asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the new Army Medical Warrant will be applicable to the Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army; and, if Medical Officers of the Indian Army who are now on sick leave in Europe, and receiving the old rate of English pay, will he granted the increased rate of pay from the date of the publication of the Warrant, viz. 1st of March, 1873?

In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the matter referred to in his first Question is now under consideration at the India Office and the War Office. In reply to his second Question, I have to say that it is not intended to make any change in the present rate of pay of officers in the Indian Medical Service.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Government has declined to send the Military Attaché at St. Petersburg, or any other English Officer, to accompany the Khiva Expedition?

It is true, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government do not intend sending either Captain Wellesley, the Military Attaché at St. Petersburg, or any other British Officer, to accompany the Expedition to Khiva.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he was correctly understood to have stated that no Vote will be asked or Resolution proposed before the holidays which would affect the taxation of the coming financial year; and, whether he can state what will be the earliest day after the holidays upon which the proposals in the Budget will be taken into consideration.

in reply, said, that it was his intention to state the other evening that, although his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to make his annual financial statement on Monday next, the Government would not ask the House before the Easter recess to come to any decision which would in any manner bind the judgment of the House. As they were aware, it was a common thing to pass a Resolution of a formal character and, for a practical purpose, and he did not mean to say that some such Resolution might not be passed, but none would be proposed binding the House with reference to the future taxation of the year. He thought the most convenient day for practically considering the proposals of the Budget would be the 24th instant, the third day after the re-assembling of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will explain the circumstances under which the 10th Hussars were sent to India a few months ago without their Lieutenant Colonel; if such an arrangement is not extremely unusual; if the fact that the Lieutenant Colonel is only now gazetted out indicates that special leave was given him to remain at home to enable him to complete his period for retirement without going to India with his Regiment; and, if it is intended for the future to show the same consideration to all Officers, whatever their rank?

Sir, when the 10th Hussars sailed for India it was in contemplation to submit to Her Majesty a new Royal Warrant, enabling the authorities to permit Lieutenant Colonels of regiments of sufficient service to retire to half-pay, on their own application, in the same way as under the new system Lieutenant Colonels appointed after the 31st of October, 1871, will retire compulsorily. The Lieutenant Colonel of the 10th Hussars had applied to retire, and it was intended to permit him to do so as soon as the Royal Warrant should have issued. The only effect of adopting any other course would have been that the public would have had to pay his passage out to India, and he would have been put to the expense of a return passage in a few weeks after his arrival in India. It is not true that the object of giving him special leave was to enable him to complete his service, since it had already been completed, The same circumstances cannot it is evident occur again.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Regius Professorship of Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford does not amount to about £1,500 a year; and if he will state on what grounds, and with respect to what qualifications, the Rev. E. King has been appointed by the Crown to that Chair?

in reply, said, he would not criticize the expression in the Question, or say whether it was quite accurate to speak of the "amount of the Professorship of Pastoral Theology;" but his hon. Friend had, as far as he knew, stated the Professor's income pretty correctly. It was, he believed, somewhere between £1,400 and £1,500 a-year; but, as his hon. Friend was of course aware, the Government had no official information of the value of the Canonry of Christ Church Cathedral, which was attached to the Professorship. With respect to the grounds and qualifications for the appointment, he could not very well distinguish between grounds and qualifications; but as to the qualifications, he had no difficulty in answering the Question. According to the best estimate which he could make of the character of the office, which was not a very general one, for it did not exist in many Universities; over and above the ordinary qualifications of a Professor of Theology, the Professor of Pastoral Theology had for his special functions to assist in forming pastoral habits and the pastoral character. It was a more personal charge than the other Professors of Divinity, and the gentleman appointed to such an office should be possessed of strong sympathies and of the power of exercising a healthy and beneficial influence over character; and from his experience, of some duration, he believed Mr. King was a gentleman who possessed those qualifications not only in an ordinary but in an eminent degree.

asked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Why the Scotch Education Department of the Privy Council have not prepared and given notice of regulations in regard to the examination of teachers, in terms of the fifty-seventh section of the Act 35 and 36 Vic. c. 62, Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, which enacts—

"It shall be the duty of the Scotch Education Department immediately after the passing of this Act, and thereafter from time to time to make such regulations as they may see fit in regard to the time and manner, and the subjects of the examinations to be passed by such persons as desire to obtain a certificate of competency, and to regulate the conditions on which candidates may be admitted to examination, and the notice to be given thereof."

Sir, the Education Department of the Privy Council have not yet issued the regulations in regard to the examination of teachers as contemplated by the section of the Act in question; and the reason why they have not done so is that it is inconvenient—I may say useless—to issue such regulations until it has been determined what change should be made in the conditions of the Parliamentary Grant to Scotch Schools, that is, till the New Code for Scotland has been issued. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be aware that the Education Department have no power to issue such Code until they have received suggestions from the Scotch Education Board, which suggestions have not yet been received.

presented Petitions from Bombay and Calcutta on the subject of the Indian Budget. On the Motion of Mr. Fawcett, the Petition from Calcutta, which came from the British Indian Association, was read by the clerk at the Table. It prayed that the House might be pleased to pass a Resolution requiring that the Indian Financial Statement should be brought forward at an earlier period of the Session.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Petitions my hon. Friend has just presented, I rise to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Statement of the Financial Affairs of India should be made at a period of the Session when it can be fully discussed."

Sir, I wish to recall to the recollection of the House the circumstances under which the Indian Financial Statement was brought forward last Session. It was submitted at a morning sitting on the 6th of August, the prorogation taking place on the 10th. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India made his statement in a speech of two hours' duration, distinguished by his usual eloquence and great knowledge of Indian affairs. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), who spoke for two hours and a-half, and whose speech, considering the physical difficulties under which he laboured, and the columns of figures and long quotations which it contained, was one of the greatest intellectual efforts which I ever had the good fortune to hear and which, I believe, was ever witnessed in this House. I do not complain of the length of those speeches, on the contrary, having listened attentively to both, I believe that not a word could have been advantageously omitted from either; but if the two introductory speeches could occupy four hours and a-half, it is obviously impossible that such a debate could be advantageously got through in a morning sitting, or in any one sitting of the House. In fact, the hon. Member for Brighton had not concluded his speech when the morning sitting came to an end, and the Government were obliged to allow the debate to be renewed after the business fixed for the evening sitting. What was the result? Several hon. Members who generally took part in discussions relating to India were not present, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Stafford North-cote) was compelled, I know most reluctantly, to leave London before the debate came on. Can justice be done to the great interests of India in that way? When, in 1858, the power of the Government of India was taken away from the East Indian Company and was transferred to the Crown, it was understood that the Eastern Empire would receive greater attention at the hands of Parliament. They had that morning read a Bill a second time (East India Stock Dividend Redemption Bill), the object of which was finally to extinguish that ancient and historical corporation, the East India Company; and at the time when its political powers were vested in the Crown the leaders on both sides said that great advantage would arise from giving greater attention to the affairs of India. Lord Palmerston, in a speech on introducing the Government of India Bill, said—

"However, we shall be told by some that the Government of India is a great mystery—that the unholy ought not to set foot in that temple—that the House of Commons should be kept aloof from any interference in Indian affairs—that if we transfer the Government to the Ministers responsible to Parliament, we shall have Indian affairs made the subject and plaything of party passions in this House, and that great mischief would arise therefrom. I think that argument is founded on an overlooking of the fundamental principles of the British constitution. It is a reflection on the Parliamentary government. Why, Sir, what is there in the management of India which is not mainly dependent on those general principles of statesmanship, which men in public life in this country acquire here, and make the guidance of their conduct. I do not think so ill of this House as to imagine that it would be disposed, for factious purposes, or for the momentary triumph of party, to trifle with the great interests of the country as connected with the administration of our Indian affairs. I am accustomed to think that the Parliament of this country does comprise in itself as much administrative ability, and as much statesmanlike knowledge and science as are possessed by any number of men in any other country whatever; and I own, with all respect for the Court of Directors, that I cannot bring myself to think that the Parliament of England is less capable of wisely administering the great affairs of State in connection with India than the Court of Directors in Leadenhall Street. I am not afraid to trust Parliament with an insight into Indian affairs. I believe, on the contrary, that if things have not gone on so fast in India as they might have done—if the progress of improvement has been somewhat slower than might have been expected, that effect has arisen from the circumstance that the public of England at large were wholly ignorant of Indian affairs, and had turned away from them, being daunted by the complications they imagined them to be involved in; and because Parliament has never had face to face, in this and the other House, men personally and entirely responsible for the administration of Indian affairs. No doubt a good deal has been done in the way of substantial improvement of late years, but that which has been done I may venture to say has been entirely the result of debates in this and the other House of Parliament. And, so far from any discussion on India having worked evil in India, I believe that the greater part of those improvements which the East India Directors boast of in that publication which has lately issued from Leadenhall Street, has been the result of pressure on the Indian administration by debates in Parliament and discussions in the public Press. Therefore, so far from being alarmed at the consequences which may arise from bringing Indian affairs under the cognizance of Parliament, I believe that a great benefit to India, and through India to the British nation, will result therefrom."—[3 Hansard, cxlviii. 1290.]

Lord Palmerston's view evidently was that Indian affairs might with advantage be more discussed in the House than they had previously been, and that view was endorsed by what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) called an "overwhelming majority;" the majority being 145, or 318 against 173. The argument brought forward by the East India Company, whose defence was conducted by a very eminent Gentleman still spared to this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) was, that if the Company were abolished India would become the battle-ground of party in this House. The hon. Gentleman said, at the conclusion of a very eloquent speech—

"Above all, it relates the history of a Government which did not destroy the population of the territory which it acquired, but won their respect and gratitude. God grant that the continuation of that history may present as bright or brighter pages! but let it not have to record that, at a moment of great trouble, the English Minister of the day to the difficulties of an un-extinguished Mutiny added the uncertainties of a change of Government; let it not record that an English Parliament, guided by a public opinion which was ignorant of Indian affairs, imperilled an empire by its rash legislation; and, above all, let it not record that, by an act of this House, the fairest dominion of the Queen was converted into the shuttlecock of party."—[3 Hansard, cxlviii. 1304.]

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire on a subsequent evening of the debate attributed the indifference with which Indian matters were treated in the House of Commons to the circumstance that the House was not responsible for the finances of India, and made use of the following words:—

"We have heard over and over again in this House that India never could command attention here—that so long as there was a debate on India it was impossible to make or keep a House, and that it was a subject—however great its magnitude and vast and varied its details, in which Englishmen would never take an interest. I think, Sir, there is a very simple and satisfactory reason for conduct which I cannot say is much to our honour, and for circumstances which I own are somewhat humiliating."—[3 Hansard, cxlviii. 1708.]

The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to give as a reason that the House was not responsible for the finances of India. Within a few days after that debate the Government of Lord Palmerston was defeated and retired, being succeeded by the Government of Lord Derby, in which the right hon. Member for Buck- inghamshire filled the office of Leader of the House of Commons. That Government passed a Bill, transferring the Government of India from the Company to the Crown, in treating of which Lord Derby spoke as follows in a debate in the other House of Parliament:—

"This Bill does not pretend to deal with all those complicated and difficult questions which will, no doubt, within the next few years frequently engage the anxious consideration of Parliament and of the country. It does not pretend to deal with the revenue, with the finance, with the land regulations, with the condition of the natives, and the possibility of extending their admission into the public service."—[3 Hansard, cli. 1448.]

Sir, I think it is evident from the extracts which I have read that it was contemplated by the leaders of parties of that day that if the Government of India were transferred to the Crown, India would receive a greater amount of attention at the hands of Parliament. Sir, how has that pledge given by the Leaders, and endorsed by an enormous majority of the House, been redeemed? It had previously been the practice to put off the Indian Budget to the end of the Session, and after the power was transferred to the Crown it might well have been expected that a new system would be adopted; but the House will see from the dates on which the Indian Budget was introduced between 1855 and 1870, that the practice still continued of bringing it forward at the close of the Session. Under the old system, the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith) brought it forward on August 7, 1855; and again on July 21, 1856; while, in 1857, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton), said he should make no statement on account of the Mutiny. Under the new system, it was brought forward by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood), on August 1, 1859, the Prorogation occurring on August 13—a period of 12 days; again on August 13, 1860, the Prorogation occurring on August 28—a period of 15 days; again on July 25, 1861, the Prorogation occurring on August 6—a period of 12 days; again on July 17, 1862, the Prorogation occurring on August 7—a period of 21 days; again on July 23, 1863, the Prorogation occurring on July 28—a period of 5 days; again on July 21, 1864, the Prorogation occurring on July 29—a period of 8 days; again on June 29, 1865, the Prorogation occurring on July 6—a period of 8 days; by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne), on July 19, 1866, the Prorogation occurring on August 10—a period of 22 days; by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), on August 12, 1867, the Prorogation occurring on August 21—a period of 9 days; again on July 27, 1868, the Prorogation occurring on July 31—a period of 4 days; by the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant-Duff), on August 3, 1869, the Prorogation occurring on August 11—a period of 8 days; and again on August 5, 1870, when the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), moved an Amendment—

"That this House regrets that the Indian Budget is introduced at so late a period of the Session, and is of opinion, considering the present position of Indian Finance, that it would be expedient to appoint a Select Committee early next Session to inquire into the administration of the finances of India."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 1599.]

—this Amendment was withdrawn, and the House agreed to the Resolutions—the Prorogation occurring on August 10—a period of 5 days. I venture to submit that to postpone so important a debate until the "dog days," is not creditable to the conduct of Business in this House. I may be told that it is impossible to get an earlier day; but I venture to think that it would be better to have a satisfactory debate on incomplete Returns, than an unsatisfactory debate on Returns which have been completed. Hon. Members have seen in the newspapers telegrams from India of the announcement of Sir Richard Temple's Budget. I think there could be no difficulty in bringing forward the Budget shortly after Whitsuntide At all events, a matter of such deep importance deserves some sacrifice of the time of the House. I can but think that in putting off the debate to the end of the Session the House is neglecting its duty. Members of this House are trustees of the people of India. Our Indian subjects are not a people who can be entrusted with representative institutions; and it is on that account the duty of England to see that the interests of India are properly looked after. We must all rejoice that the apprehension of the dis- tinguished advocate of the East India Company that India would become the shuttlecock of party has not been realized; but at the same time we must all deplore that this House has not taken a calm and dispassionate interest in the affairs of the greatest dependency any nation ever possessed. I cordially agree with the hon. Member for Brighton that there is no responsibility presses more strongly on a Member of this House than the responsibility he owes to the people of India. It seems to me to be a discredit and a reproach to Parliament that the affairs of India should be discussed by a jaded and exhausted House in the last days of an expiring Session, and entertaining this belief I venture, humbly but earnestly, to commend to the House the Resolution which stands in my name.

*In seconding the Resolution of my hon. Friend opposite, I shall confine my remarks to one or two points, as to which this House appears to be specially responsible for the finances of India, and upon which our influence may be most legitimately exercised. There are, of course, many important questions of Indian administration, which it is impossible for persons resident in this country fully to comprehend, which must be left in the hands of the Government in India, and in connection with which Parliament will show its wisdom by interfering as little as possible. But as regards finance, this is far from being the case, and it is to Parliament alone that India can look for any check upon those large items of expenditure which are under the immediate control of the India Office, or for any relief to the Indian treasury from charges which ought to be borne wholly or in part by the Imperial Exchequer. Apart from all other ways in which the British Parliament may afford protection to the unrepresented people of India, it is the duty of this House to inquire thoroughly into these two branches of Indian financial administration, and to exercise the control which it alone has the power of exercising over the Secretary of State for India. In petitioning Parliament, great stress has been laid by the Natives upon these two points—namely, first, the disposal of the revenues of India by the authorities in England; secondly, the adjustment of the financial relations be- tween England and India upon a fair and equitable footing. In a Petition presented in May, 1871, to this House from the Bombay Association—a society composed entirely of Native gentlemen—the earnest attention of Parliament is invited to these topics, and "the immense increase which has taken place during the last 13 years in the amount of disbursements made in England out of the revenues of India by H. M. Secretary of State in Council" is assigned as one of the principal causes to which must be ascribed the large deficits in the Indian Exchequer from 1864 to 1870. For this result Parliament cannot be held free from responsibility. Then, again, items of expenditure, which ought to have been provided for entirely from the Imperial Exchequer, or equably distributed, have been entirely defrayed by India, and it is urged that Parliament should fairly apportion the cost of maintaining the connection between the two countries, India having cost Great Britain nothing either for her acquisition or defence. The attention of the House is directed to one more topic of great importance with which Parliament alone is competent to deal. The Bombay Association asserts that if Parliament were to give an Imperial guarantee for the Indian public debt, and convert it into consols, an immediate reduction might be effected in the rate of interest to the amount of £1,500,000 sterling, without any real burden being cast upon the Imperial Exchequer, and that this sum might be applied as a sinking fund to the complete extinction of the debt. It is an open question, upon which I will now venture no opinion, as to how far this country would be morally bound, in case of necessity, to make good the public debt of India. By many the moral obligation is held to be so strong that the concession of a legal guarantee would not practically increase our liability, while it would effect a great immediate saving to India, which would also benefit from the increased vigilance likely to be exercised in such a case by this House over the finances of our Eastern Empire. At the present time, moreover, a new danger to Indian finance has to be guarded against. The decentralization scheme has been fairly inaugurated, and a large additional share of administrative power, both in levying and expending money, has been conferred upon local governments. Great advantages were anticipated from this scheme as to economy, besides the development of municipal institutions, and the association of Natives in the administration. These hopes have been as yet very imperfectly realized, and it is complained that in certain cases these powers have been exercised to the detriment of the people, resulting merely in the imposition of new and vexatious taxes. In particular by the "Non-agricultural cess" in Bombay, the policy of the Imperial Government was reversed, and an income tax was imposed, which in-eluded those whose incomes reached £5 a-year, a sum implying great poverty even in India. It is, in fact, a sort of graduated poll-tax—the power of determining the class in which any individual is to be included being left to the Government assessors, whereby the door is opened to the grossest corruption and oppression. The estimated return from this tax was only £45,000, to be paid by about 500,000 people; and, although an appeal for exemption might be made to a European official, this involved a stamp equal at least in value to the minimum amount of the tax. All that can be said against an income tax applies with threefold force to such an impost as this, which is indeed in abeyance, but appears to be unrepealed, so that its machinery is at any moment available if required. I lay the more stress on it now, because being provincial, it finds no place in the financial statement laid before this House, and might altogether escape notice in England. In the opinion of the Natives the decentralization system is likely to produce many new local burdens, and many European officials share this view, holding that nothing will require to be more carefully watched than the tendency to grave abuses involved in such a system. There will always be a risk of the local authorities repeating, for purposes perhaps excellent in themselves, those petty but vexatious taxes formerly imposed under native rule. In the time of the Peishwa, no less than 29 cessses were levied in addition to the land tax, and although all have been abolished as Imperial taxes, some have been already re-established for municipal purposes. The fact is that publicity is above all things required in Indian administration; the Indian Council deliberates with closed doors; the proceedings of the Indian Finance Committee attract no attention in this country, although eagerly scanned in India. By discussion in this House alone can such publicity be given as may educate British opinion, and may satisfy India that her interests are being watched over. It is a question of Imperial policy to strengthen in every way the belief that this House is a true court of appeal against fiscal oppression, the worst evil with which India is now menaced. Once only during the whole Session does Government direct the attention of Parliament to Indian affairs, and it is idle to tell us that so many more important matters are pressing upon us that only in August, or late in July, can a few hours be spared for a weary remnant to discuss this vital question of Indian finance. When the Indian Budget is the subject of debate, there are hardly ever 40 Members present, but possibly all are present who take an interest in the question. It is true that India has never been made "the shuttlecock of party," but greatly as she has gained by this exemption, it has caused her also to suffer neglect. Even if her sense of neglect be to a certain extent a sentimental grievance, it is not the less keenly felt. The Petitions to-day presented from Calcutta and Bombay show the importance attached by the Natives to a full discussion of their affairs in this House, and, believing their demands to be just and reasonable, I have great pleasure in seconding this Resolution.

said, that the Amendment of which he had given Notice was not in spirit adverse to the Motion of the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. R. N. Fowler). He concurred in thinking it highly desirable that the Indian Budget should be brought in at an earlier day, but thought that the object would be more effectually attained by an Amendment of which he had himself given Notice. The Prime Minister stated in 1870 that the pressure upon the Government during the months of April, May, and June was such that they could not afford time for the dis- cussion of the Indian Budget at that period of the year. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time admitted that the present practice was not satisfactory. It therefore became a question whether it would not be possible to enable the Indian accounts to come to this country early in the spring. It was by no means indispensable that they should continue to be made up to the 31st of March; but as long as that was done it was better to discuss Indian finances at the end of the Session than at the beginning, because otherwise the House would have to discuss the subject in the absence of the statement of the Financial Member of the Council, which was made in the last days of March or the first week in April. If the House discussed the finance of India in the absence of that speech and of any reliable accounts for the current year, or any estimate for the ensuing year, there would be no data before them for discussion. If, on the other hand, the Indian financial year which now terminated on the 31st of March were changed to the 31st of December, then the Indian Finance Minister could make his statement by the 10th of January, all the necessary documents would be sent home and printed by the end of February, and any day before the 10th of March might be fixed for the Indian Budget. It was said that this change would not harmonize with the land revenue accounts; but the present financial year did not correspond with the agricultural year, nor was it necessary that it should do so. He earnestly pressed this matter upon the attention of the House, because it appeared to him they had the remedy very much in their own hands. It was impossible, however, to enter into all the details of the proposed change on the present occasion it being a question eminently for examination and report by a Select Committee the hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he supposed the Resolution of the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. R. N. Fowler) would be generally acceptable to the House. Hon. Members who took an interest in Indian affairs would be glad to have the financial statement made at a period when their energies were fresh and when it could be properly discussed. They would be glad, too, that there should be no ground left for the offensive imputation that that House was indifferent to the affairs and interests of India. It should, however, be remembered that the time for closing the accounts of the year was changed—no longer back than in 1866—from the 30th of April to the 31st of March. That change entailed immense trouble on the financial department in India, which was always a hard-worked Department. We might be sure that this second change would also entail trouble and would cause considerable dissatisfaction and some expense, while it would likewise disarrange our statistics. We had already a year of 11 months to break our calculations, and now we should have in addition a year of nine months, so that it would be extremely difficult to make comparative statements, or draw deductions from averages. These, however, were small matters in comparison with mischiefs which might arise from the change, owing to its being inconvenient to get in revenue balances at that particular period or its offending the religious prejudices of the natives to do so for some reason or other which no Englishman would ever suspect. Whether this might happen or not was more than he could undertake to affirm until he had heard exhaustive evidence on the subject. His impression at present was that, so far as the natives were concerned, they might close the financial year in December just as well as in March. At the same time we should, of course, lay ourselves open to the objection—"Begin at home." Why, indeed, should we make this change in India and not in this country? But whatever evils this change, if it were adopted, might remedy, it was certain that it could possibly do nothing to remedy what was the greatest difficulty of all as regarded Indian accounts, and that was their overwhelming unmanageableness, owing to the vast extent of the Empire. If Bengal, the Panjáb, Bombay, and Madras were separate States with separate finance, then, of course, we might really look for something like accuracy in the Indian accounts. Before he sat down he would express a hope that, whether in this debate or in any other on Indian questions, the habit of making sharp criticisms on the action of the Indian Government would be avoided as much as possible. It was his belief that disaffection was bred and fed in India by the unpatriotic and offensive language of our own countrymen as much as by any other thing whatever. As a specimen he would, with the permission of the House, read one passage from a most mischievous and seditious article which appeared in The Calcutta Review for October, 1872. After sneering at our Government, and calumniating it in every possible way, the writer said—

"The fact is, the English Dominion of India is a waste of power injurious to the English taxpayer as well as to the Indian. At the same time, inasmuch as the British taxpayer has the option of terminating the arrangement, while the Indian taxpayer, although the poorer, has no choice whatever in the matter, the former deserves little pity for his own folly, but the latter merits the deepest sympathy for his helpless plight. In our own coming season of English tribulation, with its reckoning of 200 millions of discredited Indian securities, when the helm of the State shall have fallen from the incompetent hands of rhetorical drivellers, may the ranks of the English people yield a ruler with the fearlessness of Delescluze, and a financier with the rectitude of Jourde."

All he could say was that if the Government chose to appoint a magistrate and collector to preach sedition in Orissa, they had no right to blow ignorant ryots away from guns for responding to his appeal.

merely wished to say that had the Amendment been an abstract Resolution for altering the date of the financial year he could not have supported it. It could not have failed to strike anybody who had listened to this and similar debates that this matter was discussed solely from an English point of view, and without the slightest regard to the feelings or the convenience of the people of India or the Indian au- thorities. The object of the proposed change was simply to allow certain discussions to take place at a period of the year most convenient to the House. He did not think that a sufficient reason for making the change without reference to the Indian authorities. The change which had already been made, and which was now only of five years standing, had created great inconvenience and disturbance. The 31st of December was a time when every executive officer in charge of a district was out in camp looking after the interests of his district, and when the Governor General, if he was on a tour, was absent from the seat of government. He did not find any fault with the Amendment which proposed that the Committee now sitting should take evidence on the point, but he protested against changes being made simply to meet a temporary inconvenience to the House. A subject of this importance ought to be deliberately considered, and if the proposed instruction were given to the Committee they might take evidence on the point, and would not come to any hasty or violent decision on a matter of such very great importance. In his judgment, the convenience of India, and of those who administered the government of India, ought to be the primary consideration in deciding this question, and not simply the convenience of this House.

agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the object the House ought to have in view was the convenience and benefit of the Indian Empire. He was of opinion that the question should be referred to the Committee upstairs, which was now engaged in considering the subject of Indian Finance.

said, he questioned the advisability of referring the question to the Committee upstairs. He would remind the hon. Member that that Committee were already charged with a very heavy task. The present was the third Session of their sitting, and it was by no means clear that they could terminate their inquiry within the limits of the present Session. Looking at the question simply from an English point of view, it would, of course, be easy for the Committee to discuss it and make recommendations; but the paramount question after all was, what would be most convenient for India, and probably upon that point they would have to take evidence from India. The more reasonable course to adopt would be to affirm the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Penryn (Mr. R. N. Fowler), and to remit to the India Office and Council the question whether it was desirable to make any change in the time at which the Indian financial year should close. The Motion, in point of fact, contained a truism which he hoped the House would not hesitate to affirm. Although at one time he had thought that the Indian financial year should be closed on the 31st of December, he confessed that more recent information had led him to doubt whether that change would put the Indian Government to an amount of inconvenience which would not be compensated by the convenience which that House would gain by it. At all events, he believed that this matter would be better undertaken by the Secretary of State himself than by the Committee upstairs, whose hands were already full. One advantage resulting from such discussions as the present was to show the people of India, and those who were interested in India, that there was more difficulty in the matter than was apparent at first sight, and that it was not from any indifference to Indian interests, but owing to the practical difficulty of getting through the business which the House must dispose of, that this scandal—for such he did not hesitate to say it was—annually occurred. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the discussion of the Indian Budget was not like the practical work of legislation, for the House had only to receive a statement, ask questions, and talk about it. It would, he thought, be better for the Government to face the matter boldly, and even in the midst of the Business of the House to set apart a day early in July for the bringing on of the Indian Budget, as they could do so then more conveniently than at the end of the Session. With respect to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield), he hoped that by referring the question to the Select Committee the House would not add another to the straws which were already breaking the camel's back.

said, his right hon. Friend seemed to be conscious of the weight of the straw which broke the camel's back upstairs, but did not seem to be equally conscious as to the weight of the straw which broke the camel's back downstairs. His right hon. Friend thought it an easy matter for the Government to find a day in the beginning of July, as compared with an earlier and later period of the Session, but that was not his experience. They were told the Motion of the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was a truism, and that therefore it was desirable to place it upon record. But there were a great number of plain and undeniable truths in reference to the conduct of the Business of the House which were full of weight and importance, but which it would be most inexpedient to place upon record. For example, every year many measures which it was desirable should be carried remained unpassed. If an hon. Member were to move that it was of great importance that those measures should on the following year be adopted by the House of Commons and sent to the other House, that would be a truism, but one which it would be impolitic to record on the Votes of the House, and for this reason that the House ought not to record opinions which did not carry in themselves some operative principle—in other words, which did not tend to their own fulfilment. He wished, however, to meet the hon. Member as far as possible. The present year was not, perhaps, so much pressed with measures of the greatest importance as some years had been, and might afford them an opportunity of seeing whether in the months immediately before the last weeks of the Session, and before the attendance of hon. Members began to thin, they could not find a day for the discussion of the Indian Budget. He was willing to pledge himself to make that effort. It should be remembered that the Indian Budget must be taken on a Government night, as private Members, whether specially interested in India or not, were usually unwilling to give way and allow it to take the place of their own business. But the Government nights were spent in discussing questions which led to immediate and practical issues, in making progress with Bills or Votes; and, as a rule, it would not be found practicable to put aside those practical issues and the making of progress with the Votes in order to introduce a discussion which did not lead to an operative vote. He could not therefore concur in the opinion expressed by his right hon. Friend that the Resolution of the hon. Member for Penryn, which could not lead to any operative result, should be recorded on the Votes of the House. To refer the question to the Committee was a practical and, he thought, a fair proposal. If the Committee found they could not deal with it without taking evidence from India, they might discharge themselves of so serious an element of inquiry and recommend that it should receive the consideration of the Executive. On one point, which was of great importance, they were all agreed—namely, that the whole question at issue was for the benefit and advantage of India. It was not connected with the advantage of this country, or the comfort or convenience of Members of the House. What was desirable was that the discussion of the Indian Budget should be taken at such a time of the Session as was likely to be most conducive to the interests of India, and that time would, he thought, be found at the outset of the Session. He did not hesitate to affirm that the first two or three weeks of the Session constituted the period during which it was easiest to secure a considerable attendance of hon. Members. He did not think it would be possible to obtain a large attendance of hon. Members upon the Indian Budget late in the Session; but at the beginning of the Session there was a sort of freshness, and renovated zeal, and appetite for work among them which would really give a fair prospect, or the best prospect of a good attendance. He doubted whether the Under Secretary of State would not find it difficult to keep a House for the purpose even in May or June. There were thus two questions for consideration—first, the time at which the Indian Budget could be most advantageously discussed in this House; secondly, the best re-arrangement of the financial year in India. It would not be unreasonable to refer these points to the Committee, who would either point out the best way in which an investigation might be made, or would give a weighty judgment which he thought the House would be disposed to confirm. Holding this view, he was in favour of the Amendment. Meanwhile, he repeated that he had no wish to thwart, but, on the contrary, wished to forward, the reasonable object which the hon. Member opposite had in view. He did not, however, believe that the mere record of a truism would answer any useful purpose; and, on the part of the Government, he engaged during the present year to make the experiment of appointing the discussion upon the Indian Budget at an earlier period than usual, when hon. Members would not be drawn away from town by other attractions or necessities. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this assurance; but if the vote of the House were taken, he should certainly vote for the Amendment.

admitted that the assurance of the Prime Minister, that he would endeavour to bring forward the Indian Budget at an earlier period this Session, was satisfactory as far as it went; but it did not appear to him to supply any valid reason why the hon. Member for Penryn should refrain from asking the House to express an opinion upon his Motion. He should vote for the Motion rather than the Amendment, because the Amendment, though not inconsistent with the Motion, took off the House upon a side issue. All the Motion did was to affirm the necessity of discussing the Indian Budget earlier than usual, and if the Committee decided that the Indian financial year should end December 31st, and that the Budget should be discussed here before Easter, the two things would not be inconsistent. The Prime Minister had enlarged upon the disadvantage of placing abstract Resolutions upon the records of the House. As an independent Member he looked upon abstract Resolutions from a differeent point of view. On some occasions he had withdrawn abstract Resolutions after proposing them, and he had never done so without regretting their withdrawal. On other occasions, when he had pressed abstract Resolutions, and they had been accepted by the House, they had proved fruitful of good. What was the objection to place the Motion of the hon. Member for Penryn on the records of the House? It would be an instruction to the present and to successive Governments—which could not be lightly disregarded by them—that the House of Commons desired the Indian Budget to be brought forward at a time when it might be properly discussed. No doubt it was difficult for the Government to provide a night for the Indian Budget, and for that very reason the House should declare that a night must be provided, so as to prevent the discontent which now existed in India, because the House of Commons frequently acted as though it wished to treat the affairs of India with intentional contempt. Two years ago a promise was given that an effort should be made to introduce the Indian Budget at an earlier period, but what happened last year? Why, last year the Indian Financial Statement had not even a day at the end of the Session. All that was vouchsafed was a morning sitting. At that morning sitting the speech of the Under Secretary of State for India occupied three hours and a-half out of the five hours. His own remarks occupied the end of the sitting, and were unfinished at the Adjournment; and when the House resumed, but for the accident that the Amendments to the Licensing Bill had not been printed, there would have been only a speech and a-half upon the Indian Budget, and there would not have been any other opportunity for the conclusion of his own speech, or for any remarks by the 15 or 20 other hon. Gentlemen who wished to take part in the discussion. Such a state of things was a scandal, and it produced the worst possible impression in India. He was speaking within the mark when he said that he had received ten times as many letters respecting the way in which the discussion on the Indian Budget was treated last year than he had on any other subject connected with the affairs of that great Dependency. The right hon. Gentleman said the discussion on the Indian Budget was not practically operative like a Bill. In one sense this was true, but in another sense it was far from true. Many Bills produced no practical effect, whereas every moment given to the affairs of India produced results of the highest importance, and was warmly appreciated by the people of India. Parliament had no power to alter the Indian Budget, nevertheless, the people of India looked to Parliament as the final arbiter of their destinies, and they knew that if in a full House a strong opinion was expressed upon a tax or upon expenditure, no Secretary of State or Governor General could disregard such an opinion. He hoped his hon. Friend would not be satisfied with the promise which had been given to him by the Prime Minister, and which, no doubt, would be faithfully carried out so far as this Session was concerned. He hoped his hon. Friend would ask the House to express its opinion on this Motion. Let the House, at any rate, tell the people of India that if the Indian Budget should again be brought forward at the fag-end of a Session at a morning sitting the independent Members could point to a Resolution which they had put on the records of the House for the purpose of protesting against the Indian Budget being brought forward at a period of the Session when it was impossible that the important matters it contained could be adequately discussed, or the affairs of our great dependency could be treated with that respect which they so eminently deserved.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had repeated a statement which he had heard before, and which he felt it his duty to correct. The hon. Member had said that in laying the Indian Budget before the House in August last, he (Mr. Grant Duff) spoke three hours and a-half. Now, the truth of the matter was that he rose a few minutes after 3 o'clock and sat down a little after 5 o'clock, and during about half-an-hour of the time, between 3 and 5 o'clock, the House was in attendance in "another place" while the Royal Assent was being given to Bills; so that, instead of speaking three hours and a-half, he spoke very little more, if more, than an hour and a-half. When the hon. Member for Brighton complained that the promise given by the Government, in 1870, that the Indian Budget should be brought in earlier in 1871 was not kept, he must have forgotten that on the 24th of February in the year 1871, he (Mr. Grant Duff) did make a statement, although it was impossible at that early period to lay before the House exactly what was known as the Indian Budget. If it were possible, the Representative of the Indian Government in the House of Commons would wish to bring forward the Indian Budget about the second or third week of June; but it had been proved again and again by the experience of every Administration that had ever existed since there was an Indian Budget, that the House would not, under any consideration, give up a day at that time for the discussion of Indian affairs unless they were of the greatest possible urgency, such as those which occurred in 1857. The Government, therefore, had these alternatives—either they must bring forward the Indian Budget early in the Session, as they did in 1871, with imperfect documents, or they must bring it forward as they did now at the end of the Session. The only other course was to alter the Indian financial year. But any change would cause considerable inconvenience; and the only practical course seemed to be to adopt the suggestion for referring the matter to the Financial Committee now sitting. They would be able to examine a former Viceroy, two finance Ministers, and other witnesses, and, doubtless, would be able to make some reasonable proposition to the House.

said, he could not accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, because they must have regard not merely to the present year but to the action of future Governments, and as he thought those who felt strongly upon the subject ought to protest against the present system, he must press his Motion to a division.

rose to call attention to the evidence of the Commissioners of Valuation in Ireland which had been given before a Committee of that House, and to move a Resolution to the effect that the present constitution of the Irish Valuation Department was unsatisfactory, and that it was desirable that an experienced and competent offi- cer should be placed at its head. He frankly admitted that his present motion, if carried, would practically be a Vote of Censure on the gentleman at the head of the Irish Valuation Department. Mr, Greene, the individual to whom he referred, had been examined before a Committee of that House, and the evidence he had then given had proved him not to be a fit person to be at the head of an important public Department. When he had brought this subject under the notice of the House two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Baxter) admitted that various abuses existed in relation to it—that counties had been wrongly charged, that the expenditure in the office was extravagant, that there was no efficient control over it, and that the accounts were in a muddle. The right hon. Gentleman, while refusing to assent to the re-appointment of the Committee to inquire into the matter which was then asked for, had promised to take steps to bring about a reform in the Department, but that promise had not been fulfilled, nor was it possible with the present administration of the office. Mr. Greene, who had been for 23 years the practical head of the Department, had been unable to give any detailed evidence before the Committee as to the principle upon which the Town-land valuation had been conducted; and he admitted that although the whole of Ireland, with the exception of six counties, had been valued during the time he was in office, he had never read the Townland Valuation Act. The result of the mismanagement of the service up to the present was that instead of the valuation costing one half-penny per acre, the amount of the original estimate, it had cost 6d. per acre, altogether amounting to £325,000, which had to be paid by the counties of Ireland. His right hon. Friend, in introducing his Bill the other evening, stated that a new valuation was necessary in Ireland, because the old had been made at a time when taxes were very high. It was the fact, however, that the taxes had never in any regular form affected the valuation. The evidence of the Commissioner on this point was confused, contradictory, and unintelligible, and in support of his statement that the rate of local taxation had been deducted from the gross value, he was unable to adduce any docu- mentary proof. His right hon. Friend went on to say that the new valuation would apply only to three Provinces; but why a distinction was to be made between Ulster and the rest of Ireland he was at a loss to know. The statements of the Commissioner of Valuations on the subject betrayed, he thought, an extraordinary want of knowledge. But there was a more serious charge against him. There was in Ireland each year what was called a revision of the valuation, which consisted in ascertaining the change of occupancy in the land between one year and another. That work of revision cost £25,000, but on investigation before the Committee it turned out that only about £10,000 or £12,000 of that sum was spent in payment of the salaries and expenses in each union for carrying on the revision, and providing the necessary lists and maps; that was to say, for carrying on almost the entire work. That being so, the question naturally arose, what was done with the remaining £13,000 Mr. Greene said it went in office expenditure, and he entered into an explanation of a course of proceeding which really had no existence. He said that the revising officers who were sent to each union did very little work—that they merely marked on the maps the lines of the new boundaries, and that the necessary details had to be obtained in the office in Dublin by reference to old books and maps—a course which involved considerable labour and expense. The House would hardly believe that the whole of this course of proceeding was purely imaginary. The revising officers did themselves actually perform all the work of the revision in the country, and there were no rules then in existence requiring them to transmit the information to the Dublin Office in order to have the results worked out there. But what did Mr. Greene do after giving his evidence before the Committee? He went over to Dublin and altered the rules previously existing, in order to make them correspond with his evidence. Next year he came before the Committee again, and without a word of explanation he handed in the altered rules, which required that the work should be done in Dublin, and they were now to be found in an appendix to the Report. This was most extraordinary conduct on the part of the head of any public Depart- ment. If that was to go on without censure, or such a man to be continued in his duties as valuator, his (The O'Conor Don's) troubling the House would have only been so much lost time. It was unnecessary to enter into further details of the extraordinary mismanagement of the present head of that public Department; but he might remark that an able officer who was sent over from the Treasury to Dublin to investigate the accounts found them in such a state that he could make nothing of them. In conclusion, he felt it right to call attention to that subject before the new Valuation Bill for Ireland came on, and he therefore begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Motion, and expressed his opinion that further inquiries were necessary for the elucidation of this question. As far as he had gone, if the Report had been allowed to be made he was perfectly prepared that none of the head officers should have been allowed to remain in office. At the same time he thought the blame ought not so much to attach to Mr. Greene as to the successive Governments which had originated and perpetuated the whole of the system complained of.

said, he regretted very much that the hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) had thought it his duty to rake up the ashes of this old controversy, and to bring before the House a squabble of a personal nature which he had thought was dead and buried in the archives of the Committee. As he admitted in the discussion two years ago, no doubt many things were done on false principles in former times, but all that had since been remedied. Mr. Vine, than whom no more competent and fearless officer could have been sent over by the Treasury to investigate the matter, found defects in the former system of keeping the books which could not be defended; but he stated that the Government would commit a great mistake if they parted with Mr. Greene, the present head of the Valuation Board. He had no interest except in getting the best man for the place. His hon. Friend had called upon him and asked him to look into the question of the management of the office. He had accordingly gone over the Report of the Committee, he had got the best information possible, and communicated with gentlemen far and wide, in whose judgment he placed the greatest reliance, and the result was that the opinion he had come to was very different from that of his hon. Friend. The present First Commissioner of Works, moreover, a Member of the Select Committee, while recognizing errors in management such as an experienced financier like Mr. Vine could point out, held that the Department had been honestly and efficiently conducted, and that the charges had not been proved. The President of the Local Government Board had come to the same conclusion, these opinions forming primò facie ground for holding that Mr. Greene could not be so incompetent an officer as he had been represented. As to the alleged promise of the Government to make a reform, what he stated on a former occasion was that they had in preparation a Bill for the re-valuation of Ireland, and that it would be necessary to consider what changes in the Department were necessary. This promise had been performed this Session by the introduction of that Bill, which proposed the appointment of an Assistant Commissioner to assist Mr. Greene. Mr. Greene's evidence before the Committee had been described as confused and contradictory, but the questions put to him went back 40 years, and some of them would have puzzled Sir Richard Griffith, and it was easy to make a witness appear in an unfavourable light, especially if he was rather nervous and excited, and unusually anxious to do his duty. When two years ago the hon. Member renewed his Motion for a Committee, the Members of the original Committee deprecated the re-opening of the question, informing him that they had never been so bored in their lives; and that though Mr. Greene might have occasionally given confused answers, they deemed him a straightforward, honest man. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir F. Hey-gate) who had gone upon the Committee, expecting to ascertain the principle on which the valuation of Ireland was conducted, had stated that the whole time of the Committee was taken up in investigating personal complaints and charges, some of them of the most trivial kind. They were preferred by a few retired clerks, whose evidence was in the teeth of that given by their chief, and who, in 1865 and again in 1868, addressed Mr. Greene in terms of fulsome adulation, declaring his appointment the highest compliment that could have been paid to the Department. Mr. Greene was chosen as his assistant by Sir Richard Griffith, a distinguished man who held the Commissionership till 84 years of age, and was one of the most remarkable men living. He (Mr. Greene) began life as apprentice to an eminent firm of valuers, was employed by Mr. Brunel in valuing the Great Western Railway, and had been unanimously elected President of the Institution of Civil Engineers in Ireland. The testimony, moreover, before the Committee of the agents of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Pembroke was quite contrary to that of the retiring clerks. The hon. Member for Roscommon had sent circulars over Ireland respecting the state of the Board, and he had been favoured with an account of some of the meetings which had considered the matter. At Armagh the Board of Guardians refused to entertain the proposition contained in the circular, which was denounced by a resolution as an unwarrantable attack on the Commission dictated by political motives. At Tralee not a singe Guardian took up the Petition; and at Downpatrick the same thing occurred. Inquiries conducted through official and private friends led to a like conclusion, and the testimony was unanimous on all hands that Mr. Greene was an excellent public servant. On these grounds he (Mr. Baxter) hoped the House would not adopt the Motion.

said, he could corroborate the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that a greater waste of time had never fallen to the lot of any gentlemen belonging to the House than had been experienced on that Committee. The chief portion of the Committee's time was occupied in making investigations into the most trumpery charges ever brought against a public servant. The witnesses had been either discarded or had ceased to be employed, and the Committee utterly disregarded their statements. The one thing which the Committee did find out was that in the very intricate calculations necessary to distribute the proportion between the Treasury and the different counties, some irregularities had been committed, which it was impossible for the Committee to unravel, and which were remitted to Mr. Vine to investigate. The Committee required that securities should be devised for preventing such irregularities in future. It was quite true that Mr. Greene had been confused in some of his answers before the Committee, which was a common enough thing with gentlemen of the most unquestioned integrity, who were subjected to a keen cross-examination before a Committee of this House, but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon, who was on the Committee, had not ventured at the end of the inquiry to submit any resolutions condemnatory of Mr. Greene or any other person or procedure.

said he had proposed a series of Resolutions which were carried by a majority of one in Committee.

quoted the Report to show that the hon. Member had not at the conclusion of the inquiry moved Resolutions condemning Mr. Greene or any one else. In fact nothing occurred in the Committee in the least impugning the honour or capacity of Mr. Greene, and his impression was that he was the right man in the right place.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had forgotten a portion of the evidence which was very material. One of the principal parties in the office, Mr. Irwin, who had been sent to Bandon to revise the list of electors, read a letter to another party who had to come into the town also for the purpose of revision, and desired him to put himself in communication with the solicitor who represented the Conservative party. He did so, and the result was that several valuations of those who were Liberal electors were reduced by some 5s. or 10s., with the view of removing them from the roll, and an addition was made to some on the Conservative side for the purpose of giving them a vote. A representation was made to the office, and he was removed from the district with a reprimand and sent to the North of Ireland. He was subsequently promoted in the office, although he had been declared during the Dublin election inquiry to have been guilty of bribery. That was not an un- important matter. Mr. Greene was as bad a witness as he had ever cross-examined, and his examination showed that he was ignorant of some of the principal duties of his office; besides there was strong evidence that he had been a promoter of an Orange lodge, which was an improper proceeding on the part of a public officer. It was too much to be told that there were no grounds for the imputation brought forward. In his opinion there were grounds, and there was very great dissatisfaction in Ireland upon the subject.

said he had listened carefully to his hon. Friend opposite (The O'Conor Don), but he had failed to discover that he had brought forward a single tangible charge against the office in question. Mr. Greene had only been at the head of the Valuation Office since 1868, and therefore it was unfair to call upon him to answer charges of the most remote antiquity—as far back as 40 years. In one instance the matter about which Mr. Greene was called upon for explanations occurred, as he stated, when he was only six years old. Knowing from the practice of the Courts what was the reputation of the Valuation Office in Ireland, he wished to give his unqualified testimony as to the general confidence reposed in it. It was quite true that the plans on which the Valuation of Ireland had been carried out were not uniform. In his circuit, for instance, it was perfectly well known that Griffith's valuation was 25 per cent under the letting value, while in the North of Ireland it was very near the value. But that created no inconvenience, because the principle on which the valuation had been conducted in each case was well understood. All the Office originally aimed at was that within a given union the plan of rating should be the same, so that one man should not he taxed more than another, but it was never laid down that it should be uniform all over the Island. The fact was that the valuations were made under different rules and at different times, and therefore it was that they required to be revised. He wished also to add that so distinguished a servant as the late Lord Mayo, when Secretary for Ireland, and thus having ample opportunity to judge, had expressed to him (Dr. Ball) the highest opinion of the value of Mr. Greene as a public official.

wished to make one or two observations, having sat upon the Committee as the representative of the Treasury, and also to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) had fallen when he stated that he had made charges against Mr. Greene which had been sanctioned in Committee by a majority of one. The general impression made on his mind, after hearing all the evidence was that Mr. Greene in speaking of the proceedings of his office, naturally gave his views of what was present to his own mind as to the duties which the officers ought to perform. It was found, however, that there was a great variation in the mode in which the officers, who were employed in all parts of the country had conducted their duties, and that some of them had not acted in the manner in which Mr. Greene supposed was the regular order of proceeding. His hon. Friend (The O'Conor Don) had done injustice to himself in the course he had taken, because he had led the House to suppose that he entered into the question too much with a desire to impugn the character of Mr. Greene, and had forgotten the services which he himself rendered to Ireland in the conduct of this Committee. With regard to the main purpose for which this Committee was appointed, his hon. Friends rendered considerable service in calling attention to the manner in which the valuation ought to be conducted in certain parts of the country, which had led to important results, and, in fact, he had laid the foundation for the measure introduced this Session by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury. He (Mr. Ayrton) should therefore be very sorry to sec the hon. Member's efforts diminished in their usefulness by his drawing attention to the very trifling matter which arose during the course of the inquiry. The proceedings in no way impugned the integrity of Mr. Greene, but rather the mode adopted by the Irish Administration for many years past. The explanation was simple. It had been the practice of the Government to ask Sir Richard Griffith to prepare for them a variety of statistical information respecting the character of the holdings in Ireland, as he was best able to give as head of the Valuation Office. Sir Richard Griffith performed those services from time to time, and further considered it his duty to allocate the cost of all those services as part of the business of his office. That was an error which was explained by Mr. Greene, and he then told the Committee he was satisfied those accounts could only be unravelled by an accountant. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) thereupon formalized Resolutions on the subject which the Committee unanimously adopted. His hon. Friend (The O'Conor Don) subsequently proposed certain Resolutions affecting the characters of Sir Richard Griffith and Mr. Greene; but he (Mr. Ayrton) pointed out to the Committee that there was no sufficient evidence to sustain them, and it was resolved they should not be taken into consideration until after hearing such further evidence as the Committee shall determine to receive. The hon. Gentleman would see that he was in error in saying the Resolution was adopted by the Committee, for on the contrary, they took further evidence, and he recollected very well the astonishment of the Committee when they heard the complete answer which was given on the points raised by his hon. Friend. So well satisfied were the Committee with the explanations, and so thoroughly did they understand that they did not impugn the position of Mr. Greene, that it was resolved the Resolution in question should not be printed with the Report lest it should go forth that there was some ground for making these serious charges. He was bound to say that Mr. Greene left the Committee with a character altogether unsullied and unimpeached. He was a man of great care and attention in the performance of his duties and was quite fit to be trusted with the supervision of his office. He was told that the office had been reconstituted and the expenditure diminished by something like £5,000 a-year. This showed an efficiency on the part of Mr. Greene which would entitle him rather to the praise than to the condemnation of the House. Sir Richard Griffith might be said to have built up the valuation from the quality of the soil and the great variety of attendant circumstances, and so to come to what he called an absolute standard of value. But there was no such standard. The only standard was what a man would give for the land as tenant. Therefore the errors were not in any way to be attributed to Mr. Greene, who had only acted upon instructions carefully drawn up.

said, he had known Mr. Greene since 1868, and he was enabled to give an unbiassed opinion in favour of his competency, experience, and integrity in the management of the business of his office. He had no hesitation in saying that Mr. Greene was a most competent and efficient officer. He was surprised that anything like a Vote of Censure should have been moved, and if the hon. Member for Roscommon went to a Division he would vote against him.

also bore testimony to the high character and efficiency of Mr. Greene. He had only been six months in office when this Committee was appointed to inquire more into the transactions of the office than into Mr. Greene's own conduct. The charges against Mr. Greene himself had been sustained by the evidence of dismissed servants and by others who had previously subscribed to a testimonial, which he had, however, declined to accept. He hoped the House would not entertain this Vote of Censure, which would affect Sir Richard Griffith quite as much as Mr. Greene—both most deserving public officers, who had performed a work of the utmost importance in Ireland.

in reply, begged to say his charges against Mr. Greene had not been founded on his confused statements, but on his positive misstatements before the Committee. By the time the Committee had finished the evidence it was so late in the Session that it was impossible to get Members to stay in town to consider the Report. The Committee therefore agreed with a proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) that after the inquiry to be instituted by the Treasury Commissioner the Committee should reassemble in the following Session. The Treasury, however, after that inquiry, refused to re-appoint the Committee. He begged to disclaim all personal hostility against Mr. Greene, and had only taken up this question on public grounds. All he desired was that the re-valuation of Ireland which was about to be made should be in competent hands. It was useless to divide the House against the Government, and he would not therefore press his Motion to a Division.

rose to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, Taxes on the means of Locomotion are opposed to public policy, and should be repealed at the earliest opportunity."

In bringing forward this subject he desired, in the first place, to defend himself from the charge of bringing forward an abstract resolution with the mere view of obtaining popular applause. In moving for the repeal of any tax the Mover was bound to show either that there was a surplus or else that there was an available substitute for the tax sought to be repealed. The object of his Motion was precise and definite; it was to repeal taxes, which in the aggregate amounted to about £1,500,000 sterling per annum. Taxes on locomotion consisted—first, of that on railway passengers, which amounted in the year 1872 to£527,560; secondly, the licence duty on horses, £451,143; and thirdly, the duty on carriages, £524,593, making a total of £1,503,704. The question which had at the outset to be considered was whether the reduction of £1,500,000 in the taxation of the country was within the reach of the present state of the finances without the necessity of imposing some substitute. Upon that point there could be no doubt whatever. The Revenue accounts for the past financial year showed a surplus of £5,000,000 Assuming that the same taxes were to be collected during the ensuing year as had been collected in the past year, there would be a surplus of £5,000,000 for the ensuing year, that would show a surplus of ordinary revenue over ordinary expenditure for the two financial years of £10,000,000. Deducting from this the indemnity charge for the Alabama claims with interest, set down at £3,250,000, there would remain a surplus of £6,500,000. But against that must be reckoned £2,500,000, included in the ordinary expenditure of the year in the form of terminable annuities, which was really a surplus income applied in the reduction of the National Debt, and which, in two years, would amount to £5,000,000, so that a surplus would appear of not less than £11,000,000 or £12,000,000, after deducting the payment of the Alabama indemnity. It would be entirely contrary to the precedents set by our greatest financiers of modern times to apply the whole of this large sum towards the payment of the National Debt. The policy of Sir Robert Peel and of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had always been to lighten as far as possible the restrictions upon the springs of trade, and to confine the payments on account of our National Debt to moderate dimensions. At the expiration of the late terminable annuities the House made provision for the special application of £2,500,000 a-year to the reduction of the National Debt. That was a compromise between the extreme opinions of those who maintained that extraordinary efforts should be made for the reduction of the National Debt, and of those who held that to raise money by taxation for the purpose of investing it at 34 per cent, which was what they did when they reduced debt, was bad policy. He thought, therefore, that ample provision had been made towards the reduction of the Debt. Deducting the sum required to meet the Alabama Indemnity, the surplus remaining of the two years at least would be £6,500,000, while the surplus of the current year would certainly not be less than £3,000,000. The amount of taxation, therefore, the repeal of which he sought was perfectly within the reach of the ascertained surplus of the coming financial year. The appeal which he made stood in a totally different class from appeals made for the total abolition of the income tax and the malt tax. Those branches of taxation could not be repealed without an alteration of our financial policy, and the finding of fresh forms of taxation. On the other hand, this tax could be at once removed without any necessity arising for any substituted tax. He could approach the question, therefore, on its merits, unimpeded by the objections which applied to a mere abstract Resolution. As regarded locomotion generally, he asked was there anything in the history of modern civilization which had been or was of more material importance. The application of steam for the purposes of locomotion had furnished one of the greatest civilizing elements of modern times. So long as the means of locomotion were expensive it was the monopoly of the higher class; the lower class were left in the condition of serfs, being tied down to the soil on which they lived. But the modern facilities of locomotion had changed this condition, and been a potent instrument for the extension of industry and wealth. To what an extent these facilities had been availed of was shown by the single fact that the passengers conveyed by railway in one year amounted to the enormous total of 360,000,000, and when he said that the average receipt from each passenger was only 1s. 6d. he thought he sufficiently proved that the means of locomotion was no longer an attribute of the wealthy. Could this taxation on locomotion be reconciled with those great principles of financial policy, which for the last 30 years had so largely prevailed in this country? In 1842, the great financial reformer, Sir Robert Peel, laid down the principle of lightening taxation upon all branches of industry—that nothing should be taxed, so to say, at its source; that there should be no tax on raw materials, on tools, or trade—no tax, in short, on that which went towards the production of wealth and the encouragement of industry. The response which followed the carrying out of that policy was immediate and remarkable. As fast as taxes were taken off the revenue was found to increase. Since 1856, £27,000,000 of taxation had been removed, and yet the revenue was now £10,000,000 greater than when the reduction of taxation began. He asked whether in the modern state of industry in this country the means of locomotion did not rank with taxes on raw materials, and whether the means of personal locomotion were not necessary and essential to the transacting of business, and therefore to the accumulating of wealth. Of the 360,000,000 passengers carried in a year, the enormous majority moved for the purpose, not of pleasure, but of business. The horse and gig took the farmer to fair and market, and were as essential a part of his stock in trade as his plough was. A vast amount of the business of the country depended on the facilities of locomotion, by which the merchant was brought in contact with the manufacturer, and the agricultural labourer from the South was enabled to seek employment in the North, or wherever else there was a demand for labour. In fact, locomotion was one of the primary and essential elements in the production of modern wealth. If he required authority in support of his Motion, he could quote a high one—that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in his Budget speech of 1869, in taking off taxes on locomotion, said—"They have been given up by default long ago. It has always been admitted that whenever they could be reduced or remitted they ought to be." That time, he submitted, had now arrived. £1,500,000 would clear the statute book of every vestige of the tax, while a principle would be carried out which had not been merely vaguely enunciated, but had been acted upon; for the mileage duty on stage coaches and omnibuses had been reduced four times and repealed altogether in 1869. The tax he now sought to have removed was not only flagrantly unjust, but was also anomalous. Why should passengers proceeding by steamboat or omnibus from Westminster to London Bridge be carried free of duty, while if they proceeded by railway they would be subject to duty? He would proceed to deal with taxes which formed the last remnant of the burdens on locomotion. In 1832, when the tax on railway passenger traffic was imposed, there was a heavy duty on stage carriages and post-horses, and a halfpenny duty per mile was imposed for every two passengers conveyed by post-horses. Naturally, therefore, a corresponding duty was imposed upon passengers conveyed upon railways. At that time railway fares averaged more than 3d. per mile, and from London to Birmingham there was no third-class. The tax then averaged something under 4 per cent upon the gross fares. In 1842 the stage carriage duty was reduced by one-half; and the railway duty was commuted to 5 per cent upon the gross receipts from passengers—a rate at which it now remained. In 1844 the Cheap Train Act was passed, with the wise policy of inducing Railway Companies to provide cheap locomotion for the poorer classes. By that Act Railway Companies were compelled to run one cheap train a-day at 1d. per mile. The passengers by the trains were exempted from duty; and, in order to encourage the Railway Companies to extend their third class accommodation, Parliament gave a discretionary power to the Board of Trade to sanction trains upon conditions as favourable, or more favourable than the Parliamentary trains, and to exempt the passengers by these trains from duty. Though no alteration had been made in the railway passenger duty since that period, the mileage duty on stage carriages and omnibuses—which were the equivalents or rather the foundation of the railway duties—had since been reduced three times, and in 1869 was repealed altogether. But what was remarkable was that within the last few years a claim had been set up by the Board of Inland Revenue to compel the payment of a duty for third-class passengers, with the exception of the compulsory Parliamentary train; though for 16 years it had been assumed that these trains were exempt from duty. Nothing could be more anomalous and absurd than that if you complied literally with the Act of 1842, stopping the train at every station and taking 24 hours in going from London to Scotland, you should be exempt from taxation, while if you afforded a third-class passenger superior accommodation, taking him to Scotland in 12 hours instead of 24, you should pay a tax amounting to 10 per cent upon the net receipts from that passenger. Railway Companies were no lovers of strikes; but if they refused some day to convey third-class passengers from London to Scotland, except in 24 hours, on account of this Government duty, no Government could withstand such a pressure as would be put upon them. It was well for the Government that they had to deal with a body who were averse from strikes, and were not likely, therefore, to resort to such an extremity. He appealed, however, to the fairness of the Government whether, because Railway Companies bore a good deal of squeezing, that therefore they should be mulcted and compelled to submit to so monstrous an injustice. Take the case of the metropolitan traffic as an instance of the unequal working of the existing system. If passengers went by tramway the amount of taxation on every £100 of gross revenue amounted on the average to 1s. 1½d. If they went by omnibus the percentage of taxation on gross revenue was 17s. 7d. If they went by steamer there was no duty. But by railway under the former construction of the law the percentage of taxation on gross revenue would be £2 13s.; and under the construction contended for by the Commissioners the tax would be £5. Was it right that railway proprietors should be treated almost as outlaws—at all events, should be put in a worse position than other people—for having constructed the railway system of the United Kingdom at their own risk, and frequently at their own loss? Five per cent on the gross passenger traffic was equivalent to 10 per cent on the net traffic; and, supposing one half the revenue of railways to accrue from passengers and one half from goods, the duty would amount to 5 per cent on the total net income of a railway. But the whole of this tax fell upon ordinary shareholders, whereas half the railway capital consisted of debenture and loan capital, so that again raised the duty to one of 10 per cent upon the income derived from their investments by ordinary shareholders. Nor was this all, because railway proprietors paid not only this excessive amount of Imperial taxation, but an excessive amount of local taxation. They paid 2s in the pound for Imperial taxation and 3s. in the pound for local taxation, though railways imposed no burden on the poor rates, but gave employment and so relieved the rates. This, however, was another question affecting railways. The duty pressed with peculiar hardship upon a great many Railway Companies which were in a comparatively poor condition. The Metropolitan Railway Company, and many other Railway Companies in the neighbourhood of London, which were carrying large masses of the people at low rates, were, owing to exceptional circumstances, in comparatively poor circumstances, and were paying to their shareholders miserable dividends, or no dividends at all. It was entirely untrue, and a most narrow view of the case, to suppose that Railway shareholders were alone interested in this question. He contended that the public had an immediate interest in this question, as well as Railway proprietors. He believed that all Railway Companies had the power of adding the Government duty to the passenger fare. In some cases they did so. A repeal of the duty would therefore be of immediate advantage to the public. The shareholders in a great number of Railway Companies were carrying on an agitation for an increase of fares in consequence of the enormous increase of the working expenses to which they were subjected. All experience showed that the public would get the full benefit of any prosperity which might befall the Railways; indeed, he thought that the public had already had the lion's share of the advantage which had resulted. When this duty was first imposed the average charge per mile to passengers throughout the kingdom was about 3d.; it was now little more than 1d. At that time third-class passengers were almost unknown, and when the directors were compelled to run a single train at 1d. per mile daily this was looked upon almost as an innovation which would ruin the railways; but now the trains which did not carry third-class passengers were an exception to the rule, and in a great many cases third-class passengers were carried at a rate very much lower than 1d. per mile. Only the other day, Mr. Knight, the General Manager of the Brighton Railway, with which he (Mr. Laing) was connected, said that if the Passenger Duty were abolished he would recommend the Board of that Company to have only two classes of carriages—that was to say, to make the third-class into second-class, and the second-class into first, with regard to accommodation; but to make a downward move as regarded the fares—that is, to reduce the fares of the first-class to the level of the second class, and the fares of the second-class to the level of the third. If changes of this character were doubtful, nothing could be easier than to make them conditions of the removal of the duty, so as to secure these and similar advantages to the public. He did not make the Motion in the interest principally of Railways, but for the general public. His experience had satisfied him that the interests of the two were identical, and if the Railway Companies obtained this boon and did not fully share it with the public they would be defeating their own objects; but he believed that if this duty were abolished, not more than six months would elapse before reductions of that sort would be made by the majority of the Railway Companies. The next important branch of the subject related to the tax on horses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that the horse was the very life and soul of locomotion. It was essential to the carrying on of the work of a farmer. The tax upon horses was unjustifiable, like the tax upon passenger traffic. It prevented the rearing of horses as much as the malt tax limited the growth of barley. While we were groaning over the deficient supply of horses, and wondering whether in the event of a war we should be able to obtain a sufficient number of horses for our cavalry or our artillery, we were laying a tax upon horses which amounted to 10 per cent upon their value. The other, and last branch of taxation on locomotion, was that of wheeled carriages. Four-wheeled carriages were subject to a duty two guineas, and two-wheeled carriages and a certain class of small four-wheeled carriages were subject to a tax of 15s. The total produce from this source amounted to £524,993. A large number of these vehicles constituted what might be termed the daily necessaries of a large class of the community. Farmers, tradesmen, clerks, and others in business could not pursue their vocations without the use of gigs, carts, cabs, and omnibuses; and women of the middle, the lower middle, and the working classes, were almost entirely dependent on flys and omnibuses in getting from one part of a large town to another. Thus it would be seen that thousands of our population were obliged to avail themselves of the cheap mode of travelling afforded by these vehicles. One great anomaly of this tax was that it did not extend to Ireland. The principle of our present system of finance was to assimilate, as far as possible, the taxation of the two countries, and he warned all Irish Members that unless they assisted him to repeal this tax for England it would before very long be extended to Ireland. It was a striking instance of the evil of this impost, that while it was almost impossible to obtain a conveyance at many of our provincial railway stations, at every small railway station in Ireland there were always plenty of cars and other vehicles to be had. There were, however, other anomalies connected with this tax. For instance, in the County which he had the honour to represent about half the farmers lived in islands, and in attending markets they used their boats, on which no tax was levied; whereas the other half of them, who lived on the mainland, had to use horses and carts or gigs, for which they were heavily taxed. The inconvenience of the tax had been admitted when the 32 & 33 Vict. was passed, which permitted the farmer to use his horse for the purpose of attending Divine service; but if horses were exempt from tax when used in conveying a man's family to a place of Divine worship, why should they not be exempt also in many other instances, such as fetching the doctor for a sick wife, or some other member of the family? It was one of the signs of a bad tax that it always bristled with exceptions and anomalies, and occasioned a great deal of vexation and annoyance in comparison with the small amount of money it brought in. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in their last Report, said that the licence duties, like all direct taxes, were more troublesome, both to those who collected and those who paid them, than were indirect taxes. It was quite certain that the frequent surcharges in respect of this tax rendered it exceedingly burdensome to farmers, who were continually called upon to pay fines for having unknowingly transgressed the law in the use of their horses and carts. The only objection to this part of his Motion appeared to him to be the fact that a number of persons kept horses and carriages for pleasure and amusement, but the number was so small compared with the total, and it was not worth while, for the sake of the small sum that the rich were compelled to pay in respect to their vehicles and horses, to preserve such an obnoxious tax, especially as in 1869 the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished the distinction between horses kept for pleasure and horses kept for trade. This was now a great opportunity for the Government, which he hoped they would embrace, to perfect the great reform in our financial system which had been commenced by Sir Robert Peel in 1842, and which had been continued by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and there appeared to be but one step more required to crown the edifice by relieving locomotion from all taxation and making it as free as the bread we eat and the air we breathe. The number of horse licences was 840,847, and that of carriage licences 422,597, while the number of railway shareholders, according to an approximate estimate, based on the number of shareholders in proportion to capital on several lines, was about 300,000. 1,500,000 persons would therefore be directly benefited by this moderate remission of taxation. He did not mention this as showing, with elections in prospective, the fair popularity which would attend the measure, for in framing our financial system higher considerations than immediate popularity should be looked to. To a certain class of minds unpopularity might seem to recommend a thing, but our financiers should guard against this error, for while there was an unsound popularity to be gained by remissions made with a view to court applause, there was a sound popularity which sprang from a remission affecting a large and important section of the community. He mentioned the 1,500,000 persons, therefore, as showing how wide the area of relief would be, rather than its popularity. The principle of freeing locomotion from taxes was laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech of 1869, and to him, therefore, would belong the greater part of the credit if it were now accomplished. He presented himself in no spirit of antagonism to the Government, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give him an assurance which would obviate the necessity of pressing the Motion, but, failing this, he was so confident in the soundness of the principle and in its immediate practicability, that he should do his best to carry it, feeling that he should be doing the Chancellor of the Exchequer a service in coupling, with or without his consent, the name of Lowe with free locomotion. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) proposed by this Resolution to spirit away a considerable amount of the money which was supposed to be at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for one object only. It was generally the case that an expected surplus evoked plenty of claimants. He did not consider this an agricultural question or that the hon. Member had a right to ask for the support of the farmers on this question as one affecting their interests. The tax on horses only remotely concerned them, animals employed in agriculture being exempt, while there was no great injustice in a moderate tax on horses kept for luxury or locomotion. It was true that some years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the principle of reducing the taxes on horses employed in locomotion and anticipated the benefits which would arise from horses being employed in the conveyance of persons to and from stations, and in drawing conveyances used by the public. But he did not think that the public had obtained cheaper or better conveyances, or that any great improvement had taken place in them so as to lead to a desire for an extension of the policy which the right hon. Gentleman had recommended. The Motion was in reality an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of railway locomotion only. It was a Motion in the interest of railway companies and railway proprietors. The hon. Gentleman anticipated great benefits from its adoption, but what guarantee did he offer that there should be benefits to the public. He trusted the House would not be led away by any conversation which might have passed between the Chairman of the Brighton Company and its traffic manager, who held out certain improvements as likely to result from this remission. Traffic managers were given to large and vague statements, and had sometimes induced Parliamentary Committees to sanction schemes by the results which they had held out; but he hoped that the House would not be influenced by them. The Motion itself embodied nothing of the kind. It pledged the House to a simple repeal of the taxes on locomotion. Now, who was to have the benefit of the proposed remission? Why, in the first instance, the Railway Companies would derive the benefit. And how, he should like to know, was it to be brought out of their pockets for the benefit of the public? He admitted that railways had given great facilities to trade and commerce. But there was another side of the question. Railway proprietors complained that they did not receive that amount of remuneration to which they were entitled. But they forgot that a great deal of the money that had been laid out had been wastefully expended, that they had made lines which they ought not to have made, and entered into contests and waged war with other companies when they ought not to have done so. The late Mr. Robert Stephenson, indeed, told him during a severe contest between the Brighton and South- Eastern Companies, that £500,000 had been already expended in it, and that he could have stopped all this but for the temper of three men on each side. He feared that temper accounted for much foolish expenditure, and inadequate dividends therefore formed no ground for abolishing this tax.

seconded the Motion on the broad ground that any measure which cheapened locomotion would confer a great advantage on the country. In support of the present proposal, he quoted the Report of a Select Committee of that House, which inquired about a third of a century ago into the subject of taxation on internal communication. That Committee pointed out the great evils of the taxation then existing on carriages and horses, showed that Ireland benefited largely by its exemption from such taxation, and suggested that England should enjoy the same advantage. The Committee therefore recommended the abolition of the taxes on horses, public conveyances, and carriages generally, observing that the immediate loss of revenue incident to such a change, would be in great measure compensated by an increased consumption of taxable commodities, while an inequality would be removed, and the comfort and prosperity of a commercial people promoted. That reasoning was equally applicable to the Motion now before the House. England, Scotland, and Wales were subject to a species of taxation from which Ireland was entirely exempt; and he maintained that all parts of the United Kingdom ought to be placed on an equality in that respect. The hon. Member observed that these taxes had been objected to by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in his Budget Speech of 1866, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had, in 1872, in their 15th Report, pointed out, as explained in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Orkney, that the whole of the taxes now known as the "Establishment Licences" were troublesome, "both to those who collect them and those who pay them." They further added that—

"The enormous correspondence is quite disproportionate to the amount of duty collected, and the number of prosecutions found necessary for the maintenance of a revenue of little more than one million and a quarter is 40 or 50 times greater than the number instituted in the same year in the collection of nine millions and a half—the duty charged in England and Scotland on spirits."

In the same Report the Commissioners pointed out the vexatious consequences of these taxes allowing of exemptions in various ways, for not taking out licences. This recent view of the Inland Board of Revenue was in accord with their 10th Report, issued in 1866, wherein the Commissioners explained that Mr. Gladstone had

"dwelt at some length upon the taxes on locomotion, and expressed his regret that the surplus at his disposal did not enable him to propose a larger measure of relief from these imposts in their existing form."

No doubt since then changes had been made in these taxes, but they still existed, and in a way which undoubtedly prevented that free movement which so greatly benefited a country; and now that there was such a vast surplus revenue, this was the time to free the country from a kind of taxation which, however suitable for local purposes, was quite unsuitable for Imperial Revenue. And, as before said, the time was opportune to place Great Britain on the same system of taxation as Ireland was, in being exempt from all these taxes. The fact of there being a dog tax in Ireland, and which was collected, not for the Imperial Revenue but for local purposes, was a strong example in favour of the dog tax levied in Great Britain, and included amongst those known as the "Establishment Licences," being given up as an Imperial tax as well as the other licences. This change would also have a most useful effect in settling the question so troublesome to both parties, as to how to adjust the claim of aids from the Exchequer for local expenditure.

said, it was proverbially easy to make out a case against any tax; and it did not require the great knowledge and financial ability of the hon. Member for Orkney to make a most plausible, and, indeed, a most true case against the taxes which remained upon locomotion. Nothing in the world was so easy as to make out a case against a particular tax, but that was not the way in which the House should look at this question. In all these matters of taxation, they had only a choice of evils; and the only question was whether they would do wisely in following the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney, by abstracting their minds from any alternative proposal, and fixing them simply on the particular grievance which he had placed before them. One thing his hon. Friend had left out of sight in connection with that tax. There was a peculiarity about railways—which he agreed with the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was the main question in his hon. Friend's mind—there was a peculiarity about railways which distinguished them from almost all other subjects of taxation, and that was that they possessed a qualified monopoly. The maximum limit of railway charges was so very high—so much higher than those charges actually amounted to—that it really gave the companies a large and undefined power of taxing Her Majesty's subjects. When persons were acting under the pressure of competition, they were kept within very narrow bounds as to what they did. But where that pressure was removed, and the Railway Companies were left to their own discretion, those who complained of these taxes had themselves the power of imposing them; and that not with reference to the terms on which they could afford to do the work, but with reference to the much larger powers they possessed of obtaining the sole property and dominion over portions of the country. That afforded a justification for taxing railways which did not exist in any other case, and the two things ought not to be mixed up together. Even supposing all other taxes on locomotion were removed, there would still be this broad and manifest distinction between them and the taxes on railways,—that all other carriers acted under the most unlimited competition, whereas railways had obtained, by the nature of the case and by the privileges which Parliament had given them, certain local monopolies which enabled them to exact not necessarily equal rates from persons who were similarly situated, but larger rates from some and smaller from others. There seemed to be no fairer subject of taxation, then, than that which had about it the appearance of a monopoly. His hon. Friend had spoken of their relieving 1,500,000 persons by taking off that tax, but that after all was a very small number indeed. It would be very easy, however, to mention a tax the remission of which would relieve, not 1,500,000, but 30,000,000 people. If numbers were to a criterion, though he did not say they were, his hon. Friend had put forward the weak rather than the strong side of that tax. Now, he wished to see all trades and occupations as free as possible from taxation. That was a sound and right principle; but, as he had said, all these things were a choice of evils and of convenience, and it was not a question whether that particular tax was good in itself, but whether it was the one which most strongly called for remission. That was a point which he thought could hardly be decided by a discussion in which attention was necessarily confined to that tax alone, and all others were kept out of view. But there was another point that he wished to submit to the House, and it was this:—On Monday it would be his duty to state to the House the financial proposals of the Government for the coming year. It was certainly the practice and custom of the House—and wisely so, he thought—to leave these matters of difficulty and delicacy to those who were in the habit of looking at them from the position of responsibility and authority which the Members of the Government occupied by having for the time the support of the majority of that House, rather than that they should be taken up by any private Member. They were more likely to have the public interests fairly considered and legislated for by those who were personally responsible for any proposals which might be made than if proposals were brought forward by any private member, however eminent or however qualified to deal with such subjects. Now, if that diminution of taxation which his hon. Friend had urged was a point of his financial scheme on next Monday, it was quite obvious that any interposition of that House would be superfluous and useless. If it was not, it was equally obvious that the House was now asked to pass a judgment on what ought to be the financial policy of the Government without having before it, as it ought to have, the alternatives which they would have to lay before it. The House, therefore, would not now be judging on the case after hearing all the circumstances, and all that could be said on both sides, but would be adopting a particular view, shutting its eyes to all other things, and insisting on taking away responsibility from those on whom the House and the Constitution of the country imposed it. He said that, whatever opinion hon. Members might have about that tax, they would not be acting in a prudent manner if they followed such a course. They would do more wisely to restrain their impatience for six days longer until they heard the proposals of the Government. If those proposals met with their approbation, they could support them. If not, it would be competent for his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney to run his horse against the Government horse. And if his hon. Friend's proposal should be one more worthy of consideration than those of the Government, it would be competent for the House to adopt it. That would be quite fair and open; but he thought it would be full of evil precedent if at a period so very close to the announcement of the financial policy of the year, when it must be understood by all that whatever they were going to do was really determined upon, and arrangements made accordingly, the House would not allow them to propound their policy, but insisted on forcing on them a Resolution like the present, without hearing what they had to say. He might point out that the pecuniary amount at stake was by no means small; it was no less than £1,500,000. That was a considerable sum to dispose of, and the House ought to consider well before they made up their minds to remit a tax which so largely affected the revenue. Although his hon. Friends knew very well that he was by no moans unfavourable to the views with regard to locomotion which they had propounded, he still could not give his assent to the proposal which had been submitted to the House. He felt he should be unworthy of the office he had the honour to hold if he were not prepared to vindicate for himself the right, not, of course, to dictate to the House, but to lay before it the best proposals he could make in connection with his financial statement. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would be content with the impulse he had given to the question, and that the matter would not be pressed to a division, for the only effect of doing so would be greatly to embarrass the financial policy of the Government, and to set a precedent which he did not think it was desirable to establish.

said, he had always felt it his duty in that House to oppose abstract Resolutions on Questions of finance, and was of opinion that the present Resolution was calculated to place hon. Members in an unfair position. It tended to produce the taking of things separately which ought to be taken conjointly, and reminded him of the saying that every wine was good, but that some wines were better than others, for it raised the question of every tax being bad, while some taxes were worse than others. He generally felt alarm on hearing an hon. Member urge in support of his particular proposal that it would lighten the springs of industry. It reminded him of a remark made by a gentleman some time ago in reference to a person who had become generally embarrassed in circumstances—"What could you expect of a fellow who had frittered away his fortune in paying his tradesmans' bills." When, he might add, he saw countries like France and America making such efforts to pay off their debts, he did not think it creditable to us to postpone our obligations, and he had no doubt we should be recompensed in the future for any sacrifice which we might make in that direction at the present time.

although he desired to support the Motion so far as it related to the passenger duty, did not think it would be desirable at the present moment to force the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He might mention that the gross receipts of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway for the year ending in December last were for passengers, £524,572; season tickets, £51,842, making a total of £576,414; from which, if the working expenses, £259,386, were deducted, it would be found that the profit of £317,028 remained. It would also be seen that the passenger duty paid for the half-year was £18,817, which was equal to an income tax on the profit of 1s. 2¼d. in the pound. He might add that from the published accounts of the Metropolitan District Railway for the past half-year it appeared that their receipts for passengers were £93,629, and their working expenses £46,814, which left a profit of £46,815; their payment for passenger duty was £2,667, which was equal to an additional income tax of 1s. 1½d. in the pound. Now, as the shareholders in all the Railway Companies already paid the ordinary income tax upon their dividends, he could see no good reason why they should be called upon to pay taxes a second time upon the same income. He felt sure, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into his consideration the desirability of taking away, at all events, the passenger duty.

could not help complaining of the action of the Board of Inland Revenue in taking a course which tended to restrict the means of locomotion at the command of third-class passengers. He thought that every facility should be afforded for the transport of the labouring classes, whether travelling for pleasure or in pursuit of their daily labour. He could not, however, vote for the Motion because it was opposed to the policy of imposing any tax whatsoever on locomotion.

wished to point out that there was a tax levied on omnibuses at the same rate as on the carriages of the aristocracy, which amounted to 1¼ per cent in the case of the London General Omnibus Company. He might say nothing that had fallen from the hon. Member for the Orkneys had convinced him that the tax, of which complaint was made, was not, after all, paid by the passengers.

said, that the present passenger duty presented a great anomaly which would have, sooner or later, to be redressed. A third-class train which travelled from London to York in seven or eight hours, crawling along and stopping at all the stations, was exempted from duty, but if a third-class train did the same journey rapidly, running through several stations, the Company had to pay the duty. He trusted that on Monday night it would be found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given not only consideration but favourable consideration to this question. The present system was a bar to studying the convenience of the public.

said, that he should not feel justified, after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in pressing the Motion to a division; but if the matter should not be dealt with in the Budget, he would bring it forward again, and run his horse against that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He begged leave therefore to withdraw his Motion.

in rising to call the attention of the House to the interests of British shipowners in the navigation of the Suez Canal, and to move—

"That, the Commerce of this Country being so deeply interested in the uninterrupted navigation of the Suez Canal, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should at once give its adhesion to the judicial reforms in Egypt, suggested and approved of by the Representatives of all the European Powers, by which tribunals will be created for the better administration of justice in Egypt, and the adjudication of differences which may arise between British Shipowners and the administrators of the Suez Canal Company."

said, he wished to point out where he thought the Government had been very much to blame in their recent policy with respect to Egypt. There was nothing more remarkable than the progress which had been made during recent years in our communication with the East. Through the exertions of Lieutenant Waghorn the overland route had been established, and afterwards a railway was constructed. When this railway was established in 1852, the French Government saw the mistake which they had made in opposing it, and M. de Lesseps commenced that wonderful work which had been so successfully carried out, the Suez Canal. M. de Lesseps had remarked to him—"My first principle in life was always to have confidence," and he had succeeded where the Ptolemies had failed. The undertaking was started by a French Company; but in the Firman it was called a Turco-Egyptian association, and was subject to the laws and customs of the Turco-Egyptian Government. The Suez Canal cost £16,000,000, half of which was subscribed by a French Company; and, notwithstanding the Canal was on the high road to India, the scheme had never been supported by the English Government; Lord Palmerston, indeed, did everything to oppose it, and not a hundred pounds of English money was engaged in the speculation. The French Company now possessed £12,000,000 out of the £16,000,000 expended on the scheme, and none could fail to give M. de Lesseps every credit for the energy with which he had carried out the work. In consequence of M. de Lesseps having been left to overcome his difficulties as best he could, the affairs of the Company were subject to Egyptian law, and the rates and dues were to be levied subject to the Egyptian Government. The tonnage rate for goods was 10½f. per ton, and 10f. for each passenger, so that one of our troop ships on her way to India paid something like £1,400. Two years ago M. de Lesseps made a change in the method of levying these dues; he did not alter the rate, but he resolved that in future the charge should be made upon the gross instead of upon the net tonnage, the result being that the ships paid on the engines and boilers and all spare space. That had been done in the beginning of 1872, and since then ships had been charged, not on the net tonnage, but on the gross tonnage. Well, what occurred the other day? The Messageries Maritimes appealed against that proceeding to the Chamber of Commerce in France, and in two or three months a decision was given in favour of the Suez Canal Company. The case was then carried to another Court in Paris, which reversed the decision. But, in point of fact, the whole case between the Messageries Maritimes and the Suez Canal Company was a private arrangement, the object being to put the authority over the Suez Canal Company into the hands of a French Court. That naturally excited great indignation. Now, he wanted to know whether, when the matter was laid before the Government, they resisted or accepted what had been done? There was another point which was deserving of attention. By the capitulations with Egypt anything brought before a Court must be tried in the defendant's Court, and therefore, whenever our shipowners appealed against these excessive tolls, the action was brought before the Court of the French Consul General at Cairo. He need not say that the decisions were naturally given against us. This point brought him to the question of judicial reforms, and he regretted to have to say that in his opinion the Foreign Secretary had entirely failed in his duty of represent- ing our interests in the East. On the 22nd of July, 1870, when the question of judicial reforms was brought before the Turkish and Egyptian Courts, Lord Granville wrote—

"The two Governments of England and France agreeing to the proposed reforms, it seems to Her Majesty's Government that the basis of this accord should be made known to the other Governments who were represented on the Committee that sat at Cairo. It remains with the Viceroy to obtain the consent of the Sultan to these proposed reforms."

He (Mr. Cochrane) had the honour of bringing the question before the House last year, and subsequently in the autumn the Commissioners met at Constantinople, and the judicial reforms were agreed to. But suddenly the French Government, seeing the importance of keeping the Suez Canal in the hands of France, and of thus having it in its power to stop our communications with the East, said they would not consent to those judicial reforms. Every Government in Europe, with the exception of France, was in favour of them. But what did Lord Granville do? Did he show that courage which an English Foreign Minister ought to display, or that decision of character which we had a right to expect from him, when France, for her own selfish purpose, refused her consent to the judicial reforms? Not at all. Lord Granville only said—"We will never do anything without the consent of France." Who was President of the Commission at Constantinople? Our most admirable Consul General, Sir Philip Francis. But though all were agreed as to the absolute necessity of those judicial reforms, and there was not a dissentient voice, except that of France, Lord Granville suddenly said that he would not act without France, and the whole thing fell to the ground. Lord Granville, in 1870, held the opinion which Lord Clarendon and Lord Derby held before him. Her Majesty's Government could not doubt that the system which now prevailed in Egypt, with regard to trying suits in which foreigners on the one hand, and the people of Egypt on the other were concerned, was injurious to all parties, as it was certainly without the warrant of any Treaty engagements. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, were willing to lend their aid to establish a better system; but if the other Powers agreed in the same object, why should we hold back because France suddenly refused her consent? It was not right that we should be parties to a system which might have been very well of old, but was not suitable to the present time, and was most injurious to British interests. What was the fact? Why, that out of 100 ships passing through the Canal, 79 carried the British flag. That Canal the French had got so much into their hands that there was not a single employé connected with it that was not a Frenchman. They could close the Canal whenever they liked, and need not let a vessel enter until it had paid any dues they wished to charge with 60 per cent extra tax; and then they said—"You may bring your action against us; but when you do you must carry it into a French Consular Court." The consequence of closing the Canal for one month would be most serious to us. On Friday the House would be asked to consider the Euphrates Valley as a communication with the East; but surely we ought to insist upon our existing means of communication being regulated in such a manner as to win the approval of Europe. He wanted to ask the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) as he (Mr. Cochrane) had tried in vain to obtain Papers, what the Government had done, or what representations they had made after the decisions which had been given in the French Courts. Had they protested against the authority of those Courts? The question of tonnage dues was comparatively unimportant. What was important was whether the Suez Canal being of such vital consequence to us, there was a power of closing it against us, or of putting such tolls on our ships passing through as virtually to close it against us whenever the French chose. He had heard it said that if those tolls were collected for the future, it would be impossible even for the Peninsular and Oriental Company to send their ships through. Millions of money had been spent since the opening of the Canal in building ships fitted for the navigation of the Canal. Was that a matter which was of no concern to us? Anyone who had been in Egypt must have seen how important were our relations with that country. One third of the people employed there were English, and at the present moment there were parties of English surveying the ground for railways up to the Tipper Nile. By the policy now adopted by the Foreign Office our prestige in the East was being weakened, and our relations with India and our colonies endangered. This was a question of so much importance, that late as the hour was he had ventured briefly to call attention to it, and unless he obtained a most satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord, he would certainly divide the House on the Resolution. He begged now to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

Sir, I imagine that every one will admit that it was high time that this most important subject should be brought before the House, and for my part I regret that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who has given so much attention to it, has not dealt with it even more fully. The manner in which it affects the commercial interests of this country is of course obvious, but it reaches beyond them, and is still more important in a political point of view. Nor do I believe that the necessity for discussing it has been in the very least degree diminished by the assurance which the Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, gave us the other night, that his Department is busy with the question. We are all aware that the Foreign Office has been busy with this question of the Suez Canal for some 18 years, but it will surprise sue very much if any hon. Member should rise in his place and say he finds comfort in that fact. To borrow a phrase used by the noble Lord in the Debate of the 5th July last year, "the Foreign Office has not spoiled the Egyptians," but it certainly long did its very best to spoil their Canal. I should like to ask whether any one can now look back without pain and mortification to that invidious opposition, that résistance sourde et active à la fois of English Diplomacy, as the Mémoire of the Messageries Maritimes calls it, which for 10 years from January 1856, to the 19th of March, 1866, prevented the Sultan from ratifying the concession to M. de Lesseps. One would have thought that if ever there was a great work which deserved the patronage of the English Government, it was this Canal, which has shortened the voyage to India by 5,600 miles, and made Egypt the half-way station between Southampton and Bombay. I have never been able to explain to myself what petty and mistaken jealousy prevented us from heartily cooperating in the work, and taking it up as an international enterprise. A third of the expense might have been saved by giving to the project the joint guarantee of the English and French Governments, and encouraging vessels to adopt the transit by levying moderate dues. The undertaking was too vast and speculative for a private company, but as a great international enterprise, I believe the financial ill-success would have been far less, for it is delay in such works that causes expense. I believe too, that the assurance that the Canal would be completed would have induced ship owners to alter the build of their vessels and prepare for the transit of the Canal at an earlier date, and at the end of 1871, instead of a passing tonnage of 766,000 tons register, and an income of £400,000 a year, these figures would have been doubled. Well, Sir, it is a fact that for 10 years the Foreign Office opposed this great, glorious, and beneficent undertaking, in which it has now been clearly shown that we have three times as much interest as all the world besides, for the vessels which pass the Canal under our flag are three times as numerous as those under the flags of other nations, with three times the tonnage. I shall be glad to know now, if the noble Lord will explain it, what the policy of our Foreign Office is to be. The first thing to be decided is, I suppose, whether we have any locus standi at all. The French Commission which sat on the 8th of October, 1871, declared we had not, and repudiated all interference on the part of Foreign Governments with the Company, alleging that it is bound to the Egyptian alone, and as for the rest, "ils ne peuvent être admis à l'interprétation des clauses." In short, after visiting all the English commercial centres, and stirring heaven and earth to obtain their co-operation, M. de Lesseps now says, like a greater man who preceded him in Egypt "Friends, begone; I have myself resolved upon a course. Begone, I say." He declares that within the limits of the concession the Company can do exactly as it pleases, and may quadruple its receipts by declaring that the ton is to be in future a cubic metre, and if this be accepted, there is nothing to prevent its being reduced some years hence to a cubic foot. The very fact that it is attempted to lay down such a principle should induce us to act on the principle obsta principiis, and oppose the levying of a toll on any tonnage but that on which it was first levied, namely, registered, were it not desirable to get rid of registered tonnage altogether. It has been proved, however, that the adoption of registered tonnage, as distinguished from gross tonnage, opens the door to all sorts of fraud. Up to 1867, when the Duke of Richmond exempted "crew space" from tonnage wherever it might be situated, shipowners were in the habit of berthing seamen in unhealthy wet places, to escape paying dues, and of filling up the space that ought to have been kept clear for the men with ship stores and odds and ends. Now it appears from an article on the Admeasurement of Tonnage by Mr. Gray, reprinted from The Nautical Magazine of February, 1871, that we have fallen into the opposite extreme, and that unequal allotments of exempted space are made for berthing crews, and much in excess of what the law requires. When we come to exemptions for engine rooms we plunge at once into a labyrinth of difficulties connected with an absurd system of percentages, whereby "some steamers carry an enormous excess over sailing ships of like net register tonnage, while other steamers cannot carry so much as a sailing ship of the like register." Any one who wishes to see how unfairly the present law operates, has only to consult the article from which I have just quoted. The only way of settling these conflicting claims is to put steamers and sailing vessels on the same footing, and to allow exemptions to neither. On the whole then, I trust that registered net tonnage will be given up, and that what dues are levied will be levied on the gross tonnage without any exemptions, it being insisted of course that the dues shall be moderate so as not to obstruct trade. At the same time it is impossible to acquit M. de Lesseps of dealing unfairly with this Matter, or to accept his reasons for making the change. It is clear that in his original estimate to the Viceroy Said Pasha on the 15th of November, 1854, M. de Lesseps calculated on registered tonnage, when he said that 6,000,000 of tons went round the Cape, and that if only 3,000,000 passed the Canal, it would recoup the Company. He and M. Lange visited 13 commercial centres in England in 1856, and they both repeatedly assurred the audiences they addressed that toll would be taken on registered not on gross tonnage. From the opening of the Canal on the 17th of November, 1869, to the 1st of July, 1872, the toll was actually taken on registered tonnage, and in his circular to the Chambers of Commerce, of the 23rd of August, 1871, M. de Lesseps admits that the question of taking toll on gross tonnage was a new question in 1870. The reasons also for making the change are plainly insufficient. It is pretended that there were difficulties in levying the toll impartially, because the system of ship measurement differs with different nations. But English vessels make up 75 per cent of the whole tonnage passing through the Canal, and Austria, France, Denmark, and the United States have lately adopted our system of measurement, which would bring up the tonnage, about which there could be no difficulty, to 84 per cent. For the remaining 16 per cent, we may well say with the Advocate-General, M. Hémars—

"Let the Company reduce different tons to the same standard by the help of ready reckoners, and if they fail there is no blame for not accomplishing the impossible."

But admitting that registered tonnage and all exemptions should be given up, I cannot for one moment allow that the Canal Company are to impose increased tolls at their discretion, and make the ton an elastic measurement varying in signification, for the purpose of increasing the Company's dividends. This would be to close the Canal and divert the traffic to the railway, but such is the impecuniosity of the Company, that even the most suicidal and impolitic measures are possible. The question is, how are they to be resisted? Unless we are to put the authority of the Sultan altogether aside, it would seem that the only course is that expressed in the Resolution which has just been moved. Article 16 of the "Firman" of the 22nd of February, 1866, says that—

"Difficulties arising between the company and individuals of any nationality shall be submitted to an Egyptian Court of Justice,"

and I see that the French writers take this to mean the French Consul's Court in Egypt. If this be so, the only remedy is to abolish the Consular Courts and establish the judicial reforms which were proposed by the International Commission, and which were discussed in this House on the 5th of July last year. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, then said that the code to be adopted in the new Courts would be ready in six months, and led us to hope that we might see the new system inaugurated before this. I expressed a doubt at the time of any arrangement being made so speedily, and it turns out that I was right. I hope now to hear that there is some prospect of a decision of the question, and though it is a serious matter to give up the capitulations which were granted by Sulaiman to Francis I. in 1535, and then to James I., and which have been our protection from Turkish injustice so long, yet I would fain hope that the proposed mixed Courts would be better than the Consular, and therefore I heartily support and second the Resolution.

observed that the question under discussion was one which affected materially the interests of the mercantile community of this country. It extended not only to the subject of the dues charged, but to that of the freedom of trade—the ingress and egress to and through the Canal, and the preservation of our communication with our Indian Empire. However mistaken our former policy with reference to the Suez Canal might have been, it was now completed, and it was most important that the navigation should be kept free and open to all nations. They did not ask for the British merchant special privileges, but they did demand that the navigation should be as free to us as to France or any other nation. It was clear that all questions now arising were simply under the jurisdiction of the French Courts, and France was so interested in the Canal that her Courts could not be regarded as wholly disinterested in a question which affected the whole of Europe. England contributed three-fourths or four-fifths of the entire traffic of the Canal, and therefore the mercantile community had a right to ask the Foreign Office to take every step in its power to protect their interests, and it was somewhat disappointing that no evidence was visible of any such steps having been taken. The extra tonnage dues which had been charged by the Suez Canal Company he believed to be a totally indefensible charge. The Firman which gave the Company power to charge certain dues gave the power to charge on the ton of capacity—a term which every shipowner in England understood, and in France the ton of capacity was practically identical with what it was in England. He hoped that steps would be taken to prevent the levying of unjust imposts by the Canal Company.

said, he thought that the Motion was framed somewhat unfortunately, because it put the question too narrowly, for it did not take into consideration the interest of England in reference to India. The subject resolved itself into two branches—the question of tonnage and that of the judicial reforms of Egypt. The Suez Canal Company was a public Company under the Egyptian Government, and unless the judicial reforms were carried out we had no power of interfering at all. It was clear we could not compel the Company to lower their tariff, and the question then remained whether we should push forward these judicial reforms. They had been assented to by all the Powers, and last year the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) said he hoped that the matter would be brought to a conclusion within six months. Nothing had, however, been done. Our trade to India and the East, which used to be carried round the Cape, was now carried through the Suez Canal. Suppose the Canal were to be suddenly closed. Where should we be then? We should not have a sufficient number of ships of the right class to convey our reliefs to India and to carry on commerce round the Cape. [Mr. T. E. SMITH dissented.] The class of ships that used to carry coals round the Cape was being done away with, and if the Canal were closed the consequences would be exceedingly inconvenient. In case of a war it was doubtful whether we should be able to pass our Indian reliefs through the Canal and along the railway to Suez. Egypt was, he believed, sincere in wishing to have these judicial reforms carried out. It was a mistake, however, to suppose that Egypt was desirous to separate herself from the Porte. The Khedive's desire was to improve the country, and there was every reason for helping Egypt in carrying out these judicial reforms. He trusted that the noble Lord would consider this question as it affected our Indian reliefs, and that he would be able to give the House a satisfactory assurance upon both the branches of this question.

said, that both the points alluded to were deserving of the attention of the Government—the question of extra dues and the progress of judicial reforms in Egypt. It would, however, have been more advantageous to the interests which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had at heart, if he had kept these two matters a little more distinct. The hon. Member's Motion, as it appeared on the Paper for the first four weeks of the Session, referred exclusively to the question of how our commercial interests were involved in regard to these extra dues. In some respects, no doubt, the two questions hung together; but with the permission of the House he (Viscount Enfield) would endeavour to keep them separate, and inform them exactly the position in which both of them now stood, and to show that the Foreign Office, through Lord Granville, had not neglected our commercial interests herein. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had correctly stated the facts connected with the original concession. The authority under which the dues were levied was derived from the concessions granted to M. de Lesseps by the Viceroy of Egypt on November 30, 1854, and January 5, 1856, which were incorporated in a Convention between the Viceroy and the Canal Company on February 22, 1866, and confirmed by a Finnan of the Sultan of March 19, 1866. The Articles relating to the dues were Articles 14, 15, 16, and 17. The important words in this last Article were the expressions—"maximum de dix francs par tonneau de capacityé des navires et par tête de passager." The question at issue mainly turned upon these words. In pursuance of their powers, the Canal Company issued their first navigation regula- tion on August 17, 1869. The Canal was opened on the 20th of November, 1869, and from that time up to last year the dues continued to be levied on the tonnage shown in the ships' papers as the net register tonnage. The question then arose as to register tonnage and gross tonnage; what did they respectively mean? He spoke with great hesitation in the presence of hon. Members who were interested in commerce; but he must say that the question of tonnage had not been always of so simple a character as the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) seemed to think. The original measurement of ships in England appeared to have been by displacement, and was at first limited to colliers sailing from the ports of Northumberland and Durham. In ships thus measured and marked, a ton register represented absolutely a ton weight. By the 6 Geo. I. the method of measurement by tonnage was applied to vessels laden with spirits, and by the 13 Geo. III., c. 74, a rule was laid down for the measurement of the tonnage of all vessels, except those carrying coals and herring fishing-boats. In these Acts the rough-and-ready system of ascertaining diplacement by dead weight was abandoned, and a system of mathematical measurement of the size of the vessel substituted. From this time the tonnage of a vessel meant, as it meant now, the internal capacity of the ship. In short, a ton was a unit of measurement of space, consisting, according to the existing law—the Merchant Shipping Act, 17 & 18 Vict., c. 104—of 100 cubic feet, and when the tonnage of a British vessel was spoken of it meant the number of hundreds of cubic feet contained within the ship. The first Act for the admeasurement of steam vessels was in 1819–59 Geo. III., c. 5—and provided that in estimating the tonnage a deduction should be made for engine space; hence came the distinction between net register tonnage, commonly called register tonnage, and gross tonnage; the former being the tonnage shown on the steamship's register after this deduction had been made, and the latter the total tonnage without deduction. With regard to the tonnage laws of France and other countries, French tonnage was originally framed on a system of displacement similar to that of England. The measurement of French vessels was provided by the law of November 18, 1837, to be on mathematical principles so as to arrive at the bulk of the ship, thus making the French ton like the English, an unit of space, not of weight. In the United States, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Norway, and Russia the principle of measuring the cubic bulk of the ship was much the same, but the method of working it out was different. The principal maritime countries had thus agreed in principle, but differed in practice. To obviate this difference an international arrangement had been arrived at between Austria, Turkey, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Germany, the United States, and France to adopt English measurements of gross tonnage. By a resolution of March, 1872, the Suez Canal Company determined to levy the dues on a scale which excluded the usual deduction; this change added nearly 50 per cent to the dues. On the 10th of September the Peninsular and Oriental Company forwarded to the Board of Trade a statement of the effects of the new scale of dues on their traffic. From this statement it would be seen that the conditions of these mail and passenger steamers gave the following average results for each ship:—Gross register, 3,210 tons; net register, 2,057 tons; cargo capacity, 1,659 tons; passengers, first-class, 153 tons; passengers, second-class, 48 tons; and that under the original Canal tariff the dues on these vessels would have amounted annually—exclusive of passenger-tolls, towage, and pilotage—to £80,184, while, by the present tariff, these dues were raised to £133,536, also exclusive of passenger-tolls, &c., which continued to be charged as heretofore. It would be perceived, therefore, that, after charging a toll upon every passenger and thus levying dues upon that portion of the ship's tonnage devoted to their use, the Canal Company now charged upon the gross register of 3,210 tons, while the cargo carrying capacity was only 1,659 tons, or 50 per cent less than that which was thus unfairly assessed. The Messagéries Maritimes had brought an action against the Company before the Tribunal of Commerce of the Seine, and had obtained a verdict for the repayment of the excess dues with interest. The Porte protested against the jurisdiction of the Court. The Canal Company appealed to a higher Court, and on appeal the verdict had been reversed, the result being in favour of the Canal Company. The Company maintained that, under the terms of the Act of Concession, it was only amenable to the jurisdiction of the French Consular Courts in Egypt or Turkey. The Porte maintained that the Company was Egyptian, and amenable to Turkish or Egyptian Courts. The Turkish Government had admitted that the change in the mode of levying dues was illegal, the sanction of the Porte not having been obtained previously. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Cochrane) was a little severe upon Lord Granville when he assumed that the noble Lord had done nothing on the subject during the last year, for on August 31, 1872, instructions were sent to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople (Sir Henry Elliott), explaining the views of the British Government, and stating that they could not admit the right of the Company to place their own construction on the terms of the concession. That despatch had been communicated to the Maritime Powers interested, and he believed its terms met with their approval. In October the idea of a Conference upon those questions was mooted by the Porte, and that had given rise to various other communications and references. On January 15th in this year the Porte made a formal communication to the British Government for a Commission, to sit at Constantinople or in London, to examine into these disputes. The three points on which an opinion was sought were mentioned in a despatch to Sir Henry Elliott, dated 3rd of March, 1873. They were as follows:—(1.) Proposal of the Porte for a Commission to establish an uniform standard of tonnage; (2.) Course to be pursued as regards a change of dues; (3.) Question of dues to be levied in future. With regard to the first proposal of the Porte, the British Government agreed that a Commission should meet, suggesting that each maritime Power should be represented upon it, that it should decide what deductions should be made, how cargo carrying space should be measured, and that London or Constantinople should be the place of meeting. Preference was given by the Government to London as the place of meeting, because the best maritime and commercial information could be obtained there. He ought to inform the House that Constantinople had been suggested by Austria, and that no decision had been arrived at in the matter, but there was every probability that one of the places which he had named would be selected. With regard to the second point, it had been agreed that the Porte should call upon the Suez Canal Company to take up their original charges; while, on the third part Her Majesty's Government stated that, although they did not refuse to admit the right of the Porte to increase dues itself, they hoped it would not inflict injury on maritime interests by so doing, urging that before any increase was definitively agreed on, the British Government and other maritime Powers might be heard on the subject. Thus much for the case with regard to the Canal Company. As to judicial reforms, when he stated last year that he hoped some satisfactory solution would within six months be arrived at he would have been nearer the mark if he had said ten months. The Commission which had been sitting at Constantinople on the arrangements for carrying out judicial reforms in Egypt had now reported, and the Report would be considered by the Governments interested in order to determine how far its conclusions might be adopted; for the question was not one which could be decided by the British Government alone, but could be determined only by consent of all the Governments after the sanction of the Porte had been pronounced. The reforms, when settled, were, as far as related to civil jurisdiction, tentative for five years, but as regarded criminal jurisdiction—except so far as it might be necessary to obtain respect for the proceedings of the tribunals—any decision was reserved till it was ascertained that the working of the civil jurisdiction after five years should have proved satisfactory. It would, he apprehended, be mischievous for British interests to accept singly the new system which, if rejected by other Powers, would place British subjects at a disadvantage in regard to civil process in Egypt. The Powers represented at this Commission were Great Britain, France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Russia, Belgium, the United States, Holland, Sweden and Norway, and Turkey. Their assent and co-operation must necessarily be given before those judicial reforms could be inaugurated and successfully carried out. If the House passed the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cochrane), it would show scant courtesy to the Powers that had worked so cordially with the British Government in the labours of the Commission. Under the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division, and that he would be contented to accept 4, the assurance that, although some little delay might occur, the reforms which had been substantially agreed on by the various Powers were likely to be brought to a satisfactory issue.

said, the answer of the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) was much more satisfactory than he had expected. He regretted, however, that the despatches which he had quoted, and which in a great degree justified the position which had been taken up by Lord Granville, had not been laid on the Table of the House. The noble Lord, he might add, was in error in saying that the Commission of 1855 accepted the principle of net, and not of gross tonnage. [Viscount ENFIELD said, he had not alluded to the Commission of 1855.] He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) then wished to beg the noble Lord's pardon, and to say that after the statement which he had made he should not divide the House on his Motion.

thanked the noble Lord for the very clear explanation he had just given. It was perfectly clear from what was said by M. de Lesseps, that whatever the contention of our Government and the other maritime Powers might be, his view was that the legal domicile of the Suez Canal was in France, and that we had no power to take a legal decision on this question out of the French Courts.