excluding Excise revenue, that the actual revenue from Malwa opium and Bengal opium for the ten years was £3,250,000, then those Budget surpluses at the end of each of the three years of £1,100,000, £1,041,000, and £1,250,000 are of course very large indeed. The excesses for the last five years of surplus income over the Estimates have been 23 per cent., 10 per cent., 29 per cent., 24 per cent., and 25 per cent. I do not, therefore, think it is very wrong to say that the Budget Estimates have not been what they ought to be, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Estimate of this year is not what it ought to be.
For this year the statement is that there is a reduction of receipts anticipated amounting to £870,000, of which sum £718,000 is for pass duty on Malwa opium—that is, opium in the native States to the seaboard, which the Indian Government have decreed, and in my judgment quite rightly, should not be taken into account this year, because they have already received a large amount of money in advance for what is going to be sold in after years. Of course, the quantity to be sold is fixed, but the question always is at what price is this opium going to be sold? As

2015
the House knows, the sales of opium are on Government account monthly in Calcutta. Thus, in 1905–6 the price realised was 1,434 rupees per chest; in 1906–7, 1,391 rupees; in 1907–8, 1,350 rupees; in 1908–9, 1,384 rupees, and in 1909–10, 1,610 rupees. But the Budget Estimate for 1909–10 was 1,350 rupees per chest, and in 1910–11 it is 1,750 rupees per chest. For the year that we have already begun—that is, from 1st April—the average monthly price of the opium sold in Calcutta was estimated to amount to 1,750 rupees per chest, and so far, for the four months, April, May, June, and July, has produced 2,800 rupees per chest. In April and May there is no doubt that there was a phenomenal rise in price, caused, as I say, mainly—I will not say entirely—by the very heroic and marvellous efforts China is making to reduce the production of her opium, even cutting off the heads of people who produce it. [Sir J. D. REES: "Do you approve of that"] Many of them have had their heads cut off for growing poppy. I am only saying it is very effective, for they do not go on producing when their heads are cut off. My hon. Friend agrees with that. At any rate, 2,800 rupees per chest is the average amount that we have got for opium in Calcutta so far this year. In the present month of July the price is 2,062 rupees, and in June it was 2,177 rupees, and taking the average of the present month and last month, it is 2,200 rupees per chest.
Taking that price, instead of a revenue of £3,500,000 which has been budgeted for in the Finance Minister's Estimate for the current year, we should have a sum of £4,400,000. I have not sufficient information to undertake the role of the prophet, but I will venture to follow in the wake of the experienced members of the Indian Council, who, when they discussed this matter, prophesied that there would again be, as there has been for the last few years, a very large surplus. It is only reasonable to suppose that with still greater restriction of production going on this year as compared with last year, the price will be very much higher than in the past year. Taking, however, the Budget Estimate of £3,500,000, and not counting the extra £900,000 which I have no doubt it will yield we have this remarkable conclusion, that adding together the opium revenue (excluding, of course, the Excise revenue) for this year, last year, and the year before, we get a total of
2016
nearly £12,500,000. I want for a moment to contrast that sum with the sum that the Indian Government had reason to expect when this agreement with China was made to reduce the sales of opium for export by one-tenth every year for ten years. The revenue for the ten years previous was £32,700,000, or a little over £3,250,000 per year. Then divide that by two because the quantity was going to be reduced year by year by one-tenth, which would average for the whole ten years half the revenue, not making allowance for the increased price. Thus we get this remarkable conclusion that the total revenue, on that principle, that we could have anticipated for the ten years of the declining period was £16,350,000, of which we have had in the first three years no, less than £12,500,000.
I say that there is a very strong case, not as my hon. Friend so very cleverly put it as a matter of debate this afternoon, that having got so much more revenue was a reason why we should stick to it. Why, that is a pawnbroker's argument, it is a highwayman's argument. Instead of being a reason why we should stick to this money it is a reason why having got so much more than we expected, we should bring this arrangement with China to an earlier conclusion than at present seems likely to be done. We have been talking for three years about the great sacrifices we are making in Indian revenue. We have so far actually sacrificed nothing, but gained largely. Even this year the Finance Minister budgets for a quarter of a million more than the average revenue before this agreement was entered upon, though, as I anticipate, we shall get more, about a million more at least, of revenue than we had before this agreement was entered into. I cannot bring statistics from China. It is a curious place to get statistics from. I have been to China, and they are not strong in statistics, but they really are in earnest about this. There is such a thing as moral character in the Chinese, and they are showing it extraordinarily well in this, and they deserve support. My hon. Friend to the right (Sir Joseph Walton), who is the "Member for China," says they are the honestest people in the world. They have a high character as business men, and it is part of their religion to be straight and honest. I really consider that we are morally bound to go at a quicker rate in this matter. I am sorry to find from this financial statement of the Finance

2017
Minister that there is no indication that there is any intention further to reduce the acreage planted with poppies. I think we ought to continue the process of producing less.
I cannot bring forward any Chinese statistics, but less than a year ago there was an official statement from our Legation at Pekin to the effect that China had more than cone her share. Since then, as I have said, the evidence is overwhelming: the poppy is being actually extirpated over large areas of China. Speaking from as full knowledge, perhaps, as anybody in this country, as within the last few days I have had presented to me scores of reports and the results of hundreds more from all over China, I say without hesitation that the extent to which China has put down the production of opium is simply marvellous—far beyond anything that even her best friends could have expected. Is there not a case on almost every ground, except the one ground of revenue—I will not say of international policy; I must not go into that—why we should go forward more rapidly? This has never been a party question. Happily it is not a party question at all. There is absolute unanimity in this House that the Indo-Chinese opium traffic is morally indefensible. How much longer are we to continue this morally indefensible practice? It could be said, and was said, three or four years ago, with some show of reason, when we were making the agreement, that China could not carry it out. I venture to say that even my omniscient Friend the Member for India (Sir J. D. Rees) thought she never could do as much as she has done. I do not think that anybody even less omniscient than my hon. Friend could have thought it possible. But she has succeeded. Are we to put her back? Can her moral enthusiasm be kept up to this point for many years? I do not think so. China is weak in many ways, but she is doing a great thing here. We are told that the Indian cultivators a year ago had not so much inducement to grow opium, because the price of food was high. I was really sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give the cultivators as a reason for no increase in regard to the restriction. My information all goes to show that if we did not bonus the cultivators by giving them money in advance upon their crops at the time of sowing—opium is the only crop in India in regard to which we do that—they would rather not grow this crop. I was told by many people, some in very high office, when I
2018
was in India, that the Indian cultivator would be very glad to cultivate other crops instead of opium.
The Under-Secretary mentioned the Conference which is being called by the United States at The Hague. He recognised, as we all do, that some revision of the international regulation of this traffic and the traffic in similar drugs is necessary; but he said that we could not submit to this Conference questions of high international policy, such, for instance, as the relations between this country and China, or anything of that sort. Only two months ago, when in Washington, I took occasion to go to the State Department, where I was assured on the highest authority that they did not wish to bring up at that Conference any such question as the relations between this country and China. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no fear of anything of that sort. The Under-Secretary also said that he would like to know the views of the United States as to the regulation of the international traffic in dangerous drugs. If he had read the Report of the Shanghai Conference he would know that the whole question was raised as to the international traffic in other drugs, and that this other Conference, at which I hope our Government will consent to be represented, and the calling together of which I trust they will facilitate, is to devise machinery to carry out the pious opinions expressed at Shanghai a year ago. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that the Indian Government recognises, as we all do, that it is not a question of one drug merely, but that it is a question of all these drugs. There must be international control. I am very glad to see that in Bengal the opium-smoking habit, which is growing in certain towns, is to be nipped in the bud by the Indian Government. It would be a grim revenge indeed upon us if this Chinese habit were to get hold of India.
I acknowledge once more the very great advance that Lord Morley has made on this deeply important moral, as well as economic, question; but while thanking him most heartily for what he has done, I urge, without any hesitation, but with the feeling that we cannot do less, that the Government should quicken the pace of the restriction of the sending of this drug from India to China, promote good international relations between us and China, and remove from our escutcheon the blot, the existence of which we have all recognised for a long time, and which this House is unanimous in desiring to see

2019
removed. I thank the House for having listened to me. I hope the Government will do something better in the new agreement of which we have heard to-day. Only the other day in a letter to the Society of Friends the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Indian Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, said that the agreement with China would have to come up for review, and that at the end of three years it would be renewed or amended. If China has gone at a much quicker rate, is there not a case for an amendment of that agreement, such as was indicated in the letter of the Prime Minister, and as, it seems to me, is called for by the actual facts of the case to-day?
Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: I would join in the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) that on future occasions the Indian Budget Debate might be given more than one day. We devote sometimes six months to the discussion of an English Budget, but we are content with six or seven hours for a budget dealing with 300 or 400 million people in another part of the Empire. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the speech he has made today. The lucidity of his statement, the eloquence of its terms, and the obvious sympathy of its aims, commanded the admiration of all who listened to it. It is all the more difficult to come back to the duller topics relating to finance, and to turn away from the consideration of the fascinating and complex problems affecting the political situation in India. With regard to opium, I think everyone who read Sir Fleetwood Wilson's budget statement this year must have been greatly struck by the continual references to this question. All who are acquainted with the subject are agreed that the automatic decline which will take place in the revenue of India on account of the restrictive agreement with China will probably land the Indian Government in great financial difficulties in the future. I notice there is no tendency to decrease the expenditure in the Budget to meet that diminution in revenue. Personally, I do not believe it is possible to decrease the expenditure. The growing needs of India, particularly in education as well as in many other matters, demand the continued increase of expenditure which we note this year. I would remind the House that no less have we to face a very difficult financial situation in the
2020
future. We have £160,000 less on Eastern Bengal opium and £700,000 on Malwa opium to consider. No one will question for a moment the laudable motives which actuated the Government in this matter. I for one am entirely in agreement with them; but I think there is some evidence that they rushed rather light-heartedly into the agreement with China. In spite of the Shanghai Conference and the testimony of missionaries and travellers, I do not think it is at all clear—and the statement of the Under-Secretary has not reassured me on this point—that China will succeed, however much she may try—and I do not question her desire—in exterminating the consumption of opium in that country. We all agree with the general proposition involved in the restrictive agreement, but I would ask for information with respect to the manner in which the Indian Government started upon this question. From some personal knowledge of the East I feel a certain amount of mistrust in the miraculous spectacle we are invited to contemplate of the most populous country in the whole world being cured of a very old habit in the space of ten years. The object of the restriction was particularly in favour of China. Seven-eighths of the opium consumed in China is grown in that country. Therefore, whatever our good intentions, I think we have a very onerous task to justify to the Indian taxpayer the attitude we have taken up in this matter. Unless China is going to do something very immediate and very drastic in regard to the seven-eighths grown in her own country it is absolutely impossible for us to hope for any good by restricting the one-eighth which comes from India.
Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: She has done it.
Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: The hon. Member says that China has done it. In that he differs from the Under-Secretary, who has told us that he has absolutely no statistics to show that China has already carried her own wishes into effect. It is a very difficult thing to do. We have to bear in mind that 66 per cent. of all the opium grown in China is grown in the one Province of Szechuen. If China had been doing something really marked in this respect, I think there are ample opportunities for us to have heard of it—at any rate, in that one Province. Has the Under-Secretary any report to give us as to what China is doing with regard to restricting

2021
the poppy growth in the Province of Szechuen? There are one or two other questions in reference to opium in regard to which we should like some assurance. If China is really in earnest, or if she is capable of reducing her growth of opium, I think she should also abandon her exports of opium to Indo-China and Siam, which countries have equally asked to be delivered from the scourge of opium smoking. Another matter is the illicit export of opium into our Colony of Hong Kong. China, at any rate, for six months after the agreement, was continually smuggling large quantities of opium into Hong Kong. Seizures were being made at the rate of one per day, according to the Governor's report issued in February. We have no information that China has shown her absolute intention of carrying out the restriction with regard to herself in either of the matters to which I have referred.
8.0 P.M.
It is perfectly easy for China to show us some absolutely definite assurance, quite apart from statistics. The province of Shen-si, I would remind the Under-Secretary, some time ago attempted to do something in that direction by differentially taxing land under poppy-growing. Why should not this be extended to the Province of Szechuen and other provinces? If it was so extended to the Province of Szechuen, which really grows the great bulk of the plant in China, we should feel satisfied that China was doing something to meet our efforts in this direction. I would also like to ask the Under-Secretary whether the information I have got in regard to the manner in which the restrictive agreement was entered into was really according to the facts I am going to present to him. Is it or is it not the fact that the Government entered into this restrictive agreement without consulting in any way the native princes and rulers who were greatly affected by it? My information is that they were not consulted in the least, and that there was a considerable amount of irritation caused by that neglect to consult them. I should like to be assured that that was not the case. I am aware that the Government have recently announced that they are going to give the native States a generous share of the reduced exports of opium. That does not relieve them. I do not want to criticise unduly. I merely want information. I may be quite wrong in this matter, but I want to know why they did go into this very effective agreement, which was going to considerably damage
2022
the revenues of the native States, and I should like to be assured that my information is incorrect, and that the native princes were consulted before this step was taken. My information is entirely contrary. It would possibly satisfy the House if we had some assurance on that score. In view of the large amount of ground to be travelled and the short time left, I want to curtail my remarks, so I will not refer at any greater length to questions of that sort. I have put forward two or three financial questions which I think ought to be answered.
With regard to the provincial finance of India, I think the Under-Secretary is some what scanty in what he told us. He gave us very little information at all. I must say that I think the outlook with regard to provincial finance in India is a very serious one. I think the Government are sincerely to be congratulated on the step they have taken in regard to the increase in the amount devoted to Eastern Bengal and Assam. It is an immensely important step, I think. Every one who is interested in Indian affairs will realise that it is very important that these vast regions beyond the Ganges which have been systematically starved for generations should receive adequate financial help during their years of growth. Very little attention has been paid to the subject, but I think the work that is being done by the Indian Government in Eastern Bengal and Assam vies with the work that Lord Cromer did in Egypt in the patient development of economic resources under very great handicap. I think the Government of Eastern Bengal deserve especially a warm tribute from this House.
In regard to other provincial matters which I shall touch upon very lightly, I would like to remind the House that we were told in the Financial Member's statement that the surplus of this year of £683,000 was entirely a fortuitous one. The Government of India—here I am quoting:—
"Is driven to the conclusion that these provinces in the aggregate are steadily overspending their income by about £500,000 a year, and that position is one which compels the most serious reflection."
Even in the case of the most flourishing provinces, like Bombay, we were told that their substantial balances have been some-what rapidly diminished. Therefore any survey or any remarks upon the Indian Budget would be incomplete without some reference to the problem of provincial finance. I am confident that the problem will have the full attention of the Government of India, but I think the

2023
Secretary might, in justice to the subject he so eloquently treated to-day, have given us a rather fuller account of the future in regard to the provincial finance of India.
I turn now to the military side of the question, and shall touch upon one or two matters which have not been referred to in the course of Debate, which I think are of very special importance. The general military position is, I am quite sure, thoroughly satisfactory. That is another point that I entirely congratulate the Government upon. There are very few people who in the least realise the magnitude of the task that we have got in the defence of India, and in looking after the security of millions of people under our control there. The comparative peace on the frontier to which the Under-Secretary alluded has undoubtedly been largely the result of Lord Curzon's able policy when he was in India. It has been due to the frontier policy that he developed, and no doubt to some extent—to a large extent perhaps—to the following up by Lord Kitchener of that policy.

[ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
Appropriation Act, 1910.
Police Superannuation (Scotland) Act.
Census (Ireland) Act.
Supreme Court of Judicature Act [H.L.].
Police (Weekly Rest-Day) Act.
Norwich Charities (No. 2) Act.
Glasgow University (Chair of Clinical Medicine and Chair of Clinical Surgery) Order Confirmation Act [H.L.].
Muirhead Trust Order Confirmation Act [H.L.]
St. Mungo's College Order Confirmation Act [H.L.].
Land Drainage Provisional Order Act.
Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Act.
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Act.
Wemyss Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Act.
Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Act [H.L.].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Act.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Act.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Act.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Act.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Act.
Assam Railways and Trading Company Act [H.L.].
Gowerton Gas Act [H.L.].
Surbiton Urban District Council Act.
Bishop's Stortford, Harlow, and Epping Gas and Electricity Act [H.L.].
Saint Just-in-Roseland Docks Act.
Southend Water Act [H.L.].
Thorne and District Water Act [H.L.].
Yorkshire Electric Power Act [H.L.].
Great Western Railway (General Powers) Act.
Garnant Gas Act [H.L.].
Provident Association of London Act [H.L.].
Tynemouth Corporation Act [H.L.].
Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick Urban District Council Act [H.L.].
Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Act [H.L.].
Central Argentine Railway Act [H.L.].
Reading and District Electric Supply Act [H.L.].
City of London (Tithes and Rates) Act [H.L.].
Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Transfer) Act [H.L.].
London Electric Railway Amalgamation Act [H.L.].
Saint Mary, Stockport, Rectory Act [H.L.].
South Lincolnshire Water Act [H.L.].
Exmouth Gas Act.
Brighton and Hove Gas Act.
East Grinstead Gas and Water Act.
Egremont Urban District Council (Gas) Act.
Exmouth Urban District Water Act.
Worksop Urban District Council Act.
Mansfield Railway Act [H.L.].
Metropolitan Railway Act [H.L.].
Great Central Railway Act [H.L.].
Nottingham Corporation Act [H.L.].
Belfast Corporation Act.
Cardiff Railway Act.
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Act [H. L.].
Blackpool Improvement Act [H.L.].
Great Grimsby Gas Act.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Act [H.L.].
Mallow Urban District Gas Act.
Midland Railway Act.
South Hants Water Act.
Warden's Divorce Act [H.L.].
Mr. LLOYD: Before the brief interval I was referring to the state of the frontier, and I was congratulating the Under-Secretary on the policy of Lord Kitchener, following on with the reforms made by Lord Curzon, which have resulted in a considerable period of peace. This brings me to the question of the arms traffic on the frontier. I think it is very remarkable and a subject very well worthy of criticism that the Under-Secretary made no allusion whatever to the most important question of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf and on the Afghanistan frontier. Especially this year, when the traffic is very largely augmented, I think we have reason to hear something very definite on this point with regard to the policy of the Government. I do not know whether the House realises what a vitally important matter this is. It is very little use organising the internal defences of India, spending large sums of money on forts, guns, personnel, and equipment, if you are allowing some 200,000 men within your frontier or just over it to accumulate large masses of ammunition, guns of precision, and rifles. I said 200,000 men, but these are mostly on the British side of the frontier, whereas the numbers existing between the political and administrative frontier is probably nearer 1,000,000, or at any rate well in excess of 200,000. These men are not of the same character as those we find elsewhere in India. They are hardy fighters, trained to carry arms ever since they could walk. Whereas only a few years ago there was probably not more than 10,000 modern rifles within our frontier, to-day the last figure shows that probably some 200,000 rifles have been distributed among the tribes of which I am speaking. The question this House has to consider—and it is one of special gravity at the moment—is whether the Government is doing sufficient to put a stop to the traffic. I recognise the difficulty. I have seen this traffic carried on in the Persian Gulf, and I have been associated with the officers who control the shores in that part of the world. Whilst the Government of India are spending nearly £200,000—I think the actual sum is £178,000—in watching this traffic, they are doing absolutely nothing, so far as I know, to interrupt this traffic at headquarters, where some systematic system of super vision might do a great deal in this direction. I would remind the House that it is only within the last few years that this traffic has really reached such very serious dimensions. It has been growing, I know,
2026
for some ten years. The Australian disarmament and a change in rifles has probably led very largely to this increase in the arms traffic. When any nation discards one weapon in favour of a newer one we all know that is the moment that gun-runners, who buy up these guns in England or on the Continent, send them to Muscat. Whilst we spend enormous sums of money upon controlling the Gulf and pay a considerable toll in life, we do nothing to control this immense traffic in arms.
I will give a few figures, all of which I am prepared to vouch for. In the year 1908 no less than 23,000 rifles reached the tribes, and in 1909 this total was augmented to 50,000, a considerable increase on the top of a big increase. In 1908–9 there were no less than 85,870 rifles landed in Muscat, made up of 43,280 Martinis from Belgium and 25,000 from Great Britain. Here is a point of interest which denotes the importance of this traffic. The price of rifles fell from £13 to £8 per rifle. That is the clearest indication of why the supply of rifles has so immensely increased. With regard to ammunition, in 1908–9 Muscat received 12,500,000 cartridges and the price fell from 2d. per cartridge to less than a farthing. When you review these figures and realise that every single cartridge and all those rifles find their way into the hands of warlike people who are masters in every form of raid and are perpetually causing us trouble on the frontier, the House will realise how futile it is to allow this traffic to go on. I do not say it can be stopped entirely, but I am sure a great deal more can be done. Another indication of the proportions to which this trade has grown will be realised when I remind the House that gun stealing from our frontier posts has practically ceased during the last two years.
Captain MURRAY: They are very few in the year.
Mr. LLOYD: They are few now I know, for the reasons I have just stated, but you cannot dismiss this matter lightly, and you cannot get rid of the arms traffic in a day. So long, however, as you allow this matter to remain unsettled it will become aggravated. With reference to the refusal of France to co-operate with us in this matter, the House is probably aware of the old trading rights which France acquired in 1862 at Muscat. Does the House realise that France uses these trading rights in no legitimate way in regard

2027
to us. She uses them to foster and encourage traffic which she knows is most hostile to British interests in India. I regret that all negotiations with France have been entirely futile and abortive. Surely this is a moment when by virtue of the specially good relations and close friendship which happily exists between France and this country a further attempt should be made by the Government of India and the Home Government to get some more practical expression of friendship with France with regard to the arms traffic in the Gulf, in order to place a restriction on arms landed at Muscat. We do not ask that they should give up their trade rights or assent to prohibition for a long period of time, but I think we can very properly ask, and I hope the Government will ask, that France should co-operate with us for a period of years, and give instructions to their Consul at Muscat not to aid and abet this traffic as he has done in the past, but to do his utmost to co-operate with us in order that we may put an end to gun-running in the Gulf. It is useless to have Hague Conferences and International Arms Conferences if nothing is done in this matter. I would like to know whether this subject was discussed at the International Arms Conference and what did France say she was going to do in the matter? It is idle to have such Conferences if France refuses to deal with a question of this kind. I hope the Under-Secretary will give us a very clear and explicit assurance to-night that he will do something immediately to put an end to an illicit trade which is a source of very great expense to the Indian taxpayer, which is already a very serious menace to our peace and tranquillity on the frontier, and which is destined to become an incalculable source of danger if ever British problems of defence be diverted from the frontier to other internal parts of the Indian Empire. Surely, when we have these large considerations in view, both France and ourselves might consider that the small African trade is not to be put in the balance against it. Some hon. Members may think this is purely an academic point, and that the danger from the tribes to which I allude has no particular importance and is not likely to be realised. I would only refer those who may hold that opinion to their history books as regards India. I would remind them of the beginning of the Mogul power and the fall of the same Empire. In the ruin that followed
2028
upon the fall of the Mogul Empire, it was not only the Mogul power that suffered, but the territories and lands of the Hindus and the people who lived in the North were devastated, and by the time that loot and raid on the part of the frontier tribes was suppressed the country was laid waste and the peoples exterminated.
There is one other point on which we might press for a little more information, and that is with regard to the doings of the Indo-Afghan Commission. I was sorry to hear the Under-Secretary was not very sanguine as to the result of the Conference, but I hope it may be followed by the demarkation of that portion of the frontier which is still undetermined, and which, I believe, extends roughly from the Kurran to the Kabul River. It was, I believe, marked on a map by the Durrand Agreement, but so far as I know, it has never been locally defined. It would be very useful if the Indo-Afghan Commission could effect a settlement. I would like to ask in this respect one definite question of the Under-Secretary. I think, in view of the impression which the Amir has given us lately in one or two respects, it is very important for us to know whether he has yet given his consent to the terms of the Anglo-Russian treaty. In the Debate last year we heard that his consent would be granted, but we have heard nothing about it since, and I think it is high time the Under-Secretary should give us some assurance that the Amir's consent has been obtained. At any rate, if it has not been obtained, I hope he will let us know what is the position of this treaty.
I forgot, when dealing with the military aspect of the question, to allude to the general system of inland telegraph communication in India. It is probably fresh in all our minds that a serious telegraph strike occurred in 1908, and I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary could give us some assurance that the attitude of the telegraph staff in India is more moderate in the matter, that their aims have been satisfied, and that the recommendations which followed on the strike have been fully carried out. Occurrences like this, I think the House will agree, are very serious, and especially serious in India, and I hope some statement will certainly be made showing that the matter has changed. I asked at Question Time to-day for some statement with regard to wireless telegraphy in India, and the answer I received was not very reassuring.

2029
My information led me to believe that no attention had practically been paid to the protection of the inland telegraph routes in India, because it was Lord Kitchener's policy to ignore them from the defence point of view, as he intended substituting for them a large and complete scheme of wireless telegraphic communication. We were told that in February, and I saw in the Press, and other statements have been made, that the matter was one ripe for immediate action. It is now July, and, in reply to my query, the Under-Secretary said that, whilst the matter was going to be immediately dealt with, nothing had actually been done. I feel sure the Government of India fully realise the gravity and urgency of a matter like this, and I hope they will give us some explicit assurance that money will be devoted immediately to this object, and that the work will be pushed on with all possible and reasonable speed.
The situation with regard to the revenue is rather disquieting. No one can read the statement of the Finance Member without great uneasiness as to the small margin on which the Budget is worked. A margin of £245,000 is a very small one in any country, and in India it is insignificant. The remarks of the Finance Member are perhaps more alarmist than any I could make in this House. He says:—
"There is a very small margin in a year in which many surprises await us, and any shortage in the monsoon would sweep it clean away. With reasonable good fortune, I trust, a modest surplus will carry us through as it has in the past year."
I do not think that is at all a reassuring statement, especially when it is remembered that last year the Government was assisted to the extent of £1,000,000, by entirely fortuitous circumstances, with regard to their revenue. You have in India, from the financial point of view, problems entirely different from those in England. Here the Chancellor of the Exchequer is confident that with new sources of taxation he will be able to get his revenue in the future, though even in England he has been proved completely wrong in more than one instance; hut in India there is much less reason for assurance, and you live entirely from hand to mouth. Our financial arrangements depend entirely on one industry, and that industry depends entirely upon the weather. The lack of elasticity in your financial arrangements has never been better exemplified than this year, when, in order to raise a few extra hundred thousand
2030
pounds, you have to put increased taxation on a very broad variety of articles. These articles were alluded to by the Under-Secretary with some satisfaction as articles of luxury. I think it is very easy to show that these articles are by no means articles of luxury, nor does the Finance Member, in his heart, consider that they are so, for he admits to very genuine sorrow at being obliged to impose this taxation. I believe the taxes imposed, on the whole, are as good as he can possibly impose under the circumstances. I do not think the tax upon petroleum is likely to fall at all hardly upon the consumers in India from the mere fact that there is a competing supply in India. The tax upon alcohol is, on the whole, I think, perfectly justifiable, because the increase in the consumption of alcohol has gone up by leaps and bounds, and, possibly, it is an article which it is well to tax. You will never get greater elasticity until you loose yourselves from dependence on a single industry, and encourage a greater diversity of productive undertakings in the country. The Under-Secretary of State made a very eloquent appeal that we should differentiate between anarchists and reformers, and he said he hoped we would recognise the legitimate aspirations which the reformers put forward. If you are going to study those legitimate aspirations, you will have to follow a policy which means an increase of the protection of industry. You have educated thousands of young men, whose services would be acceptable in the development of economic industry, but you are doing nothing to avail yourself of their services, because you remain sternly tied to a worn-out doctrine. I say your hands are being forced. You must step along the path of industrial development in India or you will be driven along it. The Government of India, in its capacity as a paternal Government, must take the first step along that path. I should like to make it perfectly plain that I do not advocate fiscal liberty for India. I am the first to recognise that for all the period of time which it is in our province to consider now. The ultimate fiscal control must always remain in the hands of England. It does seem probable that a demand will arise—in fact it has arisen—for a larger measure of freedom in this respect. There is a growing demand for industrial development, and the speeches made by members of the Council who have very closely studied this question confirm that view. I may refer to a speech

2031
by Mr. Chitnavis, who regretted the limitations under which the Government had to frame its industrial policy. He said:—
"However excellent Free Trade may be for a country in an advanced stage of industrial development, it must be conceded that protection is necessary for the success and development of infant industries. Even pronounced antagonists of Free Trade do not view this idea with disfavour. England has not reached her present state of development without protection. That Indian manufacturing industry does not admit of controversy. Why should not India then claim special protection for her undeveloped industry?"
There are many more quotations I might give. I have another one of very grave warning, which I think the Government should study, for this same member of the Council wound up his speech by saying that—
"These measures are all the more urgent in that, through Government as well as private liberality, a large body of young men are being trained in the various industrial arts, and the promised establishment of technological colleges will swell the ranks of Indian experts. Unless au opening is found for their talent and they are employed they will be idle and discontented, and might be a source of anxiety to the Government."
I do not want to pursue the many quotations one might give from speeches of the various Finance Members of the Council, but there is no doubt in my mind that so long as you admit these members in the Council you are carrying out a very foolish policy unless you pay some attention to their perfectly legitimate aspirations. In view of this I do not oppose the policy, although I know the subject is a very contentious one. I should like to refer to a speech the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke) made last year in regard to military expenditure. He said:—
"I am bound to say, in the strongest possible terms, that at this moment of Indian unrest it specially behoves us to place our financial relations with India on a just footing—a footing which can be defended by reasonable men—and this is a subject upon the general principle of which India is united."
What the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to finance is equally true with regard to the commercial development of India, and I hope the Under-Secretary will give us some clearer outline of the policy it is intended to pursue. What is going to be the policy of the new Commercial Member of the Council with regard to the industries of India? There is notably the case of the sugar industry. At the present moment India can grow any quantity of sugar, but, as a matter of fact, the larger proportion of the sugar that is consumed comes from outside. I know the Government may reply that there are no facilities for refining sugar in India, but that is a kind of excuse
2032
which we cannot possibly accept. Of course, there will be no facilities under present circumstances, but what are you doing to increase the growth of sugar? What are you doing also to encourage the growth of long staple cotton? That is equally an important matter of development, which should be considered by the Under-Secretary. There are many other points I should like to refer to, and there are some especially with regard to the Debate that is going to take place on the Motion of an hon. Member opposite. I would like to say whatever turn that Debate may take on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway, I hope that outside, as well as in this country and in India, it will be clearly understood that the perpetual encouragement which certain Gentlemen see fit to give not to reformers, but to anarchists, comes only from a mere handful of the people who are already doing very much harm in the country. One of the Gentlemen who is likely to speak to-night on this subject has only recently been denouncing, in very serious terms, our Sovereign in this country.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): That has nothing whatever to do with the matter under discussion.
Mr. LLOYD: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I was trying to illustrate the remarks which are likely to be made coming from a body of men who are not doing anything to foster the traditions of order and respect which prevail in this country, and I will say that any such remarks which fall from such lips, while they may do considerable harm to the Members who utter them, will have no effect upon the unalterable intentions of the Government on the one hand to do their best for the people of India, and to give them those reforms they can properly grant, and on the other hand to deal, as the Under-Secretary said, with political anarchy. Nor will it affect their determination to defend the honour or shield the loyalty of their fellow-subjects in India against the remarks which are made by a small body of malcontents in this country.

PRESS AND SEDITIOUS MEETINGS ACT.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House, whilst disavowing any sympathy with political crime or methods of agitation calculated to conduce to such crime, deplores the

2033
enactment and administration of recent restrictive legislation in India, especially the Press and Seditious Meetings Acts."
I protest against what I think is an infringement of the rights of private Members that a private Member should not be called upon until five minutes to nine o'clock in the evening to move an Amendment of which he has given notice and for which he has obtained a place in the ballot.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite out of order in making such reflections upon Mr. Speaker.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was not making any reflection upon Mr. Speaker, but I was calling attention to the forms of the House which allow an hon. Member to try for and get a place under the ballot on the understanding that he is going to get a Debate on the subject, and then finds the time given to him is much too short to enable such a discussion to take place. I think that is a hardship that we ought to protest against. I think we ought also to protest against our Debates being interrupted by the introduction of Black Rod, when promises have been made over and over again that the Debates in this House shall not be subject to such interruption. I have also to make this observation. Here am I about the fifth speaker in this Debate—a Debate of long speeches—and I am surrounded by many Members who are more familiar with India than I am, and not one of those Members have been called upon, and I as a stranger to India am extremely sorry to take their place, and I feel like a person who is intruding in a discussion on Indian questions. The Amendment which I have moved deplores the enactment and administration of restrictive legislation in India, while disavowing any sympathy with political crime, or matters of agitation. The Member who preceded me, however, said that I belonged to a small handful of men who were encouraging sedition in India. I think it is time it should be made clear that, however much in the past it might have been possible for our enemies to suggest that our speeches here encouraged sedition in India, and made it more difficult to carry on the government of India, we may, at any rate, to-day render one tribute of gratitude to the Indian Press Act, that it cannot be said of us in regard to this Debate that what we say is likely to do harm in India for the very simple reason that if it were likely to do harm in India it would not be reported there.
2034
9.0 P.M.
The Press Act puts us in a perfectly free position, and we dare once again to speak out our minds. The Acts to which my Amendment refers have been passed by Englishmen in India, and this is a matter which does not affect India alone, but which affects our English good name, and it is principally as an English matter that I intend to deal with it to-day. We must face the position squarely. Murder—political murder has been done in India and here also—our women as well as our men have been brutally done to death. No one has more cause to deplore these murders than the friends of India. These murders of English people are the ostensible cause of these Acts, and yet we, as Englishmen, demand the repeal of them. We might demand their repeal on two counts; we might say, first of all, that it was impossible that Acts such as these could really tend to increase loyalty, check sedition, and stop murder, or we might say, secondly, that even if we concede that measures such as these do really effect their end that even then we could still maintain, and we should still maintain, that their existence in India is treason against our good name. I do not propose to argue the first of these contentions. After all, whether these laws are useful or not in checking sedition is a matter of opinion only. On the one side you have the men on the spot, on the other you have, thank God, the teaching of history. They know their Indians presumably, and I know history. It is therefore only a matter of opinion, but I would enter a caveat against paying too much attention to the dicta of the official in India. The bureaucrat has a natural and comprehensible tendency through his love of domination and often benevolent control—he has a natural tendency to use the keenest and the best weapon, and we have in India in the present day, perhaps, the most elaborate example of Socialist bureaucracy that the world has ever seen, but I do not propose to base any argument on the inutility of these methods. Even supposing that these five repressive measures will reduce sedition, will make India easier to govern, and will stop murder, even granting that large hypothesis I beg Members of this House to follow the traditions of their country and not to-night to set their seal upon this legislation.
It seems to me that through all history you see two distinct political principles contending with one another. You can see them in the history of Rome and of

2035
Greece just as clearly as you can in the history of India and of the England of to-day. The Latins summed up these two distinct principles in short terse sentences which will stand at the present time. One is, Salus populi suprema lex—the welfare of the people is the supreme law. How often have we heard that maxim used to justify coercion? It is a vague indeterminate maxim, but all the idea at the bottom of it is diametrically opposed to the other simple maxim, Fiat justitia ruat cœlum—Do justice first, put that before everything else and neglect utility. It seems to me you could not have two more apt mottoes, one for a bureaucracy and the other for democracy searching after truth, freedom and justice. Whether you regard their administration or their legislation the Indian bureaucracy seems to me to believe solely in the first maxim, that the welfare of the people is the supreme law, and to hate with a bitter and comprehensive hatred the natural antithesis of that law, that justice and not expediency must come first.
But what of England; it seems to me to be time that they should be told that we in England deny their premise that the welfare of the people should come first. We deny it and we have always denied it. All through our political development there has persistently run one idea; the glory of our racial character and history, an ideal which has inspired our foremost men in all ages, an ideal for which men have suffered and died, by the side of which your welfare of the people sinks into contemptible insignificance, and it is the overwhelming love of justice and of freedom. The genius of Rome ran to law, order and control. It is for the Germans to be governed efficiently, but we are sunk indeed if we must drop all that has made England great among the nations of the world in order to adopt the political ideals which are summed up in that negation of the rights of the individual—Salus populi suprema lex. It is because we protest against that becoming part of our English history and our English life that I ask Members of the House to think twice before they vote for these five repressive measures. It is really curious that we should have to-day backing this good old English principle of liberty, justice, and individual freedom, the so-called Socialist Members (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and Mr. Keir Hardie), while the man behind whom the bureau-
2036
crats take shelter is he who was once John Morley. Serious as the police question is in India, and deeply as I regret what I can only regard as the largely unjustifiable attack made by my hon. Friend upon Mr. Mackarness's character, I do not think you can radically improve the police system of India so long as your legislation is of the character of these five Acts. It is autocratic government that creates a bad police, and not a bad police that creates an autocratic government. If you have these five Acts, I do not care whether you pay your police twice as much, or whether you can manage to draw them from any other stratum of Indian society, whatever you do, so long as you rely upon Acts such as this Seditious Meetings Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, or the Press Act, the police will be worthy of the Government, no more and no less. What are these five Acts? First and foremost comes the Act which is not really new, but which has been put into force afresh within the last three or four years. It is the Deportations Act of 1818. I do not believe the people of this country can know that this Act has been put into force. Under it any man can be taken from his home and sent to prison, and kept in prison, without any limit of period, without even being told what is the crime which is charged against him. It is the principle of the Bastille. It is the principle of the lettre de cachet under Louis XIV. It is about time that the people of our race and nation should make an emphatic protest against its further use in India. Of course it supports law and order in a way. It can be defended as making for law and order in India—such laws as those against which we protest to-day and order such as reigned in Warsaw. But I do not think, if Mr. Gladstone had been alive, even this Liberal Ministry would reintroduce an Act which flies in the face of every Liberal principle of the last 200 years.
I pass from that Act to the first of the really new Acts—the Seditious Meetings Act of 1907. It was introduced in November, 1907. Under it all meetings of more than twenty persons are prohibited if they are likely to cause public excitement or even if they are for the discussion of any political subject, and that, although the meetings be held in a private house and by invitation only, the participants in such prohibited meeting can be sent to prison for six months and fined as well. There is an addendum to the Act that "any speaker who delivers any lecture on

2037
any political subject may be arrested without a warrant and sent to prison for six months." That is a nice Liberal provision in an Act of Parliament. It reminds one of Palermo in 1860. The third of the five Acts is called the Newspaper (Incitment to Offences) Act. It was passed six months later, in June, 1908. This was really a mild Act. It was too mild, as the results showed. The magistrates under this Newspapers Act were given power to forfeit the Press and newspaper on account of any article inciting to any act of violence. At first one would think that was a perfectly justifiable means of combating violence, but under the existing law, as it was before 1908, any publisher or editor of a newspaper could be imprisoned or fined for publishing anything inciting to violence, and numbers of them were already imprisoned for these offences. The Government could not claim that they were unable to get convictions. Convictions were obtained in plenty, yet they introduced this Act because it threw upon the accused the onus of proving himself innocent instead of leaving it in the style which existed in India for over fifty years, leaving the onus on the prosecution of proving a man guilty. I do not say that all English laws can be transported to India. Trial by jury fails, and a great many others fail, but surely we can transport to India, or leave in India when once we put it there, the principle that the accused is innocent until he is proved guilty, instead of putting him in the untenable position of having to prove himself innocent against all the dead weight of the official position. What was the next measure? I would ask the House to notice the extraordinary rapidity with which these laws, each a little bit worse than the last, are introduced in India. The next was the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908. Under this Act the trial of the accused is held in camera. Neither the accused nor his pleader is present. No examination of witnesses occurs. The only thing is that the prisoner is allowed to make a statement. But this Act is not so bad as it appears. There is, after all, a second and open trial before the High Court, so that, although I think it is bad that there should be introduced the French system of secret trial for the first time in Indian politics, I do not blame that part so much as the second part of the Act. Under the second part the Governor can declare any association unlawful if he is of opinion that it "interferes with the administration of the
2038
law, or with the maintenance of law and order." The Governor has discretion as to whether any association of any sort, so long as it might interfere with the maintenance of law and order, should be declared unlawful. Every member of that society is liable to imprisonment for six months, and can be fined in addition. Not only is every member liable, but every one who has subscribed even a rupee is liable, and everyone who has attended a meeting of the society is liable to six months' imprisonment, while the promoters can be sent to prison for three years. To help the House to realise what this Act is, I want to compare it with the Anti-Jacobin legislation of 1794–5. There was then in England exactly the same fury against the intellectual and middle classes, and exactly the same efforts were made to muzzle opinion and to destroy agitation against and criticism of the Government. The Seditious Practices Act introduced in 1794 dealt a blow at the agitating in the Press. Public meetings were prohibited by the Public Meetings Act in the same or the following year, and under the head of "constructive treason" the Government tried in the Law Courts to make membership of the Law Association punishable by death. Lord Campbell says:—
"But worse proceedings were going on than loading the Statute Book with such enactments, which might have remained brutum fulmen till swept away in better times. Spies and informers employed by the Government not only pretended to give information respecting political associations, but invaded the sacred privacy of domestic life. In consequence, 'State trials' took place both in Scotland and in England upon which we now look back with shame."
I do not think that what caused Lord Campbell to look back to 1795 with shame can do anything but cause shame to us in the twentieth century, even although it be with respect to India. What I have heard of the police in India does not give me any confidence. Spies and informers followed similar legislation in England. Will they not find a counterpart in India under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 which makes associations illegal? That Act is exactly paralleled by the legal dodge of constructive treason of which Lord Campbell says:—
"If this scheme had succeeded, not only would there have been a sacrifice of life contrary to law, but all political 'agitation' must have been extinguished in England, as there would have been a precedent for holding that the effort to carry a measure by influencing public opinion through the means openly resorted to in our days, is a 'compassing of the death of the Sovereign.'"
In those days Erskine's impassioned eloquence saved the constructive traitors,

2039
and even the Tory Government ceased to try to strain the law in order to prohibit associations. Here there is no question of straining the law. They have made a law to suit the case. I will read a quotation from Erskine:—
"If the Government resolve to rob the people of their rights, the people will be justified in resisting such glaring oppression. I say, again and again, that it is the right of the people to resist a Government which exercises tyranny. It is certainly bold to say that the people have a right to resist, and that they ought to rise, but there are some occasions which render the boldest language warrantable. I maintain that the people of England should defend their rights, if necessary, by the last extremity to which freemen can resort For my own part, I shall never cease to struggle in support of liberty. In no situation will I desert the cause. I was born a freeman, and, by God, I will never die a slave."
[Laughter.] I do not think the House need laugh at that quotation. It was made by a Lord Chancellor of England when England was in exactly the same circumstances as India is to-day—when England was being governed by a class not drawn from the intellectual class—when the Government in this House was a matter of pocket boroughs directed against the class of people who afterwards carried the 1832 reform. Now I come to the latest and worst of these five Acts, namely, the Indian Press Act of 1910. Under this Act the owner of any Press can be ordered to make a deposit up to 5,000 rupees, and then if there ever comes from that Press a newspaper, pamphlet, or book which, in the opinion of the Government, "May have a tendency, directly or indirectly, by inference, suggestion, allusion, metaphor, implication, or otherwise to bring the Government into hatred or contempt"—or which, "may have a tendency…to excite disaffection or any feeling of enmity towards the Government or towards any native chief." If that happens, and I do not suppose that there is any Opposition newspaper in this country which would not supply the case, then the deposit and the book are forfeited. For the second offence a deposit twice as large is forfeited and the Press itself is confiscated also.
I should think that under this Act the first thing to be confiscated would be the Act itself, because I cannot believe that anything would be more likely to bring the Government into hatred and contempt. Further, "Any postmaster or Customs House officer may detain and send to the Government any package which he suspects to contain any newspapers or any books which contain any passage coming under the above category." That is to
2040
say, any book which contains a passage which might possibly be twisted into tending to bring the Government into contempt can be confiscated by a postmaster or a Customs House officer. As if that were not enough, should the Government have a difficulty in showing the "tendency" of any newspaper which they desire to suppress, they may refer to any copy of such newspaper published since the passing of the Act in February, 1910, so that the editor or proprietor of a newspaper will never be certain that they are clear, and that some back number will not be raked up against them to confiscate their paper later on. I should say that the editor and proprietor have a right of appeal from the arbitrary action of the magistrate in confiscating their paper to the High Court if they like to face such odds as are put against them in the wording of the Act. I do not believe that any newspaper, however justified they might feel, would dare go to the High Court to try to prove that there had never been in their columns since February, 1910, something which might have a tendency, indirect or direct, to excite disaffection. There was circulated with the Votes the other day a verbatim report of the debate at the Indian Council on this Bill. I do not know quite what the intention of the Government was in circulating that debate. It was a new step, but I imagine that the India Office only desired to show Members of the House the strength of the bureaucracy which they have to control in India and against which they have to contend. I am bound to say that, so far as I am concerned, they have achieved their object, if that was their object. I read through the debate from beginning to end, and it left me with a feeling of positive physical nausea. There were some half-dozen English members who took part in that debate. I think they must be some new brand of Anglo-Indian official to which we are not accustomed in this country. For the first time I really appreciated how typical was the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Sir J. D. Rees), and how fully deserved was the honour which he has obtained.
The English members who spoke in that debate drew all their illustrations and drew their inspirations from Germany and Austria. They might have been the Raiser's officials instead of English citizens. There was not one word of even lip service to the old traditions of England. There was not one word of regret for what every one of us here consider to

2041
be at least the regrettable necessity of these Acts. Sir Harold Stuart spent his time in trying to show that there was nothing extraordinary in this system of asking for deposits from newspapers because the same system was applied to members of the Stock Exchange in England. He said: "We have also, my Lord, a number of precedents. Every member of the Stock Exchange and of Lloyds is required to deposit security. Every member of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and probably of other universities, is required to deposit securities." I wonder what a member of the Stock Exchange in this country would say if he were asked by the Government to make a deposit which could be confiscated whenever he consigned the Chancellor of the Exchequer to perdition. This is a type of the argument used by this school of British officials, and Sir Harold Stuart's conclusion from these arguments is as soothing as it is convincing. He says: "My Lord, this is not a drastic or arbitrary measure." I do not know what is drastic if this Act is not drastic. If it is not drastic to give a magistrate power to confiscate another man's property if he thinks there is anything in it, even one single word, which might have a tendency directly or indirectly to excite disaffection towards the Government, then I do not know whether there is anything which you could call arbitrary or drastic. In giving a postmaster or a Customs house officer the right to stop any package which he suspects contains any book that might contain any such passage, it seems to me you have reached in this Act the very acme of all that is arbitrary and all that is drastic; yet we are told by this official, "My Lord, this is not a drastic or arbitrary measure."
As for the Indian princes, they are, of course plus royaliste que le roi, welcoming effusively this measure, an Act to coerce their fellow-countrymen, and largely because it is to protect themselves from the criticism of the Press as well as to protect the Government. Under the old law a native Rajah was not protected from the free Press in neighbouring British territory. They could criticise him. Now they criticise him no longer. I think, however, the Maharajah of Burdwan went a little too far for English ears when he alluded, no doubt with all the lordly contempt of an Indian Rajah for the ryot, to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Keir Hardie) as a "coolie." I think he has yet to learn that
2042
no Englishman is so base that you can curry favour with him by insulting one of his own race. We do that among ourselves in the family, but we do not permit the impertinence to outsiders. But it was the speeches of the common Indians which really caused me pain in this report. Why was there no Englishman to make the speeches which they made? I have always had the idea from Rudyard Kipling and the comic Press that the Bengali Babu was a man who lacked courage and who wrote ludicrous English. Sir, I revise my estimate for all time. The speech of Bhupendra Nath Basu, a Bengali Babu, is worthy to take its place among the classics of the age-long struggle for liberty. I do not intend this evening to read extracts from that speech, but I can only beg any hon. Member who feels that the Bengali Babu is not fit for freedom, is not fit for social intercourse with white men, to read that speech and see the magnificent English and sound, convincing argument, and I think at the end of it he will regret that that speech was not made by an Englishman in the Indian Council. Long after the Rajahs and Maharajahs are dead and forgotten the names of men like that Babu will be held in honoured remembrance not only in India but in England, in whose voice they spoke. In England the case of this Press Act was decided long ago, and the arguments are as sound to-day as they were a hundred years ago, and as universal as mankind. It was decided in the days of John Scott, Lord Eldon and Thomas Erskine, and I beg hon. Members not to go back on the teaching of their ancestors at the bidding of the new bureaucracy. I have not time to quote Thomas Erskine on freedom of the Press, or the words of Campbell, but I would ask hon. Members to listen for one moment to the words of one whom I honour more than any other living politician, Lord Morley. What I am going to read to the House was delivered just eighteen months ago in the House of Lords by Lord Morley, in connection with the Indian Reform Bill. He spoke as follows:—
"Supposing you abolish freedom of the Press, or suspend it, that will not end the business. You will have to shut up schools and colleges, for what would be the use of suppressing newspapers if you did not shut up the schools and colleges? Nor will that be all. You will have to stop the printing of unlicensed books. The possession of a copy of Milton or Burke, or Macaulay, or of Bright's speeches, and all the flashing array of writers and orators, who are the glory of our grand and noble English tongue—the possession of one of these books will, on this peculiar and unfair notion of government, be like the possession of a bomb, and we shall have to direct the passing of an Explosive Books Act. All this and the various sequels and complements

2043
make a policy if you please, but after such a policy had produced a mute, sullen, muzzled, lifeless India, we could hardly call it, as we do now, the brightest jewel in the English Crown. No English Parliament would permit such a thing."
Is this House prepared to establish the "mute, sullen, lifeless" India, of which Lord Morley spoke eighteen months ago? One can dimly see the struggle which yoked words like those with deeds like this Press Act within twelve months. Was Io's gadfly ever so driving and tormenting as this new Indian bureaucracy? I feel more sorry for Lord Morley at present than I do for India. I think it is a tragedy that the man who has led the progressive forces of this country, who has spoken words like those, which will appeal to ages yet to come, should, within twelve months, be driven to pass into law an Act of which he knows the consequences.
Does anyone suppose that if a Conservative Government had been in power when these Acts were passed that it would have been left to a private Member like myself, a comparatively new Member, and to the Member for Merthyr Tydfil, to voice the principles of Liberalism? Can you not imagine that there would have been speeches from fifty platforms in this country by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies and the Home Secretary? It is ill-luck for India that we have got these Acts passed and put into force by a Liberal Government. The position is almost hopeless when the two Front Benches are leagued together. We have got nothing except the previous utterances of our own leaders to back our arguments. But I think that when generations to come they look back upon this Debate, they will see that though Liberal truth and justice were in feeble hands, yet there were some in the English Parliament ready to carry out the old traditions which has made our nation great, and to stand out against this increasing wave of bureaucracy which is swallowing up India, and which may come to England, too. There is one other point with which I wish to deal. The Under-Secretary of State said that these Acts, drastic as they are, ferocious as are the penalties by which they are to be enforced, will only be used sparingly, that the Government will see that no severity is used, and that the weapon is held in reserve, and used only now and then as a reminder. I think that is only an aggravation of the offence. What an opening for favouritism and spite. To make penal laws and then apply them
2044
capriciously at the nod of the Executive is the most odious form of tyranny. It is only three years since we started to use these weapons, and they follow each other in dread succession one after another, each more fatal than its predecessor to those who seek truth and would follow her, to those who recognise justice and would stand for her. Continue your work by closing schools and colleges. Will that suffice? Have Milton's "Areopagitica" burnt by the common hangman. Search the post for stray copies of the "Isles of Greece," or Mill on "Liberty." You will find them more dangerous to this system you seek to set up than a pamphlet by Mr. Mackarness on one detail of the results of such a system. You can go down and down to deeper and deeper depths, but you cannot get low enough for an autocratic Government, which grows on what it feeds upon. The Secretary of State for India is going to set up a new Education Department. I hope one of the results of that will not be that English history is excluded from the schools. We do not want to teach ignorance to the Indians, we do not want to put the clock back.
What is the alternative? I know well enough the difficulties of an opposite course, especially now that you have accustomed your officials to rely on laws like these. I myself have administered British rule among a hostile people. I have been a bureaucrat, and I know of the temptations, the natural temptations, of the bureaucrat, really governing, as he believes, for the good of the people as a whole, to do away with criticism of the Press—ill-advised, ill-conceived criticism, inspired by the most inconvenient and unscientific ideas of liberty and freedom. I have seen Acts similar to these put in force, and rouse nothing but indignation and race hatred, and I have seen the same nation become one of the most loyal parts of the British Empire, proud of its share in the British Empire, simply because we have set it free. Which is now the brightest jewel in the British Crown? Is it India or is it South Africa?
I know perfectly well that we cannot change India into South Africa at once, but the question I would like to put to every man who has the interest of India at heart and a share in the government of India is this: Do we actually want India some time to be free and self-governing or do we not? I know that nine out of ten men will put by and shelve the question, and will say that the Indian race are not fitted for self-government. But that is not the question.

2045
What we ought to make quite clear is whether we want India ultimately to be self-governing or not. If we do not, then let us drop cant and say so, if we want to maintain the present bureaucratic position. If, on the other hand, we do want it ultimately to be a self-governing Union or Federation like South Africa, whether it be in twenty or fifty or a hundred years, then let us be open and above board, and tell the people of India that we do aim at that solution. Let us lay our plan for that solution, and, having laid our plans for some ultimate solution on those lines, let us stick to those plans without any vacillation whatever. I am quite certain that the best means to stop sedition in India is to tell the people there, if you ever do intend to set them free, the road you mean to travel so that they can see the milestones in front of them, and know exactly how they are progressing towards their ideal. Then I think you would have no need of these five repressive Acts which are steps in the wrong direction, and not only that, but inconsistent with all the doctrines which have made England great. We shall be told, perhaps, that it was necessary to pass these Acts in order to protect the lives of our fellow countrymen. Let us put human life at its true value. After all, there are worse things than death. Sometimes there are few things more glorious than death. The fathers and grandfathers of our Anglo-Indian countrymen went through the days of the Mutiny. They fought behind Nicholson and behind Havelock in the narrow winding streets, they were butchered in Cawnpore and Delhi, but they died for the honour of England. The honour of England is not made up by battles alone. It has been built up brick by brick throughout the ages, laid in sweat and blood by the people who have suffered and died for England. The race who faced death at the Kashmir gate, who faced it daily behind the mud walls of the Lucknow Residency, will face as coolly the bomb and the dagger of the assassin, and as willingly for the honour of England, that her good name may no longer be dragged in the mud and the dishonour of these five Acts.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I rise to second the Amendment, and, before doing so, desire to deal with a matter partly personal, but concerning India. When the question of India was last being discussed, I stated that women had the municipal franchise, and were eligible to vote for the election of municipal councillors, from which a portion
2046
of the provincial councillors were subsequently chosen, and that through those municipal councils women had power to take part in the provincial councils. The Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Earl Ronaldshay) put a question on the same point, and the Under-Secretary stated in reply that no woman was eligible to vote. I hold in my hand the municipal election roll for the City of Bombay in force from 10th December, 1909, to 9th December, 1910. The city is divided into wards, and the names of the voters are given in this register. I find the names of 1,813 women voters—30 Europeans, 20 Eurasians and Portuguese, 166 Armenians and Japanese, 453 Parsees, 527 Hindus, and 250 Mahomedans. I hope the Noble Lord and the Under-Secretary will accept the evidence of the municipal voters' list as being conclusive on this point, and I express the hope also that the India Office is kept better informed on other matters concerning India than it appears to have been in regard to this matter of the franchise. As to the Amendment I will not deal with the details of the Acts, as the Mover has done so. The reason for these new powers contained in these Acts was not because powers were lacking under the old legislation. The Penal Code of India and the 1818 Ordinance gave full and complete powers for dealing with every form of sedition, whether by the spoken word or the written word, or even by innuendo. With the exception of deportations, of which we have had a sample, without trial and without charge made, all the cases under the Indian Penal Code had to be tried before a court, and the case had to be proved. Under the new legislation not only does the case not require to be tried, in the case of newspapers, but it does not require to come before the court at all, and the magistrate has power to suppress or to confiscate the property. There is, I admit, an appeal to a superior court, but in the first instance the power can be exercised by the officials. It will be admitted that these are tremendous powers with which to vest the authorities of any country, and when it is remembered that in the last resort the authorities depend for their information upon the police it becomes doubly important that the police force of India should be above suspicion.
The Under-Secretary in his statement to-day—the manner of which, let me say, I admired greatly, although with much of the matter I found myself in disagreement, but upon the manner of the speech I take

2047
this opportunity respectfully to compliment the hon. Member—informed us that as an outcome of the Police Commission an additional million was now being spent on the police of India. Can he inform us what proportion of that million is being spent upon buildings, what proportion upon an increase in the numerical strength of the force, and what proportion actually upon increasing the wages of the lower paid men so as to encourage a better type of men to enter the force? The evidence we have is not very encouraging on this point. Five years ago the Commission recommended, as a matter of urgency, that in Bengal certain powers of prosecution should be taken from the police and vested in Revenue officers. This afternoon we were informed, in reply to a question of mine, that the matter is still under consideration. Five years after the Report has been issued this question of urgency and importance is still under consideration! The illiterate character of the police force will not be denied. In Bengal more than half of the force are unable to read or write, though in some of the upper reaches of India the proportion of literates is much higher. The municipal council of Lahore, with a view to spreading education amongst the common people, from whom the police force is mainly recruited, sought to give free education in their municipal schools, but the Provincial Government has interfered and prohibited the carrying out of the proposal. In some of the native States education is both compulsory and free, but in a municipality, of an enlightened kind, such as Lahore is, where the municipality was anxious and willing to have education free, so as to make it as widespread as possible, the Government of the Province steps in and prohibits this beneficial reform from being carried out. That does not encourage us to believe that the Government of India is doing all that might be done either to improve the condition of the people educationally or to improve the status of the police force.
10.0 P.M.
As showing how these powers are exercised, I will give two illustrations. In one of the upper reaches of the Punjaub there is a district known as Rohtak, where no political agitation has ever been known, and where in all probability political agitation would not have reached for many years. A preacher of a certain sect was about to visit this place to propagate the tenets of his own belief, whereupon the
2048
whole district was proclaimed under the Seditious Meetings Act, and no meeting of any kind is now allowed to be held in that district without permission of the resident magistrate. Surely it was not in that spirit that the Act was intended to be administered when it was passed. Administration of that kind disposes most effectively of the statement of the Under-Secretary that these laws were to be administered with discretion, and were intended to differentiate between good and bad propagandists of reform. The other illustration is the prohibition of the conferences in the three Bengal Districts to which I have already called attention by a question. These conferences, which have been held yearly for a quarter of a century, are composed of responsible men, and up to the present have been held without let or hindrance. This last year, for some reason as yet undisclosed, the official resident in three of the districts took it upon himself to prohibit the holding of the conferences, the reason given, when the question was put, being that there was a fear of sedition being preached. But the responsible leaders of the conference movement gave their word of honour that no outrage or extreme doctrines would be tolerated or permitted. In spite of that the conferences were prohibited, the inference being that the word of these men could not be believed. But see what happens. On the occasion of the death of His late Majesty these same men, who were not allowed to hold conferences to discuss political reforms, held great demonstrations, at which thousands were present, to express their grief and sorrow at the loss of the Monarch. If they were not fit to be trusted to hold open conferences of responsible men lest they should preach sedition, if they were so inherently deceitful that they could not be trusted, why is it that they were allowed to hold these great demonstrations, when the opportunity for preaching sedition was much greater than it could have been in the conferences?
The real truth is that there is no such thing as sedition in these districts, but for one reason or another the person in authority there desired to show his power, and the legislation we are now discussing unfortunately places that power in his hands. The Under-Secretary to-day read what was intended to be a blood-curdling circular as showing the kind of literature and the kind of teaching which the new Press Act was intended to suppress. I should like to ask whether that one sheet

2049
was a printed page at all, or whether it was not circulated either in manuscript or in some duplicate form. The language of the circular was of the wildest possible kind, which every member of the Indian community as well as every Member of this House would repudiate. That circular was read with a view to justify the passing of the new Press Act. The Under-Secretary must be aware that the new Press Act would never reach a circular of that kind. Circulars which do not require to be printed, and which can be written and passed from hand to hand, can never be reached by any kind of legislation. Under the old law there was power sufficient to deal with the writers of circulars of that kind. And the gravaman of the charge against the new law is that it deals with responsible editors and responsible newspapers, and leaves these irresponsible firebrands practically untouched as they have been in the past. One point more about the speech of the Under-Secretary. He told us, with reference to the new law, of the mild, gentle, and discriminating way in which it was going to be administered. He added, "That the Act enumerates very definitely what language constitutes an offence." My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has read the clause of the Act, and a more vague, a more indefinite thing the English lexicon does not contain than that which is put within the four corners of that clause. Suppose you take the Under-Secretary as an authority upon the matter. I want to ask him whether this law is to apply to the Anglo-Indian Press as well as to the native Press? If the object of the Act be to prevent sedition and to prevent the Government being brought into contempt, what does he think of this language in the "Madras Times," which is a white man's paper, Anglo-Indian, and very loyal. On 10th and 11th February of this year there were articles dealing with Lord Minto, that is the Viceroy, and his policy in India. Here are one or two extracts from those articles. The article of 10th February says:—
"Lord Minto has now laid the coping stone on his policy of shilly-shally, and with the supreme and crowning efforts of passing an Act to control the Press, and at the same time setting at large men who were said to be the cause of all the existing sedition, we may hope that he may pass away into well-merited retirement."
If language of that kind is not calculated to bring the King's Government in India into contempt, I want to know what is? If it is not strong enough, take this, from an article on the following day, which has
2050
reference, not to the Viceroy, who is implicated, but to Sir Herbert Risley, who is no longer in India, and may be within sound of my voice. The article says:—
"Rightly or wrongly, Sir Herbert Risley has been credited with being the strong man in the Government of India, who makes Lord Minto perform—"
A monkey up a stick! Sir Herbert Risley making his lordship perform!
"It it is true, Lord Minto has still to bear the reproach of weakness and incompetence, but for the wrong-headed policy which has played with the forces of sedition during his term of office he is, perhaps, not altogether responsible."
There, again, we have language which, had it appeared in a native paper, would have been held to justify the immediate suppression of that paper under the terms of the new Act. My last quotation from the same paper is two days after the one I have just given. Referring to the Press Act, it says:—
"Lord Minto poses the cruel tyrant under the compulsion of advice, in the other as the forgiver of faults, acting of his own bountiful free will. It is a pretty picture, but it does not add to our respect for an English statesman. The Viceroy's policy is 'knockkneed,' and it is only when he is 'bent upon doing a foolish act' that he relies upon his own judgment."
These are the terms in which a loyal Anglo-Indian paper refers to the head of the Government in India. So long as these things are allowed to pass unchallenged, and the slightest whisper of criticism from a native paper is at once brought to book, it is no good the Under-Secretary coming here and telling us that this Act is going to be impartially administered. This Act is intended to suppress all criticism of the Government and its officials when that Government, with a strong hand, attempts to carry out an impossible policy—that of suppressing the growing movement for reform within the King's Dominions in India. I come now to what to me—and this is my last point—was the most damaging portion of the Under-Secretary's speech. I refer to the carefully prepared peroration, in which he denounced a man formerly a Member of this House, one who holds strong views in regard to the subject under discussion. The wording of the speech was bad enough, the cheers it received from these benches seemed to me to be an act of disloyalty to an old colleague. The hon. Baronet the Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Sir J. D. Rees) says that Mr. Mackarness was no colleague of his. That is the reason why we honour Mr. Mackarness. One Member of the type of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is as much as any Assembly can stand. The

2051
Under-Secretary said that the pamphlet of Mr. Mackarness which has been declared forfeit by the Indian Government and prohibited from entering into India, was made up of garbled extracts. The point which impressed me at the time, and must have impresed others, was that, in spite of all the sound and fury with which the denunciation of this pamphlet was launched forth, not one single quotation was given to back up the statement made. Surely hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House have a right to ask when a reputable and honourable man, practising in the Law Courts of the country, is going to have anything of this kind said about him on the floor of the House of Commons, some attempt should be made to substantiate it. The meaning of the charge is that Mr. Mackarness is a dishonest man, who gives garbled and unfair extracts from a Royal Commission, and that he has tried to shield those who are guilty of sedition. Those who know Mr. Mackarness are aware that he is one of the old type of Liberals who put love of liberty above love of party, and the House of Commons is the poorer for his absence. But in this, as in every other respect, the Under-Secretary is, perhaps, not altogether to blame. The duties and responsibilities of his office must be great, and he must necessarily depend upon information conveyed to him by others whose opinions and whose judgment he has a right to trust. The statement the Under-Secretary made to-day about the quotations given in Mr. Mackarness's pamphlet not being expressive of the opinion of the Commission but merely of the evidence submitted to the Commission, was not the hon. Gentleman's own. I have no doubt he has read the Commission and the Resolution of the Government of India upon the Commission, and if so he must be aware that in paragraph 8 of the Resolution of the Government of India, Sir Herbert Risley, who was then Chief Secretary for the Home Department in India, put forward that very point of view, and in all probability the mistake made by the Under-Secretary is due to the same source.
I ask the House to look at this pamphlet and its contents, and if I appear to be trespassing on the limited time of the House I do so solely and exclusively because the honour of an honourable man is at stake. This pamphlet has for its preface certain extracts from the opinions, not the evidence but the opinions given
2052
to the Police Commissioner. Will the Under-Secretary tell the House which of these extracts is garbled or misleading? What part of the context has been left out that justifies a charge of this kind being brought? I intended to read some of these extracts, but as every Member of the House has had a copy of the pamphlet sent to him, hon. Members will be able to do that for themselves. So much for the preface. I now come to the pamphlet. The first paragraph in it is headed "Sir Andrew Fraser's Report against the Police," deals with the Report of the Police Commission of which Sir Andrew Fraser was Chairman. The second paragraph on page 8, headed "Report of Commissioner Halliday," deals with the state of the police in Bengal.
Mr. MONTAGU: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he has compared the quotation which purports to come from the Curzon Commission Report, page 7 of the pamphlet, with the Curzon Commission report, and whether he noticed that the final sentence of the alleged quotation is taken out of its place and put last; whether he noticed that a full-stop is substituted for a semicolon and the words
"But they are now rare"
are left out?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The substitution of a full-stop for a semicolon is probably a printer's error. I do not say it is, but it probably is. The parts that are left out are marked by asterisks.
Mr. MONTAGU: Oh, no. If the hon. Member will note at the last line but one there occurs the word "occasionally." In the Report the word "occasionally" is followed by a semicolon, and the words "but they are now rare" are left out, and a sentence is taken from an earlier part of the same paragraph and put last. That cannot be a printer's error.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: That is probably intended to bring out in strength the opinion set forth. If it is simply a question of rearranging sentences surely there cannot be much in that. Am I to understand that the case upon which this pamphlet has been prohibited is that some four words have been left out, and that one sentence has been transferred from the beginning to the end of the paragraph? I am sorry that the hon. Member did not give us that information before; otherwise I should certainly have compared the extract with the original in

2053
order to have found out what the gravamen of the charge consisted of. In view of what has taken place, and the fact that to-morrow the Jingo Press will make it appear that the Under-Secretary has entirely vindicated the action of the Government of India in suppressing this pamphlet, I think I had better read the extracts. The first is paragraph 23 of the Report on page 14. In a letter dated the 12th of December, 1901, from the Government of Bengal to the Home Department of the Government of India, it was stated that:—
"In no branch of the administration in Bengal is improvement so imperatively required as in the police. There is no part of our system of government of which such universal and bitter complaint is made, and none in which for the relief of the people and the reputation of the Government is reform in anything like the same degree so urgently called for. The evil is essentially in the investigating staff. It is dishonest and it is tyrannical."
That is the evidence submitted to the Commision, but here is what the Commission itself says as its opinion on that evidence:—
"The Commission desire, as the result of their inquiries, emphatically to record their full concurrence in the views of the late Sir John Woodburn as then expressed."
That refers to Bengal only, but the Commission go on to say:—
"There is no Province in India to which these remarks may not be applied, though there is no other Province in which the necessity for real reform is more urgent than in Bengal."
It is their own opinion that in every part of India, to a greater or lesser degree, a reform of the police force is necessary. In paragraph 25 the Commission states that complaints were received in regard to the action of investigating officers, and that the action of these officers had been condemned by witnesses. That is the summary of the evidence, but the opinion of the Commission is this:—
"The Commission cannot too strongly express their concurrence in this Condemnation. They regret, however, to have to report that they have the strongest evidence of the corruption and inefficiency of the great mass of investigating officers of higher grades."
Two things will be observed—the opinion of the Commission and the summary of the evidence. On page 16, still in paragraph 25, the Commissioners, still dealing with corruption in the police force, add this:—
"But, while admitting there are different degrees of corruption in the different Provinces or districts, and, while admitting there are exceptionally honest and upright officers of this class, the Commission cannot resist the strong testimony as to the prevalence of corruption amongst station-house officers throughout the country."
2054
These expressions are the findings of the Commission and not the opinions expressed before the Commission, show, in spite of misarrangement of the paragraphs in the preface of Mr. Mackarness's pamphlet, that the charge of corruption on the part of the police was found to have been proved by the Commission, and strong recommendations were made as to the best way of dealing with it. Let me read one final paragraph, and here I will leave out part of the paragraph to save time:—
"'There are,' says the Commission, 'honest and efficient police officers of all grades, though they are represented as being very exceptional in the lower grades.'"
That, again, be it observed, was a summary of the evidence. The closing lines of the Report are these:—
"But honourable exceptions and mitigating circumstances cannot efface the general impression created by the evidence recorded. There can he no doubt that the police force throughout the country is in a most unsatisfactory condition, that abuses are common everywhere, that this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the Government, and that radical reforms are urgently necessary. These reforms would cost much; because the Department has hitherto been starved; but they must be effected."
The real object of this pamphlet was to show that whilst the Commission had recommended certain reforms, those reforms were not being carried out, and that when crimes against witnesses and prisoners of the kind which had been brought before the Commission, and condemned by it, were again committed in connection with police cases, it was very seldom that any punishment of the police officers followed. Case after case is given here of torture. There is the case of a woman—it has been before the House before—who was tortured in the most inhuman manner by the police. The surgeon who examined her the morning after her admission to the hospital certified that the injuries found upon her were quite consistent with her tale. Twelve months afterwards another surgeon, who had probably never seen the woman, gave it as his opinion that the injuries might have been self-inflicted, and apparently upon the strength of that statement the implicated officers were acquitted. We have other cases from the different Provinces. There was the Midnapur conspiracy case, where a number of constables brought evidence which the High Court refused to accept. An inquiry was held into the conduct of these officers, but before the result was disclosed some of those under suspicion were promoted to higher positions, and in the Birthday List of Honours issued the other day I find the name of the hon. Member for the Mont-

2055
gomery Boroughs in close juxtaposition with the names of two of the officers under suspicion. Several suits have been raised against them by the parties against whom they brought false evidence. Those suits have not been tried, yet, in the face of that, the Government of India selects these men for special honour. I should like to quote the reasons given by the favourite paper of the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs—the Calcutta "Statesman"—
Sir J. D. REES: I never read the "Statesman" in my life.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The "Statesman" says the reason why Sir J. D. Rees has received this honour is because he is strong in the House of Commons in his efforts to checkmate the harassing efforts of Mr. Keir Hardie. Now we know why the hon. Member has got his stripe. The Viceroy of India, as practically the closing act of his reign—his personally kind and sympathetic reign—I found he was liked, respected, and trusted in all parts of India in so far as he was free to act on the dictates of his own mind—issued a circular calling upon all sections of the Service in India to cultivate more friendly and systematic relationship with the people of India. We are told in the letter that the people who are agitating are only a small literate class. Below them is a mass of poverty-burdened peasants toiling from sunrise to sunset, and getting very little. Above the literate classes are the Princes and other portions of the aristocracy. The Government cannot depend for support on the peasants, neither can they rely on pot-bellied bullies like the Maharajah of Burdwan. The one class which should be sought after by the Government is the middle literate class, against which this restrictive legislation is aimed, legislation which is alienating the very class to which the Government should look for support. This circular of the Viceroy has gone out to the various provincial Governments, and the Secretary for the Government of Bengal has issued his interpretation of it. He begins with a most insulting reference, and he goes on to say that every member of the official class is to make it his business to worm his way into the confidence of the responsible people in every district, keep a record of their sayings and opinions, and transmit that record to headquarters for examination. This is to
2056
make the Civil Service in India a nest of spies, and to send them out to spy and report upon the sayings and doings of those who should be their neighbours and their friends. And the folly of it is that it is trumpeted abroad in advance in a public document that all this is to be done. Lord Curzon the other night deplored the fact that the first class students of the universities were no longer offering themselves for service in India in the same proportion that they did formerly. Those who know even a little about India and its method of government know the way in which the Civil servant is there reduced to the position of a clerk in an office overburdened with clerical duties, with no escape from the grindstone of routine work, and if anyone who wants to become a first-class clerk has also to become a spy on behalf of the Government it will not be an inducement for people to enter the Civil Service. Lord Morley, in one of his recent speeches, deplored making India a muzzled India, but if this policy is pursued all that is best and most worthy in India will be alienated from our rule, and the last condition of that far away and unhappy land will be worse than the first.
EARL of RONALDSHAY: The Motion asks us to withdraw the enactment of certain restrictive legislation which the Government of India has recently been responsible for. However much we may deplore the necessity for that legislation, we are bound to admit the necessity. Under these circumstances, the House will be very ill-advised to give any countenance to the suggestion that it deplores the enactments themselves. The Mover of the Amendment told us that he was quite ignorant of Indian conditions, and that he was going to deal with the question purely from the English point of view. No one will deny that the hon. Member is animated by extreme sincerity, but I think that confession alone makes his speech comprehensible. May I recall some of the landmarks in the seditious campaign in India during the past six or eight months. In November last a bomb was thrown at the Viceroy himself, and as far as I know, the perpetrator is still undetected and at large. The following month Mr. Jackson, a Civil servant, who was respected and loved not only by his colleagues in the Civil Service, but by the Indians who came into personal contact with him, was foully murdered, and,

2057
galvanised into activity by this particularly revolting crime, the police discovered large stores of concealed arms and ammunition throughout the Deccan, and simultaneously in various districts of Bengal. Early in the present year an inspector was shot dead in the precincts of the High Court, and, as an illustration of the Anglo-Indian opinion upon the situation at this time, I may quote from the "Pioneer":—
"Over a large portion of the country every magistrate who does his duty carries his life in his hands."
Following upon these outrages a fresh outbreak of agitation in Bengal in the spring of this year necessitated the proclaiming of various districts under the Seditious Meetings Act. There was a lull for a short period subsequent to that act of the Executive, yet we have fresh out-rages breaking out again now, and only at the beginning of this month a prominent Indian gentleman was shot and the supposed motive for the crime was the belief that he was willing to give information against promoters of sedition to the police. News has now come to hand that large stores of concealed arms and ammunition have been found in Calcutta. That shows that the seditious movement is still the dominant feature in the Indian situation. In India there is a considerable mass of material which is in a state of high inflammability. Under the circumstances the obvious duty of the Government is to keep the match away from the powder and to deal with promptitude and decision with any cases which may be liable to have an exciting effect upon this inflammatory material. Will anyone deny that the seditious Press in India is one of the most dangerous causes at the present time. I should like to give an illustration of the way in which the seditious Press in India works upon the immature minds of Indian students. I have a copy of a postcard which was written by an Indian student and addressed to the editor of a seditious paper called the "Jugantar."
"sir,
"From your advertisement articles and your bold writings I understand that he who has the subversion of the Firingee Government at heart should by all means read the 'Jugantar.' I, a schoolboy, living in a hilly country, don't feel any oppression of the Firingees, and I give way to people for want of information. I am therefore in need of 'Jugantar,' for it acquaints us to a great extent with the devices of driving away the Firingee, and also make us alive to wrongs."
I would direct the attention of the House particularly to the last sentence.
2058
Here was an Indian youth, living in the hills, who was ignorant of the fact that his ambitions and aspirations were being trampled under foot by an unscrupulous and tyrannous Government; but as soon as he read this paper his mind began to work in the direction of wondering whether there was not some wrong which he was suffering under an unscrupulous Government. It is really an imperative necessity that in India at the present time the Government should take the strongest steps possible to suppress seditious literature of this kind. I confine my criticism of the Government, so far as I have any criticism at all, to the statement that they have allowed the evil to attain intolerable proportions before bringing in any really effective measure to deal with it. This seditious literature is not the outcome of the moment. It has been permeating the country for some years. I notice that one native member of the Viceroy's Council pointed out that it was owing to the patience and long-suffering of the Government that the evil had reached such tremendous proportions as it has done at the present time. He went on to say that it would have been much better to have brought in a repressive and drastic measure long ago and nipped the movement in the bud. So much for the hesitation shown by the Government in bringing in their measure.
The measure itself has been spoken of by the hon. Member as if it were a very drastic measure. It is not, in my opinion, as a matter of fact, half as drastic a measure as the circumstances demand. When the Bill was first introduced by the Government it contained a clause which enabled the postal authorities to detain letters and other matter which was suspected to contain seditious literature, but in the course of its progress through Committee that clause was struck out, and an amending clause was inserted, leaving it in the power of the postal authorities to detain any matter other than letters and parcels. Either the Government did or did not think it necessary to propose the original clause. If they did not think it necessary, why did they insert it in the original Bill? If it was necessary, surely it was an exhibition of intolerable weakness to allow themselves to be deprived of it. I think it was a necessary provision for the reason that some of the most mischievous of the literature which is poisoning the minds of the

2059
students of India is not printed and published in India itself. It is printed and published in European countries and sent under the guise of letters to permeate India. I have here a copy of a most seditious rag, which is not printed and published in India. It is called "Bande Mataram." I should have liked to quote a few extracts from it, but I will refrain, as the Under-Secretary no doubt desires to speak before the Debate closes. Hon. Members below the Gangway object to the Press Act passed by the Indian Government, and they also hold the theory that India ought to be governed in accordance with Indian ideas. I should like to refer them to one of the most model States—the State of Mysore—and I would ask those who object to the Press Act of the Indian Government to peruse the provisions of the Mysore Press Act, which was passed not very long ago, and a copy of which has by the courtesy of the Under-Secretary been placed in the Library. They will therefore find no obstacle in their way if they desire to see the Act. I think I have shown that there is a good case for a drastic Press Act in India at the present time.
Motions like the Amendment before the House, and speeches like those in support of it, do an incalculable amount of harm. They encourage the promoters of discontent in India, and are received with astonishment and dismay by the loyal section of the population. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment referred to the speech made by the Maharajah of Burdwan in the Viceroy's Council. In the particular extract to which the hon. Member referred the Maharajah doubted the advisability of introducing everything Western, particularly politics, into India. It was perplexing to the mind "while the Government takes active measures for putting down sedition in India it allows a Labour Member, or, in other words, a white sardar coolie in the shape of Mr. Keir Hardie"—that is a gentleman representative of the Labour party—
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: He did not use that phrase. He used another phrase.
EARL of RONALDSHAY: "to have the audacity to say that the time had come for the Crown to be thrown into the melting pot," and then he says, lower down, "It is therefore, my lord, that with humble submission I beg to point out that the
2060
time has come to seriously consider whether we are to allow India to be made the dumping-ground of Western politics, political thoughts, and Socialism."
Mr. MONTAGU: I must apologise for asking the House to listen to my reply upon the Amendment moved, having regard to the large draft which I have already made upon the time of the House. I have carefully taken a note of all those points raised from the benches opposite, and trust that hon. Members will take my assurance that I will communicate to them the result of the consideration of the arguments which they have raised. I have little time now to comment upon two particular incidents in the Debate. In the first place the Blue Book dealing with the Press Act Debate which the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) referred to as a waste of public money was laid on the Table of this House in response to an invitation from himself. The point I had rather refer to now is to say something about this pamphlet of Mr. Mackarness. I do hope that the House will believe that it was in no light-hearted frame of mind I approached the consideration of this pamphlet, which began when I had to answer questions on it. Mr. Mackarness was a Member of this House, and was a colleague of mine. His political principles are the same as my own. All the more keenly, therefore, do I regret the fact that he has sacrificed his great position and used the weight of his name and reputation for the publication of a pamphlet that has been prepared in this way. It will be fresh in the memory of the House that I was permitted by the kindness of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil to interrupt him in his speech, when I think I proved up to the hilt the charge I made that Mr. Mackarness has employed garbled quotations. Almost every time a quotation appears in this pamphlet with omissions marked by asterisks or dots he omitted something in favour of the police. Nearly all those quotations, which the hon. Member for Merthyr himself represents as coming from the Report of the Commission, come from Chapter 2, which is headed "Popular Opinion Regarding It." I will only give two other instances. On page 12 the pamphlet begins:—
"The alleged torture. Here is the horrible story of what the police did to the woman in the very words of the official resolution."

2061
What was that put in for? To permit the reader of the pamphlet to believe that this is an official description of the torture of the woman, and then follow the words of the woman herself. On the last page of the pamphlet Mr. Mackarness regrets that the Government of India have never issued any order preventing torture. That is a serious statement to make in this pamphlet. Of course it is true. The British Government have never issued an official order against murder, for murder is punishable in this country, and torture is punishable in India. I hope that this pamphlet will now be relegated to the obscurity which it deserves. When I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) extolling liberty and confusing it with lawlessness, and denouncing Lord Morley, whom he admires, as adopting practices which he condemns, it occurs to me that the explanation is that Lord Morley still loves liberty, and the hon. Member claims to make a use of the term which it would never permit. My hon. Friend complained in advance of the system of education we are to inaugurate, in India. I should like to state that the co-ordinated system of education which we propose to establish under the new Member of the Council will, we hope, so spread education throughout India that the time will soon
dawn when Press Acts and Seditious Meetings Acts will no longer be necessary, as they are to-day.
Sir J. D. REES: As a Member who has not opened his mouth, but who has taken a prominent part in this Debate, I now venture to trespass on what has come to be regarded as a preserve of the Labour party. On behalf of the Civil Service, of which I have the honour to be a member, I utterly repudiate everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. Neither of these hon. Members would be allowed by the members of the Indian Civil Service, or by anybody else with real experience of India, to have any authority whatsoever to speak on any problem connected with that country, except as an itinerant agitator or a political week-ender.
Mr. MONTAGU Mr. MONTAGU rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 48.

Division No. 132.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Craik, Sir Henry

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Bryce, John Annan

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Bull, Sir William James

Croft, Henry Page

Agnew, George William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Allen, Charles Peter

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dalrymple, Viscount

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Butcher, John George (York)

Dawes, James Arthur

Attenborough, Walter Annis

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Bagot, Captain J.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Baird, John Lawrence

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duncannon, Viscount

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

Balcarres, Lord

Cave, George

Elverston, Harold

Baldwin, Stanley

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Falconer, James

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Haywood)

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fell, Arthur

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Fenwlck, Charles

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Barnston, Harry

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Fletcher, John Samuel

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Clough, William

Forster, Henry William

Barton, William

Clyde, James Avon

France, Gerald Ashburner

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

Coates, Major Edward F.

Furness, Stephen

Beale, William Phipson

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gibbs, George Abraham

Bird, Alfred

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Gilmour, Captain John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Boyton, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Grant, J. A.

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gretton, John

Brocklehurst, William B.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Brunner, John F. L.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Guest, Major

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Starkey, John Ralph

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Millar, James Duncan

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Mitchell, William Foot

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

Hancock, John George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Strauss, Arthur

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Summers, James Woolley

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Sutherland, John E.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morpeth, Viscount

Sykes, Alan John

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Munro, Robert

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Tennant, Harold John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Muspratt, M.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Hayward, Evan

Neilson, Francis

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Newton, Harry Kettingham

Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

Henry, Charles S.

Nield, Herbert

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Higham, John Sharp

Nuttall, Harry

Toulmin, George

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ogden, Fred

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Holt, Richard Durning

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Valentia, Viscount

Hooper, Arthur George

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Verney, Frederick William

Horner, Andrew Long

Parkes, Ebenezer

Verrall, George Henry

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, William

Vivian, Henry

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Wadsworth, John

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Hunt, Rowland

Peto, Basil Edward

Walton, Sir Joseph

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent,. Mid)

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Pringle, William M. R.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Johnson, William

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Waterlow, David Sydney

Jones, William (Carnarvonshlre)

Radford, George Heynes

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Kemp, Sir George

Raffan, Peter Wilson

White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Raphael, Herbert Henry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Lambert, George

Rees, Sir J. D.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, Sidney

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roth, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N. E.)

Llewelyn, Venables

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Winfrey, Richard

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Rothschild, Lionel de

Wing, Thomas

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Royds, Edmund

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Rutherford, Watson

Wood, John Stalybridge

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mackinder, Halford J.

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

M'Callum, John M.

Shortt, Edward

Magnus, Sir Philip

Simon, John Allsebrook

Mallet, Charles Edward

Soares, Ernest Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Manfield, Harry

Stanier, Beville

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Hazleton, Richard

Pointer, Joseph

Barnes, George N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Richards, Thomas

Brace, William

Jowett, Frederick William

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Byles, William Pollard

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Chancellor, Henry George

Keating, Matthew

Smith, N. B. Lees (Northampton)

Clynes, John R.

Kelly, Edward

Snowden, Philip

Cullinan, John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Devlin, Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Dillon, John

Meagher, Michael

Twist, Henry

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Nolan, Joseph

Wardle, G. J.

Edwards, Enoch

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Grady, James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glover, Thomas

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Parker, James (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. J. Keir Hardie.

Hackett, John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Main Question put, and agreed to.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Resolved, "That it appears from the accounts presented to Parliament that in 1909–10 the revenue of India amounted to £69,761,535, the expenditure changed against revenue to £73,499,245, and the capital expenditure not charged to revenue £10,471,657."—[Mr. Montagu.]
Resolution to be reported.

CIVIL LIST BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. BARNES: I beg to move to lave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "that, whilst desirous of making adequate provision for the maintenance of the Royal Household and the dignity of the Crown, and whilst being willing to provide additional grants in lieu of the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, this House cannot accept a measure which does not provide for the transfer of such revenues to the Public Exchequer."
In rising, on behalf of my colleagues as well as myself, to move my Amendment, may I say that it refers exclusively to the question of the revenue of the two Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, in respect of which it proposes that these revenues should be nationalised. I desire, if I can, to remove a certain amount of misunderstanding that appears to be in the minds of Members, and also to inform the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of what we are really driving at. As to the misunderstanding, I think I could not do better than to bring the minds of the House back to the two speeches made from the Front Government Bench last Friday. I had made a speech in which I had endeavoured to make clear a knowledge of what we wanted. Two speeches were made in reply. One was by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which I was pictured as a fearful sort of stingy individual that wanted to run royalty on the cheap. It was said that I wanted to reduce the amount not only by
2066
the £85,000 then under discussion, but that I also wanted to deprive the Royal Family of some of the revenues of the two Duchies in addition to that £85,000. I had no such thing in my mind. Nothing of that sort was proposed in the draft Amendment that I submitted upstairs. Nothing of the sort was in the series of Amendments proposed last Friday. Nor is there anything of that character in my present Amendment.
I have not been unmindful of the fact nor of the argument based upon the fact put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that the Empire is one embracing many races, diverse in character, differing altogether racially, historically and otherwise and therefore as compared with smaller, more compact, and simpler communities it may well be we require a condition of things in connection with the head of the State which would lend itself more to spectacular display and be altogether on a different footing from others. I am not unmindful of that, and therefore I say I had nothing in my mind of the kind atttributed to me by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I do not deny that my friends and I, as a party, are animated by the desire to lessen expenses. We think the amount proposed in the Civil List is excessive, but that is another thing altogether; there is a long difference between that and the views attributed to me by the Chancellor of the Duchy. As showing the confusion arising, I might refer to the speech made later by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said I had proposed that £8,000 more should be spent upon the Civil List than was proposed by the Government. These two speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen very well answer each other, but I venture to answer both of them and at the same time put our views of the present proposals briefly before the House. The Amendment we propose that the revenues of the two Duchies should be turned over to the public Exchequer, but we never proposed that the public Exchequer should take the revenues of these two Duchies without consideration being given as a quid pro quo.
In the draft Amendment which I moved in the Committee I made certain proposals and re-arrangements of the Civil List generally with the full concurrence of my colleague, the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Shackleton.) I proposed that £40,000 should be added to the Privy Purse in addition to what is proposed by the Government, and that £20,000

2067
should be given to the Prince of Wales, and also that we should commit ourselves now to a provision being made upon the surrender of the Duchy of Cornwall, of a proper marriage settlement for the Prince of Wales when the occasion arises. In addition to that we left the household expenses and salaries as they are, with all the abuses which I went into last, week. We left them practically as they were. This may not be an adequate quid pro quo, but it might have formed the basis for discussion in the event of those revenues being given up. I think I have said sufficient to show that our proposals are by no means what it is said they were, either by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We put this proposal forward on two grounds, first because we believe that these revenues have drifted from public into private use without any deliberate Parliamentary sanction, in the way of initiative at all events. Parliament has rather acquiesced in something which has been proposed from outside. Secondly, we believe if they were surrendered a great deal of doubt and perplexity would be removed, and the relationship between the Throne and the people would be put upon a proper and understandable basis. In a legal sense the title to these revenues is wrapt in mystery, but one thing emerges from the discussion last week and from previous Debates in this House. These revenues are altogether different from private property in the ordinary sense of the word. Private property of that character would have descended from father to son or to the next of kin, whereas these revenues have descended not in that way at all, but from one occupant of the Crown to another occupant of the Crown, and, skipping over the Commonwealth, from one sovereign to another. There is, therefore, a difference between these revenues and ordinary private revenues.
We do not base our proposal upon legal construction or upon the ransacking of historical dust-heaps. We rather base it upon modern and present day convenience. We really want to know where we are. There are those who do not agree with us, but, at all events, there seems now to be a consensus of opinion in the House, as there has been upon previous occasions, that at all events these revenues should be taken into consideration when the Civil List is fixed. I have gone
2068
over the records of the last two or three generations, and I venture to say, with a full knowledge of the case, that very little consideration, at all events, has been given to these revenues, and especially to the growing nature of these revenues. Chancellors of the Exchequer and those responsible for Civil Lists, having that in their minds, have made statements to the House altogether contrary to the facts. I do not say they have done so consciously, but they have been made, and are on record. For instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer nine years ago stated that he did not look forward to any increase in the immediate future from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, whereas, as a simple matter of fact, they have increased by close upon £20,000 in those nine years.
On Friday last the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, committed himself to a still more extraordinary statement. He said these revenues were of a fluctuating character. They amounted to £87,000 last year, but in 1901 they only amounted, I think he said, to about £52,000. As a matter of fact, the revenues of the Duchy amounted to £73,000 or £74,000. If the right hon. Gentleman will look in another column, he will find in addition to that £52,000 that another £21,000 was paid. I refer to this simply to show the straits to which those responsible for Civil Lists are put in defending them. There is nothing fluctuating about these revenues in the larger sense of the word. Of course, they are subject to fluctuations as all incomes of that character must be, but those fluctuations are all on an ascending scale. Going back to 1837, I find these revenues, on the accession of Queen Victoria, amounted to less than £30,000, whereas to-day they amount to over £150,000. I think I have said sufficient to justify me, on behalf of my colleagues, in putting forward this Amendment. I ask the House to favourably consider it, and I venture to say, if these revenues were regarded frankly as national property and were taken over to the national revenue, not for nothing, but on proper consideration being given for the vested interest involved, we should at least know where we are in the future, and we should be able to make adequate provision as I am sure we all want to do for the proper maintenance of the dignity of the Crown and the upholding of the household of His Majesty.
Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: In rising to second the Amendment, I hope the House will accept the assurance from me that in taking the action we are we are not in any way desirous of being niggardly in our recognition of the demands of the Crown, I would like to say a word respecting the censure that has been passed on our action. There are some who seek to interpret it as an attack upon the Throne or the occupant of the Throne, but I beg the House to accept the assurance, at any rate so far as I am able to speak on behalf of the Labour party, that our action is in no way animated by those motives, but simply by a desire to have this matter settled on what we comprehend as business lines. There seems to be no doubt whatever these two Duchies should be regarded as State property. Even the Leader of the Opposition on Friday did not push his theory so far as to suggest they should be regarded as the property of the Sovereign.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.
Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer assents to that, because, at any rate, it affords some justification for the position we have taken up. My view is that the Civil List is entirely misleading. The country is given to understand that the cost of maintaining the Royal Household and the dignity of the Crown is £470,000 as set forth in the Civil List, whereas the actual cost has to be supplemented by the revenues derivable from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. We feel the country is entitled to be taken into our confidence in this matter, and that the Civil List should set forth the whole cost so that the people should know exactly what is expected of them. The theories of right hon. Gentlemen seem to be somewhat conflicting in this matter. We are told, on the one hand, that these are not State properties and that they are really in the possession and under the control of the Crown. On the other hand, we now have the admission that the Crown has no right, as private individuals, to the possession of these properties. We claim these revenues should be directed into the State Exchequer. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow put it, adequate provision should be made for the maintenance of the Crown. Our real purpose is to insist on business-like principles being brought into operation in this connection. These two Duchies should be transferred once and
2070
for all to the State and be placed under the control of Parliament. It would be quite true to say that the Civil List stands not at £470,000, but, supplemented, by the revenues of the two Duchies, at £628,000. The historical aspect has been introduced into this matter. As far as I am able to judge, at no point can we say that the Crown had any private rights in these properties. They are the property of the State, and the Civil List should be presented to the public in a fair and open manner, so that the people may know exactly what the cost of Royalty is in this country. The King has no right to alienate these properties, and when they are spoken of as Crown property it is simply in the sense that all land at one time was regarded as Crown property. My hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, has been animated solely by the desire that this question should be thoroughly sifted by Parliament, and that it should be determined once and for all whether these Duchies should not be transferred to the State. Why should we maintain this fiction any longer? Let us conduct this matter on business-like principles, and, having taken the Duchies over, fix the Civil List on the basis of the revenues that are given up.
The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): I do not want to traverse the ground I covered two or three nights ago. I accept at once the views expressed by the hon. Members who have just spoken that they desire to make adequate provision for the Sovereign, but I think I was fully justified in the view I took having regard to the speech he delivered in the House and the Amendment on the Paper. He did propose a reduction so far as it could be ascertained by Amendments on the Paper, and there was no indication in the speech which he then delivered that he was prepared to give anything in exchange for the revenues he proposed to take from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and when I saw the Amendment on the Paper this morning it rather reminded me of a young lady who, having had a proposal of marriage, had a little time to reflect upon the attitude of the night before, and said:—
"Yes,' I said to you last night;
'No,' this morning, Sir, I say:
Colours seen by candle light
Do not show the same by day."
I admit, at once, I was mistaken in regard to the attitude which the hon. Member and his friends took up upon this matter,

2071
and I welcome the explanation which he has given to-night in regard to those views. The question resolves itself tonight not as to whether this £150,000 is going to be taken away from the heir to the Throne and from the Sovereign, but whether it is expedient at this moment that the revenues of the two Duchies should be transferred from the Crown and some other revenue obtained for the Sovereign and the Duke of Cornwall instead of the £150,000 obtained from the two Duchies. I explained the other night that this property had been originally private property, and that it had come to the Duke of Cornwall in the time of the Black Prince, and that similarly, through the wife of John O' Gaunt, private property had descended to the kings and queens of this country; but the point I want to make to-night is this, that there is no attack being made as to the management of these estates. There has been no scandal in connection with their management, and there is no good cause shown why they should be managed better under the present proposal than they are to-day.
It is a great advantage to the Sovereign and the heir to the Throne to be brought constantly into touch with the great agricultural interest of the country, by being made responsible for the management of an estate farmed by a large number of tenantry and small holders as at present. There are a large number of statutes which have been passed in con-
nection with the work of these two Departments, and we cannot by mere Amendment on the Vote of the Civil List alter them. In the offices of the Duchy of Lancaster a large number of duties are transacted similar to those which the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor perform for the rest of England. These offices are established by statute, and there will be no economy if they are attempted to be transferred in the way suggested by the Amendment. The duties would go on, and you cannot by an Amendment of this kind transfer the revenues and abolish the offices without a considerable waste of public funds. These revenues have not, as the hon. Member suggested, been hidden from the country. Every year Parliamentary Papers are issued showing exactly how much is derived from the Duchies, and to suggest that there has been an attempt to conceal this from the public is not really a fair statement of the case. Everyone knows that in addition to the Civil List this £150,000 is divided, about £90,000 in one case, and about £60,000 in the other, between the Sovereign and the Prince of Wales. I think no sufficient case has been made out to-night why we should accept the suggestion of hon. Members below the Gangway.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 52.

Division No. 133.]

AYES.

[11.42 p.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Brunner, John F. L.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Craik, Sir Henry

Agnew, George William

Bryce, John Annan

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Allen, Charles Peter

Bull, Sir William James

Croft, Henry Page

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Attenborough, Walter Annis

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Baird, John Lawrence

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Dawes, James Arthur

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Balcarres, Lord

Castlereagh, Viscount

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Baldwin, Stanley

Cave, George

Duncannon, Viscount

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Haywood)

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Falconer, James

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Fell, Arthur

Barnston, Harry

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Forster, Henry William

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Clough, William

Furness, Stephen

Beale, William Phipson

Clyde, James Avon

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Coates, Major Edward F.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Gibbs, George Abraham

Bird, Alfred

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Gilmour, Captain John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Grant, J. A.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brantford)

Gretton, John

Boyton, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Guest, Major

Brocklehurst, William B.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Mon, Hon. E. S.

Stanier, Beville

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Morpeth, Viscount

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Munro, Robert

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Strauss, Arthur

Hayward, Evan

Muspratt, Max

Summers, James Woolley

Helme, Norval Watson

Neilson, Francis

Sutherland, John E.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Sykes, Alan John

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Nield, Herbert

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Hooper, Arthur George

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Tennant, Harold John

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Horner, Andrew Long

Parkes, Ebenezer

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Toulmin, George

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pretyman, Ernest George

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Valentia, Viscount

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Primrose, Hon. Nell James

Verney, Frederick William

Kemp, Sir George

Pringle, William M. R.

Verrall, George Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Proby, Colonel Douglas James

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Quilter, William Eley C.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Lambert, George

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Waterlow, David Sydney

Lewis, John Herbert

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Llewelyn, Venables

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Royds, Edmund

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Rutherford, Watson

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Mallet, Charles Edward

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Manfield, Harry

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Sanderson, Lancelot

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

Menzies, Sir Walter

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Millar, James Duncan

Shortt, Edward

Mitchell, William Foot

Simon, John Allsebrook

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Soares, Ernest Joseph

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Barnes, George N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Snowden, Philip

Barton, William

Higham, John Sharp

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Brace, William

Johnson, William

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Twist, Henry

Chancellor, Henry George

Jowett, Frederick William

Wadsworth, John

Clynes, John R.

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Wilkie, Alexander

Edwards, Enoch

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Ogden, Fred

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N. E.)

Gill, Alfred Henry

O'Grady, James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glover, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Winfrey, Richard

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Pointer, Joseph

Wing, Thomas

Greenwood, Granville George

Radford, George Heynes

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Rendall, Athelstan

Hancock, John George

Richards, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robinson, Sidney

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Shackleton, David James

Lords Amendment Considered, and agreed to.

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

CLAUSE 2.—(Application to Tenancies terminated before commencement of Act.)
Where a tenancy has been terminated before the commencement of this Act, and the tenant proves to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that he has incurred any loss or expense for Which he would have been entitled to compensation under the foregoing section of this Act if the tenancy had terminated

2075
after the commencement of this Act, the Board may, out of the small holdings account, pay to the tenant such compensation for such loss or expense as they think just: Provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before the first day of September, nineteen hundred and ten.
Lords Amendment: In last line of Clause, "Leave out the word 'September' and insert instead thereof the word 'November,' "read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
Mr. WINFREY: I would ask the Government to accept the Amendment of the House of Lords. On this occasion I think that the House of Lords are right. If you are going to give compensation to the farmers who give up their lands for small holdings you might give them another month in which to send in their claim. I think it would be ungracious not to give them this further concession.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I object to further Proceeding. We must not take disagreements with the other House after Eleven o'clock.
And it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceedings, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday.)

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

COUNTY COMMON JURIES BILL [H.L.]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments which stand on the Paper are not in Order, because in the Bill amending the Juries Act, 1825, there is no exception taken to the Act, and it would be out of Order to add to the exceptions. Therefore, there are no Amendments on the Paper.
Bill read a third time, and passed without amendment.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
Resolved, That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of the Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1910–11 be approved.—[Mr. Lambert.]
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Seven minutes after Twelve o'clock a.m., Wednesday, 27th July.

  Finance Act, 1909–10 (Income Tax).
  Finance Act, 1909–10 (Income Tax).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Suez Canal Company (British Shares).
  Suez Canal Company (British Shares).
  Justices of the Peace, County Kerry.
  Justices of the Peace, County Kerry.
  State Insurance (Friendly Societies).
  State Insurance (Friendly Societies).
  School Attendance Officers (Superannuation).
  School Attendance Officers (Superannuation).
  London and North-Western Railway (West Cumberland Drivers).
  London and North-Western Railway (West Cumberland Drivers).
  Scottish Emigration.
  Scottish Emigration.
  Election of Parish Council (Aspeden, Herts).
  Election of Parish Council (Aspeden, Herts).
  Redcar Urban District Council (Shelter Scheme).
  Redcar Urban District Council (Shelter Scheme).
  Births and Deaths (Scotland).
  Births and Deaths (Scotland).
  Secondary Education (Scotland).
  Secondary Education (Scotland).
  Brazilian Tariffs on British Goods (Preference to United States).
  Brazilian Tariffs on British Goods (Preference to United States).
  Outward American Mails.
  Outward American Mails.

BARON DEVONPORT.
The Right Honourable Sir Hudson Ewbanke Kearley, Baronet, having been created Baron Devonport of Wittington in the county of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PONTYPRIDD WATER (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
The Lord BALFOUR informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
Reported without amendment.
MIDDLETON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (.No. 3) BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PORT OF LONDON (REGISTRATION OF CRAFT) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; (viz.),

D. Northumberland (chairman),

E. Westmeath,

E. Wharncliffe,

L. Saye and Sele,

L. Crawshaw;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and. sent to the Commons.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read. 3ª, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION BILL.
  FALKIRK CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Brought from the Commons.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the Amendments to the Standing

423
Orders which appear on the Paper in my name are, with one exception, purely of a formal character. The exception to which I refer is No. 30A—
30A. Where by any Bill the construction of a work of any kind is proposed to be authorised by which street traffic or the regulation of street traffic in the Metropolitan Police District may be affected, a copy of so much of the plans and sections required to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments as relates to such work shall be deposited at the office of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill.
That particular addition to the Standing Orders I do not propose to move to-day, but as I am told there may be some discussion upon it I will postpone it at any rate for a day or so. But with regard to the other Amendments, they have all been carefully looked into by the Chairman of Committees. I have done my best to follow the statements made for the alterations. The Standing Orders as they now stand involve the production to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of a number of returns and plans which are not found to be useful. The alterations proposed will get rid of those while keeping such plans and deposits as have been found useful in the past. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:
NOTE.—The words in brackets in small capitals, or struck through are to be omitted, and the words printed in Italics are to be inserted.
26. In cases where tidal lands within the ordinary spring tides are to be acquired or in any way affected a copy of the plans and sections shall on or before the thirtieth day of November, immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the Office of the Harbour Department, Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters"; and on such copy all tidal waters shall be coloured blue; and, if the plans include any bridge across tidal waters, the dimensions as regards span and headway of the nearest bridges, if any, across the same tidal waters, above and below the proposed new bridge, shall be marked thereon; and in all such cases, such plans and sections shall be accompanied by an Ordnance map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend, or are to be carried, with their position and extent, or route accurately laid down thereon:
[AND, IN CASES WHERE THE WORK IS TO BE SITUATE ON THE BANKS, FORESHORE, OR BED OF ANY RIVER, SO MUCH OF THE PLANS AND SECTIONS AS RELATES TO SUCH RIVER SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE APPLICATION FOR THE BILL, BE DEPOSITED—

(1) IF THE RIVER IS IN ENGLAND OR WALES, AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES; OR

(2) IF THE RIVER IS IN SCOTLAND, AT THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND; OR

(3) IF THE RIVER IS IN IRELAND, AT THE IRISH OFFICE, WESTMINSTER, AND AT THE OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND, DUBLIN; AND

(4) IF THERE BE A BOARD OF CONSERVATORS CONSTITUTED FOR THE CONSERVANCY OF THE RIVER, AT THE OFFICE ALSO OF SUCH BOARD;

AND, IF THE PLANS INCLUDE ANY TUNNEL UNDER OR BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER, THE DEPTH OF SUCH TUNNEL BELOW THE BED OF THE RIVER, OR THE SPAN AND HEADWAY OF SUCH BRIDGE SHALL BE MARKED THEREON; AND SUCH PLANS SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ORDNANCE MAP OF THE COUNTRY OVER WHICH THE WORKS ARE PROPOSED TO EXTEND OR ARE TO BE CARRIED, WITH THEIR POSITION AND EXTENT OR ROUTE ACCURATELY LAID DOWN THERE-ON.]
26A. Where under the 'powers of any Bill it is proposed to make, extend, or enlarge any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary in England or Wales, or any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, a copy of so much of the plans and sections as relates to the proposed dam, weir, obstruction, or sewer, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and at the office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.
26B. In cases where any work proposed to be authorized is to he situate on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river in Scotland or Ireland a copy of so much of the plans and sections as relates to the portion of the work by which the banks, foreshore, or river-bed may be affected

425
shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited—
[(1) IF THE RIVER IS IN ENGLAND OR WALES, AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES; OR]

(1) If the river is in Scotland, at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland; or

(2) If the river is in Ireland, at the Irish Office, Westminster, and at the Office of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Dublin; and

(3) If there be a Board of Conservators constituted for the conservancy of the river, at the Office also of such Board;

and, if the plans include any tunnel under or bridge over the river, the depth of such tunnel below the bed of the river, or the span and headway of such bridge shall be marked thereon; and such plans shall be accompanied by an Ordnance map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend or are to be carried, with their position and extent or route accurately laid down thereon.
Deposits on or before the 21st of December.
33. ON or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy shall be deposited
(5) Of every Local Bill affecting foreshore or tidal lands within the ordinary spring tides or relating to any dock, harbour, navigation, pier, port, or tidal waters, at the Office of the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters";
[(6) OF EVERY BILL OF THE SECOND CLASS WHEREBY IT IS INTENDED TO AUTHORISE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY WORK ON THE BANKS, FORESHORE, OR BED OF ANY RIVER, AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES, AND AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATORS OF THE RIVER (IF ANY);]
(6) Of every Bill whereby it is proposed to authorise in England or Wales the making, extending, or enlarging of any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary, or of any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, or the abstraction of water from any river, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture
426
and Fisheries and at the Office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.
64. IN the case of every Bill brought from the House of Commons in which provisions have been inserted in that House empowering the Promoters thereof, being a company already constituted by Act of Parliament, to execute, undertake, or contribute towards any work other than that for which it was originally established, or to sell or lease their undertaking or any part thereof, or to enter into agreements with any other company for the working, maintenance, management, or use of the railway or works of either company, or any part thereof, or to amalgamate their undertaking or any part thereof with any other undertaking, or to purchase any other undertaking or any part thereof, or any additional lands, or to abandon their undertaking or any part thereof, or to dissolve the said company, or in which any such provisions originally contained in the Bill have been materially altered in that House, or in which any such powers are conferred on any company not being the Promoters of the Bill, the Examiner shall report as to compliance or non-compliance with the following requirements:
The Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House shall be submitted to the proprietors of any every such company, at a meeting held specially for that purpose:
A. [IN THE CASE OF EVERY BILL WHEREBY IT IS PROPOSED TO IMPOUND THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE WATER OF ANY RIVER OR STREAM, AND TO GIVE A FLOW OF WATER IN COMPENSATION FOR THE WATER SO IMPOUNDED, THE COMMITTEE ON THE BILL SHALL INQUIRE INTO THE EXPEDIENCY OF MAKING PROVISION SO FAR AS MAY BE PRACTICABLE, THAT THE WHOLE, OR A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SUCH COMPENSATION WATER SHALL BE GIVEN IN A CONTINUOUS FLOW THROUGHOUT THE TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF EVERY DAY.]
110A. In the case of every Bill whereby it is proposed to impound or abstract the whole or any part of the water of any river or stream, the Committee on the Bill shall inquire into the expediency of making provision, so far as may be practicable, for giving a flow of water in compensation for the water so impounded or abstracted, and for giving the whole or a minimum amount of such compensation water in a. continuous

427
flow throughout the twenty-four hours of every day. —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh. )
On Question, Motion agreed to: Standing Orders amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended. (No.134.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion that stands in my name. I ought to explain to the House that it is in respect of the Appropriation Bill. As sometimes happens owing to the course of business in another place, these matters are run very fine, and in order to provide the funds for the public service we have to ask your Lordships to pass the Appropriation Bill through all its stages on the same day. I ought to add that the Bill contains no special features of any kind.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Read 1ª: Then (Standing Order No. XXX1X having been suspended) Bill read 2ª (The Lord Herschell): Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed.
FALKIRK CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 135.)
  HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMTION BILL. (No. 136.)
  Read 1ª; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2ª (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee.
WATER PROVISIONAL WIDER BILL.
Read 3ª (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this is a small Bill and merely relates to a matter of administration. It is to extend to trustees in Scotland a power which trustees in England already enjoy —namely, the power to invest trust funds in the purchase of Consolidated Stock created by the Metropolitan Board of Works or by the London County Council, and of Metropolitan Water Stock created by the Metropolitan Water Board. The Bill has passed through the House of Commons, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As Standing Order No. XXXIX has been suspended for this day's sitting, I propose, unless your Lordships see some objection, to take the remaining stages of this small Bill to-clay.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal expressly stated that the suspension of the Standing Order was moved only in respect to the Appropriation Bill. As a matter of fact, of course, the suspension is applicable to every Bill. But if there are no Amendments I do not see that this Bill will be prejudiced by standing over and taking its usual course.
Bill committed to a. Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ALDERNIEN IN MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Liverpool.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I have given notice to move the insertion of a new clause. I do not know bother the noble Earl in charge of the Bill wishes to make any statement with respect to my Amendment. Perhaps I had better move it pro formâ, and hear what he has to say.
Amendment, moved—
After clause 1 insert the following new clause:
2.—(l) In the election of aldermen of a municipal borough or county council a person entitled to vote Wray vote for one person and no more.
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4) of section sixty of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882:
"Every person entitled to vote may vote for one person and no more by signing and personally delivering to the chairman a voting paper containing the surname and other names and place of abode and description of the person for whom he votes."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I hardly think that my noble friend in moving this new clause and also later on proposing to move to alter the title of the Bill is -within the question of order, but perhaps I might, in a few words, state the reasons why the Local Government Board object to the insertion of this new matter. The Bill, as your Lordships are aware, simply desires to apply the principles laid down in the Local Government Act of 1888 to the election of aldermen and mayors in municipal boroughs. My noble friend's Amendment would go very much beyond the range of this amending Bill. The Bill, as it refers to the election of aldermen, is designed only to limit the persons who may vote for aldermen in municipal boroughs. The Amendment would alter the whole system of election. Secondly, the Bill is limited in its scope to the election of aldermen and mayors in municipal boroughs. The Amendment would affect
430
the election of aldermen in the case of county councils and apparently also of metropolitan boroughs.
I think your Lordships will realise that these alterations go entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill passed through another place with no Amendments at all, and, as I have said, it desires to assimilate in these two small particulars the procedure in municipal borough councils to that in county councils and metropolitan borough councils. On the Second Reading the noble Lord said he was in sympathy with the Bill, but I think his Amendments not only introduce entirely new matter into this very bumble and unpretentious Bill, but would cause a certain amount of difference of opinion with reference to the provisions laid down for county councils and metropolitan borough councils as regards the election of aldermen. In these circumstances I venture to hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, in the observations I addressed to your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill I explained pretty fully the process by which I propose to enlarge the provisions of this Bill, and I stated the reasons which led me to believe that that process was quite legitimate. It is a surprise to me, therefore, to hear the statement, which the noble Earl has just made. I took some pains to consider the matter, and what I propose to do appeared to me to be perfectly in order. Nor do I understand from the noble Earl that he ventures the opinion that the Amendments are out of order. He says they are inconvenient, but nothing more. I think it would be unfortunate if your Lordships were to consent to the opinion that this proposal was out of order, because it would fetter your action very seriously in regard to other Bills which might be held to be of more importance than the present one.
What is the situation? This Bill proposes to deal with the election of aldermen in the provincial boroughs of England, and it provides that whereas at present aldermen and common councillors have equal rights in the election of aldermen, in future aldermen should be denied the privilege of joining in the election of aldermen and that it should be confined to common councillors alone. That is the

431
scope of the Bill, and the title of the Bill as introduced into the other House was so closely prescribed that it was impossible by the rules to make any alteration there in the provision contained in the Bill as introduced. My noble friend said that no Amendment was made in the other House. But, as I have said, the adroitness of the draftsman of the Bill prevented the introduction in the other House of any Amendment such as I am now moving. What I propose to do is to continue the provision that only common councillors can elect aldermen by adding that each common councillor shall have only one vote in the election of aldermen, so that the aldermen elected should correspond to the composition of the common council.
What is desired in the election of aldermen is to bring in, if possible, expert knowledge and experience which cannot be introduced by the ordinary process of election. By my Amendment that would be secured in a full instead of in a partial way as proposed in this Bill. The alteration contained in the Amendment is a very simple one in the body of the Bill, and it is necessary to alter the title in order to correspond to that alteration. But that is not out of the power of your Lordships. It would be irregular to go entirely beyond the scope and purpose of this Bill, but you may enlarge it by adding to the provision that only common councillors shall vote a prescription as to the way in which those councillors shall vote. I am unwilling to go into the arguments regarding the merits of this Amendment because this embarrassing question has been raised. I do not wish to enter into conflict with the general opinion of your Lordships. It. may be that the subject I have raised in this Amendment is one which should be deferred for further consideration, and if I assented to the negativing of my Amendment it would be on that ground and on that ground only—namely, that it is desirable that the matter should be further considered by the municipal corporations throughout the country. It is unfortunate that in regard to an Amendment such as this we should be confronted with an official attitude of pure negation. I said in my speech on the Second Reading that the process of carrying a Bill through the Legislature now is a series of manœuvres, and the way in which this Bill was drafted and piloted through the other House of
432
Parliament by the Department concerned was most adroit. I hope your Lordships will not assent to the suggestion that to insert my Amendment is beyond your Lordships' power. Negative it, if you like, on the ground that the question should be further discussed, but do not, I pray you, negative it on the ground put forward by the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should not have risen but for a remark made by Lord Courtney when he introduced this subject on the last occasion, and from which 1 am afraid your Lordships might derive an idea entirely at variance with the facts. The noble Lord based this Amendment largely on what he described as the recent action of the London County Council—
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I mentioned that incidentally. I did not base the Amendment upon it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: As the noble Lord mentioned it incidentally, perhaps I may be allowed to show incidentally what the effect would have been in that particular case if the plan contained in this Amendment had been carried out. I will not trouble your Lordships with past procedure, though I could have shown that as long as the Progressives were in a majority in the London County Council it was their practice to attach to themselves aldermen more or less of the same way of thinking, just as was done by the other side recently. I quite sympathise with the noble Lord opposite, who would all through, if he could, have introduced the principle of proportional representation; but he is endeavouring now to build on a foundation a superstructure which really it will not carry.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment in the case of the last London County Council election would have been this. At the last election in March there was practically a tie, sixty members being elected on the one side as against fifty-eight on the other. But those sixty members were elected by a majority of 79,000 erectors. Yet bad the noble Lord's plan been in operation and had it been impossible for the sixty members to obtain more than a majority of one in the aldermen over the fifty-eight members, you would literally have had the government of London being

433
carried On by two parties within two of each other in the division lobby, although a majority of 79.000 electors had supported the party which was supposed to be in power. That would have meant an absolute deadlock. I am not going to discuss what I believe to be the entire undesirability of these battles being fought out on Party lines, but the fact remains; and I urge that, unless your Lordships were prepared to go into the whole of this question, very serious inconvenience would be caused if at the last moment the noble Lord were allowed to take the ease of the aldermen as a single instance out of the rest and proceed to apply to them a principle which is entirely at variance with the majority principle established with reference to the rest of the representation.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): The noble Viscount has brought in incidentally the question of what happened after the last election to the London County Council, and I understood him to say that the Progressives did very much the same thing in days gone by. Well, I have had the honour of serving on the London County Council for fifteen years as a member of the Progressive Party; I have fought five of, perhaps, the fiercest fights that were ever fought in connection with that body, and I most unhesitatingly declare that the statement of the noble Viscount is inaccurate in the highest degree. He said that very much the same thing was done by the Progressives in the past as was done by the Moderates on the last occasion. This year the election resulted in a tie, and on a recount the Moderates had a majority of two. And how was that obtained? It was obtained on a recount by a single vote-But, contrary to an acknowledged custom that has prevailed in the London County Council, the Moderates took to themselves all the aldermen. They did not give the Progressives one single aldermanic vote. The result was that this gave them a total majority of seventeen. So far from this having been anything like the policy of the Progressives in days gone by, w hat happened on the last occasion was one of the worst instances of political juggling that has ever discredited municipal life in London.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am afraid that after that ebullition of feeling on the
434
part of the noble Earl I must trouble your Lordships again. Will the noble Earl carry his mind back to his statement at the beginning of his remarks, that what I had said was inaccurate in the highest degree? Will he deny that when his party were in a majority in 1889 they took all the aldermen? And that in 1892 they again took all the aldermen? And will he deny that in 1895, when there was a tie and the Progressives were in a minority of 29,244 at the polls, they took such a number of aldermen as gave them a majority of seven in the council? Will the noble Earl say I am inaccurate in that statement? [No answer.] Then I hope he will withdraw the previous remark he made.
EARL CARRINGTON: I was not talking about the number of votes in London, I was talking about the number of votes in the London County Council, and every word I said was absolutely accurate.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I do not wish to continue the animated debate which has arisen out of my Amendment, but in view of the situation in which we are now placed I think it would probably be better if I asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL (CHAPEL) BILL.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

MIDWIVES (No.2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Central Midwives Board.
1.—(1) As from such day as the Lord President of the Council may fix, the Central Midwives Board shall consist of—

(a) two persons (one of whom shall be a woman) to be appointed by the Lord President of the Council, and one person to he appointed by the Local Government Board;

(b) four duly qualified medical practitioners, one to be appointed by the Royal College of Physicians of London, one by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, one by the Society of Apothecaries of London, and one by the British Medical Association;

(c) two certified midwives to he appointed, one by the Incorporated Midwives Institute, and one by the Royal British Nurses Association;

(d) four persons to he appointed, one by the County Councils Association, one by the Association of Municipal Corporations, one by the Society of Medical Officers of Health, and one by the Queen Victoria's Jubilee Institute of Nurses.

The term of office of a medical practitioner appointed under paragraph (b) shall be one year; in the case of other members the term of office shall be three years. A member retiring at the expiration of his term of office shall be eligible for reappointment. Any vacancy occurring by the retirement, death, or resignation of a member shall be filled by a member appointed by the person or body by whom the member so retiring, dying, or resigning was appointed. The Board may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number.
(2) Section three of the Midwives Act, 1902 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), shall have effect as if the foregoing provisions were substituted for so much of that section as is repealed by this Act.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the tenure of office of any member of the Central Midwives Board who holds office at the day so fixed, except that the members who then hold office as representatives of the Incorporated Midwives Institute and the Royal British Nurses Association shall cease to hold office.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to amend paragraph (c) by omitting the words "certified midwives" in order to insert "persons, one a midwife." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give two representatives to the Incorporated Midwives Institute and to preserve to them their representation by a medical practitioner which they have found very convenient and valuable in the past. I must say that it seems to me rather shabby to give the Midwives Institute only one representative when you see how little representation of midwives there is on the Board. There are very good reasons, 1 think, for giving them at any rate two representatives. The Midwives Institute is the only incorporated body representa-
436
tive of all the practising midwives in the country, who number at least 15.000, I believe. It was that association which raised the large fund necessary for carrying the Midwives Act of 1902, a measure which is now fully recognised to be one of great public utility. It meant a considerable amount of effort. It took twelve years to get that Act passed and there was all the labour connected with six successive Bills. The Incorporated Midwives Institute have, therefore, good reason to claim that they speak for the practising midwives in the country; and, indeed, there is no other association which can claim to represent the midwives in the same way. I do not know why it is necessary to restrict them to only one representative, and the effect of doing so is to make the unlucky number thirteen the number of the Board. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will be willing to make this small concession, more particularly as past experience has shown that it is very convenient that midwives should have a medical practitioner to speak for them. The noble Earl has strengthened the medical representation on the Board, and I do not think it need be argued that it is easier for a man and a doctor to hold his own against the eminent physicians who will be on the Board than it would be for a midwife.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("certified midwives") and insert ("persons, one a midwife"), and leave out ("one").—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): Your Lordships will see that this is a Bill for amending the Midwives Act and in order to strengthen the Central Midwives Board. With that in view it was naturally thought by those who were concerned in this Bill that it was very desirable that we should have midwives upon the central body itself. We think we have now reached a stage in the development of the Act when we can count upon midwives whose services on the Board would be of great value. Your Lordships must agree that prima facie there is good reason for putting midwives upon a board which is concerned with the everyday work and duty of midwives throughout the country. That is the first reason why I hope your Lordships will allow this to stand as it is at present. I admit it is quite possible that a doctor would be able also to help the midwives in any case which might come before the

437
Midwives Board if he was there as a representative of the Incorporated Midwives Institute. But, as I think I told your Lordships on the Second Reading, in the case of mixed bodies one can only arrive at their constitution after a good deal of balancing of the various interests, and any alteration is apt to disturb the balance. However, I am not particularly wedded to the form as it appears in the Bill at the present time, and if any considerable number of your Lordships express a. desire to see the first Amendment which the noble Lord opposite has moved adopted, I shall not enter ally strong objection to it. But at the same time I wish to make it quite clear that if this Amendment is agreed to I should only agree to it as an expression of opinion from more than one noble Lord. I should like to be certain that there are several members of your Lordships' House who think that this Amendment is desirable before we agree to it, because the present scheme is the outcome of much consideration and ought not to be disturbed without good reason. The second Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord is that the Royal British Nurses Association should be represented by anybody other than a certificated midwife. I should oppose that. As I said before, we want midwives upon this Board, and the Royal British Nurses Association would be able to send us a. certificated midwife whose services would be of real value. Therefore, though I should like to express once more a preference for the scheme in the Bill, yet if there is a decided expression in your Lordships' House in favour of adding one member to the Board as representative of the Incorporated Midwives Institute I should be willing to agree to that Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I think it is only fair to point out that this Amendment:, after all, is only permissive. It does not prevent the Incorporated Midwives Institute appointing two midwives if they think that they are the two best people they could appoint. On the other hand, it does give them latitude in the case of one of their appointments. If they have a member of the medical profession or anybody else whom they think specially fitted for the business, they are able to appoint him. I should think that this greater elasticity would be bound in the end to work to the advantage of the present proposal. As the noble
438
Earl asked if anybody was prepared to support the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, I may say that I certainly came down to the House with the object of supporting it; and I notice that the form in which my noble friend moves this proposal is the form in which it recommends itself to the Royal British Nurses Association. They. after all, have had considerable experience in this matter, and I hope their opinion will weigh with Your Lordships.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I rise to endorse what has been said by Lord Ampthill in moving this Amendment. I think it would be of material assistance that latitude should be given to enable this body to appoint to the Board a person with some special experience.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: After what has been said I should be willing to agree to the extent I have mentioned with the noble Lord opposite.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved another Amendment to the subsection to give to the Royal British Nurses Association the option of appointing on the Board a representative other than a certified midwife. The noble Lord said: I am sorry the noble Earl seemed to make it a condition of his acceptance of the first part of the Amendment, for which I am very much obliged to him, that the second part should not be pressed; but I had no opportunity of assenting to that arrangement, and I am afraid I must press this second Amendment. It is very much desired, and, as my noble friend Lord Donoughmore pointed out, it is permissive; and it seems to me to be very desirable that there should be a certain amount of latitude and elasticity in this arrangement. By the Amendment already accepted the noble Earl will have one midwife anyhow on the council.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("one") insert ("person"). —(Lord Ampthill.)
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I have received a letter from a lady doctor in which she says that the one thing they arc keen about is to substitute the word

439
"person" for that of "midwife" as their representative on the Board. She adds—
"It is far better for us to have a physician and not a midwife as our representative."
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment on behalf of the Royal British Nurses Association, the body principally concerned by this Amendment. As the Bill now stands they are given one representative on the Board who must be a midwife. The Royal British Nurses Association desire to have the option of appointing such person as they may think their best representative for the time being. There is no suggestion that they would not appoint a midwife. They might appoint a midwife if they considered that their interests would be best represented by a midwife. But upon the Council of the Royal British Nurses Association there are thirty doctors, thirty matrons, and thirty nurses, and the whole society is composed of these elements. They do not, therefore, want to be confined solely to midwives as their representatives. This body is probably the largest and most important nursing association in the kingdom. It is the only body of its kind which has a Royal Charier, and they feel that they are a body quite competent to choose their best representative, and that in many cases they may not be able to find a midwife free and able to
Amendment agreed to accordingly.
act for them on this Board. They therefore attach the greatest possible importance to this Amendment, and I shall certainly support my noble friend in pressing it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am afraid I can only repeat my unwillingness to agree to this Amendment. Here is a Board which you want to deal with midwives. I have agreed already to one Amendment suggested by the noble Lord opposite, adding a doctor on behalf of the Incorporated Midwives Institute. You now have a body of fourteen. It is not unreasonable, I think, to suggest that in these circumstances two out of the fourteen should be midwives. We quite realise the work which is accomplished by the Royal British Nurses Association. We know they include among their members a large number of midwives who would be admirably fitted to serve on this Board. We need midwives upon it, we think the Royal British Nurses Association able to send us a good midwife, and in these circum stances I must insist on the clause as it stands.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Ailesbury, M.

Churchill, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Goschen, V.

Hindlip, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hood, V.

Inverclyde, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensherry.)

Hutcliinson,V. (B. Donoughmore.)

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Knaresborough, L.

Halsbury, E.

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Lytton, E. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Mar, E.

Balfour, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Morley, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Waldegrave, E.

Colchester, L.

Sinclair, L.

Westmeath, E.

Desborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Courtney of Penwith, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. President.)

Devonport, L.

Northcote, L.

Furness, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Carrington, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Pirrie, L.

Liverpool, E. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Shaw, L.

Mayo, E.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Shuttleworth, L.

Ilkeston, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Airedale, L.

James, L.

Blyth, L.

Langford, L.

Weardale, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Lochee, L.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment of section seven of principal Act as to evidence.
4. The following paragraph shall be added to section seven of the principal Act:—
"A certificate under the hand of the Secretary of the Board that the name of a woman whose name appears in the roll of midwives has been removed from the roll shall be evidence that such woman is not certified under this Act."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will see that these Amendments to Clause 4 are purely of a drafting character to make the meaning of the clause more clear.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 20, after the second ("roll ") insert ("and of the date of such removal")
Page 3, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("and of" the date as from which she ceased to be so "certified")—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Previsions as to Midwives.
7. Every certified midwife shall on or before the thirty-first of March in each year send to the Central Midwives Board on a form to be supplied by the Board for the purpose her name and address, together with a fee of one shilling, and if any certified midwife in any year fails to comply with this requirement her name shall be removed from the roll and thereupon her certificate shall be deemed to he cancelled; but where her name has been so removed on account of such non compliance she shall at any subsequent time be entitled to have her name restored to the roll and the cancellation of her certificate rescinded on the payment of a fee not exceeding five shillings.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I move to leave out "March" and to insert "January." January is the date selected as that upon which a certified nurse gives notice to the local supervising authority if she intends to act as a midwife, and it would seem much more convenient and less likely to lead to confusion if the same date were selected to give notice also to the Central Midwives Board. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will be able to give us his assistance in this matter.
Amendment moved —
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("March") and insert ("January").—(Viscount Goschen.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is very kind of the noble Viscount to appeal to me for
442
my assistance. I do not think it makes any difference. But I have no objection to offer to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAWRENCE LORD LAWRENCE proposed as an Amendment to Clause 7 that applications by certified midwives to have their names kept on the roll should be sent, not to "the Central Midwives Board," but to "the local supervising authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which has the support of the County Councils Association, would have been moved by Lord Belper had he been able to be present this evening. In his absence the Amendment has been placed in my hands, but. I must confess that. I know little about its merits. I hope, however, that the noble Earl will be willing to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("Central Midwives Board") and insert ("local supervising authority"). —(Lord Lawrence.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think your Lordships will recognise that there is a real practical inconvenience suggested in the Amendment. If you turn to Clause 7 you will see that the obligation suggested is that the certified midwife should send to the Central Midwives Board. The object is to keep the roll clean and up to date. The roll is in the charge of the Central Midwives Board, and surely it would be most inconvenient if the midwife were to write to a local authority which had not got the roll in its charge. The Central Midwives Board is the body whose duty it is to keep the roll in order, and it would be a matter of great inconvenience if nurses were to send to authorities not responsible in any way for the roll. The scheme as proposed in the Bill is far more convenient than the somewhat roundabout method suggested in the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Notification of Practice.
11.—(1) Where a woman certified under the principal Act, who has not given to the local supervising authority such a notice as is mentioned in

443
section ten of the principal Act attends any woman in child-birth in any capacity other than that of midwife, and a duly qualified medical practitioner is not present at the time of the birth, she shall, with in forty eight hours from the birth, give to the local supervising authority notice in writing of the fact that she so attended, and if she omits to do so shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, but nothing in this section shall be construed as exempting any woman practising as a midwife, or holding herself out as so practising, from the obligation to give any notice which, under section ten of the principal Act, she is required to give.
(2) Where a woman certified under the principal Act has given a notice in compliance with section ten of that Act and subsequently changes her address, she shall, within seven days after such change, give notice of the change to every local supervising authority to which she had previously given notice under that section, and if she omits to do so shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding two pounds.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after the word "Act" ["who has not given to the local supervising authority such a notice as is mentioned in section ten of the principal Act"] at the commencement of the clause; to insert the words "or a woman not so certified." The noble Earl said: This clause is really founded upon Section 93 in the Report of the Departmental Committee. The real fear was this, that monthly nurses and so on who are not certified midwives would act nominally under a doctor, but that the doctor might not be present at the moment, and that some danger might accrue to the mother in those circumstances. We thought it desirable to make the Central Midwives Board acquainted with the fact if it became a habit in any district. The method, I admit, is clumsy, but there is no other way of doing it. Naturally the Midwives Board would take no notice if it happened occasionally; but if there was a sign of its becoming a habit they would be able to take such steps as might seem necessary. The objection which has been stated to me privately is that as the Bill stands at the present moment it does throw a certain amount of duty upon the certificated midwife which would rather act unfairly towards her and might make her employment, perhaps not so popular. For that reason I have put down this Amendment, which I think would put all nurses upon the same footing and therefore give the certificated midwife an equal opportunity with others. I hope that will meet the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who has given notice to move the deletion altogether of subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("or a woman not so certified.")—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My objections to this subsection are quite met, by the noble Earl's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Reciprocal Treatment of Midwives certified in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions.
12.—(l) Any woman who produces to the Central Midwives Board satisfactory evidence that she has been trained as a midwife and certified in any other part of His Majesty's dominions in which there is for the time being in force any Act or ordinance for the certification and registration of midwives under a public authority, and which admits to its register midwives certified under the principal Act on reciprocal terms, shall on payment of the like fee as is payable in ordinary cases be entitled to be certified under the principal Act; provided that the standard of training and examination required in such other part of His Majesty's dominions is equivalent to the standard adopted by the Board.
(2) If any question arises under this section as to the right of a woman to be certified under the principal Act the question shall be determined by the Privy Council,
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is an Amendment which 1 put down in order to meet the case as it was mentioned on Second Reading by noble Lords from Ireland. I think we agreed on that occasion that although it was impossible in this Bill to deal with the general scheme in Ireland, it was possible to deal with the grievance as it affects individuals; and I hope I have done that to a greater extent than in the Amendment which is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clonbrock.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, after ("evidence") insert ("either—" (a)")
Page 5, line 42, after ("terms") insert ("or
"(b) that she is qualified to be appointed as a "midwife by a Board of Guardians in Ireland "under any regulations of the Local Government "Board for Ireland for the time being in force").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD CLONBROCK: I wish to say that I quite concur with the noble Earl, and if the present Amendment meets with the approval of your Lordships I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment. As to the general question of the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill, I stated on Second

445
Reading, that it was very much desired by people well qualified to judge in Ireland, and that. I therefore had the intention of moving Amendments to include Ireland in the provisions of the Bill as it stands. But it has since been intimated to me that there are great difficulties in the way of doing that owing to the difference of the Poor-law system in England and Ireland as regards nurses and medical officers. I have also been informed that the Government are inclined to bring in a special Bill for Ireland next year embodying the provisions of this Bill. I very much hope that is the case, and I trust that the noble Earl will definitely announce that this is the intention of His Majesty's Government. I know that people whose opinion is most valuable in Ireland are very much in favour of this Bill in the interests of the public health, and would welcome an announcement that a Bill of the same character will be introduced for Ireland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page line 4, after ("dominions") insert ("or, "as the case may he, under such regulations of the "Local Government Board for Ireland as afore" said."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK had given notice to move the insertion of the following new clause—
13. Any woman who holds a certificate in midwifery granted to her from the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, or the Coombe Lying-in Hospital and Guinness's Dispensary, or the Rotunda Hospital for the Relief of the Poor Lying-in Women of Dublin, or from such other training authority as may be approved by the Central Midwives Board, stating that she has been trained as a midwife and certified in Ireland, and who claims to be certified under the principal Act, shall be so certified.
The noble Lord said: I do not now intend to move my Amendment. But T. hope the noble Earl will tell us whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for Ireland next year.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As the noble Lord knows, the introduction of a Bill for Ireland dealing with this matter is not in my province, but I am assured by my
446
right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he will be glad to deal with this matter. He is unable to promise what lines the Bill will take, or whether it will follow exactly the lines of this Bill, because the conditions in Ireland are entirely different front what they are in England. I But my right hon. friend will be glad to have the support in that matter of noble Lords opposite.
Clause 13:
Provisions as to Local Supervising Authorities.
13. A local supervising authority may aid the training of midwives, whether within or without their area, and may make grants for the purpose.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved an Amendment to give a discretionary power to the local supervising authorities to make grants in aid of the maintenance of midwives. The noble Lord said: It seems to me that it is a necessary corollary of the legislation which is now established that there should be this discretionary power granted to county councils of making grants in aid of maintenance. I am aware that the idea is that voluntary nursing associations should provide the midwife, but there are parts of the country in which no nursing association exists. The people, then, are in this position. They are compelled by law to employ a certified midwife, and if there is no certified midwife in the district, because it is impossible in ninny cases for these women to make a living wage, they would have to do without one at all. There is no question that in many parts of the country it is almost impossible for a midwife to make a living. I have before me the report of the medical officer of health of my own district, which gives some very interesting figures on the subject. Of forty-two independent midwives practising in the county, four attended no cases and twenty-seven attended less than twenty-five cases each. As the fee in each case varies from 4s. to 10 s. 6d., it is very evident that it is not possible for these women to earn a living wage. As the law compels people to employ a certified midwife, it seems to be a necessary consequence that the Government should put it within their power to obtain the services of these trained women. Your Lordships will notice that the power is only discretionary, and it seems to me that it is one that can safely be entrusted to the county councils. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, after ("training") insert ("and make grants in aid of maintenance").—(Lord Ampthill.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think that on reflection the noble Lord will see that his Amendment in putting a large burden on local taxation would probably be considered in another place to be a very serious breach of privilege. In addition to that, I hope your Lordships will not approve of this somewhat socialistic proposal of the noble Lord's, which becomes even stronger in the next Amendment on the Paper. The noble Lord suggests that the local supervising authority should aid the maintenance of midwives. I have no doubt the noble Lord would probably be one of the first to say that midwives stood in a different category from any other class; that doctors, for instance, were entirely different. But I think a great many noble Lords would not agree. They would say that in scattered districts, where it is difficult for doctors to live, it is just as necessary that the local authority should make grants in aid of doctors as it is that they should make grants in aid of midwives. It is difficult to make any sound distinction between the two if once you throw the cost upon the local authority. I venture to think that in any case this is a very great departure in principle from anything which has been done in this country, and in view of the large charge which it would make and the fact that it is without doubt a breach of privilege, I venture to hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I would ask my noble friend behind me not to persist in this Amendment. I quite see the argument put forward by the noble Earl opposite. In the first place, it would undoubtedly be considered a breach of privilege in another place; and, secondly, it would be adding to the rates, a thing we have always deprecated. In these circumstances I would suggest to my noble friend that it would be wiser not to persist in his Amendment.
LORD AMPTHILL: I cannot admit the argument that this would be a breach of privilege, and I do not think that view would find much support in this House. On the other hand, I admit that the principle of this Amendment is socialistic. But you have got the legislation already,
448
and the legislation is socialistic. You are not proposing to do away with the legislation, and all that this Amendment does is to recognise a necessary consequence of legislation which is firmly established, and which you are now seeking to make just and fair in working. I do not know whether I can count on any support for the Amendment, but I am not inclined to withdraw it if there are any noble Lords who favour it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Payment of Fees of Medical Practitioners called in on advice of Midwives.
17.—

(1) Where a duly qualified medical practitioner has been summoned upon the advice of a certified midwife attending a woman in child-birth to render assistance in a case of emergency in pursuance of any rule framed by the Central Midwives Board, be shall, on complying with the prescribed conditions, be entitled to recover from the board of guardians of the poor law union in which the woman resided such fee in respect of his attendance as may be prescribed.

(2) Where any such fees have been paid by a board of guardians, the amount thereof may, if the board of guardians think fit, be recovered summarily as a civil debt from the patient or person liable to provide the patient with medical aid.

(3) Every board of guardians shall in each quarter send to every local supervising authority concerned a list of the cases within the area of the authority in respect of which fees have been paid by the board of guardians under this section.

(4) The Local Government Board may make regulations with respect to any matter which under this section is to be prescribed and as to the manner in which boards of guardians are to carry out their powers and duties under this section.

(5) The payment of fees by hoards of guardians under this section shall not be considered to be parochial relief, alms, or charitable allowance to any person, nor shall any person by reason thereof be deprived of any right or privilege, or be subject ed to any disability or disqualification.

LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to substitute the local supervising authority of the county or county borough for the Poor-law guardians. The noble Lord said: I think your Lordships will recognise that this Amendment is one of very great importance. The Bill was before the House for some time and was withdrawn by the noble Earl the Lord President, and it was generally supposed that the object of withdrawing the Bill for a while was to amend

449
this very Clause 17 in order to meet the large number of objections which had been raised. But to the great disappointment of all those interested in the Bill it returned to this House with the objectionable clause still standing in it.
The objection to the clause, of course, is that you are bringing possibly thousands of poor thrifty people within touch of the Poor-law authority, a thing which they dread and dislike more than anything else. The noble Earl has sought to remove these objections by inserting a new subsection which declares that the payment of these fees to the doctor is not to be regarded as parochial relief. It seems to me that the very effect of this provision is to remove any possible argument that there may have been for the system of making the payments through the Poor-law guardians. Either these payments are parochial relief or they are not. If they are parochial relief, surely you have no right to say in your Act that they are not parochial relief; hut if, on the other hand, the payments are not in the nature of Poor-law relief, why make it appear that they are so by employing the whole of the machinery of Poor-law relief? It is quite futile to declare by your Act that it is not to be so regarded. You cannot regulate people's sentiments by an Act of Parliament. His Majesty's Government are trying to do a great deal by legislation at the present time, but I venture to say that to regulate people's feelings by legislation is a thing they will never be able to accomplish.
Surely the Government know what the feelings of the poor are in respect of this matter, and how utterly unlikely it is that their strong objection to being brought within touch of the Poor-law should be allayed by a declaration in an Act of Parliament that they are not to regard it as Poor-law relief. Just as well might you send a man to prison and tell him he is not to regard himself as in prison, but only for the time being as one of His Majesty's guests. I hold, therefore, that this new proviso, which is supposed to remove objections, is utterly ineffective for the purpose; but what I want to know is why the Government have gone out of their way to introduce the interference of a second local authority in this matter when there is no apparent reason for doing so. The county councils and the county borough councils are the authorities responsible for the administration of the Midwives Act, for
450
the supervision of midwives, and the regulation of everything that pertains to them. It would, therefore, seem to the ordinary person to be the obvious thing that the county councils or the county borough councils should make the payments which are necessary. After all, it is not a matter of obtaining the money from a different source. The money in either case comes out of the same pockets. There is a very good precedent too. It is the county councils who pay the doctor when the doctor is summoned by the police. It would, therefore, not be any innovation to continue that system.
But what is still more remarkable is that there is absolutely no authority which can be quoted for the proposal which His Majesty's Government have made in Clause 17. It is not a recommendation of the Departmental Committee. The proposals were not supported by any of the witnesses who appeared before that Committee, but, on the contrary, were objected to by an immense weight of authority and by a large number of public bodies who understand the question and are deeply concerned in it. I shall be interested to hear. on what grounds the noble Earl has thought it necessary to maintain these proposals in the Bill. I am in hopes that he has only done so in order that they may be discussed in your Lordships' House before an alteration is made. But, in any circumstance, I hope very much that it is the noble Earl's intention to modify the proposals and to allay the very great anxiety which exists at the present time as to the effect of these proposals, which I wish to impress upon your Lordships have the effect of bringing thousands of poor people whose most earnest effort and hope in life is to keep out of touch of Poor-law relief within the grip of the Poor-law guardians without their consent and without any application on their part; and, what is more, you are compelling them by law to make payments for which they have made no contract, for which they are entirely unprepared, and as to the amount of which they have no say.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("the board of "guardians of the poor law union" and insert ("the local supervising authority of the county or "county borough").—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should have thought that the proposal of

451
the noble Lord to vary the incidence and the area of the local charge by shifting it from the Poor-law union to the county was in itself a breach of privilege, for you cannot either increase or vary the incidence of a burden without conflicting with the rights of the House of Commons. The noble Lord told us that he was proposing what was frankly socialistic legislation, and he excused himself by saying that the idea had crept into previous legislation. I must say for myself that I should wish to withstand socialistic legislation whether the thin edge of the wedge had been got in already or not. The noble Lord said that it was impossible to change sentiment by law, but I think his speech shows that he recognises the effect of the law in that direction, because his whole argument was that the idea of getting aid from the Poor-law, even though they are not pauperised through it, is so repugnant that people would abstain from obtaining this relief. It is quite clear that the noble Lord contemplates a very large additional expenditure of public money on the rates as the result of his Amendment. Therefore he is not merely contemplating the shifting of a charge from one local body to another, but a large augmentation of that charge, because he spoke of the thousands and thousands of people who would benefit in one case, but who would refrain in the other.
LORD AMPTHILL: I do not propose any increase in the charge. I merely propose that the fees should be paid by one authority and not by another. That would not increase the amount of the charge.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not think the noble Lord recognises the full bearing of his own remarks. He said that there were thousands and thousands of people who would shrink from getting relief from the Poor-law, but who would obtain this relief if they had another authority to appeal to. Therefore it is obvious that he does indicate that the effect of his Amendment would be to bring in a large amount of chargeability on public funds which under the Bill as it stands would not take place. We have too many proposals to give people the benefit of being paupers without any of the stigma. I am quite satisfied that the fact that people are ashamed of getting relief which is Poor-law relief does stimulate a great deal of self-reliance and thrift and
452
many other important virtues. We are having experience in regard to the question of providing meals for school children. That was merely a permissive power. Nevertheless local authorities are using it, and now we find attempts made to secure that children should also be fed on Saturdays and Sundays, and, indeed, all the year round, holidays as well as school time. If a parent is unable to maintain his own family, it is a proper case of destitution and for Poor-law relief, and in substance he is a pauper. I believe in a little hardness and sternness in these matters. By the sort of proposal contained in this Amendment a great deal is done to demoralise and debauch the people, and I therefore hope the Amendment will not be agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I desire to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I am not in the least deterred because to do so lays one open to the charge of supporting socialistic legislation or brings one into conflict with the privilege of the other House of Parliament. It is surely straining words to say that this is a socialistic proposal because it proposes that the payment of the fee of the doctor who is called in on child-birth should be borne by the public health authority instead of by the Poor-law guardians.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment himself described his proposal as socialistic.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I should protest against the description just as heartily. But I think my noble friend Lord Ampthill described the previous Amendment, which he did not press, as socialistic, not this one. I did not hear him say anything in moving this Amendment about its being a socialistic proposal. I desire to submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is of extreme importance, and that it has claims upon your Lordships' attention on its merits and quite apart from any label you may attach to it. The difficulty hitherto has been this, that in cases of child-birth a doctor has been called in and in a great many cases has been unable to obtain the fee for his attendance. As there has been no provision made hitherto for the payment of his fee, in some cases it has been provided by the Poor-law guardians and in some cases by the public health authority. The Departmental Committee recommend that an alteration to payment by the Poor-law

453
guardians should be adopted, the Government have accepted their recommendation, and that course has been put into the Bill.
I cannot help saying that this is just an instance—a very important instance—of legislating for people and at the same time ignoring altogether their own opinion on the subject. In another important controversy going on in the country at. the present moment we are told that it is unnecessary and undesirable that women should be given a vote at Parliamentary elections because Parliament always considers their interests and legislates for them adequately and generously. This is just an example of where the interests of the class affected by your legislation have been ignored from the outset. On the Departmental Committee there was no midwife and no representative of the class of poor women who will be affected by the Bill, and since the Bill appeared emphatic protests have been made against this clause. There have been protests from the midwives themselves, from the British Medical Association, from the Society of Medical Officers of Health, from the Royal British Nurses Association, from the Women's Co-operative Guild, from the Railway Women's Guild, from the Women's Labour League, and even from a certain number of boards of guardians.
This particular clause in the Bill has met with the greatest possible opposition from the moment it appeared. It was opposed on the ground that it was imposing the stigma of pauperism on people whom you compel by Act of Parliament to summon medical aid in cases of child-birth, and it was largely in consequence of the opposition raised that this Bill was withdrawn, and in the present Bill something has been done to remove the stigma of pauperism. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Sheffield, wants to discourage people from availing themselves of this provision, and he hopes that the stigma of pauperism will act as a discouragement. The Government do not I desire anything of the kind, because they have provided in their amending Bill that the doctor's fee shall not be regarded as Poor-law relief. Although the board of guardians is still retained as the authority who will pay this fee, the Bill declares that the payment is not to be parochial relief. But it does not matter in the least what it is called if the whole subject is still to be dealt with by the Poor-law authority.
454
The homes of these people are to be subjected to the inquisitorial visits of relieving officers, and the people themselves may have to appear before the Poor-law guardians and answer questions as to ability to pay the necessary fee.
I hold that the whole object of this Bill will be defeated if this clause is retained. Hitherto there has been considerable reluctance on the part of midwives and patients to summon a doctor on these occasions, and that will at once spring up again if, by the machinery of this clause, as it stands in the Bill at present, it is realised that to summon a doctor in cases of child-birth involves the intervention of the relieving officer and appearing before the Poor-law guardians to answer their questions. This Amendment I feel to be absolutely necessary if the Bill is to serve the purpose the Government have in view, without inflicting at the same time fresh hardships on the class of poor women whom the Bill is intended to benefit. I therefore strongly support the Amendment of my noble friend, and sincerely hope that the noble Earl will accept it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the Amendment which the noble Earl supports he tells us is absolutely necessary if the Bill is to carry out the objects with which it was introduced. I congratulate the noble Earl on his knowledge of what was in the minds of those who brought this Bill forward, but I can assure him that to carry this Amendment would mean that the Bill would go no further either in this House or in another place. It is true that the Bill has met with opposition in the Press, but it has been just as warmly supported as it has been somewhat ignorantly opposed in various newspapers. I am bound to say that in a considerable number of the comments dealing with this matter there is a most unfortunate assumption, which is wholly inaccurate, that the State lays upon people the absolute necessity of sending for a medical attendant. I am not anxious to labour the point, which has been raised by the noble Lord behind me, how far this Amendment really raises the matter of privilege.
But let me point out to the noble Lord opposite how incomplete his Amendment is, at any rate in its present form. If this Amendment were accepted I suppose the noble Lord would himself suggest that

455
some method of recovery was expedient. Let me point out to him that in the great majority of cases, at any rate outside the area of county boroughs, the local supervising authority has no means of making satisfactory inquiry into the circumstances of the patient. This would either reduce recovery to a dead letter, or else they would be forced to have recourse to the boards of guardians themselves for information and for help and advice as to whether they should proceed further in the matter or not. The noble Lord makes no provision apparently for the ultimate recovery of the fee, either from the patient herself or from her husband. If it was his intention that medical attention whenever necessary should be provided at the cost of the rates by the local supervising authority his recommendation goes a good deal further even that the Minority Report of the Poor-law Commission. The Commissioners who signed that Report definitely recommended systematic recovery from those responsible, if they are able to pay, according to their means.
LORD AMPTHILL: If the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt him I might inform him that, although I have not put it on the Paper, I do propose an alteration of subsection (2) to provide for recovery.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is obviously inconvenient to your Lordships as well as myself to discuss Amendments that are not on the Paper, and, if the noble Lord will pardon me for saying so, I must continue, he not having given notice, as if that Amendment was not before your Lordships. I must further point out that you are dealing with the whole question of whether or not free medical assistance should be given to these people. You are really dealing with the whole question of the Poor-law. How are you going to deal with the Poor-law in future? It is an attempt, not on the part of the noble Lord himself but of his friends not in this House, to prejudge the question, and I am bound to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that is a matter which we ought not to deal with on the present occasion. I am quite sure that there will he no attempt to shirk the issues which will be dealt with when the time comes to deal with them.
On this occasion we are only dealing with an amendment of a particular Act,
456
and I venture to think it would be far more businesslike on the part of your Lordships on the present occasion not to prejudge the larger questions which must come before Parliament in due time, but to deal with the machinery such as it is and make the best of it, and in that way you will not only be more likely to get this Bill through Parliament but you will be dealing more fairly with Parliament itself. Even in the Minority Report of the Poor-law Commission they say it is very desirable that the adjudication should not be done by a local administrative body such as that to which the noble Lord refers these cases in his Amendment. In that Report they say—
"The work of adjudicating upon particular cases—of assessing how much each person should pay, or whether be should be excused on the ground of poverty—appears to us no less unsuitable for a local administrative body than the general decision of whether or not the tax should-be levied at all."
And they conclude that—
"The duty of determining what special assessments are due according to the law, and from whom, together with the decision whether the person liable is of sufficient ability to pay, and the duty of enforcing payment by proper legal process, ought to be entirely separated from the work of administering the public assistance."
If your Lordships look for a moment at Clause 17 you will see that the objections which have been advanced against the board of guardians as the paying authority are to a considerable extent without any real foundation. Subsection (5) expressly declares that the payment of fees by boards of guardians is not to be considered as parochial relief, alms, or charitable allowance to any person, and no person by reason thereof is to be subjected to any disadvantage; and under subsection (4) the Local Government Board may make regulations in respect to the manner in which boards of guardians are to carry out their powers and duties under the section. I venture to think that under these regulations the Local Government Board will be able to make it perfectly clear that none of that inquisitorial investigation which the noble Lord fears will be likely to take place.
Let me point out how very unsuitable these local supervising authorities really are to carry out the duty of investigation. Here you have the local medical man summoned, and it is in our opinion obvious

457
that the near local authority is the proper authority to investigate the circumstances of the parents. Very often probably no investigation will be necessary. But let me take the noble Lord's own county of Bedfordshire. How can the county council sitting in the capital of that county know accurately the circumstances of every cottager throughout: the whole of the county? They have no machinery for doing it, and I think it is perfectly obvious, for the present at any rate, that so long as boards of guardians exist—and it may not be for ever—they are the most convenient authorities for dealing with this question.. But, in any case, I venture to hope your Lordships will not agree with this Amendment if only on this one single, but I think very important, issue—that we do not wish in this Bill to deal with or to prejudge the questions of Poor-law reform. We have the Act of 1902, which has effected a great deal of good throughout the country, and has saved a great many lives. Here in this Bill we see opportunities of amending that Act and making it still more useful, and I should very much regret if this comparatively humble little Bill were to be used as the battle ground of the contending armies of Poor-law reformers. Our object is to use the existing material, to amend the Bill on the lines which have already done so much good, and it is upon those grounds that I venture to hope your Lordships will agree to pass it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I confess that if anything would encourage me to vote for this Amendment it would be the attack made upon it by Lord Sheffield on the ground of privilege. My Lords, where are we coming to on this question of privilege? We are told that if we alter the incidence of a charge in this Bill we shall be infringing upon the privilege of the House of Commons. The House of Commons has never seen this Bill. This is a Bill which has been introduced in the House of Lords, and we are absolutely ignorant of the opinion of the House of Commons on the point. If we are to be debarred from altering a charge in a Bill brought in by the Government, which the House of Commons have never seen, and to be told that we are infringing the privilege of the House of Commons simply because we are acting contrary to the wishes of the Government, then I say we are reaching a pitch with regard to this
458
question of privilege which even noble Lords opposite have never attempted to maintain before. We are at last beginning to realise that these questions of privilege really mean opposition to the wishes of the Government, and I venture to think that is a thing which your Lordships will remember on future occasions.
In my view this Amendment in no way touches the privileges of the House of Commons. It is an Amendment which must be considered on its merits, and I confess that if I came down here this afternoon prejudiced at all it was in favour of all the Amendments of my noble friend behind me and in advance against any opposition that I thought the Government might make. But, my Lords, I confess I have been converted by the debate that has taken place and by the speeches which the noble Earl representing the Government and the noble Lord behind him have made. It does seem to me that if we accept this Amendment we are deciding offhand a very important question which will have to be decided probably in the near future, but which should be decided in connection with the whole question of the reform of the Poor-law, and I think it would be very unfortunate if we were to prejudge that discussion in any shape or form. The position, as it seems to me, is this. This is a small point, and for the moment the responsible authority, the Government, advise us that it is better to let sleeping dogs lie and to continue on the lines laid down in the Bill. They have supported that position by very powerful arguments, and at the same time have not prejudiced one side or the other in the discussion which will arise in any consideration in future of the reform of the Poor-law. I certainly therefore will have no hesitation in voting with the. Government against this Amendment if my noble friend behind me proceeds to a division.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I do hope your Lordships will not be led away by the specious but exceedingly able argument which has been put forward by the noble Earl. I do protest against the notion that this is in any way prejudging the question of Poor-law reform. I cannot imagine anything more far-fetched than the use of that argument in this connection. This is not a question of free medical attendance for the poor. If your Lordships look at the Bill you will see exactly what

459
it is. These poor people do not ask for the attendance of the doctor. They do not want the attendance of the doctor. The doctor is forced upon them by the local authority for the protection of the midwife.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Will he kindly substantiate and give us the authority for his statement that this medical relief is forced upon them.
LORD AMPTHILL: The regulations of the Central Midwives Board, which oblige the midwife in certain circumstances to send for a doctor whether the patient or the husband desires it or not. That is the position, as I understand it. Therefore it is not a question of free medical attendance. Neither the patient nor the husband has any choice whatever in the matter. I have some personal experience of these things as I happen to be chairman of the midwives committee in my county. I am constantly, therefore, in touch with actual cases of this kind, and great though the noble Earl's experience is, I do not think he has had the same experience of the matter in detail as I have. The doctor is sent for, not in order to confer a benefit on the poor people, not to give them free medical attendance, but for the protection of the midwife, and the midwife is supervised and controlled by regulations for the general protection of the public.
Then the noble Earl went on to say that the local supervising authority had no means of making the necessary inquiries. There, again, I think he is lacking in actual experience. The county council has its midwives executive committee. They have their local medical officer of health. In every district there are the medical officers of health, and counties have an inspector of midwives, who goes round and visits every one of these cases and is in an excellent position to find out the exact circumstances. Next, the noble Earl said that this Bill was continuing on existing lines. There, again, I am afraid I must join issue with him. There are no existing lines in this respect. These fees have been paid in some cases by the local supervising authority and in other cases by the Poor-law guardians. To say that the Bill is continuing on existing lines is to show an entire misapprehension of the facts. You have to choose between the local supervising authority
460
and the Poor-law guardians, and it seems to me to be the more obvious and commonsense method to choose the authority which has the duty of administering the Act and of supervising the midwives, and which is, therefore, in the best position to know the circumstances and to adjudicate in each case. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, and therefore I refrain from replying further; but I must say the noble Earl set up a purely imaginary version of what I said in order to make fun of it. The noble Earl misrepresented my remarks in the most extraordinary manner.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As the noble Lord founded so much of his argument upon the supposed necessity to send for the doctor I think I ought to correct that at once. There is no such necessity, and if the noble Lord will turn to the regulations of the Central Midwives Board be will find that is so. There is no obligation on the midwife or on the patient or on the parents of the patient to do so. The midwife only advises. That being so, most of the noble Lord's argument falls to the ground.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL did not move his next Amendment, which was to leave out subsections (2), (3), (4), and (5).
Clause 17 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 137.)

LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I have hardly anything to say in commending this Bill on Second Reading to your Lordships' attention, but as I hope we may have more Bills of this kind, perhaps you will excuse me for two or three minutes in briefly explaining what it is. There have been for many, many years complaints about the inextricable confusion of the Statutes relating to licensing, which has

461
been a source of trouble to the oldest practitioners at the Bar, and attempts have been made by the Government to put matters right. In this instance the Bill was brought in by a private Member for the purpose of consolidating the law relating to licensing. It was supported both by those who represent the temperance reformers and by those who represent the licensed trade. The Bill passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons and was then referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee did me the honour of electing me as their Chairman, and we bad some five or six afternoons on this Bill. We have put it into shape and suggested certain Amendments, only one of which is a change in the law. I am glad to say that all the recommendations we put forward passed through the House of Commons and were accepted. I am also happy to say that there was not a solitary difference of opinion on any one of the questions before that Committee. The only change which has been made in the law is this, that whereas before it was doubtful whether a licence being granted to a house which at any previous time had a licence was to be treated as a renewal or not, we propose that it should be treated as a renewal if the house has been licensed within a twelvemonth. I hope that your Lordships will give your consent to this Bill, and that its success may encourage other private Members to do the same good work which has been done by a private Member on this occasion —namely, to put the tangle of our Statutes into something like ordinary shape, and thereby enable people to understand what the law is.
Moved, That the Bill be now read (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MINES ACCIDENTS (RESCUE AND AID) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

COMPANIES (CONVERTED SOCIETIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, when this Bill was before your
462
Lordships yesterday on Second Reading the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, who is not now in his place, asked my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for an assurance. I understand that my noble and learned friend is prepared to give the assurance asked for, and I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into the said Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR Of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª on Thursday, next.

CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR Of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the Amendments to this Bill which are down in my name look rather complicated, but they are really of a somewhat verbal character, and as I think they do not alter the general sense of the Bill I hope your Lordships will allow me to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("and "subsection (1) of section eighteen")
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("or") insert ("unlawful")
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("prostitution") insert ("and as if the words or been unlawfully "carnally known' were inserted after the words 'become a prostitute,' and section eighteen of the same Act shall be read as if the words or of 'being unlawfully carnally known' were inserted after the words seduction or prostitution'").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as I amended. (No. 138.)

BRITISH INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL rose to call attention to the present position of the question of British Indians in South Africa; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—

1. How many Indians have been deported from South Africa.

2. Whether he still maintains that none of those deported were domiciled in South Africa.

3. Whether it is not a fact that about a third of those deported are of South African birth.

4. What is the precise nature of the arrangement made by the Transvaal Government with the Portuguese authorities at Mozambique for carrying out these deportations.

5. Whether it is not unprecedented in the annals of the Empire that British subjects should be handed over for punishment to a Foreign Government.

6. Whether the punishment of transportation is not as obsolete in British law as those of the pillory and the stocks.

7. Whether the speech made by the Governor-General of the Dominion of South Africa at Johannesburg on the 8th July may be taken to indicate that His Majesty's Government have adopted a more decided policy in regard to their Imperial obligations towards His Majesty's Indian subjects; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have not troubled your Lordships with the question of the British Indians in the Transvaal since November last. I understand that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is obliged to be absent now, has been good enough, rather than postpone the Questions, to entrust the answers to my noble friend opposite, the Lord President of the Council. The reason why I have not troubled your Lordships or the noble Earl with Questions during this long period is that I had sincerely hoped that the negotiations with the Transvaal Ministers which were begun about this time last year would have borne fruit, and would have resulted ere this in some satisfactory settlement of this deplorable question. But so far from there being any signs of settlement at
464
the present time, matters have gone from bad to worse, and I should feel ashamed of myself if I kept silence any longer. I must let your Lordships know what is going on, for the unfortunate difficulty in this matter is that it seems impossible to get either House of Parliament, or the Press, or the public to take any interest in a matter which is really one of vital Imperial importance.
The ex-President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, when speaking at the Guildhall on May 31, made a remark which struck me as singularly true and appropriate. He said—
"You are so very busy at home that I am not sure you realise just how things are, in some places at least, abroad."
My Lords, that is absolutely true of this question, and I feel that not only should I be lacking in duty, knowing the facts as I do, if I refrained from pressing them upon your Lordships on every possible occasion, but also that no excuse is necessary for trying to bring home both to Parliament and to the people of this country the very great risk which they are running if this matter is not going to be settled. Now what is going on at the present time? The Indians who have been contending so bravely all these years and with such devotion and self-sacrifice, not for any personal or political privileges or rights but for the honour of their race, are now being deported from the country. They are being tricked out of the Transvaal by administrative action, and in a manner which allows them no appeal to the Courts of law.
The process, as I understand it, is this. These Indian gentlemen are asked whether they have registered. They reply that they have. The next question is, "Where is your certificate?" The answer is, "I have destroyed my certificate as a protest against the action of the Government when they failed to carry out the promise which we believe they made." Thereupon they are put into the train and carried across the border. As soon as they are across the border of the Transvaal they are told that they are at liberty, but that is only a way of speaking, for while the train is going at forty miles an hour, it is obviously impossible for them to alight and take advantage of the liberty which is said to be given to them. Thus they are conveyed to Delagoa Bay, and

465
there the Portuguese authorities arrest them as undesirable aliens and put them on board ship and send them off to India. I imagine—and this is one of the points that I want information upon—that the Transvaal Government pay the bill of the Portuguese Government for doing this dirty work. When these unfortunate men arrive in India they are met by friends and sympathisers who have been collecting funds all over India in order to relieve the suffering of their fellow-country-men in the. Transvaal and who arrange to have them shipped back again. When they arrive back they are forbidden to land, and the shipping companies are, of course, placed in great difficulty. Your Lordships will see that this process of shipping these men backwards and forwards between South Africa and India cannot go on indefinitely.
I believe—and here again is a point on which I want positive official information for the public—that altogether nearly 300 of these people have been deported since this policy was instituted about a year ago. Certainly within the last two months something like 120 or 130 have been so shipped off to India, and of this last lot all were domiciled and identified; that is to say, all of them had their homes in South Africa and had voluntarily registered themselves. When in November last I asked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of those who had been deported were South African born, he said lie thought that none or them were, and lie said it in a manner Which implied that if any of them were domiciled in South Africa lie would take a very different view of the question, and that it would be a matter which would demand instant and vigorous protest from himself. But the fact which I think is now established beyond doubt is that one-third of these people are actually South African born, and it follows that many of them have never seen India. South Africa is their home. They have never been anywhere else, and when they arrive in India they are naturally completely at a loss what to do. What makes matters worse is that their wives and families are left behind in South Africa, and your Lordships can well imagine what the privations and sufferings of these poor people must be.
I want your Lordships particularly to "note the effect of all this in India. We
466
learn very little about it from the newspapers, because, for reasons which I have been unable to fathom, the subject is one which is not favoured by the Press of this country. But I know, as a matter of fact, that nothing is creating greater discontent or stronger resentment among those in India than the treatment of their fellow-countrymen in South Africa at the present time. At the meeting of the Indian National Congress held at Lahore in January there was only one point which gave occasion for a general demonstration of feeling, and that was when Mr. Bownaghee appealed for funds for their fellow-sufferers in the Transvaal. That was the one appeal at that Congress which met with a sympathetic and really feeling response. Now, my Lords, will any one maintain I hat this is not a genuine grievance, or that it is not a grievance for which we as a nation have to reproach ourselves? The people of India regard the Queen's Proclamation as the great Charter of their rights and their privileges, and it is to that that they are constantly referring, and when they say in this matter—
"Our rulers and Ministers and Governors have departed from the letter and spirit of the Queen's Proclamation,"
I, for one, should be unable to deny that that was the case.
But there have been more definite and more explicit promises made actually in reference to these grievances, and I hold that a promise is a promise and must be kept. If our promises, made through the mouths of responsible Ministers, are not kept, surely we must expect that our credit and our reputation for honour and justice must suffer in India. Besides the general declarations of Statesmen of both Parties in this country and of Statesmen in South Africa, there was Lord Milner's very definite assurance given to the Indians in the Transvaal in 1903 when he assured them that once they registered themselves their domicile was established and no further registration would be necessary, and that that registration gave them the right to be there and the right to come and go. I have repeated over and over again in this House that that promise, which nobody can deny was made, has not been kept. This question is no fad of mine, although, unfortunately, I cannot get any one else to take it up and support me in it. I should like to remind your

467
Lordships of what has been said by some of the leading men in this country. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition himself said, as far back as 1899—
"A considerable number of the Queen's Indian subjects are to be found in the Transvaal, and among the many misdeeds of the South African Republic I do not know that any fills me with more indignation than its treatment of those Indians. The harm is not confined to the sufferers on the spot, for what do you imagine would be the effect produced in India when these poor people return to their country to report to their friends that the Government of the Queen Empress, so mighty and irresistible in India with its population of 300,000,000, is powerless to secure redress at the hands of a small South African State."
My Lords, that referred to the grievance of the Indians at the time of the South African Republic. But that statement applies with even greater force at the present time. If it should have been a matter of surprise and resentment to the people of India that the Government of the Queen-Empress could not secure such redress at the hands of a small South African State, how much more must they feel it when the Government cannot secure redress for them at the hands of what is now a British Colony?
There is not only Lord Lansdowne's fear of these people returning to India and spreading indignation in the country. I could quote Mr. Lyttelton and Lord Selborne. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, put it to us whether it was not our duty to see that our dusky fellow-subjects in the Transvaal, where they had a perfect right to go, should be treated as the Queen in our name had promised that they should be treated. Recently there has been a declaration on the part of the new Governor-General of South Africa. Lord Gladstone, at Johannesburg a short time ago, said he recognised that the Mahomedan and British Indians had claims on his attention, and he could not forget His Majesty's Imperial responsibility or ignore his own. Yes, but why has the duty arising out of these Imperial responsibilities not been discharged during the past ten years? Surely we have had enough of brave words on this subject without corresponding action. As I have said over and over again in this House, there have been many opportunities for settling this question. I fully admit that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies found this question infinitely more difficult of solution when he came into office. The opportunity of
468
the Transvaal loan, and other occasions, had been lost. But the noble Earl, too, has had his opportunities. He had a great opportunity last summer when the Transvaal Ministers were here on the business of the South African Constitution, when he was able to talk the matter over with them face to face, and I must say I am intensely disappointed that nothing has thus far come out of that opportunity.
I cannot help feeling that in this matter, as in other matters, it is a case of where there is a will there is a way. I quite admit that the noble Earl has secured a certain improvement in small matters. The British Indians at the present time are better treated on the railways, and their treatment in the gaols has certainly been improved. But those are not the real grievances. The real grievance is that arising on the point of honour, the grievance which results from the insulting and humiliating manner in which the policy of restricting Indian immigration is carried out. The restriction of immigration is necessary and justifiable. I have admitted that over and over again, and so have the British Indian community in the Transvaal. But what is not necessary and not justifiable—and I defy any one to say that it is—is that the Indians should, for the purposes of this policy, be classed as criminals and that we as a nation should be dishonoured and discredited in India by the action of a Colonial Government.
This is a big Imperial question. The Times remarked a short time ago that there was no truly Imperial question of greater complexity, and at the same time of more vital urgency. I quote The Times because when I have said in this House that this is an Imperial question which is both urgent and vital and which is going to produce difficulties far greater than any of us can foresee it has only provoked a smile, but the time will come, I feel certain, when circumstances will arouse the British public to a sense of the harm that is being done, and when they will demand full information on the subject and require to know why these grievances have remained unredressed and why this deplorable state of affairs has been allowed to continue all these years.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, my noble friend the Secretary of State for

469
the Colonies is unfortunately unable to be present this evening, and I desire on his behalf to express his regret for his absence, which I am sure I. regret as much as any noble Lord, because naturally he has a much more intimate knowledge of this subject than I can possibly have. I will endeavour to answer the Questions of which the noble Lord has given notice, but I am sure he will recognise that it is impossible for me to answer any of those various points he has mentioned but of which he has given no notice.
To the first Question, as to the number of Indians deported from South Africa, the answer is 257 since March 11, when the deportations commenced. In the last three months the numbers are— May, 39; June, 11; July, 4. The noble Lord next asks whether it is still maintained that no Indian domiciled in South Africa has been deported. It is stated by the Union Government that every opportunity was afforded to individuals of proving their domicile, but all failed to do so. In many instances persons ordered to be deported refused absolutely to give any information, while some stated that they desired to co to India. Whenever it appeared that a person had been resident or born in any other part of South Africa, lie was returned thither. In every case where a person to be removed claimed to have a wife and family, he was allowed facilities to take them with him at the public expense, but only in one instance was this taken advantage of.
Next the noble Lord asks whether about a third of those deported are not of South African birth. Particulars of all these cases are not available. Particulars of sixty-nine cases have been submitted to the Colonial Office, and fifty-six of these have been reported on by Ministers through the Governor-General. It is stated as an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with the question that no trace can be found of twenty-three of the names given. Twenty-five of the fifty-six were stated to have been born in South Africa, and it is reported by the Union Government that eleven of these twenty-five cannot be traced, that twelve of them refused to give any means of identification, ten stating that they did not claim South African domicile. The same statement was made by six of the others in the list who were not alleged to have been born in South
470
Africa. In only one case outside the lists is there independent evidence in the Colonial Office records tending to establish domicile in Natal, and in that case the man was removed to Natal and not to India.
In reply to Question 4, I have to say that the operative document in this matter is a by-law of the township of Lorenzo Marquez, issued on July 15, 1909, which is as follows:—
"All Asiatics entering the district by land, no matter from whence they have come, who are not provided with official documents authorising them to reside in the district or in the neighbouring colonies shall he obliged to leave this port by the first boat immediately after their entry into the township."
The noble Lord asks whether it is not unprecedented that British subjects should be handed over for punishment to a foreign Government. Might I, in the first place, say that I am not quite sure that I agree with the noble Lord in his use of the word "punishment." The actual fact is that under the Transvaal laws these Indians are put over the border of the Transvaal province and are then dealt with under the laws either of other provinces of the Union or of Mozambique. The position of Mozambique vis è vis the Transvaal is without precedent, as it contains, though a foreign country, a port—namely, Lorenzo Marquez—which is becoming to an ever increasing extent the port of the Transvaal. So long as Portuguese legislation is not differential and applies to all Asiatics alike, it is difficult for His Majesty's Government to protest.
As to Question 6, "transportation" is, think, in this connection something of an attempt to raise prejudice, and the question of British law hardly affects the case. The deportation of persons who are held to be undesirables by reason of transgression of the laws or otherwise is a recognised part of the Colonial law, not only in South Africa, but in other parts of the British Empire—Canada, for instance. With regard to Lord Gladstone's speech and the policy of His Majesty's Government, I have to say that His Majesty's Government have always recognised the gravity of the situation, and have steadily and continuously tried to find a solution. They have brought all allegations of the ill-treatment of prisoners immediately to the notice of the Transvaal and Union Governments. Endeavours to effect a.

471
settlement were made when the Transvaal Ministers were in England in connection with the Union Act. Almost as soon as the Union was inaugurated the Governor-general was requested to urge on his Ministers that a happier commencement could not be made than by arranging a settlement acceptable to all parties. The present position is that the Union Government are carefully considering the question of policy in respect of Indians lawfully resident, though they cannot agree to unrestricted immigration, and hold themselves bound to enforce the law in every case where Indians not resident with proper authority endeavour to enter or reside. As to the publication of Papers, Papers will be laid if the Union Government agree, and they will be pressed by His Majesty's Government to agree. I think that covers all the points which have been raised by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I only rise to say a word on behalf of those who sit on this Bench, because my noble friend behind me has a little assumed that he speaks alone in this House, and he regretted that he had almost a monopoly of feeling on this subject. I cannot allow that to pass on behalf of my noble friend who is not present, Lord Lansdowne, because he has spoken himself with great sympathy and feeling on this subject in previous debates. My noble friend addressed a very eloquent appeal to the House, but he stopped short of the point of telling His Majesty's Government, what it was exactly that he would desire them to do, and what course he would recommend them to take. I think he must recognise that this is a subject of very great difficulty for any Government, especially having regard to the present situation in South Africa.
I do not rise to do more than press this Upon the Government, that the whole of the Papers which have been published are very uncomfortable reading to many of us, and I should think probably to the Government themselves. We cannot help feeling that there is force in what has been urged by my noble friend behind me that an opportunity of obtaining some permanent assurances on this question was lost, at the time the Union was granted, as also at the time when the very large sum of thirty millions for which the Transvaal was indebted was remitted, and a further
472
loan of five millions was granted to them. I think that that would have been an opportunity to bring before the Government of the Transvaal the very serious feeling there is with regard to these Indian subjects of the Crown, and to press upon them that some regulation which would prevent these undoubted cases of hardship should be adopted.
I know that it is at this moment almost impossible for His Majesty's Government to give any pledge except that which the noble Earl has given on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But I am sure my noble friend will remember that in the case of these questions of races of different colour the difficulty is not confined to South Africa. Questions have arisen in other Colonies and in other Dominions of the Crown, where a position has been taken up by the local Government as to which His Majesty's Government may not find themselves altogether in accord. But if they have not taken steps in those cases, as in this, it may, I think, be reckoned that there is no question of want of sympathy, but that any attempt to impose on a people to whom you have given free institutions any law or regulations of this character might, and probably would, be deeply resented. From the office which I had the honour to hold I personally had the opportunity of becoming specially aware of these questions which the noble Lord has so admirably voiced in this House with regard to the feeling which exists in India, and I do hope that His Majesty's Government will go as far as they reasonably can to secure to the full extent the observance of the pledges which have been given in the past, and that they will take care that what. I think my noble friend is right in saying may become a dangerous state of feeling in India should not be accentuated by any apparent remissness on the part of His Majesty's Government. I do not wish to detain your Lordships further, but I hope it will be clearly understood that if we do not speak in any more vehement fashion on this subject it is only because we do not want to make more embarrassing an already very difficult situation, and that it is from no want of sympathy with those who have suffered an undoubted hardship.
LORD AMPTHILL: I hope your Lordships will allow me to say two or three words in reply. In the first place, I want

473
to correct a slight misapprehension on the part of the noble Viscount who has just spoken. The last thing I had in my mind was to make any complaint that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition had not taken an interest in this question. I may say that he is the only member of your Lordships' House who has taken notice of it. What I complain of is that there is not a much more general interest taken in this question, such as, for instance, is taken in the management of the island of Vatersay. The noble Viscount reproached me for not suggesting a solution of the difficulty. It was not my province on this occasion to do that. I was merely asking for information in order to ascertain what the present position of affairs was. I have on many occasions had the privilege of acting as negotiator between those interested in the case of the Indians and His Majesty's Government, and I have made suggestions; and if there were occasion, and I had the opportunity, I should be able to make other suggestions again for settling this matter finally.
The noble Lord said that it was a hopeless difficulty to try and settle this matter, because we should cause resentment in the Colony. If that be a sound argument it follows that we may allow not only any Colony but any foreign nation to inflict a vital injury on us without our being able to do any thing to defend ourselves, or to prevent an injury, for fear of raising resentment. That surely is a view which your Lordships cannot accept. With regard to the answers which the noble Earl was good enough to give me, I only want to make this remark. The Transvaal Government apparently have reported that those who were deported have failed to prove, or refused to prove, their identity. That is one way of putting the case. But what actually happens is this. All these men are registered. The Transvaal Government know exactly who they are. They have got all the particulars on record, so that it is a mere pretence to say that they are not identified, and that they do not know who they are. The Transvaal Government say they do not know who they are, and therefore they must turn them out of the country. The Indians say, "You have got us registered, and you know perfectly well who we are, and therefore it is unnecessary for us to produce these certificates"; and the certificates they do not produce because they
474
have burnt them as a protest against what they regard, rightly or wrongly, as the violation of a promise on behalf of the Transvaal Government. I thank the noble Earl for his courtesy in replying to my-Questions.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

Police Superannuation (Scotland).

Census (Ireland).

Supreme Court of Judicature.

Police (Weekly Rest-Day).

Norwich Charities (No. 2).

Glasgow University (Chair of Clinical Medicine and Chair of Clinical, Surgery) Order Confirmation.

Muirhead Trust Order Confirmation.

St. Mungo's College Order Confirmation.

Land Drainage Provisional Order.

Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation.

Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation.

Wemyss Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation.

Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4)

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5).

Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

Assam Railways and Trading Company.

Gowerton Gas.

Surbiton Urban District Council.

Bishop's Stortford, Harlow, and Epping Gas and Electricity.

Saint Just-in-Roseland Docks.

Southend Water.

Thorne and District Water.

Yorkshire Electric Power.

475

Great Western Railway (General Powers).

Garnant Gas.

Provident Association of London.

Tynemouth Corporation.

Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick Urban District Council.

Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company.

Central Argentine Railway.

Reading and District Electric Supply.

City of London (Tithes and Rates).

Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Transfer).

London Electric Railway Amalgamation.

Saint Mary, Stockport, Rectory.

South Lincolnshire Water.

Exmouth Gas.

Brighton and Hove Gas.

East Grinstead Gas and Water.

Egremont Urban District Council (Gas).

Exmouth Urban District Water.

Worksop Urban District Council.

Mansfield Railway.

Metropolitan Railway.

Great Central Railway.

Nottingham Corporation.

Belfast Corporation.

Cardiff Railway.

Wimbledon and Sutton Railway.

476

Blackpool Improvement.

Great Grimsby Gas.

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

Mallow Urban District Gas.

Midland Railway.

South Hants Water.

Warden's Divorce.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
PAISLEY GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.

  MOUNTAIN ASH WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, Four o'clock.