I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade will allow the life-saving apparatus to be issued to those coastguard stations which are at present unprovided with this apparatus?

Life-saving apparatus has been supplied to all coastguard stations where the Board of Trade are advised that it is likely to be required for the purpose of saving life. I cannot undertake to provide it at other places without previous consideration of the special circumstances; but if my hon. Friend is of opinion that any portion of the coast specially known to him is insufficiently provided, and will communicate with me, I will have the matter carefully looked into.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty would be willing to accept from the Board of Trade the life-saving apparatus at those coastguard stations which are at present unprovided with the apparatus?

No objection would be raised by the Admiralty if the Board of Trade consider that life-saving apparatus should be placed at any coastguard station not already supplied with the apparatus.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government intend granting the Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration and financial position of the several funds controlled by the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund:

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been drawn to the case of a tenant named John Kealy, who was evicted from a farm on the Westenra estate in County Carlow some years ago, whose landlord purported to sell the farm, under the Purchase Acts, to a person named Colclough, for £3,000; is he aware that the Land Commission refused to sanction an advance to this person, on the ground of insufficient security; that now and their alleged purchaser, named William Haskins, has come forward to buy the farm, notwithstanding the former agreement for sale between the landlord and Colclough; and that Haskins offered to lodge £570 to induce the Land Commission to give the landlord £3,000 for the farm; is it the intention of the Treasury to allow the money of the taxpayers to be spent upon arrangements which are not made with any bona fide occupying tenant, to be perfected; and, will the Land Commission advance £3,000 for the evicted farm?

The estate referred to is for sale in the Land Judges Court. On the 26th October, 1893, an undertaking was received from John Colclough, to the effect that in case the Land Commission bought the holding referred to in the question, he would purchase the same under the Land Purchase Acts for the sum of £3,570, of which he proposed to pay £570 in cash, and applied for an advance of £3,000. The agreement set forth that the application was made by him as tenant from year to year under an agreement dated the 14th of February 1891, at a rent of £210. As an advance of £4,000 had already been made to Mr. Colclough in the year 1891 for the purchase of other lands, in the Queen's County, upon another estate, and having regard to the provisions of the Statutes, the application by Mr. Colclough to the Land Commission for an advance could not be entertained. I am informed it is not the case as stated in the question that the application was refused on the ground that the security was not considered sufficient. Subsequently, on the 4th July, 1894, an application in similar terms was received from William Haskins. It appeared from the rental settled in the Land Judge's Court, that W. Haskins had been accepted as the tenant in the place of the said John Colclough, Colclough having by a deed dated the 23rd of June in the same year assigned the holding to Mr. Haskins subject to the rent thereof, in consideration of a sum of £546. 8s. paid by Haskins to him. The holding was then, and not previously, inspected in the usual course, and the security being considered sufficient the Land Commission on the 11th February 1895, made an order sanctioning the advance of £3,000 which has since been made. The sum of £570, part of the price, has been paid by Haskins into the Land Judge's Court, and the usual guarantee deposit has been retained by the Land Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will order an inquiry into the charges made against certain officials in Ireland by John Twiss, who was recently executed in Cork Prison.

The charges made by the convict Twiss were confined to imputations made against District Inspector Irwin. They were made at the trial in the hearing of the Chief Baron, who subsequently said, in sentencing Twiss, that he agreed in the conclusion at which the jury had arrived. The officials, including the Governor and Deputy Governor of the prison, wholly repudiate charges which rest solely on the uncorroborated imputations of the convict. No ground whatever exists for ordering an inquiry.

Might I ask whether, in view of the very widespread feeling in regard to this matter, it would not be satisfactory to have an inquiry into these charges, so that they could be officially proved or disproved once for all, and so set the public mind at rest over this matter?

My own very deliberate opinion is, that the public mind will very soon set itself at rest on the question: but, however that may be, I do not consider the existence of an unjust and ungrounded feeling in the public mind as any reason why I should make an inquiry.

said, the right hon. Gentleman's reply would not be received with satisfaction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will consider the desirability of recommencing the work of drainage in the Scariff District in Clare, as a reproductive means of giving work to the unemployed in that county.

This is the first of 16 questions which are addressed to to me on this subject of relieving works in connection with the partial failure of the potato crop. I do not in the least complain of these questions, but I would ask hon. Members from Ireland to bear in mind that the duty of examining into the condition of distress is carried out by the same Department by which that duty was performed on the last occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester was Chief Secretary, and the same Inspectors are in charge of the work. The potato failure was very much more severe in 1890 and more general. It is not intended that these works should afford employment to labourers in towns; that has never been the practice on these occasions. The labourers in towns are relieved under the ordinary Poor Law, and the relief that we contemplate is relief of landowners and small land holders only. In answer to the hon. Member's question, I would say that no reports have reached the Local Government Board as to the existence of acute distress in the Scariff Union. On the other hand, the Board point out that the Guardians refused to avail themselves of the seed potatoes supply, stating that they believed the potato crop in the Union was generally very good. The relieving officers have not reported that there is any unusual destitution, and the relief statistics do not show that there has been any marked increase in the number of applications for relief.

Am I to take the right hon. Gentleman's reply as a statement that the drainage works will not be re-opened? Is he aware of the fact that, within the Scariff River Drainage District, the occupiers are willing to enter into any agreement which may be thought necessary to pay the drainage charge on the improved lands; and whether, apart from the distress, in regard to which I cannot agree with him, these works are not of a most useful and reproductive character, and would not, if re-opened, be of the greatest possible advantage in giving employment, not to labourers in the towns, but to the people all through the country district?

I do not know enough of the particulars to answer the hon. Member. No Government can do everything.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to reducing the expenses of prisoners on trial before Courts Martial, a solicitor will in future be allowed the same right of audience as a barrister, and according to the same rules of procedure?

This has been provided for in Rule of Procedure 92B, which was promulgated with the Army Order 105 of July last.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can make arrangements that reserve men and pensioners shall receive their pay or pension at the nearest village or other Post Office, and thus be spared the necessity of going to the nearest town, often at some considerable distance, and of thereby losing a day's work?

said, a pensioner or reservist can have the money due to him made payable at any money order office he may select, but the Post Office cannot be expected to make payments at offices which are not money order offices. If a man does not desire to go to a money order office, there is very little doubt that, if known in his village, he could readily get his order cashed by a tradesman. I must add that no complaints have been received as regards this point in the question of payment.

There is no place where they can get these orders cashed; and the result is, that they have to go some miles to the various towns. Cannot that be avoided?

It is not always necessary for tradesmen to cash the orders. People in the position of my hon. Friend, for instance, can cash the orders. It is not the affair of the War Office, but of the Post Office. We cannot, however, expect the Post Office to pay money at offices where they have no money order departments.

All over my portion of North Staffordshire there are a number of villages where it cannot be be done, and I would ask if the matter should not be taken into serious consideration.

I have already stated that no complaints have been received on the subject.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Inspectors of Drawing in elementary schools holding temporary appointments have been told that their employment will cease in August next; and, if so, whether (especially in the case of compulsorily retired officers, who have therefore previously been removed from the Government service through no fault of their own) he will reconsider the case of those who have done their duty to the complete satisfaction of the Department for some years, and retain their services until an age limit is reached?

The employment of some of the local Inspectors will cease in August next, and of others in August 1896. All of these officers who were under 45 years of age have, with one or two exceptions, been offered, or are to be offered, permanent appointments on the new staff; but I fear it is not possible to hold out hopes of retaining any over that age. The Department has expressed its thanks for the services which have been rendered by the gentlemen mentioned, but as the appointments were always clearly understood to be only from year to year, I hope that no injustice has been done.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the parish meeting is to consist of the parochial electors and no others, the Chairman of a Parish Council, who is not a parochial elector, can attend a parish meeting convened for any purpose; and, if he can attend, whether he will be, under Section 45 of the Local Government Act of 1894, the Chairman of that meeting?

The Law Officers of the Crown have advised that the Chairman of a Parish Council who is not a parochial elector of the parish is not entitled to be present at the parish meeting, or to be Chairman of the meeting.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that the mains of the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company, serving Barnes and other populous districts, are frozen up through their not having been placed deep enough in the ground, and other precautions being taken to prevent their being frozen; that on this account a very large population is most seriously inconvenienced, having to buy water supplied from local wells, &c., at 3d. per bucket; and that great apprehension exists as to the greater risk the inhabitants incur from loss of life and property from fire; whether the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company can charge the inhabitants for water which they fail to supply; and will he cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and rectify this condition of things?

I have communicated with the Company, and am informed that, owing to the recent severe frost, some of the mains of the Company in the parish of Barnes are frozen, although they are laid at a greater depth than that generally accepted as sufficient. The Company state that they are employing upwards of 50 water vans. from which a supply is being delivered without charge, and that they have also fixed stand-pipes at all points where the main supply is available, It is added that more than 2,000 stand-pipes are now in use.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Local Government Board intend to insist on the erection of the cottages at Augheygalt, recommended several months ago by the Inspector; and what is the reason of the delay up to the present.

The Board's Inspector is at present engaged in preparing a scheme for the erection of three houses in this district. He is endeavouring to obtain a plot of ground for the purpose by agreement, if possible, so as to avoid the comparatively heavy expense of putting in force compulsory powers of purchase. The Board assure me that the matter will be proceeded with without unnecessary delay.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have had their attention directed to the condition of the people in the mountainous portion of East Donegal between the upper waters of the Swilly and the Finn; and whether any, and what, investigation into that condition was made, and with what result; also whether the right hon. Gentleman had received a Memorial from the people of Glenswilly praying for the construction of a light railway from Letterkenny to Gweedore; and whether the Government contemplate either this or any other means of affording employment in the valley of the Swilly to relieve the distress?

With regard to this question and the next, which also stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend, in consequence of the representations made by him towards the end of January, I called for a special report from the Local Government Board's Inspector as to the actual and prospective condition of the small landholders in the district referred to. The Inspector accordingly visited the district, and in his report, which has been brought to my notice within the last few days, states that in portions of the electoral divisions of Lettermore and Meencarragh, the people have sustained a serious loss owing to the failure of their potato crop. The young men in the district emigrate to England and Scotland in the Spring, and the Inspector believes that very few able-bodied men could be found who would accept employment upon relief works at the rate of payment which the Government have decided to give. The Inspector consulted the Roman Catholic clergyman and the relieving officer upon this point and they both shared this opinion with him. There is no case of outdoor relief from either of these electoral divisions. The information before me does not lead to the conclusion that exceptional measures are, at present, required to meet any distress in the district; but the condition of the people will continue to receive careful attention, and any change in the circumstances of the people will be at once notified to Government.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many Councils of Municipal Boroughs (including County Boroughs), Councils of Urban Districts, Boards of Guardians, and other Representative Bodies, have applied to the Local Government Board for an Order under Section 33, Sub-section 1, of the Local Government Act, 1894, to confer on them all or any of the powers therein named, and on what date such Orders will be issued?

Since the Local Authorites, elected under the Local Government Act, 1894, came into office the Local Government Board have received about 550 applications for Orders under Subsection (1) of Section 33 of the Act. So far as these applications relate to the power to appoint Overseers, the Board are now in communication with the Local Authorities concerned with a view to the issue of Orders on the subject before the 25th of March next. So far as they relate to other matters, they will be dealt with as early as practicable after that date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the dress of the Ordnance Store labourers at Purfleet, which is complained of as insufficient, particularly as regards their slippers, in which they have to work both inside and outside the magazines; and whether he will equalise the rate of wages between Purfleet and Woolwich, the one being 18s. and the other 19s. 6d., both sets of men doing the same work?

No complaints have been received as to any insufficiency of the Magazine clothing at Purfleet. As was fully explained in this House on the 30th November, 1893, the rate of 19s. 6d. a week at Woolwich is given in recognition of the relatively high cost of living there. The minimum rate at Purfleet was, in 1893, increased from 16s. 6d. to 18s. a week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received reports from the Arran Islands, conveying that most acute distress prevails amongst the inhabitants; whether he is aware that there are 50 evictions at present pending; and, whether any public works are being started in the Islands; if so, how soon are they to be begun?

The Local Government Board Inspector visited the Arran Islands when the potatoes were being dug out, and he reports that the crop was well up to the average, and that he heard no complaints. There are, of course, a number of people on the South Island and in the village of Killeaney, in the North Island, who are in poor circumstances at the best of times; but the Board believe that so far nothing has occurred to intensify the poverty, or to render it necessary to open relief works. I may add that the Clifden Guardians proposed to procure a supply of seed potatoes from the Island this year, and this would appear to show that the potato crop is not believed to have been a bad one. I am informed that ejectment decrees were obtained against 47 tenants on the Islands at Galway Quarter Sessions last October, and that notices under the Land Law Act were posted on the 5th ultimo.

I beg to ask the Secretary for War, whether his attention has been called to a case which has recently come before the Magistrates at Lancaster, in which the legality of the Regimental Canteen of the 1st Volunteer Battalion Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, at the brigade camp formed at Scale Hall, Lancaster, in August last, has been questioned; and, whether he will consider the propriety of inserting in the Army Bill of the present year a Clause declaring the right of Volunteer Battalions to establish Regimental Canteens when in camp, and prescribing the conditions under which they may be carried on.

This case being still sub judice, I would prefer not to answer this question at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that a Congested Districts Committee, consisting of members of all creeds and classes in the district, has been formed in North Leitrim; has he received a series of resolutions, adopted at a meeting of that Committee on 25th Janury last, suggesting relief works of a practical nature and likely to prove permanently beneficial; have any of the suggestions of the Committee been adopted by the Irish Government; and will all the recommendations of the Committee receive immediate attention with the view of providing employment wherever it may be urgently needed in North Leitrim?

I understand that the resolutions were received by the Congested Districts Board, and will be considered at their next meeting. On the general subject, however, of the necessity of starting Relief Works in North Leitrim, I am afraid I cannot add anything to my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of the 12th inst.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has observed that the Manorhamilton Board of Guardians, at their meeting on Thursday last, unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the Government to start Relief Works in the Union, with a view of saving from starvation small farmers and their families who cannot be given outdoor relief from the rates, and who are completely destitute owing to the failure of the potato crop; and will he give orders to have the resolution of the Guardians carried into effect?

I have seen the resolution referred to in the question. The Local Government Board inform me that the Manorhamilton Union is well circumstanced financially, and that the numbers on relief are less than at the corresponding period of last year. The condition of the people does not appear to render the opening of Relief Works necessary at present, but if the Guardians desire to be allowed to relax the restrictions in the granting of outdoor relief in order to meet sporadic cases of distress, they will be empowered to do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet received the Report of the Local Government Board Inspector on the condition of Ballinaglera, County Leitrim; and what steps, if any, have been taken to meet the distress prevailing in that parish?

I have been furnished with a copy of the Report made by the Board's Inspector on the condition of the people in this district. It would appear from the Report that although the people in portions of the district are in somewhat straitened circumstances owing to the partial failure of the potato crop, there is not at present acute distress in the locality, and that the resources of the Poor Law in this Union, which is well circumstanced financially, will he able to deal with any distress likely to arise in the spring.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H. M. S. Northampton when she visited Moville in the beginning of this winter had her full number of boys on board; and, whether during her next cruise she will visit Lough Foyle prior to her getting her full complement of boys, so that an opportunity will be given to the able-bodied youth there of joining the Navy?

When the Northampton visited Moville in November last she had two vacancies for which three candidates offered themselves, two of whom were medically unfit; the third changed his mind. An endeavour is made to have vacancies in the complement when the various ports are visited, but it is not possible to insure this in all cases. Names of applicants are, however, noted in the ship, and they are sent for in their turn to fill vacancies that occur.

asked the hon. Member whether he would further consider the matter in order that a number of boys from Derry might join the Navy.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lietenant of Ireland, whether any report has been received by the Irish Government from the Scotch Fishery Board on the question of the Crown Brand for cured fish; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of it; whether any overtures have been made by the Irish Fishery Inspectors in regard to the appointment of an inspector for branding purposes; and, if such appointment is to be made, whether these traders, who are practically acquainted with the mackerel curing industry, will be consulted with a view to the selection of a practical competent man.

The Irish Government consulted the Scotch Fishery Board on certain points connected with the consideration of the question of establishing a Government brand in Ireland for cured mackerel. The nature of the reply from that Board is generally in favour of a brand. No overtures have been made by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries in regard to the appointment of an inspector for branding purposes. As regards the third paragraph, I have already stated that there is no intention of adding to the number of Fishery Inspectors. If at any time the necessary legislation should be introduced by Government to enable a brand to be applied, there would doubtless be some subordinate officers appointed, but any consideration of the appointments would now be altogether premature.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the memorial presented by the Cork and Kerry Mackerel Curers' Association stated that not one of the present fishery inspectors was acquainted with the mackerel curing industry?

The question has been considered, not merely by the fishery inspectors, but by the Irish Government, apart from the inspectors.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States has an important herring fishery as well as a mackerel fishery; and, if so, whether the Foreign Office would use its good offices with the Government of that country with a view to reducing the Import Duty on cured mackerel to an equality with that on cured herring?

As I stated the other day, the United States Government have arranged these Duties to suit their view of their own interests, and no good result could be obtained by making any representation to them.

Are we to understand that a Public Department takes no interest in an important Irish industry of this kind, and will not even make a representation on the matter?

said, the Government had no ground on which to make a representation. The only ground would be the interests of the United States themselves.

said that was the ground on which he desired to ask a question. The hon. Baronet stated the other day that the United States Government, having a mackerel fishery of their own, differentiated against mackerel that was imported. They had, however, a herring fishery also, although the duty on imported herrings was much less than on imported mackerel. Would it not, therefore, be possible to make a representation in favour of reducing the duty on mackerel?

said the United States Government made the difference in the Duties to suit their interests, of which they themselves were the only judges. Therefore, he was unable to make any representation to them on the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the construction of the boat slip at Trafrask will be recommended?

The Congested Districts Board are only awaiting the consent of the Trustees of the Bantry Estate before recommending work on this boat slip. It is expected the necessary consent will very shortly be given.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that the fishermen of Glenvar, County Donegal, lost all their boats and fishing gear by the hurricane of the 22nd December last, and in consequence of this have now no means of making a living for themselves and their families; that their condition is rendered still more severe and harassing for the reason that the distress so prevalent throughout Ireland this season had previously been keenly felt by them; and also that many of them still owe instalments for the lost boats; and (2) whether, under these circumstances, relief works will be at once started in the Glenvar district, and thus save these people from starvation?

I understand that the fishermen in the Glenvar district, County Donegal, lost ten boats in the storm of the 22nd of December last, and this, no doubt, is a very serious loss to these poor people, especially during a season otherwise unfavourable. I have called upon the Inspectors of the Local Government Board to report upon the condition of the people, and whether any necessity exists for supplementing the machinery of the ordinary Poor Law in the district.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what would be the cost of raising the pay of the British soldier in the regular forces to a minimum of 1s. a day clear of all deductions; and, whether, in consideration of the difficulty now experienced by the private soldier in meeting necessary expenses and subscriptions, and further, with a view to increase the men's comfort and the attractions of the service, he will be willing to propose the suggested increase of pay in the forthcoming Estimates?

A similar proposal was made by the Committee over which Lord Wantage presided, and which reported in 1892. The cost of that scheme was stated in a return laid before Parliament to be for the British establishment £809,000, and for the Indian establishment £394,000, together £1,203,000 a year. The proposal received the fullest consideration at the time, and the decision was that it was not necessary to incur this large expenditure. Nothing has since occurred to affect in any way that decision.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Map of Africa by Treaty, recently published by Sir E. Hertslet, has any official authority as well as the high authority of its author; if his attention has been called to the general map facing page 18, vol. 1; and, if he considers the spheres of influence in Central Africa to be there correctly indicated?

The hon. and gallant Member will no doubt agree with me in appreciating the very high value which is to be attached to the Map of Africa by Treaty, and the obligation which we are all under to Sir E. Hertslet, who has compiled it. It is stated in the preface that the book has no official authority, and I am informed that the map to which attention is called was inserted at the last moment as the best general map available. The map is, however, on a very small scale, and there are in some places inaccuracies in the colouring of the boundaries.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to a meeting of the Rural Sanitary Authority of Limerick, held on the 15th inst., to consider representations under the Labourers' Acts, at which Lord Clarina declared that if any labourer in his employment applied for a cottage he would be dismissed, as he considered the granting of those cottages was nothing more or less than outdoor relief; and what steps will be taken by the Local Government Board in protecting those labourers who apply for cottages under the Statute?

asked a similar question.

With reference to this question, and the similar one in the name of the hon. Member for West Limerick, I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings in question. Lord Clarina appears at the same time to have expressed his willingness to provide each of his labourers with a suitable house and a quarter acre of ground. With regard to the remark that the building of cottages under the Labourers' Acts is equivalent to granting outdoor relief to the labourers concerned, Lord Clarina based this observation apparently on the fact that the rents of the cottages, even when well paid, are by no means sufficient to meet the annual charge to the ratepayers in respect of the cost of the cottages, repairs, &c., and that practically the labourers were therefore receiving relief from the ratepayers to the extent required to make up the deficit.

May I ask whether the rate charged to the ratepayers is not caused to a great extent by the great expense of taking land compulsorily under these Acts?

No doubt the cost of exercising compulsory powers is great, but whether it covers the whole of the ground or not I do not know.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the report of the proceedings, Lord Clarina described the labourers as a "parcel of howling, ignorant fellows," and is it compatible with his position as a Justice of the Peace to make use of the intimidating threats referred to in the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great distress prevails in Westport, County Mayo, and that a local relief fund has been opened, and what steps, if any, he has taken to alleviate such distress?

I am informed that, in consequence of the severe weather, which has put a stop to employment, labourers in Westport have suffered considerable hardship. A local relief fund has been opened to assist these men, and in consequence of their receiving grants from this source the Guardians have been enabled to strike a number of them off the Poor Law Relief Lists. With an improvement in the weather, which I hope will soon manifest itself, these labourers will be able to resume their ordinary occupation. I may remind my hon. Friend that a Select Committee is now inquiring into the general question of distress from want of employment as affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, and that it will doubtless become necessary to collect statistics on the subject from Ireland.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that the Postmaster of Mullingar has prevented the delivery of The Westmeath Examiner newspaper to members of the staff across the counter of Mullingar office so long as a certain episcopal prohibition remains in force. And, has he acted within his right in so doing; and, if so, is he entitled to permit the delivery of other newspapers across the counter, or will the same rule be applied to all newspapers?

The facts appear to be as stated in the hon. Member's question. Complimentary copies of certain newspapers, of which The Westmeath Examiner is one, have for years past been supplied to members of the staff across the counter, and the local postmaster appears to have taken upon himself to stop the Examiner being so delivered on the plea of episcopal prohibition. Into the particulars of this prohibition it is of course no part of my duty to inquire, but I am clearly of opinion that the Postmaster should not have allowed his religious opinions to have influenced his official conduct, and that all of the papers should have been stopped or else none at all. I have given directions that The Westmeath Examiner is to continue to be received across the counter as heretofore.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether he can now give a definite reply to the memorial of the inhabitants of Cranbrook and district, praying that the sub-office at Cranbrook may now be made a head post office.

The question is still under consideration, but I hope that it will be possible to give a definite reply to the memorialists within the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there is any foundation for the statement that His Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad is being pressed to assign to the British Government the surplus revenues of his Berar provinces, or to assign fresh districts for the support of the Imperial defence troops?

The statement, so far as I am aware, is without foundation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that, in spite of the representations already made to the Porte, Dr. Kazandjian, Bishop of Hadjin, is still detained in exile amongst the Circassians of Bounboudj; and whether, in consideration of the advanced age and infirmities of that prelate, and the veneration in which he is held by the Armenian population of Hadjin, Her Majesty's Government will again endeavour to obtain the Bishop's release?

I regret that I cannot add to answers which I have previously given, and which referred to this case amongst others. Any steps which may be possible must be left to the discretion of Her Majesty's Ambassador, who will not lose any favourable opportunity of calling attention to this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fines imposed by colliery proprietors in Scotland in respect of foreign material found in hutches, and which exceed, in some cases, the amount paid to the miner for the whole coal sent up in the hutch; and whether such fines are legal; and, if so, whether he is prepared to bring in Legislation for dealing with such fines and with other fines imposed by colliery proprietors?

My attention has recently been called to several cases of deductions made by colliery owners for dirt. I am advised that in certain of these cases the deductions are illegal, and I have instructed the Inspectors to request that they may be discontinued, failing which, it will be my duty to cause legal proceeding to be taken. In view of these proceedings, it is perhaps inexpedient to enter into details respecting particular cases, but I may say generally, that I am prepared to see that the existing law is put in force; and in a Bill which I hope to introduce, I shall consider the expediency of amending the law with respect to checkweighing, so as to put a stop to all unfair fines or deductions.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether the electors of a ward-parish have any redress either by appeal to the Local Government Board for Scotland, or otherwise, in a case where a County Council has allocated the number of County Councillors to each ward in a manner which appears to them to be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Local Government (Scotland) Act; and, whether the Local Government Board for Scotland have power to ask a County Council to state its reasons for having made such an allocation.

I presume my hon. Friend refers to Parish Councillors, not to County Councillors, who are elected in single-member wards. In the case of Parish Councillors, I have already stated that the Local Government Board has no power to interfere. The Local Government Board has certainly power to ask for the reasons of the County Council, but it has no power to demand an answer; and it is very doubtful, whether it is wise for a public department to interfere in matters, which Parliament has deliberately placed outside their control.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Western Division of Wolverhampton (Sir A. Hickman), I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board—(1) if he will explain, for the information of public bodies, what description of work is pointed to in his circular of 11th February, as being such that all can perform, whatever may have been their previous avocations, which will not compete with that of other labourers at present in employment, and which can be carried on during the present frost; and (2) whether he will, by legislative enactment if necessary, enable boards of guardians, to administer temporary assistance, under exceptional circumstances like the present, without necessarily disfranchising the recipients, instead of imposing the duty of doing so upon public bodies, who have no staff or organisation practised in the investigation of the need for, or the administration of, relief.

The works referred to in the first paragraph of the question, are those specified in the circular. No doubt during the continuance of hard frost, many of these works could not be undertaken, and where the weather is such that outdoor work is impracticable, the suggestions in the circular do not apply. In issuing it, however, I hoped that the frost would not be long continued, or at any rate, that it would not affect all parts of the country. Questions as to the power of Guardians with regard to relief and as to the carrying out of works by other Local Authorities are, as it appears to me, matters which will be considered by the Committee on Distress which is now sitting. Until the Committee have made a Report on these matters, I feel unable to give an answer on the question of disfranchisement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Sir Robert H. Davis's term of office as Member of the Council of India expires on the 3rd of March next; whether it is proposed to allow the vacancy to lapse in accordance with the terms of the Council of India Reduction Act of 1889, which provides that the Secretary of State may, if and whenever he thinks fit, permit the Council to be reduced to ten Members by absorbing vacancies as they occur; and, whether the Council at present consists of twelve Members?

Under the Act to which my hon. Friend refers, the Council of India has been reduced from fifteen to twelve members. I do not think that it would be to the public advantage to make any further reduction at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in whom the Sovereignty of Amatongaland is vested; whether there is any effective British occupation of the country; whether there are any resident British Officials in the district; and, what are the names of such officials?

Under the McMahon Award the northern part of Amatongaland was placed within the sphere of influence of Portugal; all that part south of the Portuguese line is, as I stated the other day, distinctly within the sphere of British influence. As regards our relations with the Chief, he has acknowledged that, as regards the above southern portion of his territory, he obeys the Queen. There is no staff of British officers in the country, but, when necessary for the transaction of business with the Tongas, an officer is sent from Zululand.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—(1) whether the Turkish Authorities have refused to allow the proposed visit of European delegates attending the Sasun Inquiry to surrounding villages for the purpose of obtaining information, on the ground that the business of the foreign delegates is to watch the proceedings and not to collect evidence; (2) whether they have also objected to a proposal to visit the village of Thenik, which had been demolished, as well as to an alternative suggestion that the inhabitants of the village should be brought to Mush to give evidence; and (3) whether he is prepared either to make a brief statement with regard to the nature and extent of the powers and duties of the European delegates, especially in connection with the steps they are empowered to take for ensuring the security of witnesses, or to lay upon the Table the instructions given to the British delegates.

The first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question must be founded upon a misapprehension. There has been no question of interfering with the movements of the European delegates. There was some difference of opinion as to whether the Commission itself should at once visit a certain village called Haskim or not, but an agreement on this point was arrived at to the satisfaction of the delegates. As far as Her Majesty's Government are aware there has not been any proposal to visit Shenik itself, but some witnesses who belonged to that village or its neighbourhood are being examined. The Delegates are to be in constant attendance at the Commission, and to be informed of all its investigations. They can call for corrections in its daily reports; can, if necessary, direct its researches by indicating places to be visited or persons to be examined, and secure that any questions which they think desirable ehall be put in a satisfactory form, or, failing that, may, in case of necessity, put the questions themselves.

Will my hon. Friend say what are their powers as regards the security of witnesses?

The Delegates could not have any power of administration in Armenia, or anything of that kind, but if they think that the apprehension of my hon. Friend expressed in his question is likely to interfere with the satisfactory working of the Commission they would report that matter in the ordinary course of their respective Embassies.

On what is the hon. Gentleman's information based?

It is based upon the instructions given to the Delegates by their respective Governments.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if any steps are being taken to abolish slavery in the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, now under the protectorate of Great Britain?

As I stated on the 7th, a Vice Consul has been established at Pemba, and Her Majesty's Government are now considering how the object in view can best be obtained.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the attack on Akassa by the Brassmen—(1) whether, since the creation of the Niger Company and its practical monopoly, the trade of Brass in palm oil has not declined to one-sixth of what it was, and that the district is becoming less populous in consequence; (2) whether he is aware that the Niger Delta is broken up with countless channels where the Brassmen have traded from time immemorial without let or hindrance; (3) whether two sets of Duties are leviable in the Delta by two different Authorities, with no very distinct line of demarcation between them; (4) whether, under the circumstances of the case, the Government will see that no capital punishment is exacted before they have been communicated with; and, (5) whether they will institute an inquiry into the cause of the disturbance by an independent authority on the spot.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the observations of Sir Claud MacDonald, at page 11, of Africa, No 1, 1895, inquiry will be held as to the responsibility of the Royal Niger Company (Chartered and Limited) for the recent rising of the natives of the Brass District of the Niger Coast Protectorate, who are described by the Administrator as deprived of a means of subsistence by the action of the Company, and, therefore, perhaps not unnaturally, discontented?

It is known that the people at Brass have suffered from the breaking down of their monopoly of the markets, owing to the opening up of the Interior to general trade. It is necessary to exact reparation for the outrages, and the means of doing so have been left to the British officers on the spot, who have already offered to the Brassmen terms, which were—the restoration of plunder, the payment of reasonable fines, and the surrender of arms and war lances. These, have, I regret to say, been refused, but when reparation has been exacted, an inquiry will be made into the causes, and possible means of alleviating grievances.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether instructions were sent during the Parliamentary Recess to Her Majesty's Ambassadors accredited to the Great European Powers, to suggest to the respective Governments to which they were accredited a joint mediation in the dispute between China and Japan; whether China had asked for this mediation; and, if so, whether any steps were taken before the above instructions were sent to Her Majesty's Ambassadors to learn whether Japan would agree to it; whether replies were sent to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by Her Majesty's Ambassadors after the suggestion had been made to the Governments to which they were respectively accredited; and whether all Papers connected with this suggested mediation will be laid upon the Table of the House?

In consequence of authoritative information, received by Her Majesty's Government at one time during the Recess, steps were taken to sound the other Governments of Europe and of the United States, to ascertain if in their opinion there was any possibility of bringing about a peace between China and Japan upon certain terms. Replies were received and were generally favourable. Later on Papers will no doubt be laid, which will include communications between the various Powers interested, but they cannot be published without previous reference to the other Powers, nor at the present stage of affairs between China and Japan.

Do I understand that they will not be published until the war is over?

I should like to hope for an early termination of the war, and to answer that question in the affirmative; but, as I cannot foresee what the course of the war may be, I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Manchester (Mr. C. E. Schwann), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the increasing gravity of the situation of the Christian prisoners in Turkey, who have been incarcerated elsewhere than in the villayet of Bitlis, without trial or after mock trials, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the signatory Powers of the Treaty of Berlin the speedy appointment of International Consular Commissions to simultaneously take such measures as may be necessary for the security or the lives of the Christian prisoners in Turkish gaols?

My hon. Friend is aware that several cases which appeared to deserve consideration have from time to time received the close attention of Her Majesty's Embassy, but, in our opinion, it would in no way promote or strengthen the combined action of the Powers who are interested to make any further suggestions for international action pending the Report of the Commission which is now sitting,

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state on what day the first Vote on Navy Estimates will be submitted to the House?

We hope to lay the Navy Estimates on the Table to-morrow week, or at latest on Saturday week. The question as to when the first Vote will be taken is one for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Committee sitting upon Limited Liability Company Law is likely to produce their Report in time to enable the Government to give effect to same in a Bill to be brought before the House at a reasonable period of the present Session?

The Committee on the Companies Acts have been giving most assiduous attention to the difficult questions referred to them, and have made so much progress that I trust they may be in a position to report within the next few weeks; and I continue to entertain the hope that it may be possible to legislate on the subject in the present Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government recognise the hostilities now taking place between France and Madagascar as constituting a state of War, and as giving, both to France and Madagascar, belligerent rights as against neutrals; if so, whether Her Majesty's Government propose (as is usual in war) to prohibit all ships of war of either belligerent from making use of any port or roadstead, either in the United Kingdom, or in any British Colony, dependency, or possession, for any warlike purpose, from remaining in any such port or roadstead more than 24 hours, and from taking in any provisions beyond what may be necessary for immediate use: (2) whether, in that case, Her Majesty's Government propose to pursue the usual course (as was pursued with regard to the war between China and Japan) of giving to Her Majesty's subjects due notice by Proclamation of the existence of state of war, and enjoining on them the duty of observing strict neutrality between the belligerents, and of abstaining from giving assistance to either of them; and (3) in case Her Majesty's Government hold that these hostilities do not constitute a state of war, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or will take, such steps as may be necessary to protect Her Majesty's subjects in the exercise of their rights of free access to the coasts and ports both of France and Madagascar, without interference, either by visit and search on the high seas, or by so-called blockade or otherwise, on the part of either party to these hostilities?

Her Majesty's Government consider that a state of hostilities exists between France and Madagascar, which may involve the exercise of belligerent rights as against neutrals. But in cases where such hostilities are not likely to extend to the high seas, it is not necessary for purposes of neutrality, nor has it been usual, to issue regulations of the nature described. The question asked in the second paragraph has already been answered in the negative. With reference to the third paragraph. Her Majesty's Government will be ready to protect British subjects in the exercise of such rights as they are properly entitled to in the circumstances of the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when will the construction of the pier at Killybegs, which was promised so far back as September 1892, be commenced; and whether, having regard to the lack of employment, the failure of the potato crop, and the widespread distress in this district of Donegal, a work which would give a means of livelihood to many heads of families will be no longer delayed; also, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that upwards of 200 families in the immediate neighbourhood of Killybegs, County Donegal, are at present in the deepest distress through the failure of the potato crop, and are at the present time suffering from the scarcity of food; and whether, having regard to the perilous condition of these families, for whom in 1891 subsistence was provided by work on the Light Railway line then in course of construction, he will take steps for their relief by the institution of works of public utility?

No reports have reached the Local Government Board as to the existence of abnormal destitution in Killybegs, and they point out that there has been, so far, no increase in the numbers receiving relief. The Board have requested their Inspector, who is at present in the district, to report as to the condition of the people. With regard to the question of the erection of a pier at Killybegs, the Irish Government, as I have just observed, are in communication on the subject with the Congested Districts Board, but so far no decision has been come to in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the unanimous Resolution of the Boyle Board of Guardians, setting out the general and acute distress within the limits of their Union, and urging the claim of the district to a share of the relief works about to be instituted by the Government; and, if he will kindly give that claim his early and favourable consideration?

I have been furnished with a copy of the Resolution in question. Careful inquiries are now in progress as to the condition of the people, and should any information reach the Local Government Board showing that there is a necessity for supplementing the ordinary Poor Laws, the matter will be promptly brought under the notice of Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, although the gunboat Jackal is at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland for the purpose of protecting the Moray Firth and other parts of the North-East of Scotland from illegal trawling, such trawling has, nevertheless, been actively carried on for some time past on these coasts; and whether he will state the number of days the Jackal was at sea between the 1st September, 1894, and 31st January, 1895, the number of days she was in harbour, the names of the harbours she visited, the dates of her visits, and how long she stayed in each during that time; whether she effected the capture of any trawlers during the time specified; and, if so, will he state the names and numbers of such trawlers and the date or dates of such capture or captures?

Although H. M. S. Jackal is assigned to the Fishery Board she was not under their control from 16th October to 10th January, owing to her having to undergo repairs and to arrangements in her personnel for which the Admiralty is responsible. Between the dates mentioned she was 29 days at sea and in harbour, excluding Sundays, 102 days. She captured one trawler, and visited Aberdeen, Invergordon, Wick, Inverness, Fortrose and Cromarty Harbours. In the absence of H. M. S. Jackal, the cruisers Niger and Cockchafer were detailed by the Admiralty to take her place and to protect the fisheries from illegal trawling. The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have during the past year rendered much assistance to the Fishery Board in despatching cruisers for the protection of the fishing industry. During that period, no fewer than 32 cases of alleged illegal trawling have been proceeded against, and three more are still under investigation, besides the recent capture of seven trawlers by the Jackal.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the name of the trawler which was captured by the Jackal in October last?

said that two accounts had been received on the matter, one from the Admiralty, and one from the Fishery Board. One called the trawler the North West and the other the North Star.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the fact that the Chairman of the Royal Commission (Highlands and Islands 1892) has informed the Secretary for Scotland that the final proofs of the maps to accompany the Report of the Royal Commission are expected to be in the hands of the Stationery Office by the end of this month, he can state the probable date when the Report will be ready for presentation to Parliament?

The letterpress of the Report of the Highlands and Islands Commission is, I am informed, already in type, and copies could be struck off in a few days if required. The maps have not yet all been received at the Stationery Office. It will take, probably, about six weeks to lithograph and strike off the necessary number of copies after the receipt of the last map at the Stationery Office.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government will lay upon the Table all correspondence which has passed between the Imperial Government and the Government of Newfoundland relating to the present financial crisis in that Colony, and to the request for aid by the Government of Newfoundland?

Correspondence on the subject will be laid when it is complete.

wished to point out that in his question he asked the hon. Gentleman for all correspondence that had taken place between the Government of this country and the Government of Newfoundland in relation to the present financial crisis in that country, and to reply that the correspondence would be laid on the Table when completed, was to say that no correspondence would be laid on the Table of the House until the present grave and dire distress had passed away. Under these circumstances he hoped the hon. Gentleman would see his way to answer the question a little more fully.

said, it was not a usual practice to present incomplete correspondence, but he would see whether an exception could be made in this instance.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state what is the cause of the delay of the Local Government Board in sending an arbitrator to value the plots of land and the proposed sites for labourers' cottages at Rhodus and Emly, in the Tipperary Poor Law Union; will he arrange to have those plots of land, &c., valued now, so as the labourers may get possession, fence in, and cultivate them early this spring; is he aware that for the work of fencing in the plots of land the labourers would get paid by the Poor Law Guardians, and that this employment in itself would be a boon to the labourers in the present hard and trying season; and, would the Local Government Board remove the cause of those complaints, and send an arbitrator immediately to value the plots of land for labourers in the parish of Emly, Tipperary Poor Law Union?

An arbitrator cannot be sent down in such cases until the Provisional Order authorising the Guardians' Improvement Scheme has become absolute, or, if it be petitioned against, has been confirmed by the Privy Council. The Provisional Order in this instance was signed only on the 1st inst., and on the 4th copies were sent to the Guardians with a view to their being served upon the owners and occupiers of the lands proposed to be taken. The Local Government Board have not yet been informed by the Guardians whether this has been done, and the order has not so far, therefore, been published. As there is a right of appeal allowed to all parties interested for one month from the date of the publication of the order, it is evident that the appointment of an arbitrator, however desirable the object in view, cannot at present be made.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will lay upon the Table the terms of the new appointment to the Education Department which has been given to Mr. Sadler, together with any correspondence concerning the need of such appointment, and state whether the creation of this new appointment was recommended by the permanent heads of the Education Department, or by any other Educational Authorities; and, if so, whether he will lay these Papers upon the Table?

I have told the hon. Gentleman what the purposes are for which the appointment which he mentions has been made. It is held on the same conditions as other similar posts in the Civil Service. The laying on the Table of the correspondence with the Treasury on the subject is, I think, unnecessary. I think it is contrary to the interest of the public service that I should say anything about the opinion of my advisers at the Department on this matter or any other matter of this sort.

Are we to understand that this appointment has been made on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman, and that a personal friend has been put over the heads of officials? I am only asking whether it is a fact that this gentleman has been placed over the heads of men who have been many years in the public service, and without even possessing the qualifications which are required of other persons in the public service.

did not reply.

I shall put a further question on the Paper with regard to this matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that at present the Mail Service from the Bundoran Junction to Ballyshannon and Bundoran towns and district is carried along the county road parallel to the railway, and owing to the constant delays in connection therewith much inconvenience has been caused to traders and others; could he state what is the existing contract for the carriage of such mails, and when will it terminate; and, whether he would consider of making an arrangement with the railway company for the carriage of the same?

The question of substituting a Night Mail Service by railway for the present Mail Cart Service between Bundoran Juuction, Ballyshannon, and Bundoran, has been several times fully considered. There are no trains running which would be suitable for the Mail Service, and the last communication on the subject from the railway company made it quite clear that the establishment of special trains for postal purposes would entail a heavy outlay far in excess of any payment that I should be justified in sanctioning. The prospect seems no more favourable at the present time, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot meet the hon. Member's views.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the remarkable evidence given by Mr. Micks, Secretary to the Congested Districts Board, at the sitting of the Financial Relations Commission, in which he bore testimony to the deplorable condition of the ordinary farm labourers in portions of North Cork, saying it is worse than that of their brethren in the congested districts of Connaught; and whether, in view of the almost total failure of the potato crop in that district, the Government will accede to the request contained in the Resolution of the Kanturk Board of Guardians of 22nd November, 1894, and grant reproductive loans to tenant farmers at low interest for the purpose of providing useful employment for the labourers, and thus alleviating distress, as was done in 1881, when money was advanced to landlords at nominal interest; also his attention had been directed to Resolutions of the Kanturk (county Cork) Board of Guardians, pointing out the acute distress and suffering now prevailing amongst the smaller tenants and the labourers in many parts of that Union, owing to the almost total failure of the potato crop and the utter lack of employment; and whether, in view of this condition of things, he will accede to the request of the guardians and allocate a portion of the funds set apart for the opening of relief works to the needs of this Union?

My attention has been drawn to a newspaper report of the observations of the Secretary to the Congested Districts Board on the occasion in question. No doubt the granting of small loans to farmers, as suggested, would lead to the circulation of money among the labouring classes generally, but as a measure of immediate relief it is doubtful whether it would be effective in reaching the most necessitous cases. The Spring work will commence upon the breaking up of the frost, when it is hoped the temporary difficulties of the labouring classes will be at an end. The numbers in receipt of outdoor relief in this Union are considerably less than at the corresponding period of last year. With regard to the condition of the smaller tenants in the Union, the Local Government Board have made inquiries but do not consider that their circumstances are such as to call for the opening of relief works.

asked whether, if relief works could not be started, the right hon. Gentleman would see that instructions were issued to the Local Government Board to meet the distress by granting additional outdoor relief, and whether he would endeavour to prevent persons who were in receipt of outdoor relief from being disfranchised?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would extend any action he might take to the neighbouring Union, which was also keenly in want of relief of some kind.

said he had no power to interfere with the question of disfranchisement, but pointed out that Boards of Guardians had powers to deal with exceptional distress.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General when it is proposed to commence the building of the new post office at Portadown?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to push on the erection of this office in order that some much needed work might be provided in that part of the county?

The question is more properly one for the Chief Secretary as representing the Board of Public Works in Ireland; but I have ascertained that plans and specifications for the new post office building at Portadown will be ready by the 1st of April, and that tenders will then be invited. Provision for the expenditure has been made in the Board's Estimates for 1895–6.

May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will use his influence in this matter?

The question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

Then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will use his influence with the Treasury to get this building erected immediately?

said he would do his utmost to meet the wishes of the hon. and gallant gentleman.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will agree to pay the Irish landlords who have sold their estates under Lord Ashbourne's Act one-third of the amount of their guarantee deposits on the expiration of one-third of the period for which those deposits were arranged to be held?

By the 3rd section of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act of 1885, it is enacted that—

"The Land Commission shall retain the guarantee deposit until they ascertain and by order declare that the person liable for the repayment of the advance has repaid on account of principal money a sum equal to the guarantee deposit, and shall then pay over the guarantee deposit to the person entitled thereto."

From this it will be seen that there is no power to release a guarantee deposit or any part thereof until the provisions of the above-quoted section have been fully complied with. Under normal circumstances it will take about 17½ years to repay on account of principal a sum equal to a guarantee deposit of one-fifth of an advance. The Land Commissioners do not recommend the change suggested.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a recent prosecution at the Central Criminal Court, conducted by Her Majesty's Solicitor General, against two employees of the General Post Office and others, on a charge of conspiracy to forge and alter betting telegrams, and to utter such telegrams with intent to defraud certain bookmakers, in the course of which prosecution the existence was proved of a racing department at the central office in direct communication with every racecourse, and affording every facility for the transmission of "starting price" betting telegrams; and whether he will take steps to prevent the Post Office being made the medium for betting transactions, which, if made at any other place, might render the parties liable to penalties under the Betting Acts?

The prosecution to which the hon. Member refers was instituted by me, and I am fully aware of the circumstances of this deplorable case. It is hardly correct to say that there is a racing department in the Central Telegraph Office, though, for convenience of arrangement and working, the wires dealing with similar classes of work are grouped together. I have no reason to believe that telegrams which might render the sender liable to penalties under the Betting Acts are numerous. But in any case it would be inconsistent with my duty, which obliges me to forward telegrams without preference, to attempt to discriminate between the different classes of telegrams entrusted to the Post Office for transmission.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, with the view of facilitating payments before Grant of Probate (or Administration) for the purpose of defraying Estate Duty, he will arrange that the Inland Revenue Authorities shall receive the papers necessary for Probate (or Administration) and, after approval of them, issue a memorandum that the grant to A.B. awaits only the payment within (say) a month of £ Estate Duty, and should the grant after all not be made as proposed, return in due course to the payer thereof any duty received?

This could not be done without Legislation, even if it were desirable from the point of view either of the taxpayer or of the Revenue. But, in my judgment, it would be very undesirable for the taxpayer, as well as for the Exchequer. The Grant of Probate would in many cases be greatly delayed, while the collection of the Revenue would be retarded.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis (Mr. T. Gibson Bowles), I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been given to Section 1 of the Finance Act, 1894, which merges in the estate duty the legacy and succession duties at the rate of £1 per cent., and enacts that these 1 per cent. legacy and succession duties shall no longer be levied in respect of property on which estate duty has been paid; whether he is aware that, in numerous cases, the 1 per cent. duties were paid in advance, in anticipation of the death of the person at whose decease the property would pass, such payments being made before the passing of the Finance Act; whether, in all such cases, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have insisted, and still insist, on the payment of the full estate duty, and at the same time refuse to make any allowance there from of the 1 per cent. duty which had been paid in advance, although such 1 per cent. duty is now abolished in respect of all property on which estate duty has been paid; and whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are justified by the Act in thus retaining duties paid in anticipation of a death, when, on the actual occurrence of the death, it is found that those duties have been abolished and merged in another duty which has been duly paid?

I believe in this matter that the view taken by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is in accordance with the law. I have not yet had the opportunity of fully examining the points referred to. If I find that any practical injustice has arisen, I will consider what remedy should be applied.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Western Division of Wolverhampton (Sir A. Hickman), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether he is aware that the tests, requirements, and stipulations for steel for the Indian State Railways are such as are imposed by no other railways in the world; (2) whether he is aware that such stipulations add materially to the price paid, and compel the use of foreign ores and materials instead of those produced in this country; and (3) whether he will consider the advisability of relaxing these tests, so as to allow of the use on the Indian railways of British materials?

My answer to the first two clauses of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As regards the alleged exclusion of British ores and materials, I am advised that the exclusion of basic steel is confined to the case of axles, tyres, and locomotives generally; that the best class of this basic steel is accepted, with certain exceptions, for girders; and that the commoner class is freely accepted when offered for rails and sleepers, which form the bulk of the steel sent to India. In view of the great importance of securing the best qualities of material, I am advised that it would be undesirable to propose any relaxation of the existing tests.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a public exhibition of hypnotism at the Aquarium, where men and women are kept in a state of suspended animation, which, in the opinion of the medical authorities, is attended with considerable risk to life; and whether he can take any steps to put an end to such exhibitions?

I have received a report from the Police on this subject which is to the effect that, according to their information, there is no evidence that the exhibitions in question are attended with risk to the persons who are the subjects of them; and, in the absence of evidence of such risk, it is not a case in which the police can interfere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will procure and circulate for the information of those Members who desire it a print of the shorthand notes of the evidence before the justices at New market, given in the recent case under the Betting Law, so that they may have the advantage of the decision there given, in order to determine whether this House should repeal or amend the present law in regard to public betting.

A full report of the case appeared in The Times of the 13th and 18th inst. The prosecution was not a Government prosecution, and I have no information as to whether any shorthand notes of the evidence were taken beyond those taken for Press purposes; nor do I think in any case that I should be justified in circulating at the public expense the transcript of shorthand notes of proceedings of which an adequate newspaper report is already accessible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the great distress and scarcity of fuel, now prevailing in Millstreet, County Cork; and whether that district will be generously considered when the sum recently voted is being distributed?

The Local Government Board have received no reports as to the alleged existence of great distress and scarcity of fuel in Millstreet Union. The numbers on outdoor relief have not increased as compared with corresponding period of last year, and the Board state that the Guardians did not think it necessary to apply for a loan for seed potatoes this year. The Board will instruct their Inspectors to make further inquiries and report on the condition of the people in this district.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the extraordinary number of police now stationed in Millstreet, County Cork; and, whether, the peaceful condition of the district being considered, a material reduction in the numbers of constabulary may now be made?

The number of police now stationed at Millstreet is 17, which, I am informed, is below the former strength. The area comprised in the district is unusually large, and contains 50 townlands. An adjoining sub-district was broken up in July 1892, and most of it was merged in the Mill-street sub-district. The Constabulary Authorities are of opinion that the strength of the force at Millstreet cannot at present be reduced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to resolutions, passed by the Galway Board of Guardians and by the Harbour Board, pointing out that owing to the extreme severity of the weather there is a complete paralysis of trade, and, in consequence, numbers of people are without employment and in want of the bare necessaries of life; and that, as the Board of Guardians are unable to cope with the widespread and far-reaching distress caused by the failure of the potato crop, they urge upon the Government the necessity for starting works of public utility in order to provide employment for these people; and what steps, if any, the Government have taken to meet the urgent requirements of the case.

I have seen the resolutions to which reference is made. In Galway, as in other towns, the labouring classes have undoubtedly suffered from want of employment caused by the recent severe weather; but the Local Government Board are of opinion that this distress, which is of a temporary character, can be met by the ordinary Poor Laws. Their Inspector has been directed to visit Galway and inquire closely into the condition and resources of the poor in the town. I may add that it is proposed to open works for the relief of small landholders in some of the Western portions of the Galway Union.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the proposed directions in reference to the qualification of mayors of boroughs for the county bench, under the Local Government Act of 1894, will be issued by Her Majesty's Government; whether these directions will provide for mayors' oaths being taken before justices for either counties or boroughs, or before justices for the County only; and, whether mayors may safely qualify before the actual directions are issued?

I am not sure to what proposed directions the hon. Member refers. There is no intention at present to issue any directions as to the qualification of mayors of boroughs to act, under the Local Government Act, 1894, as justices for the county in which such boroughs are situated. But a circular letter is in the Press, and will shortly be sent to the authorities concerned, informing them that the chairman of an urban or rural district council under that Act, being in virtue of it an ex-officio justice of the peace for the county in which such district is situate, may take the oath of allegiance and judicial oath required to be taken by such justice before two or more justices for the county, sitting in petty sessions.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as junior telegraph clerks are compelled to take their annual leave during the months of January, February, November, and December, he will favourably consider the expediency of confining the holidays within eight months of the year, as in the case of sorters and postmen?

I am anxious, whenever it is possible without serious expense and inconvenience to the Service, to enable the Staff to take their annual leave in the more pleasant months of the year, but I regret that in the case of Telegraphists it is not always easy or practicable to do this, as the Telegraphic business is heaviest in the summer months, and requires, therefore, in those months the larger staff.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the punitive police force is still quartered on the village of Balladhun?

The punitive police force quartered on the villages in the Cachar district, of which Balladhun is one, was sanctioned for one year only, which ended on the 30th June 1894. On the 4th June the Chief Commissioner declined to sanction its retention for a further period. It may, therefore, be assumed that the force has been withdrawn.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the vacant Crown farm in Suffolk has been offered to tenants as small holdings or allotments; if not, will he offer it for those purposes at reasonable rents; and whether he will also consider if the land could with advantage be offered as an experiment for afforestation, the Crown to find the necessary capital at a low rate of interest?

No application for small holdings or allotments on the Crown farm in hand at Shimpling, Suffolk, has been received, and the Commissioner of Woods is not aware of any demand for them. The land is understood to be ill suited for the purpose as the soil is very stiff, often requiring three or four horses to a plough. The Commissioners of Woods have no power to advance money to others for experimental purposes, and they consider that as a whole the Estate is too wet and stiff for the growth of timber. Oak is almost the only thing that could be tried, and that would not, the Commissioners think, ever grow timber that would pay.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Lynch, senior, of Deffier, South Leitrim, in the year 1893, applied to the Board of Works for a loan of £35, and the inspector having visited his land, he paid on the 1st December, 1893, ten shillings on account of preliminary expenses, but that on the 6th January, 1894, the Board of Works refused to consider the application for the loan, and have retained the money he forwarded them; and, whether, as this tenant purchased his holding under the Ashbourne Act, and was willing to give solvent security for the repayment of the loan, he will be prepared to recommend, in view of the prevailing distress, that the rule of the Board of Works in these cases be modified or suspended, and the loan granted to this man to enable him and his family to make necessary improvements on their holding.

John Lynch, of Deffier, Co. Leitrim, on 27th November, 1893, applied for a loan of £35, and lodged the usual deposit of ten shillings to cover expenses in the event of the loan not being proceeded with. Before a loan can be granted under the Land Law Act, 1881, the Board of Works, amongst other conditions, have to be satisfied that it is required to meet the cash expenditure involved by the proposed works, and not as a fund from which to recoup the applicant and members of his family for their personal labour. The Board's Inspector estimated the value of the proposed work at £38.17s. if done by hired labour, but reported that the applicant and his three sons could do half at least of the work. This reduced the estimate of cost to £19. 8s. 6d., and, as the minimum loan is £35, no loan could be made to Mr. John Lynch. The deposit of ten shillings has been retained to meet part of the expenses of the Inspection. I am afraid that I could not recommend any relaxation in the rules for land loans.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state when the lighthouse on the Flannan Islands, recommended by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, will be commenced.

The estimates of the three general lighthouse authorities for the coming year are now under consideration, and no decision has yet been arrived at. The erection of a light on Flannan Islands is one out of several new works which have in principle been approved; but, in the present condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, not all of those approved can be undertaken in the coming year.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the recent election of an assistant overseer for the township of Broughton, in the Salford Union, to fill a vacancy caused by death; and whether, seeing that prior to the passing of the new Parish Councils Act it would have rested with the Poor Law Guardians to make a suitable appointment under these circumstances, and that the change in the Law has necessitated the revival of an old Act of George III., resulting in two large vestry meetings and a three days' poll with open voting, he will consider the advisability of providing that such appointments should revert to some local authority?

Under Section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1894, the Town Council of the Borough of Salford, in which the township of Broughton is situate, can apply to the Local Government Board for an Order to confer upon them the power of appointing an assistant overseer for the township. If such an Order were issued, the object which my hon. Friend has in view would in future be met.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention having been directed to the proposed Macroom and Ballyvourney Railway extension, and the unanimous demand for this reproductive public work, the Government are prepared to give any practical facility towards its completion?

This project was approved of by the Grand Jury of County Cork at the Summer Assizes of 1889, but a guarantee to aid in the construction of the line was refused by that body. The attention of the Board of Works has not since been called to the subject, except by a report in the Cork papers of about three weeks since of a discussion at the Macroom Board of Guardians, at which the project was stated to be very desirable. I am not aware that the line has been begun. There are no funds at the disposal of the Board of Works or the Treasury for assisting the project.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what total expenditure has been incurred in the military, political, and transport operations carried on during the last three years beyond the northern frontiers of India, at Gilgit, Hunza, Chitral, and Chilas, and what portion, if any, has been borne by Kashmir; and will any Papers be laid presently upon the Table of the House bearing on the recently reported disturbances in the Hindu Kush?

I can give the House a Return of the expenditure incurred on these frontiers up to the end of 1892–3, but for figures of a later date, and for the expenditure incurred by the Kashmir State, I should have to ask the Government of India. If the hon. Member alludes to the disturbances in Chitral, the information at my disposal is not sufficiently complete to enable me to lay Papers yet before the House.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Powell Williams), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent outbreak at Woodbury Hill Reformatory; whether he is aware that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children undertook the defence of the boys who were summoned before the Magistrates; that the schoolmaster of the reformatory admitted that the boys had been kept in a schoolroom from morning till night during the recent severe weather without fire; that some boys were punished by being confined in a cell six feet square, constructed like a shed outside the building, without means of warmth and without bedding, and that when so confined they were without shoes or stockings; whether he is also aware that the reformatory is an old farmhouse with defects of construction such as make it very cold in severe weather; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the whole of the circumstances of the outbreak, and into any cause of complaint which the inmates of the reformatory may have ground to make?

Yes, Sir; my attention was called to the outbreak at the Woodbury Hill Reformatory, and immediate inquiry was made into the circumstances, and two reports have been furnished to me. It is the case that the defence of the boys who were summoned was undertaken by an agent of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It appeared in evidence that the boys had recently been kept in a schoolroom without fire the whole day, that some boys had been punished by confinement in a cell as described, and in one case a boy's shoes and stockings were taken away. It is not the case that the boys who were confined in the cell were left without bedding and the means of warmth. The buildings are reported to be very defective for the purpose of a reformatory, and the question of closing the school is now under my consideration.

interposed on a point of Order, and asked Mr. Speaker's ruling on the question whether the Motion of the right hon. and learned Member was in order.

I have not heard the Motion yet.

I rise, Sir, to ask permission to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the recent imposition of duties on the importation of cotton manufactures into India.

again rising to a point of Order, asked whether this Motion came within the scope of the Standing Order which permitted Motions for the Adjournment of the House on matters of urgent public importance. This question, he said, might have been discussed on the Address a week ago, and it was, he submitted, no more urgent now than then. What he thought the Standing Order contemplated was, the occurrence of some sudden emergency either in Home or Foreign Affairs, and in support of this view he called attention to a previous ruling of Mr. Speaker, in which it appoared to be laid down that Motions for the Adjournment of the House should be used only for the purpose of "bringing under notice some grievance demanding instant remedy."

In my opinion, the ruling to which the hon. Member refers is entirely inapplicable to the present Motion. As I understand, this is an alleged grievance requiring instant remedy.

Oh!

Order, order! The hon. Member has asked for my opinion, and I hope he will listen to me with courtesy.

I beg your pardon, Sir.

The last words quoted by the hon. Member bring the case distinctly within the meaning of the point of Order I made formerly, namely,—

"Action which has been taken or not taken fur bringing under notice some grievance demanding instant remedy."

The reason why I objected to the Motion on a former occasion was its vague character and wide scope; this relates to the recent imposition of a duty affecting a particular industry. I have very seldom interfered—only, I think, once. This is a matter alleged to be of urgent public importance. I cannot deny that it is of importance. I cannot deny it is of urgent importance; and, seeing that these duties have been recently imposed, I cannot deny that it is of recent occurrence. Upon all these grounds, therefore, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is in order. As far as I am concerned, I cannot interfere to prevent his submitting the Motion to learn the pleasure of the House; the House, and the House alone, must judge.

thereafter called upon—

who said: I desire, in the first place, to remove a false impression which may possibly exist in relation to this Motion and its object. Some hon. Members may feel that the Motion is raised in the interests of a particular trade, and may, from that point of view, be regarded as hostile to the interests of our great dependency in the East. If such a view be entertained I will do all I can to dispel it. There is no one in the House who will not acknowledge that the House ought to be not only just, but even generous, with regard to the interests of our Indian fellow-subjects. As our Indian fellow-subjects are not directly represented in this House it is our duty to see that their interests are fully protected in any course which the Government or this House shall take. And if that be the view of hon. Members, still more strongly, I believe, is it the opinion entertained by those in whose interests I am speaking to-night— namely, the Lancashire trades, and especially the textile trades of Lancashire. The prosperity of India represents the prosperity of Lancashire. India is the greatest market of Lancashire, and anything which interferes unduly with the prosperity of our Indian Empire strikes more directly against Lancashire interests and trade than against any other portion of the home country. I can assure the House that those with whom I am associated feel most strongly that they would be acting not only a selfish, but an unpatriotic and suicidal, part if they desired other than full consideration for the interests of India. Lancashire has no desire to see the competition of India in the textile industry interfered with. For years the cotton industry of India has been happily growing to a position of prosperity, until it has become a serious competitor with the textile industries of this country. Lancashire has nothing to fear from that competition. It is perfectly willing to enter into the contest with our Indian fellow-subjects; all it asks is, that the race shall be run at level weights. I hope the House will allow me, in a few sentences, to state the position of the different cotton trades in this country and in India. There are three sources from which the raw material, cotton fibre, is derived. There is—firstly, the American cotton, which represents the finer descriptions of yarn. There is—secondly, the Indian cotton, which produces a coarse yarn, and which is used in Indian manufactures. A third market, the Egyptian, has come into existence, which, it is supposed, in the competition of finer goods, is about to play an important part. The House will hear this evening, phrases describing the measure between the finer and coarser description of goods. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India, will use the terms below 20's and above 20's. That is represented by the number of hanks to the pound. When the cotton is spun off in hanks the coarser is the heavier, and there are fewer hanks to the pound. The coarser cotton is below 20; but the finer quality is lighter in weight, and runs as high as 60 or 70 hanks to the pound. The condition of the markets may be described very shortly. In early times Great Britain had no competitor in India, and it was not till 1855 that the first mill was opened in Bombay. But from that time to this there has been great progress in the course of the textile trade in India. There has been a growth of mills, spindles, and looms, and the result has been that India has taken almost the whole of the Japan and China trade in yarns from Great Britain, and also manufactures large quantities of piece goods from the yarn, principally for home consumption in India, but also partly for export purposes. I say again that Lancashire does not grudge that increase for a moment, if it is unweighted in the race and is allowed an open market in India. It is only when that free market is denied to the trade of Great Britain and when a specific advantage is given to a competitor, that the trade of Lancashire finds it necessary to make any complaint. This is not a mere matter of wayward complaint. It has always been the contention of Lancashire that the import duty is a dead weight upon its trade. It commenced to make that complaint long ago. I need not weary the House with any historical retrospect, therefore I do not trace the position of these duties. The system of Import Duties commenced under the old East India Company; they were felt to be a burden and they were combated by the veteran Free Traders in this House. The matter was brought to the attention of the House in 1877, when the House passed its condemnation upon these duties, principally because they were, in its opinion protective. The Resolution of July 1877 recited that the Import Duties upon cotton goods, being protective duties, were contrary to sound policy. An advance was made in the next two years. Between 1877–79 there was an alteration made in the levying of the duties. The line was drawn at 30 hanks to the pound, and no duty was imposed below 30. According to my right hon. Friend's view, that was no protective duty, because there was no competition in India above the 30's. India produced no cotton so fine as 30's, and, therefore, as the Indian merchant never came to the "30" market, there was no protective duty at all, it was argued. The House, in April 1879 passed this Resolution:—

"That the Indian Import Duties on cotton goods, being unjust alike to the Indian consumer and the English producer, ought to be abolished; and this House accepts the recent reduction of these duties as a step towards their total abolition, to which Her Majesty's Government are pledged."

The House will forgive me if I do not occupy its time by discussing what the effect of a Resolution of the House of Commons may be. The merchants and operatives of Lancashire do not say that that Resolution is positively to determine their rights; they do not say that that Resolution effected a revolution; but—still it recorded a reform—they think that it was an expression of opinion of the House of Commons condemnatory of the duties under circumstances that, I believe the House will see, were much more favourable to their maintenance than those which exist at the present moment. Sir, with the Resolution upon the records of the House the commercial men of Lancashire believed that their position was safe, that no import duties would be imposed in face of it, and that all the perfumes of Araby would not get rid of its effects. I am sure my right hon. Friend shared that view, because in March of last year he said—

"I would here remark that, when Parliament had, after protracted discussion, arrived at a distinct Resolution as to the policy that ought to be pursued in respect of this duty in India, it would not be open to the Executive Government to take a step reversing that decision without the matter being discussed in this House."

That was the view of my right hon. Friend. He knows full well that the policy which was declared by the Resolution of 1879 when no protection existed, has been reversed, and that without discussion in this House. This is the first time there has been an opportunity of discussing the matter. These duties were imposed during the Recess, they were never submitted to Parliament for its consideration, and their Policy has never been discussed in this House; and I may appeal to my hon. Friend below me (Sir D. Macfarlane), who objected to this Motion this evening, whether it is unreasonable to ask for a discussion of the Policy of the Government which has been the reversal of the opinion of the House. Approaching this question with the fullest consideration for the interests of India, will it not be better that the discussion should take place in the interests of the Government, and of the true and right position to be relatively occupied by the traders of this country and those of India? In 1882, in pursuance of the Policy declared by Parliament, the Duties were entirely abolished, the markets were opened, and under the Free Market system India progressed; her trade increased, driving Lancashire away from the markets of Japan and China; her spindle and looms increased, her yarns were produced in enormous quantities, coming within a fair reach of the trade in yarn carried on by this country. The trade of India all this time was flourishing and increasing, whilst the trade of this country has of late become depressed and each day less profitable; until not only is the position of the capitalist imperilled, but the employment of the operative become more precarious. This was the position when there came the necessity, which every one admitted, of dealing with an Indian deficit. It was not a great deficit, but it was one that it was the duty of the Indian Government to deal with. We had a deficit which, I think, may be almost traced to the fact that the Indian Government thought it right to consider one particular interest. The deplorable fall in the value of the rupee had caused the officials of the Indian Government, particularly those who had their families in this country, to suffer considerable loss of income. The Government had to make up that deficit, and the course taken by the officials was to look round and see how they could best find the means of persuading the Government that they could receive this addition to their superannuations, pensions, pay, and allowances. They had friends in the country. The Bombay industry had become very powerful. The Bombay Millowners' Association was at hand, and the Bombay Millowners' Association held out their hand to the Civil Servants of India and appealed to them for help to start this agitation in India to secure an import duty, and from that import duty to find the means of paying this increase to the superannuations, pensions, pay, and allowances to the Anglo-Indian officials. The right hon. Gentleman will probably tell you something of Indian opinion. It would be interesting to trace what is meant by that Indian opinion. It is impossible to suppose that a duty which is imposed for revenue purposes only—and which, according to my right hon. friend, will be borne by the consumers, the natives of India—will be borne by the consumers. Is it possible to suppose there could have been any enthusiasm on the part of the consumer, the native of India, that he should be taxed by means of this import duty which, it is said, he has to pay? Of course, nobody wishes to be taxed, and when we are told the natives of India agitated to be taxed in order to meet this deficit, I ask hon. Members to pause for a moment and ask themselves whether that is correct. In expressing this view I rely upon the tale as told very frankly at page 48 of the Blue-book on the Indian Tariff Act and the Cotton Duties. Mr. Mehta, a member of the Legislative Council, said:—

"But I would appeal to other hon. Members who are officials. The present financial exigency is owing not a little to the services having secured exchange compensation. They joined the Indians in agitation for the imposition of duties of cotton imports for the purpose of meeting the deficit largely due to exchange compensation. If after having secured such imposition they would refuse to support the moderate amendment of Mr. Fazulbhai—"

another native member of the Council—

"to succour a native industry from being harassed and burdened, they would be open to the suspicion that their coaxing tones to induce the natives to join in the agitation against Manchester were suspiciously akin to the interested seductions—made familiar by Dickens—of 'Codlins the friend, not Short.' "

I may be wrong, but as this statement has not, as far as I know, been contradicted, I assume it to be correct. Now, I ask any Member of this House, is it unreasonable that, when this agitation has been proceeding against Manchester, Manchester should ask at least to be heard here in the matter? This agitation has been carried on against Manchester, against the trade that has been lost by the fall in the value of the rupee more than any other interest of the country. But whilst this agitation has beer carried on against Manchester, are we to be told it would be unpatriotic on the part of Manchester to ask permission to state their case to the House? I am very much afraid my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with the very best intention in the world, has been misled by someone. He is the Indian Minister. He is surrounded by Indian officials, whose duty they may feel is to think only of the interest of India. My right hon. Friend has heard all the representations and numerous memorials from the Bombay mill-owners and the Chamber of Commerce of Bombay. He has listened to every one of the statements that could be brought before him on the part of those who agitated against Manchester. I may say the feeling on the part of Lancashire is that my right hon. Friend always bore in mind he was the Indian Minister only, and never thought he was a British Minister also, and a representative of British interests. The policy of imposing these duties came before the Minister in August of last year, and he gave his decision upon the subject in December. He had since these many representations received the report of Mr. Westland, the Minister who, when he obtained information, went to the mill-owners of Bombay and obtained the information that was to guide the Legislative Council of India, from the representatives of the Bombay trades. All these views my right hon. Friend had before him. They represented one view of the matter. Now, I ask my right hon. Friend, with whom did he take counsel on behalf of Lancashire? There has been a practice in these matters. Ministers in the position of my right hon. Friend have consulted such bodies as the Manchester Chamber of Commerce; they have consulted men on whose judgment they could well rely, and I now respectfully, if it is not unduly inquisitive, ask my right hon. Friend with whom did he consult and learn practically—for there is an immense amount of practical knowledge required—with whom did he consult in order to obtain information as to how far the course he was about to pursue would injure the Lancashire trade? Were those interests considered at all? They could not be considered practically or even theoretically by any Indian Minister without an appeal to practical men having practical knowledge of the subject. I must tell my right hon. Friend there is a feeling in Lancashire that he did not consult any one if those practical merchants or manufacturers with a knowledge of the subject, and there is a feeling at the present moment—a feeling which I hope will be removed by the statement of my right hon. Friend—that their interests were neglected, and that the agitation against Manchester proceeded without those interests ever being heard on their own behalf. If this be the case—I hope it is not—will not my right hon. Friend on reflection feel that it would have been well for him if he had taken advice from practical men and learned the effect of his policy upon the markets of this country? I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury present. I wish my right hon. Friend had asked the Member for Oldham, in his capacity as the representative of that place, what he, with his great knowledge, thought of this matter. Did he consult the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? Did he consult any one in a similiar position, or did he not, as Lancashire thinks at the present moment, seek guidance alone from those who represent Indian interests without sufficiently considering the interests of this country? I hope it is not too much to say, on behalf of those who desire most strenuously to see Indian interests always considered, that it is not unreasonable that those interests should be considered with some regard to British interests also. There is no necessity why they should ever be opposed one to the other. Apparently that course has not been taken, hence the feeling which exists in Lancashire; a feeling which is of the strongest kind. I have now simply to point out to the House what it is my right hon. Friend has done. He has yielded to the Indian representations; the agitation against Manchester has succeeded. My right hon Friend, I quite admit, deducted somewhat from the demands made upon him, but if Mr. Mehta is correct, the Anglo Indians asked for a 5 per cent. Import Duty, and in that respect were comrades of the Bombay millowners. Now, all British yarns, British manufactured goods, go into India with an import duty of 5 per cent. upon them. I take that duty as if there were no competition or as if there were full countervailing duties against it. But an import duty alone is detrimental to trade, is an obstacle to trade, and there can be no one I should think, in this House who would feel that perhaps, more strongly than my right hon. Friend himself, and those supporters of his who are sincere free-traders. They have a desire to see markets opened, they have preached to the nations of the world the desirability that all markets should be open and there must be some amongst my right hon. Friend's own supporters who will feel with regret that our position when we appeal to protective countries is weakened by the act which has taken place. It may be an act of necessity, but when next we preach the doctrine to Germany or to France, or to our Colonies that Import Duties are an evil in themselves and ought not to be imposed, the answer will come to us—

"Why look at home; your Imperial Parliament has sanctioned an Import Duty; under these circumstances how can you preach to us the folly of protection and the virtue of free trade?"

There are some veterans in this House who have not forgotten the Free Trade struggles of 50 years ago, and they will recall the days when they fought for open markets. I think there may possibly be some to-night who will regret that this Import Duty has been imposed, but, Sir, I am not about to say that there is not the possibility of an Import Duty being justified under some circumstances. Yet, Sir, I hope I shall have the sanction of the House to the proposition that these Import Duties ought not to be imposed without their absolute necessity being proved to the very hilt. The imposition of Import Duties produces dislocation of trade and unsettlement of trade, and, of course, the burden must be borne by some one. My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, say that the Indian consumer will bear that burden; but in what sense will he bear it? The Indian consumer will not have more money to spend because you impose this Import Duty on British goods. He will have only the same amount of money to spend on cotton goods. Indeed, having this 5 per cent. duty to pay, or a charge of a farthing in the pound weight more on the goods, the Indian consumer will have less to spend. Therefore there will be so much the less in the volume of goods bought, and, the English manufacturer producing so much less and receiving so much less for what he produces, the burden falls on him. It may be said that prima facie the Indian consumer does pay the Import Duty. Of course the consignee of the English manufacturer has to pay the Import Duty, and he must try to get repayment in some way, and he may get some of it from the Indian consumer. But he may be beaten, as I will show later on, by his Indian competitor in the manufacture of the goods. At best the British producer stands only a chance of receiving the Import Duty back, and until he knows whether the market will bear an increased price or not the trade becomes an uncertain and unreliable trade to him. But my right hon. Friend, having been brought to his present state of mind, and having decided to impose those Duties in face of the Resolution of the House in 1879, and without consulting any person practically connected with the Lancashire trade, says —

"I will protect the Lancashire manufacturers themselves by putting an Excise Internal Duty upon the production of the Indian merchant; by putting this Excise Duty upon the product of the Indian merchant I will burden him as I have burdened the British importer."

But those who have a practical knowledge of the subject say that this countervailing Duty is no protection to the British producer; that it fails entirely to counteract the Import Duty, and that, in consequence of the fallacy of my right hon. Friend, the British producer will have to trade under a system of protection—protection for the Indian producer and protection against the Lancashire producer. For the imposition of that Excise Duty my right hon. Friend selected 20's—that is 20 hanks to the pound—so he relieves the Indian producer from all Excise Duty on everything below 20's. But he has done more. He says to the Indian producer—

"I will put the tax, not on your produced goods; I will put it on the yarn."

The yarn, of course, is spun into gray cloth, bleached, coloured, and printed. These different processes represent material and labour. The Import Duty is placed on the British goods as they are landed, and, therefore, all the processes I have mentioned are taxed. But in the case of the Indian competitor the yarn only is taxed, and the result of the system is—that the difference between the tax on the yarn, and the tax on the ultimate material, is as 60 to 100. Therefore, the Indian producer pays a 3 per cent. tax as compared with the tax of 5 per cent. on the Lancashire producer. That, surely, cannot be a countervailing duty. But I am aware any right hon. Friend will say that it would be inconvenient to put the Excise Tax on piece goods, because it was impossible to get any return of these goods from the Indian manufacturers. But the Government officials could go to the Indian manufacturers and say, "Give us an estimate of what you produce." You could then impose a 5 per cent. Excise Duty on that estimate, which would correspond with the 5 per cent. imported duty put on Lancashire goods. And this is what my right hon. Friend calls "perfect equality" as between the Indian and the Lancashire producer. The Indian manufacturer pays 3 per cent. duty as compared with the 5 per cent. duty paid by the British manufacturer. I have mentioned that Indian goods below 20's are free of this Excise Duty. The Indian manufacturer has therefore got, to use a well-known phrase "a pull" against the British manufacturer, and it is "a pull" of the most important character. I am told that if you manufacture goods at 20's and if you manufacture goods at 22's, no unskilled person can tell the difference. These two classes of goods can only be distinguished by persons possessed of the most expert knowledge of the trade. What then is the position of the two competitors in the market? The Indian producer is enabled to produce this 20's material at 3d. The British producer turns out 22's, say, at an equal price. It would be a fraction dearer. But he has to pay a farthing import duty on the pound, and it, therefore, costs him 3¼d. in the pound. The Indian producer therefore goes into the market and says:—

"I have here some goods; they are as good as any of the English goods; you cannot tell the difference between them; and if the English producer charges you 3¼d. a pound for his goods you can have these at 3d. or 3⅛d. a pound."

If you increase the price of one quality of goods and lessen another, there is naturally protection for the cheaper. The English producer is therefore driven out of the market and has no chance of success. I ask the House, is not that a matter for consideration—a matter upon which my right hon. Friend should have allowed discussion by those practically interested before coming to a final decision? Of course my right hon. Friend says that these two duties are equal and corresponding. But I have been assured by those who have the most practical knowledge of the subject that there is this great difference between them, and that the great competition I have described will be certain to take place—always to the advantage of the untaxed competitor, always to the disadvantage of the taxed competitor. And if we fear at the present time, there is far greater fear for the future. There is this in connection with the markets which causes men engaged in the trade to fell the gravest anxiety. Our principal supplies of raw material come from America. British manufacturers pay low prices—far lower prices for that material than was formerly paid for them. I believe prices are lower than ever they were in the history of the trade. Where formerly India had no fine cotton at her disposal, she can now pay for the American cotton at a price which will enable her to compete in these finer qualities. She will therefore come into the market competing in these goods with a differential duty of 2 per cent., and she is laying out her mills for the purpose of using these qualities of cotton and competing with the British trade. It is no answer to say, "Oh, wait till competition develops itself." These Duties cannot be changed, and a fresh burden thrown on the consumer, lightly, they ought to be settled for good. The Government have made an exemption from the Import Duty so as to allow all machinery to go in free, and the organisation of Bombay millowners is erecting mills which will be able to produce the finer material from the American cotton, with an acknowledged advantage to the extent of the 2 per cent. duty. Hitherto it is quite true that the Lancashire manufacturer has not competed to a very great extent in cottons below 20's. But as prices have altered, and as his profits have been less and less every year, he has had to look after new markets, and he is producing them now, and, in a fair field, he can send them to compete in India. But goods above 20's are now being produced at many mills in India, and the Lancashire manufacturer will be driven out of the market by the 5 per cent. Duty. You ask me what effect I can show to have been produced. The time has been short yet, for Lancashire has made her protest as quickly as possible. India has been progressing and progressing with great power, and has arrived at a wonderful result. From the day when the first cotton mills were erected in Bombay (in 1855) mills have continued to spring into existence, till now there are 141cotton mills in India. In 1882 there were 1,550,000 spindles in India, and now there are 3,500,000 spindles. The result is that India is producing 170,000,000 lb. of yarn against the 40,000,000 lb. of British yarns which goes into India. Whilst India has been progressing, how has the British trade been prospering? According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you have only to look at the volume of trade, and not at the prices. I will not enter upon that question as a whole now, but I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether there is not a point beyond which a fall in prices becomes a calamity. You may say to the agriculturist that he is producing a necessary of which every man is a consumer, and that the consumer gets his produce cheaply is a fact to be gloried in. But does my right hon. Friend carry that doctrine to the full extent? This country is a great producing country, and its export trade represents about 200 millions of money. Would my right hon. Friend wish to see a fall in prices in all trades such as would reduce that 200 millions of trade to only 120 millions? In some trades there must be a line below which it is not desirable that prices should fall. The agriculturist is a passive sufferer. He must hold his land; he cannot shut it up even if he does not receive his rent, though in some cases the land has gone out of cultivation. But when the mill-owner is paying from £500 to £1,000 a week in wages, if he does not get that back you cannot expect him to carry on his mill. In respect of this export trade with foreign nations, my right hon. Friend's joy over falling prices is not shared by the capitalist who is losing his capital, and it is not shared by the men who are shrewd enough to know that if the fall continues it must mean the closing of the mills and a vast addition to the already swollen ranks of the unemployed. I have spoken with great satisfaction of the increasing prosperity of the textile trade in India. I wish I could speak in the same way of the textile trade in Lancashire. Say what you will, that trade was never so depressed as it is today. The volume of trade represents nothing to men who are selling their goods at a loss, and there is much astonishment at the speech of the hon, Member for the Leigh Division (Mr. Caleb Wright) the other day. The hon. Member said that Lancashire never was as prosperous as it is today, and that he had more money than he knew what to do with. I understand that he is or was engaged in a trade of a very peculiar character, and of a very high degree of fineness. He has no Indian trade, and he knows nothing about it. But there are people in Lancashire who have already suffered from the effect of this duty in India. There are some 20,000 looms in Blackburn idle at present on account of this policy, and what does that represent? It means 7,000 persons unemployed. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer exult over that fact? This closing of mills is progressing, and Lancashire Members will tell you that the greatest alarm is spreading lest what has occurred in Blackburn should occur elsewhere. It is said that the mill-owners of Lancashire have not made any returns. But we have returns from some public companies. In the neighbourhood of Oldham there is a congeries of 93 mills of which we have the returns. They have a share capital of £3,874,000, and a loan capital of £3,330,000, and while the shareholders have been paying interest on the loan capital at 4½ per cent., the mills for the last three years have been working at a loss. In 1892 the loss was £101,000, in 1893 it was £72,767, but in 1894 the loss fell to £15,000; but that was in the early part of the year only, and since then the loss has been going on increasing. Where is this to end? Is this trade in a condition in which you can impose an artificial burden on it gratuitously? With these losses growing, and with this further burden, do not you think the time is coming when the mills will not be kept open? The Indian trade has shown us an example. That trade in yarns with China and Japan increased to an enormous extent. In the six years ending 1882 England had two-thirds of the trade with China, Hongkong, and Japan; but in the four years ending 1894 England has only one-fifth of that trade, and India has four-fifths. In the last year, 1893, that Indian trade fell off' from the large figure which it had reached, but the Indian traders would not bear that loss patiently. They asked for a benefit to recoup them for the fall in the rupee. The trade in Lancashire has taken no such step, but has borne the fall in the price of the rupee patiently. It has never been with them a matter of agitation, and now all they ask is that a reason should be given for this additional burden being placed on them. I hope that the House understands how the fall affects the English producer. There has been a fall in prices from two causes. The rupee value of goods fell in India partly on account of competition, and that could be borne by the producer. Then came the fall in exchange, aggravated by the fatal step of closing of the mints, and in a few years prices have diminished to the extent of 70 per cent. on piece goods and 59 per cent. on yarns. Some portion of that loss was recouped by the great fall in the price of raw material; but it was not enough to compensate the producer for the double loss. The question is whether he can bear it, and whether or not it is a Duty which will have the effect of bringing industrial enterprise to an end. It may be that my right hon. Friend will say—"What is the policy which you propose?" That is asking me to bear a grave responsibility. I do not put forward an alternative policy, because I do not know enough of India; but there are those connected with India who say that there are sources of taxation that might afford equally good results with less injustice than by the imposition of those Duties. In the first place, if India needs financial relief, this country as a whole should bear it. I appeal, however, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to note that there is many a rich man in India who bears less taxation than the rich man in this country. What, does my right hon. Friend say to a well regulated Income Tax? What a magnificent field there is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring within the scope of his measures the wealthy Indian, with his hoards of silver and gold. What a fine scope there is for the application of the graduated Death Duties to those native Princes with their hoards of precious metals, and what an opportunity there is provided here to relieve the poor consumer in India of this taxation which we have imposed upon him by the Import Duties. I suggest these two points to the consideration of my right hon. Friend. I have had an important duty to face in representing this great interest in the House. It was the wish of those whom I and other hon. Gentlemen represent to have their view stated with the fullest moderation. I hope I have succeeded; at least, that has been the intention in my mind. On behalf of this great industry, I express the hope that the last words of my right hon. Friend have not been spoken. If, however, it should turn out that his last words have been spoken, then I must say that I am afraid the last words of Lancashire have not been spoken. There cannot be an end to this question as it remains at present. There must be many loyal supporters of the Government who know how deep and true is the feeling in Lancashire on this question: and they can tell the Secretary of State for India that the demands they make upon him this evening are not the demands if capital asking for the retention of inflated profits, or an attempt to secure great gains. On the contrary, they will tell him that this is a universal demand from the humblest men in Lancashire engaged in the trade whose prosperity is thus threatened, fearful of a time, perhaps not far remote, when the streets of busy Lancashire towns may be deserted, when mills may be closed and looms silent, and when they will search in vain for means to earn their daily bread. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Adjournment of the House.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is for the public interest that this question should be brought under the consideration of the House. I think the time has arrived when a clear statement of the facts of the case should be made in the presence of what, after all, is the supreme tribunal of this country. Misrepresentation has been circulated not only in England, but also in India, and therefore on that account, while asking this House to deal with this question as a whole, I will not simply confine myself to that one aspect of the case which my right hon. Friend has submitted to the House. Before, however, I enter upon the further discussion of this question I should like to say one word in self-defence, and, what is far more important, a word in defence of those with whom I am associated in England and in India, and upon whom my right hon. Friend has poured what I may call his eloquent scorn. My right hon. Friend has spoken of the Anglo-Indian officials, some of the most distinguished servants of the Crown both in England and in India. He has spoken of agitators in India to whose blandishments I have succumbed. I shall tell the House before I finish what has been the part that has been taken in India on this question, but I cannot allow another moment to elapse without repudiating, and repudiating in the strongest terms, that there has been any agitation, any conspiracy, on behalf of any class in India in order to deal with this financial difficulty. You might as well charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with entering into some combination—I care not on which side of the House the view is taken—with interested classes when he submits his financial proposals. Perhaps my right hon. Friend is not aware that the distinguished man who is at present Finance Minister in India is a man of the highest standing and of the most unblemished reputation, a man who has served the Crown for a long period of years, and who has received a signal mark of favour from the Crown for his great public services. My right hon. Friend described him as an agitator in combination with a certain class of officials who want to raise their own salaries, and that he has submitted proposals, not to me in England, but to the Legislative Council of India, while the Viceroy whom my right hon. Friend has chiefly attacked is Lord Lansdowne, who ruled India with such success for a period of five years. Are we to regard men of that character and class—men who have by their deeds shown that they take the deepest interest in the welfare of India—described as entering into a combination with Anglo-Indian Officials, agitating against Manchester, and bringing to bear certain influences on the Secretary of State in order to join in that conspiracy?

I never said any thing of the sort. I read out the statement of Mr. Mehta to which reference was made; I quoted his words, on which alone I relied, but I never referred to Lord Lansdowne.

There was, however, an expression which my right hon. Friend used with reference to myself. He did not mean it as a compliment, but I accept it as the greatest compliment. He told the House that I am only an Indian Minister. Yes, that is the post I fill. It is to India that I am responsible as well as to this House, and when my right hon. Friend charges me with sacrificing the interests of England to the interests of India, he will need very satisfactory proof. He has not given that proof in the course of his speech; but I will show my right hon. Friend that the censures upon me in India are quite as severe as the censures upon me in Lancashire. One of the leading organs of public opinion in Lancashire stated that—

"the conspiracy of the Indian Service, the Indian cotton trade, and Mr. Fowler had succeeded."

About the same date there comes from India a statement

"that the sacrifice of Indian interests is the principle underlying this measure, and it is a principle to which a Radical Secretary of State has given his imprimatur."

Further, I observe that it has been stated—not, perhaps, in a very influential quarter in India—that I should be called

"the Secretary of State for Lancashire, not the Secretary of State for India."

That emboldens me to go on with my argument; for, having shown the House that I am attacked from two different points of the compass, it is impossible for both to be true; I cannot have sacrificed Lancashire to India, and I cannot at the same time have sacrificed India to Lancashire. I have endeavoured in dealing, not with my own financial proposals, but with the financial proposals of the Government of India, to steer an even keel and to do what I thought was fair justice to the interests of Lancashire and the interests of India. It is not possible to thoroughly understand this question without, in two or three sentences, considering its history. My right hon. Friend gave the House a short but an interesting account of the various stages through which this question had passed; but I think he omitted one or two points, to which it is my duty to call attention, in order that the House may quite understand that this is not a novel proposal on the part of the Government of India, but that Duties upon Cotton Imports have been imposed, with a short interval, not only during the time of the East India Company, but ever since the Government of India was handed over to the Crown. Originally these Duties were of a protective character, and were, as now,5 per cent.; they were raised at one time to 10 per cent; there were various reductions down to the period to which my right hon. Friend has alluded, when what I may call the agitation in this House against the Indian Cotton Duties commenced, which soon assumed a substantial and real form. These Duties were attacked entirely on the ground of their protective character. That was the ground taken by one of the ablest of Lancashire Cotton Spinners, who was subsequently Under Secretary for India, and whose death we all deplore—Mr. J. K. Cross. He made one of the earliest speeches on this question, and he attacked these Duties solely on the ground of there being no Excise Duties in India, but simply Import Duties on cotton goods imported. My right hon. Friend spoke of the part taken by stalwart Free Traders with reference to these Duties: but at that time there were differences of opinion about them amongst the most stalwart Free Traders. No one will question that the late Mr. Fawcett was one of the soundest and wisest of Free Traders who ever spoke on this subject; and he made in this House a speech which I may quote all the more readily because I have not pursued, and the Government are not pursuing the policy he recommended. I want this House to see how this question then affected the mind of a Member who had taken the deepest interest in Indian affairs, and who was himself a most pronounced Free Trader. He said—

"Frequent references have been made in this Debate to the principles of political economy. If the House were to take the abstract principles of that science and apply them cut and dried without considering the social and political circumstances of the case they would act more like pedants than politicians and might produce an amount of discontent in India which would seriously imperil the integrity of the Empire."

This is the sentence I want to draw special attention to—

"Statesmen must consider, not merely whether a particular tax is theoretically bad, but whether it creates discontent amongst the people, and looking at the question in that light he asserted that there was no single tax levied in India which was so satisfactory to the people of that country as a revenue raised by Import Duties."

My right hon. Friend alluded to the Debate of 1877, and to the Resolution then passed; but he was significantly silent with reference to an important Amendment to that Resolution which was proposed by the noble Lord the late First Lord of the Admiralty, who then represented the India Office in this House, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). The noble Lord would not accept that Resolution—namely—

"That the Duties were protective in their character, contrary to sound commercial policy, and ought to be repealed without delay."

without this addition—

"as soon as the financial condition of India will permit."

That is the crux of the situation; that was the condition on which the House passed the Resolution. The House did not then repeal the Duties. My right hon. Friend would have led anyone to assume that, in consequence of that Resolution, the Duties were forthwith repealed. He said that the merchants, manufacturers and mill-owners made their arrangements on the faith of that Resolution of the House. That is not the case. The Import Duties were not repealed till 1882; and they were not repealed because they were Duties upon cotton goods, but they were repealed, because at that time the financial condition of India allowed of the repeal of all Import Duties. The arguments used in that Debate had mainly reference to the coarser counts of which my right hon. Friend spoke. This is a point on which stress has to be aid, as it has a bearing upon the present condition of affairs: it was pressed in the Debate as it had been in Lord Salisbury's Despatches of 1874 and 1875 Mr. Sidebottom, who spoke for the cotton trade, said—

"We have already lost our trade in the coarser goods, which can be supplied more cheaply by Indian manufacturers."

In a subsequent Debate Mr. Briggs stated that

"the coarser floods were once sent from this country, but that that trade had disappeared because the duties were repealed too late."

The argument used in 1875, 1877, and 1879 was just the same argument my right hon. Friend has used to-night—namely, that the existence of that Duty had prevented Manchester or Lancashire from making the coarser counts, and that, if the Duties were repealed, the coarser counts would be manufactured and trade would revive. I will give statistics which will show how that view has been carried out. Fourteen years have elapsed since those Duties were repealed. The trade in the coarser counts has decreased, and decreased, and decreased, until it has reached the vanishing point; and there has been no protection on one side or the other, but there has been a free and open market. My right hon. Friend cited lugubrious figures as to the decrease of the cotton trade in India during the last few years. I can only tell him that in 1887–88 the value of British cotton piece goods imported into India was Rx.23,324,000; in 1892–3 it was Rx.22,127,000; and in 1893–4, which he has described as a period of unparalleled depression, it reached Rx.28,319,000. We then come to the period with which he has dealt, the period of the Budget of 1894, when the Government of India and the Government of Great Britain were face to face with what I have described as the financial condition of India. He asks, "Why had you to put these Duties on?" And he gave a certain explanation; I know where he got it from; he stated that salaries had been increased and that a deficit had been created in India which would not have existed under other circumstances. That is not the case. When the Budget of 1894–5 was under discussion the value of the rupee stood at 1s. 2d., and the year that has passed has reduced that value to something like 1s. 1d.—a difference in the financial position which was not contemplated 12 months ago. That fall in exchange will represent at the present time an addition of Rx.2,500,000 to the Indian expenditure. Take the figures we had before us when we came to consider the financial position. The net difference in the exchange value—that is, the net loss on exchange in respect to our sterling remittances as between the year 1878 and the year 1894—represents no less a sum than Rx. 10,253,000, and the loss this year is Rx. 12,753,000. Therefore the Government were face to face with a very difficult and serious financial question; and what was proposed? The Government of India estimated a deficit of Rx.3,000,000, and that deficit they proposed to meet by imposing Import Duties. I am not aware of any of the agitation spoken of, of any pressure brought to bear in India upon England. I know that Lord Kimberley was at the head of the Indian Office and Lord Lansdowne was Viceroy, and their communications took place by telegram. I have read these telegrams over and over again, and I can say that they had reference exclusively to the financial exigencies of the case. The Government of India asked for permission to impose Cotton Duties, and the Home Government provisionally declined. The result of that refusal was that the Famine Appropriation Fund was suspended, that grants to the provincial Governments were curtailed, and contributions were raised from the provincial rates; and ultimately the Finance Minister of India budgeted for a deficit of only Rx.300,000. What was said by Lord Kimberley in reply to the protestations of the Government of India against the refusal to sanction the putting of Import Duties upon Cotton? He said this:—

"If, after an interval, sufficient to judge of the financial position as affected by the Tariff Act, by the course of exchange, and by other circumstances, there was not an improvement, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to receive further representations from the Government of India on the subject of imposing the Import Duties upon Cotton Manufactures."

After Lord Kimberley left the India Office I had to face this question. My right hon. Friend has somewhat imputed to me a breach of faith with the House upon that point, and I am sensitive to any charge of that character. I stated my own view within 24 hours of my appointment, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I then said there was no Opposition to the imposition of these duties if they were met by corresponding Excise duties. But I added if there was anything of a proctective character involved I should not think them proper duties to be imposed without a preliminary discussion in the House of Commons. I wrote a despatch to the Government of India in which I clearly pointed out that we would not be parties to duties which were protective, but that if they could suggest a mode by which every element of protection could be removed we would accept their proposal. On July 27 one of the Members for Manchester put to me the question whether, in view of the Resolution passed on July 1, 1877, with reference to Indian import Duties on cotton goods, I could give an assurance that such duties would not be imposed without an opportunity being given to the House of expressing an opinion on the subject. I replied that the Resolution of the House to which the hon. Baronet (Sir W. H. Houldsworth) referred dealt with Duties that were protective in their nature, and I had already stated that in my opinion the Executive Government ought not to sanction steps that would reverse that decision without giving an opportunity for discussion in that House. The imposition of Duties which would not be protective in their character are not affected by that Resolution. That makes my own position perfectly clear. In the Indian Budget debate of 1894 I dwelt on the case at great length. I then made the distinct declaration that I was in favour of complying with the request of the Indian Council if the element of Protection could be removed.

I drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention later to a subsequent resolution passed in 1879.

Yes, but a good deal happened during the course of last Session. There was a very interesting discussion on this question in the House of Lords, when there were present two ex-Viceroys of India, an ex-Secretary of State, and a distinguished soldier who had spent 40 years of his life in India, and who had been Commander of the Forces there for a long time. These noble Lords called attention to a point which my right hon. Friend has not alluded to to-night, a point which no Government can ignore and which I am sure this House will not ignore—namely, the political difficulty which has arisen in India with reference to this question. Lord Lansdowne, who is not an Anglo-Indian Official agitator, said:—

"There has never been a moment when it was more necessary to counteract the impression that our financial policy in India is dictated by selfish considerations. I am not one of those who regard with exaggerated alarm every bazaar rumour which may be telegraphed over to this country from India, but it is idle to conceal from ourselves that many causes are at work which should make us pause before we do anything to shake the confidence of the people of India in the absolute disinterestedness of our rule. Western ideas arc spreading with rapidity in the minds of an Eastern population not yet by any means fitted to receive them. The Government must make up its mind to be misrepresented, and may in ordinary cases console itself with the hope that the truth will prevail. But it should think twice before it supplies the party the agitation with a real grievance and the materials for an indictment to which no reply has been made because no reply in possible. It is a gross libel to say that either of the great political parties in this country will, for the sake of a passing advantage, deny to the people of India the fair play which they expect."

Lord Roberts approached this subject not as a financier, for he did not pretend to be one, but as a man who knew something of the political condition of India, and no Government could disregard warnings from a quarter like that. He said:—

"While as a soldier he believed that the prosperity of India depended on the maintenance of our naval and military supremacy, he would say, as an Englishman who had lived more than 40 years in that country, that he knew it depended to even a greater extent on the contentment of the people and their belief in the advantages of British rule. The extraordinary position we occupied in India was mainly due to the Natives' firm reliance on our integrity and honesty of purpose, and determination to do what was right and best for them. If this feeling were once destroyed the consequences would be disastrous."

But there was a still more important speech, from a political point of view, delivered in the House of Lords by one whom we all recollect as a Member of this House for many years, and as a Lancashire Member, too, who had himself been secretary of state for India for six years. What did Lord Cross say—and, Mr. Speaker, this is the last public deliverance of an official leader of the Conservative party on this question? He said:—

"All I desire to add, and I have always said so, with regard to the affairs of India, is that this is no party question whatever. It is a question that must be decided by the Government of the day. It is for them to say whether the course hitherto adopted should be persisted in or not. They have the information to enable them to judge. Do the Government believe that without reimposing these Duties the Indian finances could not be properly balanced? If they do, there is an end to the question. If not, are the Duties not to be reimposed simply because of some kind of fad about Free Trade which ought not to enter into the discussion between England and India. If the Government can see no other way of balancing the finances of India, they must at the proper time reconsider the question of reimposing the Duties on cotton."

Now, I have cleared the way as to what I said to the House I was prepared to do if the protective element could be destroyed—because we do not share that opinion about it being a fad about Free Trade—we believe it to be a reality and a principle to which we are prepared to adhere. We put ourselves in communication with the Government of India. My right hon. Friend has not quoted or in any way replied to the very able minute of Sir James Westland, the bulk of which I have laid on the Table. But I will sum up what that minute says. Sir James Westland says that the Indian cotton mills do not spin yarns of a higher count than 30's. My right hon. Friend has practically admitted this limit, though he thinks it may be extended in the future. At any rate, at present they do not extend it, and that is proved by these facts. There are 141 mills in India, and 140 of these mills furnish statistics to the Finance Minister. Those mills spun last year 373 million pounds of yarn, of which 215 millions were spun at Bombay, which justifies one in regarding that city as the chief seat of the Indian cotton trade. Close on 20 per cent. were 10s, and 59·63 were above 10's and under 20's. Therefore you have 79½ per cent. of the whole goods spun in the Indian mills under 20's. Above 20's and under 30's there was 19 per cent. Therefore you have, very much bearing out what was stated by Sir James Westland, 98½ per cent. of goods spun in India under 30's and only a small quantity above 30's—that small quantity on which this competition is going to arise—namely, 1½ per cent. Why do the Indian mills spin the coarser counts; The reason, according to Sir J. Westland, is the Indian cotton does not give a sufficient length of fibre for the higher counts; and the accuracy of these statements is confirmed by statistics furnished by the Collector of Customs at Bombay, who says, that the export from Bombay of Indian spun yarn above 24's is not ½ per cent. of the whole amount. Therefore Sir J. Westland was justified in maintaining that the industry of India is chiefly concerned with the coarser qualities and that of Lancashire with the finer qualities, and that unless they approach something like overlapping lines there is nothing like a competition between them. What becomes of the imported yarns? They are used for hand-loom weaving; the mills take none of them. I wonder if my right hon. Friend is aware that an enormous number of looms which in India weave yarns for piece goods are in cottage homes. The idea of imposing an Excise Duty on cottage industries throughout the length and breadth of India is utterly impracticable. What is the position of these yarns? The House has already been told that the consumption is 373,000,000, of which 170,000,000 was exported, no doubt forming a part of the trade to which my right hon. Friend has alluded, but all in the coarser counts. No duty affects them; no competition arises there; and on Lancashire no duty is imposed. There are 129,000,000 used for this hand-loom weaving of the coarser quality for the benefit of the native population of the poorest character, and only 74,000,000 is used by the mills. I have means of communicating with quite as competent advisers in Lancashire, perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury has. [Sir H. JAMES: "Name!"] I am not going to disclose the Gentlemen's names. My right hon. Friend is surely not the man to make a demand of that kind. Did he think it was fair game to suggest that I, an ignorant man, knowing nothing of the cotton trade, would dare proceed to deal with this difficult and delicate question in an autocratic spirit without consulting anybody? That is not the way in which I discharge the duty of my post. I have information—it may be sound or unsound; but, at all events, I have been guided by that information. The result of the position was that when the Indian Government proposed an Import Duty of 3½ per cent. on yarns and 5 per cent. on piece goods, my advisers were of opinion that we must have a uniform duty both on yarns and piece goods; and it is a very singular thing that the Indian argument was exactly the converse of that used by my right hon. Friend. His argument is, that the duty you impose is only 3 per cent. on the Indian manufacturer, whereas you impose a duty of 5 per cent. on the Lancashire manufacturer. What the Indian people said was, that to put a uniform duty of 5 per cent. was practically charging them with 1½ per cent. more than the Lancashire manufacturer. At any rate, that is the ground they took up. They gave reasons for that ground—namely, the position of their mills, the cost of the machinery, the cost of imported coal, and the duty they paid upon imported stores and materials. I did not accept that position, but I required that there should be a uniform duty of 5 per cent. all round, which, I think is a sound, financial principle. I need not trouble the House with any statement of the effect produced in India in reference to this modified proposal. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen have read the Debates in the Indian Legislative Council upon this question. My right hon. Friend quoted some criticisms of a Member of the Council, but he did not quote the replies to those criticisms from other Members, nor did he quote the very able arguments used by distinguished Anglo-Indians and more distinguished natives against the imposition of Excise Duties at all. The Excise Duty they were willing to accept was down at a limit of 24's, but I stood to my guns and put the limit at 20's, and that wan carried by a majority of one. Having taken a view of the whole position, I will now endeavour to deal with the three main objections which were set forth in my right hon. Friend's speech, and which I gathered to be the objections that Lancashire takes on this question. The first objection is, that we have violated the principles of Free Trade; the second objection is, that we have imposed a heavy burden on Lancashire; and the third, that the Excise Duty is inadequate for the purposes of preventing protection. On the other hand, my Indian friends say to me that it is far below the limit at which any effective competition begins, and, so far as they are concerned, is too oppressive. It is said that we have violated the principles of Free Trade. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bury made in his speech an attack upon the Government with reference to our preaching to foreign nations, but he very dexterously inserted into his argument a change of one of the factors. He said "Import Duties," but Import Duties and Protective Duties are not the same thing, they are totally distinct. There is no principle of free trade which has been violated by the imposition of an Import Duty unless protection accompanies it. The abolition of a Customs Duty may be very desirable or not, but we have never recommended foreign countries to abolish Customs Duties; we have recommended foreign countries to abolish protective duties, which is quite a different thing. What did Cobden himself say? Surely my Lancashire Friends will accept what Cobden said as to free trade. Cobden asked: "What is free trade?"—and this in, perhaps, one of the most marvellous speeches he ever delivered during the Corn Law agitation—''not the pulling down of custom-houses; by free trade we mean the abolition of all protective duties." Mr. Laing, the Finance Minister of India, a Free Trader himself, in dealing with this very question of cotton duties, said:—

"Free Trade does not mean that there shall be no taxes, but that taxes shall be levied solely with a view to revenue, and not partly with a view to revenue and partly to protection."

That is the position which the Government take. I think every Member of this House will admit that this is a Free Trade country. Even the Member for Sheffield will not question that. But, none the less, we raise 20 millions of our revenue out of our Customs Duties. Is it any violation of Free Trade principles to raise money by taxes on tea, while we produce no tea in this country, where we raise it for purely revenue purposes? Or is it a violation of free trade to raise money on spirits? No; because we levy a corresponding Excise Duty on spirits made at home, and that is the principle which regulates the whole of our Free Trade policy. And, bear in mind, the consumer pays. Of course, if, as in America, you allow the native manufacturer to produce the same article and do not charge him an Excise Duty, whilst you impose an Import Duty, he raises his price accordingly, and puts the money in his own pocket. But there is no room for that in connection with the system which we adopt. The next charge against me is, that I have imposed a heavy burden on Lancashire, and my right hon. Friend drew a picture of the distress there which caused me much regret. It must not be supposed that the Government have no sympathy with the state of trade in that county, but he asserted that the depression was aggravated by the imposition of a heavy burden on the industry of Lancashire. I deny that proposition altogether. Who pays the tax? We are levying an Import Duty on a large product of Indian tea; last year the duty on tea grown in India was within a fraction of £3,000,000 in this country. Is that a tax upon the people of India? No, Sir, that is a tax upon the consumers in this country; and if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to ask the House to double the Duties on tea, or to take them off altogether, the effect would be seen in every grocer's shop next morning; the price would go up or come down according to which of these proposals was accepted. The tax would be paid by the people, as all Import Duties are paid by the consumer. I quite admit that excessive duties so raise prices as to discourage and diminish consumption; but I do not think that the question of ½d. in 10d., the Duty now proposed, will affect the consumption of cotton goods of the highest quality and most costly description: and even if it did, the Indian Government would have the remedy in its own hands. There would be no revenue; it would decrease and decrease. The whole basis of the argument and foundation of the situation is, that these Customs Duties shall be paid into the Indian Exchequer. With reference to the third objection—the inadequacy of the Excise Duties—we do not levy this Excise Duty on the coarser counts. Why? Because we say there is practically no importation of those coarser counts. The importation of grey yarns below 24s. dwindled down to an infinitesimal figure 14 years ago, and has gone down and down ever since. Some time ago, of these coarser counts of grey yarns under 24s., we sent to Bombay 1,890,000 lbs.; in 1872, the exports went down to 234,000 lbs.; in 1879 to 160,000 lbs., in 1884, when the duties were taken off and no shadow of protection existed and the Lancashire spinners had the opportunity of pushing the trade if they had wished it, they went down to 55,804 lbs.; last year they went down to 8,500 lbs. It is said in India that between 20's and 24's competition does not begin. I have already said that—

"if you can prove that the 20 limit is too low and should be raised to 24, power is reserved to the Indian Government, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to alter that figure."

I say that the same principle applies to my Lancashire friends. If they can show that this limit works injustice to them, and is in any way protective, I am equally pledged to remedy the evil. Our principle has been all through that there shall not be Protection. No one will say that it is possible, in the imposition of any new tax, especially a complicated Excise Tax, to deal at the first moment with all the possibilities of the case, or to strike off a measure which will not require amendment. I say frankly and openly to the Lancashire manufacturers, as I already have said to the Scottish manufacturers in dealing with dyed yarns—

"If you will prove that there is any injustice done to you. I will do my best to remedy that injustice."

This is purely a question for inquiry, and for inquiry alone. It is impossible to discuss it on the floor of this House. Given the evil and injustice, we will endeavour to find a remedy. What are the reasons for imposing these duties? First of all, financial necessity. You may ask, Why are we in this financial difficulty? It arises from two causes—first, our increasing expenditure. It is a matter of history than ten years ago we added 30,000 soldiers to our Indian Army, 10,000 of whom were British and 20,000 were native troops. During the same period Nature has added 23,000,000 to the Indian population, and it is clear that you cannot govern that extra number of people without additional cost. There is a rise in all Government expenditure, but the great evil is the constant fall of exchange. [Opposition Cheers.] The Hon. Member for Sleaford cheers that statement. The fact is, that week by week and day by day the cost of governing India is increasing as the value of the rupee falls. If these Duties were abolished in the past, it was because financial conditions admitted of it, and they are imposed now because financial reasons require them. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say that Import Duties should be placed on everything else, and that Cotton Duties should be left out? If we remove all the Import Duties it will be a question of millions. On what principle can you justify the exemption of any particular class of goods? You would say to India:—

"you must pay on this and not on that, because we have a great interest in that commodity."

An hon. Member suggest Machinery. I ask: Is there any tax on machinery in Lancashire? Can you not buy your engines and machinery at the lowest price and in the cheapest market? Why should not the people of India do the same? They have great interest in this matter. They have to pay the freight, the insurance, and the enormous depreciation, which is necessarily rapid in their climate, and they also put their machinery up at much greater cost than we do. Beyond this we must remember that India is not a self-governing country, and we must therefore watch with the greatest eagerness the public opinion of India on these questions. We cannot expect India to ignore what are our arrangements with our self-governing dependencies. What is the position of the Cotton Duties in other parts of the British Empire? Take the great Dominion of Canada. The Duty on yarns below 40's there is 25 per cent., while on woven goods it is 22½ per cent., on bleached goods it is 25 per cent., and on dyed and coloured goods it is 30 per cent. At the Cape of Good Hope there is a uniform duty all round of 12 per cent., and in New Zealand a Duty of 20 per cent. except on sewing cottons or yarns, and 10 per cent. with certain exceptions on woven goods. You cannot explain to the people of India as you can to those of this country all the distinctions between the fiscal arrangements of our self-governing dependencies and ourselves. We believe it is to the interest of India not to have a protective system, which, in the long run, would be injurious to the manufacturers of that country. It is beyond all question that the imposition of these Duties is popular in India, and if the Imperial Government had taken the course my right hon. Friend suggests, it would have had a very grave and serious political effect. The right hon. Gentleman talks about agitation on the part of Anglo-Indians. I tell him that every authority, every expression of public opinion, and every class in India are united as they have never been before on this question. You have not only the Council at home, but you have also the Viceroy, the Legislative Council, the whole of the European community, all classes of natives, the public Press, and every section of society who believe that the exemption of cotton from Import Duties was an act of injustice to India. At all events, I say that the deliberate conclusion at which the Government have arrived is that a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction and of danger would be created if the wishes of India were disregarded on this question. You ought not to defy public opinion on this question. You may try to educate and improve it, but we have to deal with the facts as they are. I have only to say further that as in 1894, my noble Friend Lord Kimberley, in the exercise of constitutional power, refused to sanction these Duties, I equally in the exercise of constitutional power have sanctioned them. I am prepared at the proper time and place to argue that there has been nothing oppressive, unprecedented, or illegal in what has been done. This is the way in which the financial policy of India has been regulated, and in a day or two I will lay on the Table of the House the most masterly dispatches of two distinguished men who have held my office—the Duke of Argyll and the Marquess of Salisbury—who have dealt with this point of the relationship between the home Government and that of India on general and financial policy: and when I have done so I am sure the House will be satisfied that, whether the course now being taken be right or wrong, it is strictly in accordance with precedent. Our case in one word is this—the state of the finances of India necessitated additional taxation; the opinion of the Indian Government and people was unanimous in favour of Customs Duties on imports; the home Government could not permanently compel the people of India to exempt their largest imports from these Duties; we were compelled both in the interests of India and of our own manufacturing population to require that these Import Duties should not be protective whenever goods were imported from abroad and were in competition with similar goods manufactured in India; and we required that an equivalent in Excise Duties should be imposed on competing goods manufactured in India. We say in explanation of this that there is not, and has not been for many years, any effective competition between India and foreign countries in respect of the coarser cotton goods, which, we allege, are consumed in India by the very poorest class of the population; that to tax these goods would be a grievous and an oppressive direct tax on the poorest part of the natives, for which there is no justification. We say that the goods of a finer quality are not produced to any extent in India, but that Lancashire has a monopoly of them, and, I believe, will continue to have it. We further say that, if it should appear on clear evidence that the Government have drawn the line too high, or that it will not remove any and every protective character, her Majesty's Government will, in concert with that of India, consider the matter with a view to carry out loyally their declared intention to avoid protective injustice. That is the policy of her Majesty's Government, and that is the policy which I have endeavoured, feebly and imperfectly perhaps, to pursue during the time I have been in office. I believe I have tried to do my duty to India as Indian Secretary, and that I have not neglected the interests of the people of Lancashire. I and my colleagues are, of course, responsible to this House, which is the ultimate tribunal on all these questions. We know the consequences that will follow if this House should censure the administrative acts of the Government. We shall not shrink from accepting that responsibility if that censure is inflicted. But I would also say respectfully and firmly that if the Government is responsible to this House, the House is responsible to the country. My right hon. Friend has said that India has no representative in this House. I deny the accuracy of that allegation. The Representatives of India in this House are not one or two individuals, not even the section of Members who are thought to be experts on the one hand, or those men who have a profound, a deep, and a special interest in Indian affairs on the other. Every Member of this House, whether elected by an English, or by a Scotch, or by an Irish constituency, is a Member for India. All the interests of India—personal, political, commercial, financial, and social—are committed to the individual and collective responsibility of the House of Commons. I ask the House to discharge that gigantic trust, uninfluenced by any selfish or Party feeling, but with wisdom, and justice, and generosity.

asked to be allowed, as one who was particularly interested in India, very earnestly to bear his testimony to the powerful arguments of the Secretary of State, and to urge upon the House not to take any step calculated to have an injurious effect on the people of India. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the injustice and the illogical nature of dealing out to the people of India high-handed measures which would not be inflicted upon any self-governing colony. It was said that India had not free institutions, and that, therefore, Parliament had a more immediate right to interfere directly in Indian affairs. But it might be pleaded that if India was not self-governing, at least it was self-supporting, and it would be extremely unjust for Parliament, while having no responsibility for the expenditure of India, to dictate to the Government of India in what way their taxes were to be levied and what their fiscal arrangements should be. The direct action and interference suggested by the Motion was a new departure. He would remind the House that about 35 years ago, when the finances of India were placed in a state of embarrassment owing to the great outlay of the Mutiny and the loss of revenue that followed it, the Government of India at that time put enormous Duties—as much as 20 per cent.—upon almost every article imported into India. Mr. Wilson, who had held the position of Secretary to the Treasury, was sent to India, as Finance Minister, and he reduced these duties to 10 per cent., not because he questioned the right or propriety of the Indian Government to impose them, but because he found they were so excessive as to be destroying the import trade. But not a word of remonstrance upon the action of the Government of India was ever raised in this country. It was felt that in a great emergency it was the duty of the Government of India on their own responsibility to take whatever measures were necessary to restore the financial equilibrium. The Duties were gradually reduced to 7½ per cent. and afterwards to 5 per cent. In 1882 they were taken off altogether, not in deference to any definite maxim or any specific declaration of coming from this country, but because the improved financial position of the Government of India permitted of their remission without the raising of any countervailing taxation. Now an entirely different state of things had arisen, and nothing that had occurred in the past prevented the Indian Government from again raising these Duties to meet a financial emergency. The House must also bear in mind that the present difficulty had arisen almost entirely owing to the fall in silver, and that not only had the action of the Government of this country prevented any readjustment or rehabilitation of silver, but they had also prevented the question from being even discussed in a rational and sympathetic way. The Home Government and Parliament were therefore under a great responsibility to the Government of India in this matter. The Secretary of State had referred to the different degrees of reciprocity in practice in England and in India. A great cry was now raised by an English industry because a 5 per cent. duty was to be levied on a certain class of goods at present exempt. But we taxed the commoner kinds of Indian tea to the extent of 100 per cent., and cigars which could be purchased in India at 1s. a thousand paid a Duty of something like 1,000 per cent. In face of these facts, could this country with any sort of conscience or reason complain if, in the interest of a harassed revenue, a duty of 5 per cent. was put upon a certain class of goods imported into India. They had been told of the enormous importance of this 5 per cent. duty to Lancashire trade, but no branch of trade with India could flourish unless the people of that country were contented and prosperous. There were latent forces in India ready at any moment to make themselves felt on the surface of society, and it was necessary that the Indian people should feel not only that they were governed justly, but that they were governed in their own interest. If we did not, a feeling would sooner or later arise, which would produce distrust and disbelief in the honesty of England, and serious consequences would inevitably follow. The situation would then become one of great gravity, and he begged the House, before coming to a decision, to balance well the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury on the one side, and those of the Secretary for India on the other. He would have been glad if the former right hon. Gentleman had refrained from his unworthy insinuation against what he termed the Anglo-Indian Officials. The impression which he gave the House by his speech was that these Duties were imposed in order to obtain funds for paying those Officials larger salaries and pensions. The Officials concerned in dealing with this matter had absolutely no interest in these "compensation allowances," as they were called, which were granted only as being absolutely necessary for the poorer class of European servants of the State whose incomes had been cut down to nearly one-half by the decline in the value of the rupee. The right hon. Gentleman's insinuation was an unfortunate one, and that was the first time that the motives of the Indian Officials had been impugned. Their judgment might be called into question, and their conduct too, but never before had their honesty of motive been questioned.

said, he had been engaged for some years in a business which was affected by the proposals of the Government—namely, in the exportation of Lancashire cotton goods to India and other places in the East; but, not being a spinner or a manufacturer, he naturally did not approach this subject with any predilections in favour of the moderate Duty on cotton goods going into India. One of the Blue-books on this matter showed that during the last 25 years, the importation of British cotton goods into India had increased steadily, while during the last 15 years the output of the Indian cotton mills had increased enormously; and the facts further showed that not only had the Lancashire cotton trade increased in export to India, but that when there was a duty, and when there was no duty, the manufacture of cotton goods in India itself had increased to a very large extent. India had many disadvantages to cope with, chief among them being the heavy cost of machinery, but notwithstanding the difficulties, the output of Indian cotton goods had steadily improved, and the manufacture of jute was entering into close competition with Dundee. The Government had done right to recognise the fact that India had managed, in spite of the opposition of Lancashire, to hold her own; and they were well advised in exempting the coarser yarns, because the production of those yarns had been wrested from Lancashire for consumption, not only in India, but in China and Japan. Cotton goods, however, were the last things upon which the Duty had been placed, and he did not see why such an exception should have been made for the benefit of Lancashire. There ought to be equality of treatment, and there was no reason why this industry should have any advantage over others in this country. He could bear testimony to the fact that, much as this matter was disliked in Lancashire, the action of the Government was quite as much disliked in India, with reference to countervailing duties. And he received by every Indian mail complaints loud, deep, and bitter, that the English Parliament was sacrificing India for the interests of Lancashire, and the votes which that county brought. The position was one of great difficulty and delicacy, but, bearing in mind all the circumstances, he thought the Government had dealt with it in a way which was a credit to them. They should have at heart the interests of India, with its vast population, just as much as those of Lancashire, and he hoped that Indian affairs would not get into such a state that it might be said, as was said in regard to Ireland, that she was a mere pawn, to be kicked, together with her financial policy, across the floor of that House. He was unwilling to support a policy which would show India and our other dependencies that they were to be governed merely for our own advantage. Such a policy would be unworthy of Englishmen and unworthy of the Empire, and would in the end meet with deserved disaster.

said, he was unable to enter into a good many of the technicalities raised by this question, but there were one or two broader considerations which were well worth the attention of the House. Nobody could echo more thoroughly than he did the feelings and sentiments contained in the eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for India, as to the necessity of complete justice to India. He, for one, cordially sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman in that. He thought that, after all, the fact that India was unrepresented except by the Members of the House, imposed on everyone of them, whether they came from Lancashire or not, the absolute necessity, while protecting the interests of his own constituency, of not losing sight of the interests of India. Of all counties, Lancashire seemed to him the best able to take this view, because Lancashire was most interested in the peace and contentment of India. He thought this was a wider question than a mere Lancashire question. It raised important considerations for the whole of England, for it was a serious thing when agriculture was in its present condition, that the next greatest industry in the country should be in any way crippled. Therefore, on that score this could not be considered merely a question for Lancashire. The cotton industry was concentrated almost in one county. No doubt if damage was done to any industry diffused over the country at large, the people affected might find other employment around them; but in Lancashire there was no other outlet. The contention on the other side of the House was, that India had a perfect right, in regard to her finance, to consider her own interest alone. To that contention he gave an empathic denial. He thought that the interests of the Mother-country were also fairly entitled to consideration. What was the tendency and thought at this time in regard to self-governing colonies? Was it not to try to make arrangements by which their tariffis should be reduced? Therefore, if India were a self-governing colony there would be pretty much the same objection raised to this proceeding. England was not responsible for the credit and finance of self-governing colonies as it was for that of India. By the way in which the House had constantly interfered with Indian finance, they had made themselves responsible for it. That was the broad distinction between India and the self-governing colonies. One consideration had certainly not yet been stated to the House. He asked himself, as a Lancashire Member, How was it that a deficit came about? His view of the case was this, that if this Imperial Parliament did its duty to India there would be no deficit at all. It was unjust that, because England as a whole did not take her fair share of the military and home charges, the deficit should fall almost wholly on Lancashire. He would point out how that arose, at any rate from his point of view. He objected that Lancashire should be made so largely responsible for the fads thrust upon India, which went to create the deficit. Take the Opium Commission. That was no doubt a small matter, but it was most unjust that one half of the charge should fall upon India. Why in the world should India pay half? The whole of the people of India of every class were opposed to it, and surely the evidence already produced was enough to convince every fair-minded man that it was unjust to make India pay for it. If they were to adopt the principle that Lancashire was to be made responsible for these deficits, they would have to keep a much greater check on the faddists in the House of Commons. There was no doubt that the enforcement of the Cantonments Acts was entirely against Indian opinion. What would be the case of India if the Acts were enforced? Sir George White told them that the English army would hardly be able to carry on its work in time of War, that it would be rotten by disease, and that we should have to add largely to it. Was it fair that the charges for that should fall upon India? Then, he thought, that the cost of the India Office was out of all proportion to the work it had to do, and it was to be remembered that it was not in any way under the control of the House. A Royal Commission had inquired into the condition of every other Department of the State, but they were not allowed to look at the India Office. What was the cost of it? He would not have thought that, with a Government in India, the India Office would have cost anything like what the Foreign and Colonial Offices cost. But what was the fact; While the Colonial Office cost only £40,000 a year, and the Foreign Office £60,000, the India Office cost £120,000. There at any rate was £60,000 a year which might well be saved. He took another point. There was a long discussion in the House of Lords, and what was their opinion with regard to home charges. They were about unanimous; and there could be no doubt that the military charges were grossly unjust. If India were self-governing, like, the colonies, they would not dare to impose these charges upon it. What were the facts? India paid the whole of the charges for all the troops in India, the passage of the troops out and home again. In addition to this, in the Estimates of the year there was a sum of £600,000, which India was called upon to pay for the training of the troops in England. He said that was a perfectly monstrous thing. Even when Indian troops were employed out of India, as at Suakim, every penny came out of the Indian funds. Even when a few men came over to figure at the opening of the Indian Institute, India had to pay. Those were charges which ought to be borne by the Imperial Parliament, and not placed on the shoulders of Lancashire alone. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite sure those Duties would not be protective? He should like to hear on the point the hon. Member for Oldham, who had said that he deeply regretted that it was necessary to impose import duties of any kind, for they were not in harmony with Free Trade. Why did he say they were going to be protective? Because countervailing Excise Duties were so illogical that it was impossible they could last. While the Import Duties would remain he did not believe the Excise Duties would last. Why make an exception as to these Excise Duties? He believed that the cost of the collection of these Excise Duties would be almost as great as the amount they would produce. Could a system like that continue? Another point was—Had any arrangement been made with the Indian native states? If not they were no good at all; indeed they might prove a serious detriment to India itself. These native states formed a very large portion of India. He thought that whereas the portion of India under British control was something like 800,000 square miles, the territory of the native states was about 600,000 square miles. With regard to this enormous territory they made no provision as to Excise Duties. If they made an exception to Manchester, why should not other trades complain? Why should not the worsted trade of Bradford complain? And if they extended these Excise Duties generally, they would do a great injustice to India, and they would do a great deal to crush the rising industries on which the prosperity of India depended. The right hon. Gentleman said that these Duties would fall not upon the producer in Lancashire but on the consumer in India. He quoted the Tea Duties, but the difference was—England was a rich country, while India was a remarkably poor country, so poor that the consumer could not afford to pay the extra price. For that reason they in Lancashire feared that it would fall on them. But they might he told that, after all, the goods which Lancashire supplied were to a great extent sold to the rich of India and not to the poor. He did not know how that could be the case. When he considered the enormous amount of goods sent to India by Lancashire—£28,000,000 a year—he was not persuaded that these goods were bought by the rich. There were very few rich people in India, and there could be little doubt that in the mass these goods were sold, not to the rich, but to the poor. With regard to these Excise Duties, he was sure they would have another unfortunate effect upon the English producer, and it was this: if the Excise Duty were paid on charges over 20's, naturally the result would be that the coarser goods made in India would be bought because they escaped the Excise Duty. Already the great proportion of the Indian trade was in coarse goods, and when the Excise Duties only touched those above 20's, there would be a larger demand for the coarser goods. If the demand for other goods ceased, they would kill the Lancashire trade. The result of the Excise Duties in India, would be as disastrous as the Import Duties themselves. The demand for goods under 20's would be increased in India. Then, it might be asked, Why should not Lancashire weave more goods of that class for export to India. The answer was, that it would not be profitable to do so as long as an Import Duty was levied upon such goods, and as long as no countervailing Excise Duty was imposed on the Indian-made article. The complaint of Lancashire was not so much against the Indian Government, which, after all, had a deficit to make good, as against the Government at home. India and Lancashire were united in maintaining that a number of the present Indian home charges ought to be borne by the Imperial Treasury. These charges ought to fall neither on Lancashire alone nor on India alone. It was monstrous that Lancashire should be expected to pay for the costly experiments of faddists, through whose action expenses had been incurred which helped to increase substantially the Indian deficit.

said, there was no necessity to discuss upon this subject the general question of our Indian policy, or of the various points of criticism which the Indian Government might be open to in other respects than in regard to the Import Duties; nor did it seem necessary to discuss even the question of the Import Duty. They must accept at the present time as inevitable the imposition of Import Duties, with the hope, hope, however, that they might soon be able to remove them. Anyone who listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for India must agree that it was necessary to take a wide view of the subject. One point they might recollect with advantage was, that this Import Duty had been decided upon and established on the initiative of the Legislative Council. That brought them to the further consideration, in which they must all acquiesce, that, as the Legislative Council was the organ of the British authority in India, it would be a very serious thing to deal any blow to that authority; and it would not be a matter in which those who sat on his side of the House could, as Radicals, find anything congenial to their principles in other respects. His object in rising was to mention certain interests which were vitally involved in this question, namely, the interests of the dyers of Scotland, who were large exporters to India and British Burmah of goods which would be affected by this new Import Duty and new Tariff Act. The policy was this—that an Import Duty was to be levied on these materials of all counts, and under the Tariff Act an Excise Duty was to be levied only on such counts as were 20's and under. Scottish manufacturers acquiesced in this Import Duty; they recognised that it was necessary to take a broad and liberal view of the necessities of the situation, but they desired to draw attention to the effect of the Excise Duty upon their exports to India. It was mentioned by the Secretary of State for India that the total imports into India of materials of these low counts had fallen last year in Bombay to 8,500 lb. But there were exported from this country of these dyed yarns of low counts considerable quantities to British Burmah, for the last four years, approximating to 4,000,000 lb. per annum, large portions of which would come under the Import Duty, whilst they would not be protected or countervailed by an equivalent Excise Duty on Indian manufactures. In this part of the trade, therefore, there was direct competition to this extent on the part of the Scottish manufacturers with the trade in India. But whilst these counts of 21 and under, dyed in India, would be landed duty free in that country, similar yarns dyed in this country would be subject to an Import Duty of 5 per cent. There was the further point, that Indian yarns above 20's, which were subject to Excise Duty, were subject to this Duty in their grey state, whereas British yarns were made liable to Import Duty in their dyed state. To sum up, the situation as it affected Scottish manufacturers was this: that the Indian dyer paid no duty on 21's and under, and less than one-half the duty paid by the British dyer on yarns over 21. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India for his courtesy in consenting to receive a deputation on the subject, and to discuss the points involved in the ensuing week. It would be a great satisfaction to those who were so deeply interested in this question that the right hon. Gentleman had repeated the assurance that it was the intention of the Government to deprive these duties of all protective character. Those for whom he spoke did not ask for any special advantage or any unfair treatment, but they simply asked for equal justice between them and the Indian dyer.