said, that when this Bill was introduced into the House of Lords it contained a schedule which stated that 19 acres of Llanfrynach Common, in the parish of Llanfrynach, and 18 acres of Cantref Common, in the parish of Cantref, might be taken by the District Council for the purposes of the reservoir and other works. The Bill left the Lords with this important alteration, that whereas the 18 acres from Cantref Common remained the same, the 19 acres which it was proposed to take from Llanfrynach Common was increased to 70 acres. He wished to call particular attention to this alteration, because it appeared that the Lord of this Manor, Penkelly Wallensis, in Breconshire, or his representatives, had, without any Enclosure Act whatever, claimed the whole of the common as private freehold. In 1817, in a sworn Crown survey, this Manor being then Crown property, the land was described as common land, and he could not find that there had been any Enclosure Act affecting it. Under the Local Government Act of 1894, it was the duty of District Councils to look after commons in the interests of commoners, and as time went on he hoped they would discharge that duty. In the meantime it was very important that that House should do all that lay in its power to protect the commons. He was glad that the Board of Agriculture had, in their Report on the Bill, called attention to the fact that this was claimed as common land, and had also put into this Bill his clause with regard to barbed wire. It was provided that no barbed wire should be used on these lands. He should not move the Amendment, of which he had given notice, because he understood now that the Merthyr Tydvil Local Board was not to blame in this matter. But, of course, he should watch the Bill when it returned from the Committee upstairs.

said, he was sure the House would appreciate the anxiety of his hon. Friend to protect the rights of commoners, but the question of those rights was in no way raised by this Bill. The object of the measure was to enable certain water works to be constructed, and to that end it was necessary to give the urban District Council of Merthyr Tydvil power to acquire certain land compulsorily. There was a dispute as to whether this land belonged to the lord of the manor or to those who claimed to be commoners, but the question was not affected by the Bill. It was obvious that if the District Council took this land compulsorily they would have to satisfy the legal claims of those concerned. The question whether the lord of the manor was the freeholder or whether the commoners were the possessors of the land was not raised by the Bill, and must be settled by the Law Courts. Any rights that the commoners might possibly have were protected in the Bill.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the s. s. Elbe is lying in from 17 to 20 fathoms of water, and that the trucks of her masts can be seen above water; that she is on a shallow fishing bank, and is not only a danger to trawlers, but a standing danger to navigation, as can be amply confirmed by Lowestoft fishermen: whether he is still advised that no funds are available, and that no authority exists for the purpose of removing the danger; and whether he has any remedy to suggest?

I have six times already answered questions from the hon Member substantially the same as the present one, and I have nothing to add to what I then told him.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken steps to ascertain whether it was true that this wreck was visible in certain tidal conditions and was an impediment to navigation?

said, that though the wreck might interfere with the business of trawlers, it was not regarded as a standing impediment to navigation.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had referred to Section 659 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which gave him power to allocate from the Mercantile Marine Fund money for the removal of wrecks like this.

said, that he did not think that the Mercantile Marine Fund could be rightly made available for the purpose. He had considered the section referred to, and had come to the conclusion that what the hon. Member sugguested could not be done.

gave notice that, in consequence of the reply given by the right hon. Member, he should move in Committee of Supply to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in 1859, Sir Frederick Abbott, who was governor of Addiscombe College, was the representative of the East India Company in dealing with the students of the College; and, if not, whom he represented; whether, in 1859, a batch of 16 students went to Addiscombe under the terms of a Royal Warrant which promised them, subject to passing through the Addiscombe course, to receive commissions in the Indian Artillery and Engineers; whether, before their College course was finished, appointments to those corps had ceased, in consequence of the transfer of the Indian Government to the Crown; whether, as a consequence of that cessation, it was or was not actually decided by the Government of the day to deprive these gentlemen of the benefit of the promises under which they had been induced to compete for their cadetships; whether, in point of fact, the then governor of Addiscombe, Sir Frederick Abbott, promised these students that the inducements held out to them to enter the College for the East Indian Company's service would be fulfilled by the Government of India; whether, inconsequence of this promise, they agreed to go into the Royal Artillery and Engineers, and whether the promise was subsequently confirmed at Woolwich; if he is aware that the Gentlemen in question are prepared to make an affidavit to this effect; whether, on proof of such promise having been made, the Indian Government are prepared to repudiate an undertaking of the responsible authorities at Addiscombe and Woolwich; and, whether the rights of these gentlemen are protected under the Henley clause of the Government of India Act?

The officers in question went to Addiscombe in 1859, not under any Royal Warrant, but under the conditions of appointment laid down by the Secretary of State for India. Those conditions contemplated appointment to Indian Artillery or Engineers; but under an Act ot 1860 appointments to those corps were stopped; and the only alternatives were to cancel the nominations altogether, or to appoint the cadets to commissions in the Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers. The gentlemen who accepted the latter alternative were never officers of the Indian Army, and do not come under the Henley clause of the Act of 1858. There is no record of any promise as to pension being made to them; nor had Sir F. Abbott, as governor of Addiscombe College, which was maintained in 1859 by the Government of India, any power to give a pledge as to future prospects to officers who did not enter the Indian local forces.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether cadets from Addiscombe who were appointed to the Imperial Cavalry and Infantry—namely, the 19th, 20th, and 21st Hussars, and to Regiments 101st and upwards, at the same time or subsequently to the 16 cadets of 1859, who were induced to join the Royal Engineers and Artillery from Addiscombe by the promises of Sir Frederick Abbott, received, or will receive, Indian pensions, although the latter are deprived of them, and, if so, on what grounds a distinction is made against the Engineers and Artillery?

No officers were appointed direct from Addiscombe Military College to the Imperial Cavalry and Infantry; but some officers, who had been at Addiscombe in 1859–60, joined the new line regiments from the general list of the Indian Army; and, in common with other officers appointed from that Army, were allowed prospective pensions under Indian regulations. The distinction between these officers—who were certainly very fortunate—and their contemporaries who joined the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, is that the former did join the Indian Army and the latter did not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he has inquired into the case of John Parke, a soldier in the King's Own York Light Infantry, who died on 7th April at Pontefract after he had been in hospital only 23 hours; whether he is aware of the circumstances which led up to his death—namely, that Parke had reported himself sick, but had been sent back to duty by the brigade surgeon, Dr. Bramwell, three times, who alleged that he was shamming, and only on the last occasion did he order "medicine and duty;" whether he is aware that, without any inquest, a post mortem examination was held by Dr. Bramwell, assisted by one other surgeon; and whether, in view of the fact that the post mortem examination revealed a state of disease that ought to have received immediate attention from Dr. Bramwell, without waiting for the chance observation of Captain Mooney on parade, who ordered him to hospital, he proposes to take any action in the matter?

In this case, of which I can only speak with the greatest regret, full inquiry was made last month, with the result that the medical officer concerned has been removed from his appointment for error of judgment and neglect of duty in not sooner admitting the deceased to hospital. It has also been intimated to the officer that he will not be employed again. The local authorities did not consider an inquest necessary; but a civil practitioner took part in the post mortem examination.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whethe Local Government Board have received a complaint from a labourer named William McDonnell, of Lisnaboe, Newtownforbes, that the Longford Board of Guardians have refused to erect a labourer's cottage for him in Caldra electoral division of that union; (2) whether the allegation of the guardian of that division was that he would be no party to the erection of slated houses for labourers so long as tenant farmers resided in thatched houses; and (3) whether the Local Government Board will order an inquiry, and have the provisions of the Labourers Acts enforced in this case?

The reply to the first paragraph is, Yes. The Board of Guardians having been communicated with, replied that the guardian for the division mentioned had stated that the house occupied by McDonnell was a substantial one, in good repair, and that, therefore, another house could not be built for him. The Local Government Board have not received any application for an inquiry in this case, as required by Section 4 of the Act of 1891, and in any event I do not think it would be desirable to hold such an inquiry in the present case, as the expense of putting the Acts into force for only one house would be entirely disproportionate to the result. I may add that the Local Government Board have already authorised the execution of 103 cottages in this union.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Kerry (Mr. SHEEHAN), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the 63rd section of The Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1842, which provides that the sluices which admit the water to the wheels of all mills or factories which derive their supply from rivers frequented by salmon shall at all seasons of the year be kept shut for 24 consecutive hours in each week, between six o'clock on Saturday afternoon and six o'clock on Monday morning, if he would state what steps have been taken by the Fishery Commissioners to have the sluices of the river Flesk, near Killarney, shut down every week as required?

I replied at considerable length to a question addressed to me in this matter on the 6th July of last year by the hon. Member for Cork, and that reply, as the hon. Gentleman on reference to it will perceive, covers the inquiries which he now puts to me.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is the fact that the Welsh Land Commission has concluded its sittings; and whether he can state when the Report of the Commission is likely to be issued?

I am informed by the Secretary that the Commissioners held their last sitting for the purpose of taking evidence on Tuesday, the 7th day of May, and do not anticipate that it will be necessary to hear further witnesses. They are fully aware of the importance of reporting speedily, and are making every endeavour to present their Report at the earliest possible moment, but they are at present unable to promise it at any precise date.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Royal Commission on Secondary Education has concluded its labours; whether the attention of the Royal Commissioners has been drawn to the hindrance to the development of Secondary Education which is caused by delay in the issuing of the Report, and the anxiety with which its publication is awaited; and whether he can say when the Report is likely to be laid before the House?

I cannot admit that there has been any delay in issuing the Report of this Commission, for the subject is a very large and difficult one, and the Commissioners, who have examined more than 80 witnesses and held more than 80 meetings during the last 13 months, have been assiduously engaged in their work. They are now considering their Report, and I trust that they may be able to present it to Her Majesty before or in the month of August next.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the petition of John Sweney, late of the Ordnance Survey for superannuation; whether he is aware that Mr. Sweney served in the Ordnance Survey Department from 1844 to 1848, and in the Royal Engineers from 1848 to 1869, and again in the Ordnance Survey from 1st November, 1870, till 1st January, 1892; and that, on the expiration of his 21 years' service in the Royal Engineers, he was pressed to remain in the corps in order to complete surveys he was then superintending; whether his claim to superannuation has been disallowed on the technical ground that his employment in the Ordnance Survey took place after the 29th September, 1870; and whether he will have the matter reconsidered?

My attention has not previously been called to this case, which was decided in February, 1892. The late Board of Treasury, with all the facts before them, awarded a gratuity of £56 6s. 6d., the highest amount legally possible. The conditions of Mr. Sweney's service make the grant to him of superannuation illegal, and so nothing would be gained by a reconsideration of his case.

May I ask whether the sum granted was Mr. Sweney's pension as a Royal Engineer, and whether I am to understand that because he was kept in the Royal Engineers in the public interest after September, 1870, he can be deprived of the benefits he would have had if he had not been detained in the public service?

This case was decided by the Treasury during the time of the late Government. It was decided that a pension could not be given to this man.

I beg to give notice that I must call attention to this matter in Supply.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in commencing the building of the new Londonderry Asylum?

On the 25th February last I stated, in reply to a question then addressed to me, that the Board of Control had selected a site at Gransha, within three miles from the City of Derry, for the erection of the new asylum. The Board inform me that no decision has yet been come to as to when the building operations shall commence. The matter is still under consideration.

May I ask what is the cause of this extraordinary delay?

Of course the hon. Gentleman knows that I have no authority over these Gentlemen. I will ask again if he likes.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the terms of certificates granted to small steam passenger vessels plying on the river Clyde (Scotland) are being infringed, inasmuch that certain certificates issued by the Board of Trade, and held by the Clyde Trustees for the navigation of what is locally known in Glasgow as the cross ferries of that port stipulate that three men should be carried on each vessel, whereas the Clyde Trustees, who hold ten such certificates, only provide two men on each vessel; and what steps tie proposes to take, in the interest of public safety, to have the terms of these certificates complied with?

I am not aware that the terms of the passenger certificates granted to the Clyde Trustees in respect of their ferry steamers are being infringed. There is no stipulation regarding the number of the crews to be carried, though in fact the certificates contain a statement as to the number proposed to be carried. I do not know, but will ascertain from the Clyde Trustees the number of crew in fact carried on their ferry boats. The Board of Trade have, however, no power to make or enforce any regulations as to the number of crew to be carried in such vessels.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will bring in a Bill to make regulations in these cases?

That is a matter which requires consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the strong feeling in favour of amnesty in Ireland, he will consider the case of the Irish treason-felony prisoners with a view to their release?

The Government are well aware of the feeling to which the hon. Member refers. Their attitude on the subject was explained in the Debate on the Address by the Chief Secretary and myself, and to the explanations then given I have not (as I said yesterday) at present anything to add.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the monster demonstration held in Dublin in favour of amnesty, to which the Archbishop of Dublin sent a message to say that he thought the time had come for the release of these prisoners?

Yes, Sir, I have seen an account of it.

Has that had no effect?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Himalaya is registered as belonging to a port in the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether the owners of the said vessel are bound to comply with Section 9 of 30 and 31 Vict. c. 124, sub-Section 1, in relation to the accommodation of seamen; whether he can state if, in the articles of agreement signed by Lascar seamen, there is any mention as to the special measurement of accommodation that shall be allotted to each seaman; whether he is aware that Section 149, sub-Section 7, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, provides that no stipulation can be made in articles of agreement contrary to law; and whether he is also aware that the Indian Act can and does apply only to such vessels as are owned and registered in India?

The Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Himalaya is registered at Greenock, and I am advised that the owners of that vessel are subject to Section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which reproduces the section referred to in the question relating to the accommodation of seamen. So far as I know, there is no mention in the articles of agreement signed by Lascar seamen of a special measurement of accommodation. The form of agreement sanctioned by the Government of India does not contain anything on the subject. Particular agreements might of course contain provisions on the point. Section 114 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 (which re-enacts Section 149 of the Act of 1854) provides that any stipulation agreed upon by Master and Seamen may be inserted in articles of agreement provided that they are not country to law. I have already explained that questions of accommodation for seamen in British vessels owned and registered in the United Kingdom are governed by the British Merchant Shipping Act, and not by the Indian Act.

Is it the intention of the Board of Trade to enforce the accommodation on the Himalaya?

I have already told the hon. Member that we are enforcing this accommodation by the means at our disposal.

I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to enforce it in this particular vessel?

Our instructions are general and apply to all vessels.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a number of sheriffs have attended meetings recently held in Edinburgh in furtherance of the election of candidates for a seat in the House of Commons; and whether their action is in violation of a well-recognised rule, that judicial officers should abstain from actively identifying themselves with Party political controversies.

I have answered a similar question in this House before, and will make a similar reply. The sheriff's in Scotland are not bound by the regulations which govern the permanent Civil Service with regard to political action; and the Executive have no political control over their conduct in the matter, any more than over the Judges of the Supreme Court or the Court of Session. It is well established that the Judges of the Supreme Court, of their own accord, abstain from taking an active part in elections, from a sense that their duty requires them to preserve the confidence of men of all parties in politics; and the same consideration should weigh with the sheriff's—especially when it is considered that they perform the double function of settling finally the Registration of Voters, and superintending Parliamentary elections in the character of returning officers.

I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will call the attention of these sheriffs, who are now taking part in political meetings, to this question, and ask them to discontinue doing so; and if those gentlemen, who are Justices of the Peace, do continue this conduct, what course can be taken, to prevent them?

It is a very dubious course for the Executive to interfere with officers over whom they have no control. My own personal opinion, which is undoubtedly shared by Members of the Government and by the majority of Members in the House, has been expressed very clearly in my answer to the question, and there I must stop.

I beg to ask the right Hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will be good enough to call tbe attention of the Revising Baristers, whom he employs—

Order! order! That does not arise out of this question.

in whose name the following Question stood on the Paper:—

"To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to take any action with regard to the conduct of Colonel Long bourne, R.M., in making to the Government two reports of an irreconcilable character on a matter arising under his own observation in a Court of Justice,"

said, the Clerk at the Table has brought into this question something about the Lord Chancellor which I never dreamed of, and I do not know the meaning of the question now. The Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction over this gentleman. The question I meant to put was whether, in view of the importance or non-importance of the discrepancy in the two reports of an irreconcilable character made by this gentleman, his administration of justice would continue to possess the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman?

The question which the hon. and learned Member handed in merely dealt with a matter of opinion. With regard to the question on the Paper, it was understood that the hon. and learned Member desired to ask a question as to whether any action would be taken with regard to the conduct of this Magistrate by the Lord Chancellor, as being the only person competent to take action.

I understand that the Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction over these gentlemen.

The hon. Member is perfectly right. What I was going to say in answer to the question was that the Lord Chancellor had nothing whatever to do with the matter. I was going to add, and I may perhaps now state, that I have told Colonel Longbourne that it is not satisfactory that these two reports should have been made, and that it was to be much regretted that in the first instance he stated that there was no bailiff on the Bench, whereas he ought to have stated that another person employed in the office was present.

May I ask whether in the first answer given to the right hon. Gentleman, Colonel Longbourne did not intend to convey that this bailiff was not sitting on the Bench, but standing on the Bench according to custom?

I do not think I can say anything more than I have already stated. Colonel Longbourne, in the first instance, made an incorrect statement, and, on further inquiry, he set it right; and I think it is to be regretted that he made the statement in the first instance.

May I ask whether, in view of the desirability of this gentleman possessing the confidence of the peasants among whom he administers justice, the right hon. Gentleman will at least remove him from the place where he has been caught in a deliberate lie?

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that his expression is too harsh. As to the question of removing Colonel Longbourne, it is only a few weeks since he was sent to this district.

Is it not the fact that the person about whom all this has arisen was merely a pupil in an agent's office?

Yes, it is quite true that he had been a pupil, but it is true also that he has one occasion at least accompanied bailiffs in the performance of their duties. He is not a bailiff himself.

May I ask whether Colonel Longbourne has not been in this district for 15 months?

I should have thought not 15 months.

Was it not understood when this Government entered Office they undertook to make these gentlemen behave themselves?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any further steps have been taken to release Dr. Herz from the arrest under which he has been now for 27 months; whether the Government has received official medical reports during the past year concerning the prisoner's physical or mental condition; and whether these have been of a nature to warn the Government that it was trifling with his life to keep him in the present condition?

The "arrest" of Dr. Herz has consisted in the presence of a police constable in the same hotel in which he was lying ill. As it was represented to me that the fact of the officer being in the house was mentally disquieting to Dr. Herz, I recently took the responsibility of removing him. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the negative, and I must strongly deprecate the use of such phrases as that the Government are "trifling" with Dr. Herz's life. The French Government has demanded his extradition on very serious charges, and in reply to our suggestion that, in view of his state of health, they might withdraw their demand, they have, acting within their right, refused to do so. Under these circumstances, our course is prescribed by our treaty obligations, and those obligations have been and are being performed with the greatest consideration possible for the health of Dr. Herz.

Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether it is not the fact that, although the policeman has been removed out of the hotel, he is not still in the vicinity, and is not his presence there as disquieting as it was in the hotel itself? I should like to ask, further, who is paying for all this expeuse of keeping the policeman to look after Dr. Herz?

I understand that the Government have a Bill to deal with this particular case?

No.

If not with this particular case, yet with circumstances arising out of this case. I therefore wish to ask whether they will press this Bill forward, so as to deal with the case of Dr. Herz as early as possible.

The Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one to amend the general law, but no doubt it was suggested by the circumstances of this particular case. So far as the statements which are made with reference to Dr. Herz are accurate, as to which I will say nothing, this Bill will not in the least degree improve his position, because it is quite obvious if he is too ill to leave his bed he is too ill to be examined by a magistrate. Now, although I should be glad, indeed, if he sufficiently recovers to put an end to what is to us an extremely expensive and very disagreeable duty, I cannot express any sanguine hope that such improvement will take place. It is true we are responsible for the policeman remaining in the town. I have taken care that he shall be removed from the house, and I have taken care, as far as possible, that Dr. Herz should not in any way be troubled by his presence; but I cannot be responsible as Her Majesty's representative to the French Government for the safe custody of Dr. Herz if I take the constable altogether outside the town. I really must make an appeal—and I am entitled to make it—that Englishmen shall believe that the English Government in this matter is doing nothing but what its treaty obligations with France require. In the performance of that duty we have shown every consideration possible.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements about the health of Dr. Herz are made on the authority of the highest medical men in London?

That is very possible; but I do not see what relevancy that has to the question. I am assured that Dr. Herz is as ill as his medical advisers represent him to be. There is no reason to doubt it.

May I ask, if the Bill of the Government does not apply to the case of Dr. Herz, do the Government propose to do anything, or is Dr. Herz otherwise to continue in this position until he dies?

The Government can do nothing beyond what they have done.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, if any altered arrangements are to be made for the Military bands playing in the Royal parks?

The times first fixed by the military authorities for band performances in Hyde Park have proved unsuitable. The following arrangements, which I think will be most convenient to the public, have now been made:— On Wednesday evenings a military band will play in the Hyde Park band stand from 7.30 to 9.30. On Sunday evenings a Guards' band will play in the Hyde Park band stand from 7.30 to 9.30; and, the same evenings, another Guards' band will play in the Green Park from 6.30 to 8.30. As a band platform has to be provided in the Green Park, the band will not play there till Sunday week.

Do the public make any contribution to the cost of these military bands? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, to a large extent, they are supported out of the private funds of officers of the regiment? I wish to know whether, in consideration of the bands playing in the public parks, the right hon. Gentleman will put on the Estimates a sum to meet the expenses of the bands?

I am quite aware that the members of the bands are paid in other ways than by the State, but I must point out that the arrangement which has been made is to enable those bands to play in the parks on the Sundays when they do not get any other engagements. Therefore their duties in the parks will not interfere with their other engagements.

said, he desired to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what course was to be taken with regard to this Bill, which had been on the paper since March last, the Debate on the Second Reading having been adjourned on the 29th of that month. If anything was to be done to assist the giving of relief, it ought to be done before the summer was over.

I beg to ask whether the Outdoor Relief Bill has been blocked day after day and night after night by the hon. Gentleman's friends?

I am well aware that this Bill, which is a Bill drawn on exactly the same lines as Bills with the same object formerly brought forward by the right hon. Member for East Manchester and the noble Lord the Member for the Paddington Division, has been night after night since March resisted by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I did not understand the hon. Member for Donegal to say that I had blocked it, and I am extremely anxious, if the Bill is to be of use, that the Government shall put it down for a favourable opportunity.

I must exonerate the hon. Member from the charge of having blocked the Bill.

I beg to ask whether this Bill does not give facilities to Irishmen which have been denied to Englishmen?

It is not my business to know, but I do know that this is a duplicate of proposals which have been accepted by the Legislature before when they have been proposed.

Has this Bill ever been moved except once by anybody representing the Irish Government?

Certainly, Sir. I must myself have moved the forwarding of this Bill not less than 20 times.

May I ask whether it is not the fact that the powers which would be conferred by this Bill have been and are being exercised by the executive Government in Ireland for the first six months?

It is not quite correct to say that these powers are being exercised except indirectly, but there is a clause in the Bill which gives an indemnity to Boards of Guardians who use these powers, and therefore the Bill is in effect in operation.

Having regard to the opposition raised to the Bill on this side of the House by reason of the 3rd clause, which puts these persons in a different position from other persons who receive relief, would the right hon. Gentleman, in order to remove that opposition, consider the advisability of giving way on this point?

This is a very argumentative question, which I think I must decline to answer. I certainly decline, as at present advised, to make the change which the hon. Member suggests.

moved the addition of the following new clause:—

said, the points raised by the hon. Member's Amendment were by no means so easy and simple as he represented them to be. They were, in his view, surrounded by a great deal of difficulty. The fact was, the whole point of the Amendment turned on certain payments that might have been made in cases of settled property where the Estate Duty might have been paid after the Act of 1894 was passed, and yet certain prior payments might have been made in respect of this property. It was settled property, and settled property, alone which would be affected by the Amendment. Its effect would be to take away 1 per cent. from that restricted class of property which had been settled by deed, and which would not affect the case of property settled under will. In that case the Estate Duty under the Act of 1894 was not payable at all. It was quite true that there might be a demand of 1 per cent. upon the life interest of the first tenant for life of the settled personalty, and there might be also a payment in anticipation of 1 per cent. in regard to the remainder. But the only grievance that could arise was in the extremely small and limited class of cases, that it would be possible that in future cases there might be a double payment of a very minute kind. That was true, but the answer was this, that in the first place these were, as he had said, only cases of settled property, and settled property had been specially treated in the Act of last year. The matter had been considered in every aspect in which it was capable of consideration by the Government, and it having been so considered, the House, rightly or wrongly, agreed to a compromise with regard to the adjustment of the tax upon settled property. The basis of that compromise was that one Estate Duty alone should be payable. All these things were taken into consideration last year, and it seemed to him that if they were going to rip up that adjustment as regarded the case of settled property, they would have to rip it up altogether. It was quite impossible to obtain absolute precision in intricate taxation of this kind, but it was equally a mistake to suppose that inequality necessarily meant injustice.

said, that to his lay mind it was extremely difficult to follow the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General, but the impression that that argument had left upon his mind was that there were cases in which there would be a double payment exacted. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to admit that much, and his admission, as far as he was concerned, appeared to him to be the only part of the matter that was absolutely clear. When the hon. and learned Gentleman began to explain why this injustice could not be rectified it was extremely difficult to follow him. He, however, should have thought that it would have been possible to have dealt with this admitted injustice by some means or other. If that could not be done, all he could say was that the Act of last year must be rather an extraordinary- piece of legislation, as it distinctly took from the taxpayer in advance a certain payment, and then required payment over again in a different form.

said, that he should be very sorry to think that there was any injustice in this matter that could not be remedied. He admitted the complexity of the question, but, as he had said last evening, the hope that an Inland Revenue Act might be made so clear that he who ran might read, when they came to deal with settled property, was one that was not likely to be realised. The law of settlement was one of the most complicated inventions of the ingenuity of conveyancers, but he thought that he could give a more vulgar and unlearned view of the question. The real truth was that, before the passing of the Finance Act, settled property had had very special advantages. It paid less than any other class of property, it never paid a duty upon its capital value at all, but only on the interest of the succcessors. Therefore, there was not the same reason for giving relief to settled property that there was in the case of property which had paid the Probate Duty. He could not for a moment admit that the Government had confessed, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had suggested, to having committed an injustice which they were unwilling to remedy. The Government did not consider that there was any injustice in this enactment, but on the contrary, they believed that when they came to deal with settled property under the Act of 1894, they did what was thoroughly just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. The hon. Member was, practically speaking, demanding for a privileged class the same advantage after the Act that they had before the Act. Nor was there really a double payment in any true sense of the word.

said, that the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to do with the case brought forward. His case was that of two men with the same kind of property, one of whom had to pay 1 per cent. more than the other. It was not a question of a distinction between different kinds of property, but of a distinction between two men having the same kind of property who were made to pay different rates of taxation. He felt bound to take a Division upon it.

admitted that on the second proposed new clause he had not so strong a case as on the first. It dealt with the limit of time for disposition, and proposed that—

"Section 2, Sub-section 3, of the Finance Act, 1894, is hereby amended as follows: The description of property in Sub-section 3 shall be construed as if the words 'more than 12 months before his death' were omitted therefrom."

Why was it that the estate of a man who had made a settlement and died within 12 months was to be treated as though the settlement had never been made, because that was what it came to? The only explanation was, that the Finance Act assumed that the settlement was a fraudulent attempt to evade the duty, which was an entirely unjustifiable assumption to make. Whether it was or was not so was a question of the facts and ought to be settled, like the question of domicile, upon the facts, and not upon a hard and fast assumption. The effect of the change that he proposed would be that property passing on the death of the deceased would not be deemed to include property held under a disposition made by the deceased, even though that disposition were made within 12 months of his death. It might be said that he was leaving the revenue too much open to evasion. But he would point out that enormous securities were still left to the revenue. In the first place, full possession and enjoyment of property must have been absolutely assumed by the beneficiary, and all benefit whatever must have been renounced by the deceased person. That was an admirably complete security; and it seemed to him monstrous when a man bona fide made a settlement, and happened to die, possibly in a railway accident, within 12 months, that duty was to be levied on that property as if the settlement had never been made. He submitted that when a man had absolutely divested himself of the property, it did not matter whether he made the settlement a month or a week before his death, the Government were not entitled to oust it by making the assumption that it was based upon, and had its origin in, fraud. The attempt to do so was made for the convenience of the tax-collector, and in order that he might not have the trouble of going into the facts; and it was neither right nor fair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had paraded his immense receipts from the Death Duties before the House, and therefore he could afford to make just concessions. Let him act in justice to the honest man. The proposed clause left him every power to detect and defeat the dishonest man.

said, he quite understood the hon. Member's object in proposing this clause. The hon. Member was the great apostle of evasion. He had predicted from the first that everybody would evade the Act of last year; and that, in consequence, they would collect, not more money, but less money than they collected before. But he had been disappointed, and the Act had produced every month more and more revenue. But a false prophet always desired to turn himself, if he could, into a true prophet, and this clause was to enable those evasions to be made which had not up to this time occurred. Not having succeeded in scuttling the ship, he thought he could explode a torpedo at its bottom. He was sure the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, would not vote for this clause, because the principle of setting aside a settlement made within a certain period before death was not new. It was an old-established principle which, under the name of the Account Duty, was originally introduced to prevent evasion of the old Probate Duty. In the old days settlements or gifts were set aside if they were made within three months before death. But that was found a totally insufficient protection of the revenue; and the right hon. Gentleman, in 1889, extended it to 12 months.

That was in reference to personalty.

asked why evasions should be allowed with respect to land that were not allowed with respect to personalty. The hon. Member had let the cat out of the bag. What the right hon. Gentleman said when he extended the term was this:—

"I trust I shall have the concurrence and sympathy of hon. Members in several proposals which I have to submit for preventing ingenious evasions of the duties imposed when property changes hands at death."

The hon Member for King's Lynn suggested several dozen of these ingenious evasions, none of which had held water. The solicitors had found that the hon. Member's evasions would not pay. The fact was that the Bill which the hon. Member said was so badly drafted was so watertight that he was obliged to introduce this new leak into it. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded:—

"The Committee is probably aware that death-bed gifts are caught and taxed by what is called the Account Duty; and not only deathbed gifts, but gifts or voluntary dispositions made within three months of death. I am sorry to say that the experience of Somerset House has proved that the three months fixed in the Act is insufficient to protect the revenue, and I propose to extend the period to twelve. If the State expects that accumulations are to pay tribute to the State when transferred in the natural course of events from one person to another, I think there will be no sympathy with devices by which the State loses what the Legislature intended it to gain.''

That principle was so clear that there was no Debate upon the subject. If the hon. Member's clause was adopted, any man who wanted to avoid the duty had only to ascertain from his doctor that he was not going to live.

A cheerful operation.

said, that was the favourite doctrine preached by the hon. Member. It was always those dying impenitents who desired to defraud the State, and it was to encourage and facilitate their operations that this clause was proposed. All a man had to do when he found that he was not likely to live was to declare himself a trustee; and, having done so, the Death Duty was not payable on his estate. The whole object of this was to defeat, not any principle introduced into the Finance Act of 1894, but an old-established principle for the protection of the Revenue.

It is only 14 years old.

thought that really it would be waste of time to carry the argument any further. He was quite sure the House of Commons would not patronise—if he might say so without offence—such a barefaced attempt to defraud the Revenue to realise the Cassandra prophecy of the hon. Member for King's Lynn.

was unable to support his hon. Friend's Amendment, but he wished to observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely fond of quoting certain propositions of his and fitting them into a system of finance which had been entirely changed. Regulations which were perfectly equitable and workable under the old system ceased to be so under another system; and therefore he wished to enter his protest against his authority being invoked for certain portions of the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman had in other respects so entirely changed and modified. There was another point on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dwelt, not for the first time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed to the receipts from the Death Duty during the last five months as proof that the prophecy that the increased duty would lead to avoidance and evasion was entirely wrong and misplaced. But as yet they had had no experience. They had had no experience yet as to the transfer during lifetime either of landed estates or personalty to any considerable extent. The increase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's resources was due to two things—the increased resources were due to the increased duty, and they were due also to the natural development in the Death Duties generally. It did not occur last year, but from year to year there had been an increase in taxable property. Up to this moment they had absolutely no experience whatever of the degree to which the natural increase through the growth of wealth would be checked by the transfers that were prophesied. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew what was well known to many—that large transfers were taking place and had taken place during the last 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman, if he chose, could have a list of large estates which had been broken up. Estates were being given to sons during their father's lifetime. Through the 12 months' provision the Chancellor had caught a certain number of people who actually during the last year had transferred a large portion of their property, but through premature death had not been able to realise that avoidance on which they calculated. He knew such cases himself where persons who died soon after the passing of the Finance Act made these transfers. Solicitors would tell the right hon. Gentleman that this was taking place to a great extent and would continue to take place. He trusted, in the interests of the Exchequer, that the Chancellor would find there was not much avoidance, but he could not admit that up to the present there was any proof of it. Such proof as there was supported the view that it prevailed to a considerable extent.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put it that this was a Motion intended, as usual, to absolve land.

I did not say so.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He was so understood.

I made no distinction as between land and personal property.

said the right hon. Gentleman had an inveterate hostility to land.

Oh no!

His remarks were sympathetic, but his actions were hostile. He had an inveterate hostility to land and to agricultural property, and so he had enormously taxed it. But that was not the point of the Amendment. The point was that this was a question between settled and unsettled property. Take the case of a man who had a son or married daughter, on whom he had settled a certain sum of money and paid interest during his life. By the law up to August last he paid nothing upon his death on any sum which he had settled and upon which he had paid interest in his lifetime. Obviously the intention of the Legislature never was to touch these cases. Take the case of a man who was paying his son £1,000 a year on £25,000 capital. Under the old law that £25,000 never paid a farthing. Under the new law it would never pay a farthing after the first 12 months, because every man who was paying out £1,000 a year would at once transfer the capital to his son. That was not an evasion; it was merely bringing himself into line with what was the law up to a few months ago. Why should such persons be fined because they happened to die during a particular year. Yet a heavy fine was being put on all those who died in this particular year. With regard to marriage settlements the case was different. A man could not choose the moment at which his son or daughter might marry, and at that time it was customary to make a settlement. Why was the son or daughter to be fined nine or ten months afterwards because their father happened to die? This also was not a case of evasion. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not humane, let him at least be just in regard to such transactions, for the operation of his present scheme was monstrously unjust.

said, that the clause was very important in consequence of the adoption of the system of aggregation. Even when the sum settled before death was small it might, when aggregated with the rest of the deceased's property, have the effect of raising the rate of duty for the whole of the estate. The inclusion of these sums might therefore affect very seriously the family of a dead man. The time-limit laid down was not a satisfactory test of a man's bonâ fides. Supposing a man made a settlement and died 364 days afterwards, he was looked upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as having done something wrong in making the settlement, but if he died 366 days afterwards he was buried in the odour of sanctity and might even have a Chancellor of the Exchequer attending his funeral. The present time-limit was very unsatisfactory, and he hoped it would be altered.

said, that he was not responsible for the test of the time-limit. It was a test established by the right hon. Member for Midlothian, and extended by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. The right hon. Gentleman apparently objected to his relying upon his authority, but he always liked to agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he could, and he did not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should complain of his conduct in relation to this matter. The argument of hon. Members opposite seemed to be that the inducement to evasion would now be much greater than it was before, and the conclusion which they came to was that still greater facilities for evasion should be given. That was not very logical. This clause if accepted would destroy the whole scheme of the Death Duties. The Act, it should be remembered, laid down that land and personalty should be placed on an equal footing. He hoped the hon. Member opposite would be satisfied with the discussion that had taken place.

observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have evasion of the brain. Formerly when a man gave large sums for philanthropic purposes he was looked upon as a public benefactor, but now the right hon. Gentleman charged him with the offence of evasion. Until last year, when a man settled, say £10,000, and died within 12 months, the money settled was alone affected, but now the aggregation of that money might have the effect of raising the deceased's estate from a lower to a higher limit of taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that a man could ascertain from his doctor how long he had to live. Doctors, however, were not absolutely infallible, and they certainly could not foresee railway and other accidents. After such great changes were made last year in connection with the Death Duties they ought really to re-consider this question of the 12-months limit. Bonâ fide settlements on children should be protected.

said, that it was unjust to represent him as favouring evasion. Evasion was unlawful avoidance, and that he had always deprecated; but avoidance was lawful evasion, and that he favoured. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to him as a Cassandra. Well, but had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that, in that little story, Cassandra was the only person who was right? After hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he had come to the opinion that his case was unanswerable, and he should certainly go to a Division.

said, he should probably waste time if he were to repeat what he had said upon the last Amendment. The case of this Amendment was exactly similar; there was no distinction of principle between the two. The view of the hon. Member for King's Lynn was, that the right hon. Member for Midlothian was wholly wrong in principle when he established the three months' limit, and that the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, was much more wrong when he extended it to 12 months, and if he had been in the House he would have defeated both.

The right hon. Gentleman has no right to impute that to me. I said nothing of the kind.

I do not know what is meant by imputation. He was not in the House at the time the changes were made; he is in the House now. What he is proposing by this Amendment is to condemn the limit of 12 months established by the right hon. Member for St. George's, and to affirm the limit of three months, which he thinks to be too long. That is not a sound position. Either the principle is right or it is wrong. He is proposing to take the three months line, but in doing that he is condemning the right hon. Member for St. George's, who thought the three months' limit was too short, and extended it to 12 months. The Amendment is a compliment to the right hon. Member for Midlothian. I agree with both right hon. Members, and think the right hon. Member for St. George's was perfectly right in extending the time when he found three months insufficient.

said, it was hardly fair to charge the hon. Member with having set up an antagonism between the two right hon. Gentlemen. Undoubtedly, both were wrong.

He wishes to restore the three months limit of the right hon. Member for Midlothian.

I offer it to the Government as a compromise.

continued, that the plan of the right hon. Member for Midlothian, although bad, was the lesser of two evils. For himself, he protested against the assumption that those on that side of the House were supposed to have endorsed the change made by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. He, for one, entered a protest against the Budget, which he thought a very bad one, and he had never concealed his opinion. It was one thing to say that gifts made in prospect of death, with the object of evading duty, should be discouraged; but it was another thing to say that exemption should extend to a period of 12 months, during the greater part of which death had not been contemplated. What was to prevent the extension of the period to three years? The arrangement of 1881 went as far as could be justified, and he deprecated the alteration made by his right hon. Friend in 1889.

Not in this House.

I did not conceal my view of the proposal; and what has occurred since has strongly confirmed me in my objections, which were, indeed, widely shared by Members of the Party. This Amendment appears to me to be a reasonable one, and one deserving the attention of the Committee.

said, the answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that he made a fundamental alteration in the Death Duties last year.

said, that point had been discussed on the last Amendment, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member.

contended that arguments that might have been used in 1889 were no longer applicable, and that the three months' limit of 1881 was now a reasonable one. To extend it to 12 months was to prevent men disposing of their property within a time when, in ordinary circumstances, they could have no idea of death. A man might make a marriage settlement, and his death within a year would bring it under this duty. That would make it not a Death Duty at all, but a duty inter vivos, a duty upon a perfectly fair and bona fide disposition of property during life. He objected last year that these duties would press harshly—and they had pressed harshly—upon all owners of property both large and small. This proposal was to give the Government an opportunity of removing hardships likely to arise by the operation of the Bill. He urged the Government to grant this concession. It was not to enable anyone to evade the Death Duties, but to relieve persons of duties which would not be just.

submitted that the great alteration in the law which, rightly or wrongly, was introduced last year had materially altered the circumstances of the case, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not attempted to deal with that argument. He submitted that under the circumstances the question of the length of time ought to be considered.

complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not dealt with the legitimate grievances which had been brought forward by the Opposition, of those who had made settlements on the marriage of a daughter, or in some other way, and whom he had brought into his net without the slightest reason for forcing them into that position. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for York as to perfectly bona fide marriage settlements. It was obviously not necessary to cut up settlements such as these by a twelvemonth's rule. Three months would be quite sufficient.

said, he had done his best, and he really could not waste time replying to the arguments adduced on the Second Amendment, which were exactly the same as on the First. He had made as good allowance as he could for the changed state of things since the action of the right hon. Member for St. George's in 1889, and he could not repeat over and over again things he had already said.

said, that he was always exceedingly glad to remove any of these restrictions that might be regarded, under the circumstances, as being oppressive. The extended time given to executors of real property for the payment of the duty was owing to the difficulty of realising that property, but that difficulty did not attach to personal property—at all events, in nothing like the same degree. The hon. Gentleman, by his Amendment, proposed to effect a very serious change in the law, and to substitute a system of credit for one of ready money. Such a change would involve much risk to the revenue, because how was the Inland Revenue Department to judge of the value of the security which the executor offered? It was quite right that the Commissioners should have the power, in cases where there was exceptional hardship in connection with the realisation of personal estate, to relax the rule and to give a certain amount of credit; but such a discretionary power had been given to the Commissioners by the Finance Act of last year. It must not be supposed that the Inland Revenue Department desired to act harshly in such matters, and, indeed, in some cases they had relaxed the rule so far as to give an executor two years' credit where there had been exceptional difficulty in realising personal estate. The difficulty in the Monte Carlo case, to which the hon. Member had referred, had arisen chiefly from the action of the deceased gentleman's partner, who, from some reason or another, had thought that he was bound not to deliver over possession of the property of the deceased to his executor until probate of the will had been obtained. He hoped that after this explanation the hon. Member would consent to withdraw his proposed clause.

said, that he should be glad to withdraw his clause on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would draw up some clause, to be moved upon the Report, which would meet the difficulty he had pointed out.

said, that before the proposed clause was withdrawn, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer how an unfortunate executor of personal estate, who had no ready money at command, was to obtain probate? He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could describe it as a ready-money system. It simply meant the driving of the unfortunate executor into the arms of the money-lender. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put the cart before the horse. The hardship was felt by smaller people who did not possess the machinery of the old family lawyer and banker. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider their request to be a just one.

said, it did not appear reasonable on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say to the executor: Here is a piece of property for which you are responsible, you have to give me a 20th or 25th part of it, and yet you dare not touch it for that purpose. As to the difficulty of obtaining adequate security, he could not conceive that it would be more difficult than it was in the case of the money-lender or the banker. No reasonable person would propose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be satisfied with anything less than absolute and complete security. They did not want to lessen the revenue derived from this source, but where it was impossible to find the means, he could not see that it was unreasonable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take full and assured security.

supported the Amendment. The practice of requiring payment of Probate in money down operated with great cruelty in many cases. He had known a case where a widow had to go and borrow the money, and was a long time before she could get it. What generally happened was, that the executor got into the hands of a solicitor, who obtained the money for him. There was power to extend the time where there would be a sacrifice of property; but that was comparatively a small matter. If a solicitor or money-lender could advance the money, why could not the Treasury or Inland Revenue authorities take a charge upon the property which should be effectual?

said, he should have been extremely glad to have met hon. Members in regard to this matter, but he was convinced he could not. He was asked to reverse the whole principle on which Probate Duty had been collected now for generations. The custom and principle had been always that Probate Duty should be paid before the property was released. This proposal would reverse this custom suddenly.

said, he had given notice on the Committee Stage several days ago.

said, that was not notice enough of a proposed alteration which would subvert the security of the whole of the Revenue.

said, the Probate was not so old as to extend over so many generations as the right hon. Gentleman implied. It was only within very recent times since it had become a Duty; formerly it was only fees for work done by the Probate Department.

said, he understood his hon. Friend was not going to persevere with the new clause at the present time, but he sincerely hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a satisfactory reply when the Report Stage was reached, and, if not, that the opinion of the House would then be taken with regard to it. The case put forward by his hon. Friend was that of a widow who died and left an estate valued at £120,000; before she touched that estate she would have to pay £7,000 which she was obliged to borrow. He thought that in a case like that the Inland Revenue Authorities might have exercised their discretion, and he should be very glad to ascertain the reasons which induced them to refuse to take the security which was admitted to be absolutely substantial.

expressed his surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given as the reason for not making this alteration that the system had been in existence for generations. He thought the Leaders of the Liberal Party were reformers. It was often a very difficult matter for the executor to get the money to pay the Probate Duty. A case had come under his notice within the last two months where a considerable loss would have ensued if he himself had not come to the rescue.

said, those who had listened to the Debate must be satisfied that the hon. Member had made out a good case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not attempt to deny the grievance, he only objected in general terms that if the Amendment were carried the authorities at Somerset House would find great difficulty. He had not told them, however, what the difficulty would be. He could not see what difficulty the revenue authorities could have in the matter. They knew the value of the estate, and were therefore in a better position than anybody else to take security in respect of their claim.

said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out the slightest hope that he would make the powers of the Inland Revenue authorities more elastic he would have withdrawn his proposal.

said, the Commissioners had absolute power, but they found, upon examination of the case to which the hon. Member had referred, that it was not a case in which that power should be exercised.

said, if that was not a case in which the power should be exercised, the law and the procedure were both very bad indeed.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position was that no hope was to be held out that the present practice of the Inland Revenue Department would in any degree be changed.

said, he was satisfied that the discretionary power which he gave the department last year, and of which they had only had experience for eight months, was sufficient for the purpose.

said, the concrete case before the Committee appeared to be one in which that discretionary power ought certainly to be used. It was the case of a person who had to receive after probate an estate which the Inland Revenue Department itself valued at £120,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said if that estate was to be accepted as security for £7,000 all the principles on which the probate duty had been collected for generations would be reversed, and millions of the public money would be put at hazard.

said, that whether this particular case was rightly decided or not was a question by itself. But the clause proposed would upset the whole principle upon which the probate duty was collected by doing away with the necessity of paying in the first instance. It was the generality of the Amendment to which he objected.

said the Amendment seemed to him to secure the Revenue by providing that sufficient security must in all cases be given. When they were collecting a tax which varied from 3 to 8 per cent. the capital on which that was levied must surely be sufficient security for the percentage. The revenue was to determine the amount which it was to receive. It was only to give credit for three months, receiving three per cent. interest during that time, and for that credit it was to have a security which might be from 16 to 33 times the value of the amount due. How was it possible in these circumstances that the Revenue could lose a single farthing? The Revenue officials seemed to have a stereotyped way of dealing with these matters, and they made taxes, obnoxious at any time, still more obnoxious by the way they were administered. He hoped they might have some promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would deal with this matter.

said, that formerly the Commissioners had power in special cases to enlarge the time for the payment of the duty, but by the Act of last year this was altered, the words being:

"Where the Commissioners are satisfied that the estate duty leviable in respect of any property cannot without excessive sacrifice be raised at once, they may allow payment to be postponed."

The Commissioners seemed to have construed that to mean sacrifice to the property itself. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would restore the former provision he believed the whole difficulty would be met. What was wanted was that the Commissioners should have a somewhat freer hand.

could not see that the Revenue would run any risk through the acceptance of the Amendment. It would be in the judgment of the Commissioners to define what "sufficient security" was. But, on the other hand, the executor would not benefit very much, because if he had to give security he could go to a banker and fund the money in that way.

said, that he was sorry that this Debate should be resumed at a time when but a short interval was left before the hour for adjournment. The subject to which he was calling attention last week when the Debate stood adjourned, was the policy pursued by the Education Department towards the voluntary schools of this country. In bringing forward the grievances of the voluntary schools, their relations with the Education Department, and their claims upon the consideration of the House, he was confident that there was no subject more worthy of the consideration of Parliament. A great deal of the time that had been wasted this Session in ploughing the sands, might have been much more profitably occupied in the consideration of some of the grievances under which the voluntary schools of this country suffered. He was aware that the Vice President of the Council could not be held responsible for many of the things that were done in his name, but he did submit that when grievances were brought before the right hon. Gentleman, when the conduct of those acting in the name of the Department was proved to be erroneous, or arbitrary, or oppressive, the right hon. Gentleman ought to censure his officials. There were special grounds why the voluntary schools of the country were entitled to sympathy and help from Parliament, and from the Education Department. Early in the Session, in connection with the subject of the marking of registers, he had asked the right hon. Gentleman a question having reference to the severe weather and the hardship of marking the registers during that weather in the voluntary schools, and the right hon. Gentleman in his answer used this expression:—

"Country schools at a time like this, certainly need lenient treatment."

What those who were interested in voluntary schools asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should extend the leniency of which he then spoke. He based his demand for consideration for these schools upon their past work, upon what they had done for the cause of elementary education in this country at the time when it was not the care of the Government. From 1811 to 1870, when the Elementary Education Act was passed, the voluntary schools of this country were practically the sole custodians of elementary education, and it was computed that from 1811 to the present day, the supporters of the voluntary system had contributed 36 millions sterling for school buildings and maintenance. That fact alone entitled the supporters of these schools to kindly consideration and recognition from the Minister of Education and the Government of the day. Since the establishment of school boards, whose beneficent work he readily bore witness to, the voluntary schools, notwithstanding the competition to which they had thereby been exposed, had continued to maintain a wonderful position in the country. There existed to-day in England and Wales 5,500,000 school places, and of these no fewer than 3,000,000 were supplied by the voluntary schools. There were on the registers about 5,000,000 school children, and of these 3,000,000 were in the voluntary schools, and the average attendance was about 2,500,000 in the voluntary schools, as compared with 1,500,000 in the board schools. Therefore, notwithstanding the board schools system, the voluntary schools still did the bulk of the work of elementary education, and they did this in spite of the difficulties under which they laboured. The House was aware that Parliament had given School Board Authorities unlimited power of rating for school purposes, but the voluntary schools were dependent upon a fixed grant from the Education Department, and upon voluntary subscriptions for any excess. In the case of board schools, any harsh conduct on the part of the Education Department placed them under no disability. A withholding of the grant was no hardship on the School Board Authorities; if they could not get their cheque from the Education Department, they had the ratepayers to fall back upon. But in the case of the voluntary schools, the withholding of the grant might be a question of life and death. They could not fall back upon the ratepayers in order to have the deficiency made good. The Vice President of the Council had said more than once that he meted out the same justice to board schools and to voluntary schools. That was not a completely satisfactory statement, because, as he had shown, board schools and voluntary schools were not on the same footing in respect of finance. The voluntary schools were financially entitled to more considerate treatment at the hands of the Department, because they were more affected by the payment or non-payment of the grant than board schools were. The grievances under which voluntary schools suffered were numerous, as his correspondence proved. In the first place he would call attention to the frequent delay in the payment of the grants, which was a very serious matter. Last Session he had asked the Vice President of the Council whether, to obviate, the difficulty, the Department could make a semi-annual payment on the basis of the grant made in the previous year, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that that could not be done. He ventured to press the point again upon the right hon. Gentleman. Sometimes voluntary schools had to wait three and even four months before they could get the grant, because there was a delay in the presentation of the Inspectors' reports, and in the consequent action of the Department in respect of the remittance of the grant. Teachers' salaries had to be paid at the end of the school year, and other moneys had to be found also, and if the grant was not received, managers were placed in a position in which they ought not to be placed. They had to become personally responsible for the money needed to carry on the work which they were gratuitously directing in the public interest. Another grievance which, however, had now been modified to a large extent, was the withholding of grants which had been earned on representations made by the officials of the Department with regard to further structural alterations. A school was examined, the inspector's report was delivered, and if the report was satisfactory, the school managers were entitled to a grant which was regulated by the code. But when the finding was delivered, the inspector required certain structural alterations—which might or might not be necessary, which might or might not be just—to be carried out. In many instances these requisitions had been most unjust, and it was with great difficulty that a modification or withdrawal of them had been arranged. The procedure had been this. The managers were asked by the Department:—

"Are you prepared to carry out these alterations? Until you are prepared we will withhold the grant."

Then another grievance, which was confined almost exclusively to the period during which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had presided at the Education Department, had been that new and sudden requisitions were started by the inspector and forced on schools under various heads. He had a letter from a chairman of managers of a voluntary school, in which he said:—

"There is an important point we should like to have defined, and that is 'marching space.' Is this space over and above the requirements laid down in the code? We really do not know, and no one seems able to define it. I asked an inspector and Mr. Miller at the Department but I could get no satisfactory explanation."

That was a question on which he would specially ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House some information. What was the authorised requirement? Was marching space included in the eight square feet basis? If it was left to the inspector to lay down some imaginary measurement of his own, then the code that had been presented to the House was a mere mockery. Then with regard to staffing—there again a novel doctrine was laid down. It had been seriously laid down without censure from the Department, that if a school approximated too closely to the limit laid down by the code, it would thereby endanger its grant. The code laid it down that for so many children there should be so many teachers; but it had been said by inspectors that because a school approached too closely to the minimum requirements of the code, that was a ground for depriving that school of its grant. That was a novel and illegal manner of dealing with schools. There was no doubt a feeling prevalent among those whose duty it was to look after these schools that they were pleasing the right hon. Gentleman when they made novel and harassing requirements. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken an earlier opportunity of repudiating a policy of this kind and to let it be known that he desired to see a fair and just and considerate policy pursued towards voluntary schools. Then there was another grievance with regard to the unfair and undue pressure put on these schools by the Department in the matter of structural alterations. Although he knew that the right hon. Gentleman was a zealous educationist, and no doubt, according to his view, did his best to promote the cause of education, yet the result of the policy he had adopted had been to cause a vast amount of unnecessary burden to fall upon the managers of voluntary schools. Upon this matter the right hon. Gentleman did a most singular thing last year. He quoted the report of the National Society, and practically called them as witnesses to show that his Department had not pursued an unfair policy. This was what the right hon. Gentleman said on August 21 last year:—

"The National Society and its officials certainly know more about these matters than any single individual can possibly do, and at their annual meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury, acting as their chairman, said that while the Department was ruling over the voluntary schools with rigour that fact ought to make everybody extremely careful, both in public and in private, not to bring charges against the Department which could not be justified. The Archbishop said the National Society had a Committee which was on the watch most carefully, and no doubt it was able to look microscopically into these matters and to investigate any complaint made against the Department. It was the opinion of that Committee that no undue pressure had been put on Church schools."

But what was the opinion of the Committee? Unfortunately no one happened to have the Report in his hands at the time with which to answer the right hon. Gentleman.

I never saw that Report.

Then the right hon. Gentleman had no right to make the statement he did. He proposed to tell the House what the Committee said. They said:—

"Your Committee feel it their duty to report that the pressure put by the Education Department during the years 1892 and 1893, on a large number of Church schools has, in their opinion, been inopportune, hasty, and in some respects excessive. Your Committee feel strongly the unfairness of this treatment, and contend that managers of church schools, who in better times proved their sincerity of purpose by exceeding the requirements of the Department, ought now to be treated with much consideration."

That was what the Committee said, who, the right hon. Gentleman told the House, were in a better position to form an opinion than any private individual could be. They went on to say that during the past year they had found it more than usually difficult to prevent hardly-pressed Churchmen from giving way to despair. Was the right hon. Gentleman in favour of a policy the result of which was to make it difficult to prevent hardly-pressed Churchmen from giving way to despair?

I quoted from the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury when he took the chair at the National Society on June 19, 1894. He said on that occasion—

"The Department was ruling over the voluntary schools with rigour; but that fact ought to make them all extremely careful, both in public and in private, not to bring against the Department charges which could not be justified. The National Society had a Committee which was on the watch most carefully and precisely, and it was able to investigate the charges made against the Department, and it was not the opinion of the Committee that any undue pressure had been put upon Church schools."

Those were the views of the Archbishop.

said, that he accepted the explanation as far as it went, but that it did not go far. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny that he told the House that the National Society and its officials knew more about the matter than any single individual could know, and he had quoted the Report of the Committee of the National Society.

I did not deceive the House. I quoted from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

said, that the actual Report of the Committee put a very different complexion on their opinions from that given by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman did not know at that time what the Committee had really said. [Mr. ACLAND: "I know what the Archbishop thought."] He would hardly say now that the National Society was satisfied with his administration. The Report declared:—

"The argument that there is no finality about the demands of the Education Department, and that money spent now in meeting those demands will only postpone the ultimate surrender of all Church schools, has been very hard to refute."

He had established, out of the mouths of the witnesses who, as the right hon. Gentleman said, knew more than any one else about the matter, that the right hon. Gentleman's administration had been harsh and oppressive in the extreme.

claimed to move: "That the main question be now put."

Having regard to the nature of the questions on the paper, and the fact that all of them can, and probably will, be discussed in the course of the Estimates, when divisions can be taken, as is not the case now, I accept the Motion.

Sir James Lyall is not a paid officer of the Indian Government.

replied that Sir J. Lyall was in receipt of a pension from the Indian Government. Continuing, he said, that the grossly partisan reports occupied 240 pages, while the actual and independent portion covered only 126 pages. 130 medical men were examined. Of these, 82 were official, 14 missionary, and 34 independent. Of the officials, 44 were favourable, 18 indifferent, and 20 unfavourable. All the missionaries were unfavourable to the use of opium, half the independent medical men—17 out of 34—and 20 officials. There were thus 51 medical men on the one side, against 51 on the other. A sample of the one sidedness was shown in the report dealing with Burma (p. 92). The Commission said—

"We have no suggestions to make as to the administration of the measures sanctioned by the Government of India in November 1893, and we recommend that they be maintained unaltered till they be fairly tested by experience."

Sir Charles Aitchison reported in 1880. The Indian Government held out till 1893. Sir Charles said—

"Here the question is not one of better or worse morality, but the salvation of a whole people from a vice which we have introduced among them, and from ruin, which it is to a great extent in our power to retard, if not prevent. There was no time here for experiments if the people were to be saved."

The Indian Government still retarded Sir Charles Aitchison's recommendations, and this Commission called it, in fact, a mere experiment. Another example was as to the drugging of infants (p. 16). The arguments put forward in support of the practice was that it was used to prevent diarrhœa, to correct the mother's milk, and to keep the child quiet.

"It was impossible to believe that this custom should have been handed down for many centuries amongst a people whose general fondness for their children was well known, if it were as injurious as some witnesses seemed to think."

The evidence as to the drugging of infants was as follows:—

"Surgeon Lieut-Col. Hendley puts in summaries of replies from 55 persons at Jeypore, on the use of opium. The answers referring to children concludes: Baneful custom, as it causes atrophy, constipation, fever, etc. The principal cause of infantile mortality here.' Witness adds, 'The opinions of all are much the same.' In the municipal report of Lucknow for 1891, Dr. Cleghorn wrote, 'Another cause of mortality among children is the almost universal practice of giving infants opium.' Dr. Huntley states, 'I know that I have come across many deaths in children owing to an overdose of opium, and still more die from the continuance of the habit. Within a radius of half-a-mile of Jodhpore hospital I certainly can produce 20 cases.' Miss Rose Greenfield of the Charlotte Hospital, Ludhiana, said, 'Many children's lives are lost just by an overdose of opium.' She had no doubt a certain number of girls are still killed by opium intentionally. Miss Carlton, M.D., definitely confirmed this. A native witness stated 'girls are more generally drugged than boys.' Surgeon Lieut-Col. Mayne said, 'I continually saw children given opium, and I have seen some deaths among them from its injudicious use.'"

Throughout its inquiries the Commission seemed to have forgotten the real character of the drug. In 1843, Lore Shaftesbury took the opinion of 27 of the most eminent medical men in London, who described the pernicious consequences of the opium habit as destroying the healthy habit of the digestive organs. There was also the testimony of upwards of 5,000 medical men of the present day, many of then eminent in their profession, including 14 professors of materia medica, 23 doctors who had practised in India and 12 in China, stating distinctly the deleterious effects of the drug. A book entitled "Rudiments of Sanitation for Indian Schools," edited by Surgeon Captain Patrick Hebair, M.D., laid down the pernicious consequences of the opium habit and the necessity of at ones counteracting it, even at the expense of great physical suffering for the time, and it ended with the moral to the Indian children not to touch opium. He would go as fast as he could through the great Indian points. They were told that the drug was used as a prophylactic and as a febrifuge; that it was essential to the cultivator; that it was difficult to arrange matters with the native states; and that our native soldiers required it. What was the character of opium? Gloss it over as they liked, it was a poisonous drug. The great difference between alcohol and opium was this: Thousands took beer, wine, and spirits—took alcohol one day, but did not, perhaps, touch it the next; took it in fact in moderation; whereas an opium smoker or eater must have it, or he failed in his daily task; and the evidence was conclusive that in almost every case he must have more and more of the drug. No one objected to the use of opium purely as a drug. As to the allegations that opium was a prophylactic and a febrifuge, Rai Lal Bahadur, L.M.S., graduate in medicine and surgery, president of Calcutta Medical School, lecturer on ophthalmic medicine, and for 30 years in Government employ, examined as to its being a prophylactic, stated:—

"It is to my mind a new theory. It is not a theory I ever heard as a student or as a practitioner,"

and added—

"I do not think it a remedy in fever."

Moreover, a memorandum of the Government of Madras was as follows:—

"The Government are aware that the opium traffic is carefully watched by the agents and their assistants, and that, so far from 'teaching the people to rely on opium as a febrifuge,' we are doing all we can to gradually wean them from their heriditary habit of using it on all occasions."

Dr. J. R. Wallace, M.D., who had had 14 years' experience in Calcutta, both in Government service and private practice, said:—

"I have never seen or heard of any physician in Calcutta or elsewhere who prescribes the use of opium for the prevention or cure of malarial fever. I have recently read of the good effect of opium in preventing and even curing malarial fever. I have given the theory a fair and honest trial during the past 10 or 12 months, and I am thoroughly convinced that beyond relieving the bodily pains and aches of malarial fever, it in no way prevents or shortens its paroxysms. I firmly believe that the action of opium in malarial disorders, in which there is a strong tendency to congestion of the liver, spleen, and kidneys, is not only distinctly contra-indicated, but its administration in many such cases would be undoubtedly harmful." "I have frequently found serious complications follow the use of opium when given as a sedative in cases where the liver had undergone inflammatory or degenerative change from any cause. I base this opinion further upon the teaching and practice of many able and experienced Indian physicians, such men as Norman Chevers, David B. Smith, Coates, Harvey, and M'Connell, men whose lectures and practice I have attended and seen, and from whom I never heard a word of commendation for the use of opium in malarial fever; men who, as far as my recollection serves me, have always condemned the use of opium in congested conditions of the liver—a condition which, sooner or later, complicates every case of malarial fever."

Then as to the cultivation and character of the opium crop and its necessity to the cultivator. It was universally admitted throughout the Blue Books, and in the Report on the "Moral and Material Progress of India," which was laid on the Table of the House of Commons in May 1892, that the cultivation of the poppy was being reduced on account of other crops turning the poppy out of the market. It was giving place to better paying crops. From the Report on the "Moral and Material Progress of India," page 89, he quoted:—

"It is reported that cultivators of opium have lost heart, after experiencing three bad seasons in succession; that new cultivators are gradually withdrawing from the industry, while there is a tendency on the part of older cultivators to lessen the poppy area cultivated by them in favour of the more robust and less precarious cereals."

The Behar opium agent adds:—

"The opium department have difficulty in maintaining their position; they cannot drop cultivation at will without losing it permanently."

The problem was how to keep the land in poppy cultivation, and that was the difficulty of the Government in 1891. In 1894, in a copy of the Resolution of the Indian Revenue Department, it was stated that—

"the decrease in the area of poppy cultivation was accounted for by the following reasons: (1) The policy of the Government was not to take any measures for increasing the area of cultivation; (2) a series of bad seasons, which had disheartened the opium cultivators; and (3) the cultivation of other crops."

The end of these difficulties was that the Indian Government, since the Commission left India, in order to produce a crop at all, had to make an additional advance of 20 per cent.—i.e., from 5 to 6 rupees per seer, or at the rate of 10s. 6d. per acre, to the cultivator. While it was confessed that in many places the production of the poppy was an advantage to the cultivator, yet there was perfectly clear evidence to show that in other places the crop was being rapidly superseded by crops of other articles far more beneficial to humanity; and he could not help thinking that if the Government of India would turn their attention less to the production of opium and more to that of other crops, it would be to the benefit of the cultivator and mankind at large. The next point was the argument that the cultivation of the poppy was required by the native states. Now the number of chests from those states had gradually fallen away since 1886. In 1886–7 the number of chests on which duty was paid was 39,745, and in 1894–5 they fell to 27,750. Thus, in spite of all the encouragement that had been given to the native States, the quantity of opium that passed out of them for duty fell by 33 per cent. Baroda, which used to send 2,000 chests, now sends no opium at all. But granting for a moment that the native States went on with the cultivation of the poppy, he admitted that the Government was not responsible for the deeds of those States to the same extent as for those of India proper. The Government were able to leave the states to take their own course, but if, by the Government giving up the cultivation, the demand and price of the opium of the native states were increased they could restrain the increase as at present by raising the transit duties. The Indian Government reduced them from 750 rupees to 600 rupees, and had now again raised them to 650, where they could keep them with all justice to the native States if they desired to wash their own hands of the trade. Another argument on this question (what was termed the soldier argument) was that opium was essential to the native soldier—but it altogether failed before the Commission. The evidence showed that there were no fewer than 23 native regiments—16 regiments of the Bengal Infantry, 5 of the Punjab Infantry, and 2 of the Sikh Infantry—which never touched opium at all, and in those in which it was taken the practice was condemned and its effects were shown to be prejudicial both morally and physically.

"'In the 15th Bengal Infantry each man took opium with him according to his requirements; in the 23rd Bengal Infantry three pounds taken up by the Commissariat Department sufficed for two years; in the 32nd Bengal Infantry one pound was taken regimentally, to be issued when ordered, but was brought back unused; and in the 3rd Sikh Infantry a small quantity was taken up by the regimental chowdhri for use if required, but was brought back untouched.' Major-General Sir Robert Low, who held the important military command of the Oudh district, said that the native troops under him were both Hindus and Mahomedans living in the North-West Provinces. The opening questions and replies 14,108 to 14,112 ran as follows:—'As a rule are these men opiumeaters?' 'No.' 'I presume there are exceptions in almost every regiment?' 'Yes.' 'What is the highest number of opium-eaters reported in any one regiment under your command?' 'Twenty.' 'And the lowest?' 'Two, that is in the Ghoorka regiment.' 'Is there any regiment in which none are reported?' 'There is one.' General Low said when he was in the 13th Bengal Lancers twelve years ago all the Sikhs took opium habitually in small quantities. The exact amounts he could not remember. Referring to a servant of his who had taken opium for a long time, the General said:—'I did not know that he used it to excess until up in the hills we found ourselves without it. Then he became perfectly useless, and we had to send many miles to get some.' Resaldar-Major Nur-ul-Hasan said that in the 6th Bengal Cavalry, in which he had 'served for thirty-six years, about three per cent. used opium.'"

It was further proved (Q. 16,952) that, of 240 Sikhs in the 10th Bengal Lancers, "only eight or nine took it all the year round." Of the 2nd Punjab Infantry, Colonel Turner said that "only two or three per cent. take opium regularly," and the Surgeon in charge said:—

"He had no doubt that it had a prejudicial effect in cases of pneumonia."

Colonel Briscoe, 19th Bengal Lancers, said, he gave no numbers, because the numbers varied so greatly.

It is also fallacious," he said, "to take a percentage of Sikhs, because it is very rare for a young Sikh to take opium at all. The habit is chiefly amongst middle-aged and old men."

This evidence was confirmed by most of the witnesses. The last of the Sikh regiments inquired into at Delhi was the 29th Punjab Infantry. Lieut.-Colonel Reid said the general tone of the regiment "is against its use;" that

"the habitual opium eater's appearance was against him, for he seemed to have deteriorated physically."

The Colonel said further in his evidence:—

"'Nine men, that is 1 per cent. of the regiment, habitually eat opium …. of whom 3 men, or one-third per cent. of the regiment, eat in excess; and 6 men, or two-thirds per cent., eat in moderation.' 'Morally the results are bad. The habitual opium-eaters are marked men in the regiment, and are not trusted like the rest. I would not enlist an opium-eater if I knew it.' Only one commanding officer of Bajputs appears to have given evidence, viz., Colonel Jamieson, 7th Bengal Infantry. He stated that in his regiment 12 men used opium in moderation and 1 in excess. The general evidence from the Sikh States shews that taking opium before 40 years of age is considered objectionable, and a species of licentiousness."

Then, with regard to the condition of the soldier in China, Consul Allan, Chefoo, said (Vol. 5):—

"I expect that the civil and military officials would indignantly deny that men under their orders smoked opium. In fact, the Brigadier-General in charge of the troops told me that he dismissed at once any soldier caught smoking opium."

In the same volume, Consul Bullock, of New Chang, said:—

"Ask a Chinese which would win in a fight, a regiment of men allowed to smoke opium or one of similar men who were prevented from doing so, and he will laugh at the simplicity of the question. … Opium-smoking is condemned in Chinese opinion as degrading, because injurious. The public voice cries out against it as a great evil to the nation."

Again, Consul Hurst, of Tainan (page 323) declared:—

"As long as China remains a nation of opium-smokers there is not the least reason to fear that she will become a military power of any importance, as the habit saps the energies and vitality of the nation."

Speaking of India alone, so far as malarial disease was concerned, so far as the native soldier, the cultivator, and the native States were concerned, it was shown by the evidence that there was no force in the argument that the cultivation of the drug was essential to or required by any of them. He now came to what was perhaps, after all, the crucial part of the position he took, and that was opium-smoking. He had never, in any speech he had made on the question, and he was not aware that any of his hon. Friends had done so, gone deeply into the habits of taking opium pills or small quantities of the drug. What he and his friends had always gone steadily against was the trade in opium and the practice of opium-smoking in China, the Straits Settlements, and in India itself. On this point he was at one with the Commissioners, for he was glad to say they went straight against opium-smoking in India. In paragraph 80 of the Report, the Commissioners said:—

"On the other hand, it was clearly shown before us that native public opinion generally Condemns the habit as disreputable, mainly, perhaps, from its associations, and this opinion is shared by the great mass of European witnesses, official and private, including the medical practitioners."

Again, on page 118, they say:—

"The practice of opium-smoking is generally looked down upon in India as a low and vicious habit. Several of the witnesses thought the practice—and especially that of madak smoking—injurious to health. Others thought that the injurious effects were not due directly to the smoking, but were due to the associations and surroundings of the habit. These are certainly very bad. The practice of smoking seems to require that it shall be carried on in company, and the premises or 'dens' in which opium-smokers meet in India are of a squalid and insanitary character."

This view was confirmed in the memorandum of Mr. Haridas Veharidas, one of the native members of the Commission, which was attached to the Report. He said:—

"The practice of opium-smoking is generally condemned, but nothing short of its abolition by law will, in my humble opinion, put an end to it. It is most desirable that it should be made penal.… A strict law should be made prohibiting opium-smoking in any form and under any circumstances."

The Maharaja Bahadur of Durbhanga stated in a note supplementary to the Report of the Commissioners, that while he thought it was impossible to make any suggestions that could apply to the whole of India, and therefore hesitated to lay down any hard-and fast line, yet:—

"he would urge that opium should be sold in bottles or phials labelled "poison," and the minimum dose which was likely to be fatal should also be legibly printed in the vernacular on these labels. … The habit of opium-smoking is generally looked upon as a degrading habit. Mr. Haridas Veharidas has entered into the subject very fully; and I find myself in agreement with his views on the subject."

Other native gentlemen in various parts of India took a similar view. Among English officials who gave evidence, Mr. H. B. M. James, of the Northern Division, B.B., said:—

"In India it is a degrading vice, the mark of of a debauchee, and 99 out of 100 who practise it are degraded and worthless, perhaps criminal persons."

Mr. J. M. Campbell, Bombay, said:—

"Though the description under review may be overdrawn and misleading, the practice of opium smoking is evil and wasteful. It would be well if it did not exist."

The collector at Satara said:—

"The vice of opium-smoking evidently possesses a fearful fascination when once it is acquired, and its effects are deadly, depriving the victim of all moral resolution. With these facts made palpable, it is a serious thing for Government to offer any facility for acquiring the vice by licensing a shop, where anyone is at liberty to make a trial."

To the same effect he might quote many other witnesses. Now as to the prevention of the evil the Commissioners stated that though they were unable to recommend the adoption of measures of restrictive legislation, yet they did recommend that the licensing of shops in the province for the manufacture and sale of opium should be abandoned. On page 72 of the Report the Commissioners said:—

"While we are not prepared to recommend measures of restrictive legislation, we are in favour of making it difficult for smokers of Chandu and Madak to indulge in the habit. We recommend that the Government should abandon in all provinces the licensing of shops for the manufacture and sale of these preparations, showing thereby that they are in sympathy with public opinion. In the Punjab, Bombay, North-Western Provinces, and Oudh this has already been done, and in those provinces, individuals, though they may manufacture the preparations for their own use, are not permitted to possess a larger amount than 180 grains weight. We recommend that these provisions be extended to the other provinces of British India. The manufacture of small quantities by private persons is wasteful, and the process tedious. Only confirmed smokers therefore are likely to incur the expense and trouble. The general adoption of this system, which is undoubtedly repressive, so far as it can be enforced will tend to prevent the spread of the habit, and lead, it may be hoped, to its ultimate extinction."

The Commissioners came nearly up to his standard in dealing with the question so far as opium smoking in India was con-concerned, whether they took the recommendation of the English members and Indian officials who proposed to take away the licences of shops for the manufacture and sale of opium, or whether they adopted the advice of the two native members of the Commission, who knew the country intimately, and who suggested that opium smoking should be put down by law. The trade in opium is falling away. The revenue from it in 1880–81 was Rx. 8,451,382, and in 1894–95 it had fallen to Rx. 4,138,300. Opium-smoking in India was condemned as a low low and vicious habit; and now he proposed to prove that in China this habit is undermining society, and from its effects the people were surely deteriorating. Mr. E. Starkey, who had been for 27 years a merchant in China, said:—

"There are many smokers in moderation, but usually after ten years or so of indulgence they suffer in health and require increased doses. The opium habit is undermining society in this province (Chin-kiang); the moral standard of non-smokers is affected by it, and the people are surely deteriorating."

This gentleman was formerly an importer of opium. Our Vice Consul at Canton, Mr. Bourne, said:—

"It is correct to say that there can be no moderation: excessive habit is condemned as degrading and injurious, but the moderate habit only as likely to lead to excess."

Mr. Williamson, Acting Vice Consul in Corea, quoted Dr. Landes as saying:—

"It ruins morally and physically at least 90 per cent. of the Koreans who use it."

Mr. Frank Trench, of Chung-king, in China, said:—

"Opium-smoking is an unmitigated evil. It has enormously added to the sin and misery of this country. It weakens every physical power before long, and makes wreck of the man or woman eventually for certain."

Sir George Staunton, who was the representative of the East India Company at Canton, said, many years ago:—

"It is mere trifling to place the abuse of opium on the same level with the abuse on spirituous liquors. It is (i.e., the abuse) the main purpose in the former case; but in the latter it is only the exception.''

Miss Geraldine Guinness, who wrote "Four Years' Sojourn in China," had travelled through six of its provinces, and was also personally acquainted with the opium question in Tonquin, the Straits Settlements, Colombo, and Aden. She gave a graphic account of some of her opium experiences in China. She spoke of how her heart ached and bled during the painful hours in which she had worked by the bedside of women and girls who had poisoned themselves by opium to save themselves from fates worse than death, to which they had been sold because their fathers and husbands wanted opium. "The opium vice," she said, "is not one crime simply, but a concentration of all crimes." She spoke of the great opium palaces of lust in Shanghai that she had visited, where hundreds of women were held in bitter bondage. "Crimes of the blackest dye," she affirmed, "are directly traceable to opium in China." Archdeacon Wolfe, in 1888, wrote:—

"The devil could not have invented a more pernicious vice for the destruction of soul and body than this of opium-smoking, and woe to the man who by word or deed gives any support or encouragement to the hell-born traffic! Men openly and without shame prostitute their wives, in order to procure for themselves the means of indulging in opium-smoking. Little children are sold as slaves and turned away from the embrace of their helpless mothers in order that their degraded fathers may have money to buy opium. All this and much more may be told of the effects of opium-smoking on the miserable people; yet professing Christians in England see no harm in it, and openly advocate the abominable traffic, which makes it possible and comparatively easy for the Chinese people to ruin themselves and their wives and children for time and for eternity!"

In answer to the questions issued by the Commission and sent to China, there were varying estimates of the proportions of opium-smokers who suffered more or less injury. The medical missionaries said 71 per cent.; other missionaries, 74 per cent.; medical officials, 55 per cent.; sundry medical men, 61 per cent.; Consuls, 58 per cent.; other officials, 40 per cent.; one merchant, 80 per cent.; and the Sassoons, who were importers, 10 per cent. An LL.D. of Oxford, who was now in the pay of the Chinese Government, in sending a contribution to the Anti-Opium Society, wrote:—

"Having lived among the Chinese for 34 years, and seen the disastrous results of the fast-increasing consumption of opium, it has long been my wish to aid in any reasonable scheme that may be started to remove this enormous evil, which has undermined and almost destroyed the very life and strength of the nation. Japan, with her total exemption from the use of the drug, is proving more than a match for China, now almost overpowered by it. I fear that China has to go through a dreadful course of humiliation and suffering before she can be driven to free herself from the baneful effects of opium by using the strong and drastic remedies that are now necessary. Japan is a most dangerous enemy, but even if China can withstand a Japanese invasion she can never survive unless this soul and body destroying poison is completely exterminated."

He had proved that that portion of the revenue derived from supplying the army deteriorated the soldier and was immoral. Certainly that derived from the drugging of infants was immoral, and as certainly that derived from facilitating suicide and murder. No fewer than 53 witnesses admitted that opium was continually used in the promotion of sensuality. A gentleman living in Singapore, who had studied the question carefully, said:—

"The more I investigate the subject the more plain and clear is the ultimate connection between opium and sensual vice."

Surely this was an immoral revenue. In India smoking was condemned on all hands—by our own Commission, by the native Commissioners especially, and by our intelligent officials. All called out for the abolition of the habit and the destruction of this portion of our immoral revenue. When we turned to our customer China, the evidence was stronger still that our opium and her own were causing her destruction as a nation. Ninety per cent. of our revenue came from China, and we were aiding in ruining China by participating in the trade. We could not get over the fact that, although China might supply herself and did supply herself, we were participators in that which was immoral; and this was the ground on which he asked the House to vote for the Resolution. The argument that if we were not to supply China with opium China would supply herself is one which was very well met in John Dymond's Essays on Morality. He said, practically:—I have no right to do that which is wrong, if it is wrong, because somebody else is going to do wrong. His words are:—

"If I were to sell a man arsenic, or a pistol, knowing that the buyer wanted to commit murder, should I not be a bad man? If I let a house knowing that the renter wanted it for purposes of wickedness, am I an innocent man? Upon such reasoning you might rob a traveller on the road if you knew that at the next turning a foot-pad was waiting to plunder him. To sell property or goods for bad purposes, because if you do not do it some one else will, is like a man selling his slaves because he thought it criminal to keep them in bondage."

This was their position: it was not that we supplied the whole of China, but that we supplied China with that which was immoral in its character and consequences, and was deteriorating to China. The hon. Member for Central Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) purposed to make an addition to the Resolution; and that Amendment expressed views which he held; but he had not touched upon the question of finance, which was referred to a Commission. There were many who believed that our Frontier Policy in India was a policy which was of an expensive and unknown character, and required placing on a more permanent basis. Since the Afghan war we had had 10,000 more English troops and 20,000 more native troops. Whether we required them or not, Parliament had not the means of knowing; but the cost of them was largely eating up the increase in the revenue of India. In 1891 Mr. Smith declared, as Leader of the House and of the Government, that the policy of the Government was to diminish the area of poppy cultivation, and that it would be persevered in in the future. Mr. Gladstone put pressure upon the Government to pursue that policy, and the House carried the Resolution in favour of greatly diminishing the cultivation of the poppy and the production and sale of opium. What was the Government going to do or say now? In 1891 six Members of the Cabinet, and 12 of the rank and file of the Government, declared their conviction of the immorality of the opium trade; and in 1893 the majority of their supporters voted against the appointment of this Commission, believing that the House had settled the moral question involved. Were the Government now going to put an end to smoking opium in India as recommended by the Commission? Were they going to repudiate or to fulfil Mr. Smith's pledges of 1891? Were they going to withdraw or add to Mr. Gladstone's pressure of 1893? Was their policy one of continuing to draw a portion of their revenue from this foul source, or would they endeavour to abandon it? He had proved that a great portion of the comparatively small Indian revenue was a revenue immoral in its origin, that the Chinese and Singapore trade was an immoral trade, and that we were making profit by debasing our neighbours. Some of them had laboured hard believing that the good name of this country was at stake. Opium might be capable of being used in old age or for medical purposes with advantage; but the trade in it generally was an immoral trade. The Christian Churches said so, political economy said so, morality and ethics said so; and all these forces would ultimately unite to say that the country should not carry on a trade which was so debasing and demoralising in its character. He concluded by moving the Amendment.

in seconding the Amendment, said, he proposed to confine his remarks to the attitude of the authorities in India with respect to this Commission and to the procedure of the Commission itself. On November 20, 1893, two days after the Commission met, there was laid before it a very important document—a letter from the Governor General of India—and it was not to be found anywhere in the report of the Commission's proceedings. As that contained a statement in support of the existing system, and a warning as to the serious political consequences that might ensue from interfering with it, it looked like an attempt to influence unduly the course of the inquiry. It was an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Governor General. It would not be tolerated on the part of a high political executive officer in this country, and he would not dream of it. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Secretary for India would give his opinion as to that letter and produce the document, which came from the Governor General, was laid before the Committee at almost its earliest stage, and was intended to influence its proceedings. Hon. Members who studied the seven volumes of the proceedings of the Commission carefully would find here and there not very carefully arranged—nothing was carefully arranged in those volumes—communications from the Central Government to the subordinate governments in Madras, Bengal, Central India, North-West Provinces, and the Resident of Hyderabad, giving instructions as to the manner in which evidence was to be collected, and indicating the kind of evidence, and requiring that lists of witnesses, with their evidence, should be sent to the Central Government. That was a proceeding not calculated in any respect to aid the Commission in finding out the truth. This want of trust in Subordinate governments was very much misplaced under the circumstances. Their excise regulations and other char acteristics being different, they ought to have been left to take their own course in relation to the Royal Commission as to witnesses and their evidence. What effect was such a course likely to have on subordinate governments? Precisely what he believed was followed by the Government of the North-West Provinces. They issued instructions that none of their officials should communicate direct with the Secretary of the Royal Commission. He wondered what would be thought, if, when a Commission or a Select Committee was appointed in this country, executive officers were found interposing to prevent any of their subordinates dealing direct with the Secretary of the Commission or the Clerk of the Committee. What had been the action of the authorities with respect to the collection of evidence and towards witnesses? But before he dealt with that he should like to point out that there was one great omission with respect to this matter. The hon. Baronet who Moved this Motion had alluded to the soldier argument. They often heard that the regiments drawn from certain parts of the country could not live without opium, that it was their daily stimulant, and they must have it. A circular was issued to the officers commanding every regiment and battalion in the native army asking them for numerical returns as to the numbers of opium smokers, &c. But he had looked in the Blue Books in vain for any of these figures. Where were the replies to these circulars? Parliament should have been furnished with them whether they upheld the action of the authorities on the opium traffic or were against it. Then, when the House came to the issue of circulars to persons who desired to give evidence, there were strong illustrations of what he would almost venture to call the perversion of terms of reference to the Commission. All would agree that when a document was quoted it should be quoted accurately, and if it was said that the Government had resolved on a certain policy the exact words should be given in which that policy was laid down. He had strong complaint to make with respect to this. One official of the Indian Government—Mr. Lyall by name—issued a circular, and in that circular quoted the objects of the Inquiry most inaccurately. It was quite true that two days afterwards correct copies of the House of Commons Resolution were sent out. Whether Mr. Lyall's attention had been called to it or not he did not know, but in his circular the terms of the reference were misquoted and the circular was misleading. Let him now turn to the witnesses. A certain medical practitioner, Isau Chandra Roy, M.B., received a circular desiring him to give evidence on particular points. Surely when evidence was asked for, it was not usual to prescribe in the first instance to a person the points on which it was desired he should give evidence. He was usually asked the points on which he desired to give evidence, and then it was seen whether or not they fell within the terms of the reference. On 4th December a letter was sent to this gentleman, who sent in his evidence, it not being favourable to the existing system. A date was fixed for his examination, and on 3rd January the officer who asked him to give evidence and suggested points on which he should give it, wrote to him that:—

"Under instructions received from the Government you are not required to attend to give evidence before the Royal Commission on Opium."

The same treatment was meted out to others whose evidence was not favourable to the Central Government. Mr. Roy attended on the Commission after he had been told he need not, and stated that not only had he received that treatment, but others had been treated in the same way. The evidence of Rai Bahadur Jai Prakishlal, C.I.E., Dewan, or chief officer of the Drumraon Raj, and gentleman of high position, was not favourable to the Government, and though present at the Commission he was not called as a witness. He had most important and unfavourable testimony to give respecting cultivation of the poppy. The list of witnesses at Lucknow contained a large number of names of persons who were not called. There were 24 called, 23 of them being favourable to the system. The whole list was called for, but never produced. Among those not called were a number who were opposed to the cultivation of poppies, and it turned out that two of them were actually officers of the Indian Government, who were prepared to say that the suppression of that cultivation would have no injurious effect either upon the revenue or rents. The most striking illustration of the way in which the case was worked up and engineered by the Indian authorities was afforded by the case of Rajputana. On the 9th September the Government of India directed the Agent-General of that State to give instructions for the appointment of witnesses and the nomination of a representative European officer, and that an abstract of the evidence should be sent to the Central Government. Upon the 22nd September, Colonel Trevor the Agent General, issued a circular to all political officers in Rajputana, and on 13th of October, Colonel Abbott was appointed to give evidence and to produce witnesses. The circular that Colonel Abbott drew up was of a most extraordinary character. It filled two or three pages of the Blue Book, and certainly he had never seen before such leading questions as it contained, questions and instructions showing a want of fairness of mind and of judicial temper on the part of those who were getting up evidence to be laid before a Commission, that was surprising. The witnesses were assembled a week beforehand, in order that Colonel Abbott might have interviews with all of them before they were examined. Apparently the evidence so obtained did not satisfy the Government, because after they received the Report of Colonel Abbott as to what he had done, Mr. Bayley, Assistant Agent to the Governor General, wrote a long letter, in which he pointed out that on looking over what Colonel Abbott had stated, he was afraid that the subject of the loss that the Revenue would sustain by the suppression of the cultivation of poppies had not been put forward with sufficient clearness, and directed Colonel Abbott to take further steps in order that the Commission might be fully informed upon that head. Speaking on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament, he could say he had given the House only a slight and fragmentary illustration of what he could lay before them under this head of witnesses and evidence. The whole thing was the most complete inversion of the ordinary rule to which we were accustomed in this country when it was desired to elicit the truth upon any question. It was the duty of the Indian Authorities to take the utmost care that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth was (so far as they had any control) laid before the Commission. But by this process of misleading circulars, prescribed questions, suggestions in a particular direction, examination and filtration of evidence, and withholding of certain witnesses, the precisely contrary course was taken. The Commission was fed by the Authorities with certain evidence, and that only. The result was much what might have been expected. The whole matter was summed up concisely by one witness in his written reply to questions sent to him:—

"That is the general opinion, but whatever the Government thinks is right."

Nothing could bring home to the English people more clearly the character of the evidence that had been given before the Commission than those words, and nothing more contradictory to our English ideas of getting at the truth than the course that had been adopted by the Indian Government in this matter could be conceived. That House itself even, would not be sitting in its present form if the people of this country had during the centuries held the notion that whatever the Government thought was right. He protested against the idea that had got into the minds of these poor people that they were bound to think as the Government did upon this subject. He should like to conclude his portion of this aspect of the matter by alluding to the behaviour of the authorities to a Royal Commissioner. At Bankipur, on 3rd January 1894, the hon. Member for Holmfirth laid before the Commission particulars of the police of the district of Gya having been round inquiring of the people into his (Mr. Wilson's) movements, whom he had seen, what had been said by and to him by the inhabitants, etc. On the 4th January 1894, Mr. Macpherson, collector of revenue, appeared before the Commissioners and explained—

"I had heard in Calcutta from Mr. Dane that anti-opium people had been over our district hunting up evidence they seemed to think of importance."

He had therefore spoken to the local superintendent of police, who had set his men to work. Those who were engaged in endeavouring to elicit the truth on this question ought not to have been pressed by the police in this way or spoken of in this manner, nor should Mr. Harris, the superintendent of police, and his myrmidons have been permitted to track out the movements of the hon. Gentleman and his friends, who were engaged in the work. They could not expect fair evidence to be given to the Commission if the police were set to work like that. Turning now to the second part of his subject, the procedure of the Commission itself, his hon. Friend the mover had dwelt upon the fact that the two secretaries were Indian officials. He did not suppose they would have any contradiction from the other side of the House with regard to that, as they had in regard to another matter. Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Baines represented that great despotic bureaucracy which governed, and, to his thinking, on the whole so well the Indian Empire. He endorsed what had been said by his hon. Friend that this Commission ought to have been supplied with a secretary from among the many competent men to be found in London who was not imbued with the traditions and methods of the Indian Government, and who above all was acquainted with English standards of justice and fairplay. Such a man would have taken care that the Commission should be treated with respect, and that the witnesses should be summoned and dealt with in a fair way. Then there was the special agent, Mr. Dane, who was one of those who committed himself very strongly in 1890 to an opinion on this opium question. Coming to the treatment of witnesses, he endorsed what his hon. friend had said with regard to the questioning of certain members of the Commission. Sir James Lyall, undoubtedly, had been in the service of the Indian Government, and there was no question as to the position of Mr. Fanshawe, who was Postmaster General in the Indian service. He had read with a feeling of almost shame and indignation the manner in which these two gentlemen had thought fit to examine witnesses. They had asked them with regard to their private affairs and their income; persons of the humblest class were asked questions of a character which one would expect only from an Old Bailey practitioner. He did not think that the majority of that House who voted for the Commission—he himself voted against it—desired our fellow-subjects in India to be treated as some of them had been by some of the members of the Royal Commission. He ventured to say that any hon. Gentleman filling the position of Chairman of a Select Committee of that House would have at once called any of his colleagues to order who so treated witnesses coming before the Committee. The humbler the position of the witness, and the more nervous he was, the more kindly should be his treatment, and the more also should the chairman and the members endeavour to set him at his ease. One witness remarked in respect of a private and personal question, he did not know if it would affect the character of his evidence, but said of course he had no objection to say if the question was pressed. Mr. Fanshawe at once said: "I must press the question." He wished to pay his tribute of respect to his hon. Friend the Member for the Prestwich Division of Lancashire, who conducted his examination in a very different way; and who, when a witness demurred to answering questions of rather a private nature, said that certainly he would not press them. There was the greatest contrast between the conduct of the hon. Member for the Prestwich Division of Lancashire and that of Sir James Lyall and Mr. Fanshawe in this respect. Passing from that he called attention to the very different treatment which was accorded to the memorials of various bodies, and pointed out that while all the pro-opium memorials were allowed to go into the appendices without a word of comment, an official was set to work by the Indian Government to tear to pieces the anti-opium memorial from Calcutta, this official being a person charged with the collection of evidence. Surely this Commission ought to have been above that sort of thing. With regard to evidence as to our opium policy with China, the Chairman of the Commission, Lord Brassey, actually stopped two witnesses of great competency from giving evidence as to this, and said—

"We may take it that we all regret that policy of the past, that we accept the statement that was made on behalf of the late Government by Sir James Fergusson that such a course of policy as that would never be permitted again; that, I think, is agreed."

Would it be believed, however, that after this the Commission allowed 150 pages of the most controversial matter upon this opium policy with China to appear in their Report? If Mr. Dane, who wrote this, had been examined before a Committee of that House, half his statements would have been made mincemeat of. Such a procedure would not have been allowed by a single Private Bill Committee upstairs. These 150 pages were saturated with mis-statements and inaccurate particulars, and altogether it was not worth the paper on which it was written, and he deprecated even the cost of printing such a document, which had not formed the subject of any cross-examination. Then in the Majority Report he regretted to say there were the most misleading quotations which had ever been his lot to see in any public document. There were two missionaries named Ashmore and Bones, and in the case of Mr. Ashmore the statement put into his mouth by the majority in their Report was not borne out in the least degree on turning to his evidence. In the case of Mr. Bone something worse had been done. They pretended to give his words, but they absolutely left out two or three sentences which had a vital bearing on the issue without any indication of the omission. He never saw such a specimen of misleading quotation. Such things deprived the Report of the Commission of any real value. Then there was a table given on page 12 of Volume 6 of the Report of certain figures in which a large number of years were left out. The whole argument based on these figures disappeared when they supplied the figures that were left out. He could fill pages of The Times newspaper with the inaccuracies contained in the Report; the time they had had to examine into the matter had been all too short. Turning to the unauthorised papers appended to the Report, he said he had inquired as to how these precious documents came to be there. He had had a correspondence with Lord Brassey, who informed him that no request was made to either Mr. Dane or Mr. Baines to write these papers, but when they appeared it was thought desirable to put them in. He (Mr. Ellis) believed their insertion was never brought before the Commission at all. There was a Supplemental Historical Note by Mr. Dane occupying 35 pages; an account of the recent action of the Government of India with regard to poppy cultivation of 9; and a history of the movement in England against opium of 6,–50 in all. As to the last, they might as well ask the Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers Association to write a history of the temperance movement. He would now come to the last feature in the proceedings of the Commission, which had, even after all he had seen, filled him with astonishment. The Royal Commission, on the last page of their Report, referred to his hon. Friend the Member for the Holmfirth Division. They say:—

"We desire to make a special reference to the Report which we understood to be in preparation by our colleague, Mr. Wilson. The criticism or suggestions which it may contain have not been submitted for our consideration. We regret that in the discussion which took place during the preparation of our Report we were not placed in possession of the views of our colleague."

Why not? What right had the Commissioners to use that language? Lord Brassey, the Chairman of the Commission, wrote two letters to his hon. Friend on the 2nd and 7th of January of this year, enclosing a copy of a letter that he addressed to Sir James Lyall. Lord Brassey told his hon. Friend that it would be unprofitable to enter into a prolonged discussion, and that he did not anticipate that their further deliberations round the Table would occupy many days. In his letter to Sir James Lyall Lord Brassey said:—

"I strongly insist that the completion of our work has become of extreme urgency, and having received two communications within the last few days, I feel my duty calls for some decided course of action. …I shall in any case relieve the Commission from further collecting work on the 26th."

That was a proceeding for a Chairman! Giving notice that in three weeks time the Closure would be applied! Having thus closed the mouth of his hon. Friend, the Commissioners thought fit to reproach him with not having his assistance in discussing the Report. His hon. friend would have been extremely ill-advised if, after receiving the Chairman's letter, he had in any way obtruded his advice on the Commission. It was not a case of closure by compartments: it was the guillotine all at once. That method of conducting a Royal Commission was, he believed, unprecedented. He did not wonder that there was some little impatience on the part of the Secretary of State for India, for the Commission had been dragging on for three months in India and twelve months in this country, and during that time the Chairman of the Commission did not think it inconsistent with his duty to be out of the country a good many months. There was at the time no effort being made to prepare a report or to bring the inquiry within reasonable distance of a conclusion. He must say one or two words on the action of the Secretary. Mr. Baines had in two particulars shown that he was utterly wanting in the discretion necessary in an office of that kind. In the first place he deliberately and of his own Motion suppressed a note which the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division desired him to insert if certain correspondence was put in. In the next place he prematurely disclosed the Report of the Commission. It was a most extraordinary thing that an officer of the Indian Government should have disclosed this Report on Saturday the 20th April to a particular newspaper, and that one a powerful friend of the existing system. It appeared in that newspaper on the 22nd, and it was not in the hands of Members till May 7th. The Secretary of State said he had reasons to believe that the Report would be laid on the Table on the 22nd, but if it had there was no reason why it should have been given out to a particular paper on the 20th. He said that on both these two aspects of the question—on the conduct of the authorities and the procedure of the Commission—the illustrations he had given, and which could be supplemented by the score, had gone far to vitiate and weaken the claim of the Report of this Commission to their respect. From the first letter of the Viceroy, that most extraordinary document which was laid before the Commission on the 20th November, down to the closuring of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth division, there was one persistent intention on the part of the authorities in India to regard this, not as a free inquiry, but as a defence of the Indian opium policy of the Government. He acquitted the Government as a whole, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, from the slightest complicity in, or approval of, the proceedings. He was quite aware they could not have this kind of procedure in this country. The procedure adopted was one ill becoming the reputation and the dignity of a Royal Commission. A Royal Commission had great functions and powers, and it ought to pursue an even tenour in its course. It ought, on the one hand, to resist, as the Judicial Bench would resist, all pressure of the Executive Government, and on the other hand ought not to listen to words of untruth, but freely admit all evidence, without fear or favour, without a partial hand, above all, be guiltless of any suppressions of testimony. This movement, however, depended, not upon Royal Commissions and their Reports. Those of them who took some part in trying to get off the Statute Book certain Acts of Parliament some years ago, knew they had against them more than one Royal Commission, more than one Select Committee of the House of Commons, with a majority against them, and yet these Acts of Parliament disappeared by almost universal consent in 1886. So it would be in this matter. Those great moral forces on which this movement rested were, to a large extent, independent of their action in this House, even independent of the lives of particular Governments, and he was convinced that they would, in time, sweep away that system which he declared—which six Members of the present Cabinet and a dozen other Members of the Administration declared in 1891—to be morally indefensible. He begged to second the Amendment.

, said: Mr. Speaker, If the Amendment which you have put from the Chair had been one of censure on the recent Royal Commission, of censure upon the individual Members, of censure on the mode in which that Commission conducted its proceedings, of censure upon its officers; and calling for the strict action of this House and the Government of India with reference to these officers, I could have understood the present Debate But, Sir, my hon. Friends, for whose motives I have the greatest possible respect, must pardon me if I say I can see little or no connection between the startling Resolution which they ask the House to pass and the unprecedented personal attack they have made upon the gentlemen who have composed that Royal Commission and upon those who have aided them in carrying out its work. I do not care to waste the time of this House with reference to what I call irrelevant matter, but I have a duty to perform to my absent friend Lord Brassey and to the other members of that Commission, and I have also a duty to perform to those servants of the Indian Government who have no means of defending themselves against the attacks made upon them to-night. [Cheers.] And, Sir, I venture to say the most experienced Member of this House, the man who has known most of Royal Commissions, perhaps the man who has sat most frequently upon them, has never heard a Royal Commission attacked in the way and to the extent, and, as I venture to say, so groundlessly as has been this Royal Commission. [Cheers.] I will say a word or two to the House about this Commission. If one knew nothing of what it had done one would suppose this had been an idle, one-sided excursion of pleasure to India. The hon. baronet the member for Barnard Castle Division went so far as to hold up to the ridicule of the House the hospitality which gentlemen residing in India had offered to this Royal Commission, and generally left upon the House the impression that it was a Commission which had done no work, that it was entirely in the hands of officials, that it was perfectly onesided and prejudiced, that its decisions were in no way worthy of respect. I ask the House to remember the date of this attack. My hon. friend said that perhaps it was unfortunate this question should come on on Friday evening. Yes, Sir, and I think it is unfortunate it should come on on Friday evening, the 24th of May. This Commission was appointed in accordance with a Resolution passed by this House on June 30, 1893. The Commission was constituted, and constituted, I believe, with the greatest care, by my noble friend Lord Kimberley, and in communication, as I shall show directly, with some of those gentlemen who have taken a prominent part in censuring the Commission. The Commission was formed on September 2. On September 8 this idle Commission commenced its sittings in London. It sat six days in London; it closed its sittings here on the 16th, and then adjourned to meet in Calcutta on November 15. They went to India. They visited Burma, Upper India, Patna, Benares, Lucknow, Umbala, Lahore, Delhi, and Agra. A certain section went to Indore; the other members proceeded to Ahmedabad to pursue their inquiries, and then the whole of them went to Bombay. They sat almost daily during the whole of that winter. The House will have been led to believe that they examined a very small section of packed and selected witnesses. They examined 723 witnesses. They examined every witness offered by the Anti-Opium Society. They put something like 29,000 questions. They sent interrogatories to China, to the Straits, and to Hong Kong. Of course the answers to those interrogatories were not subjected to cross-examination. But they were not placed in the Blue-book as evidence; they were placed there as statements in reply to interrogatories. Well, the Commission then came back to London. They prepared their Report, a document of enormous length. It is quite true that I pressed them for their Report, and the Member of this House who urged me most frequently to press them for their Report was my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division. I did think the delay was too long, and I pressed on Lord Brassey that the Report should be presented in time for the opening of Parliament. That report was signed on April 16 of this year. It was placed on the Table of the House on April 25, and it became public property on the day it was placed on the Table of the House; it was delivered to Members of the House on May 4, and—I call the particular attention of the House to this date—it was sent to India by the mail of May 10; and now, on May 24, not three weeks from the date it was first placed in the hands of Members, and while it is absolutely impossible for the Government of India to have received it—and the minority Report contains a very serious censure on the Government of India—you are asked to-night to declare that it is a prejudiced worthless document; you are asked to declare that all the Commissioners save one were wrong, that one only was right, and between the hours of 9 and 12 o'clock on a Friday night you are asked to pass this Resolution of censure and of the greatest magnitude, so far as India is concerned. I say that such a course is not fair to the Commissioners. I say it is not fair to the people of India; it is not fair to the Government of India; and it is not fair to the Members of this House themselves. I ask how many Members of this House have read this huge pile of papers—these 2,200 pages? Only two Members have read it, and those are, I must presume, the mover and seconder of the Resolution. They are bound to have read every word of the evidence before they brought such charges as they have formulated in this House to-night. No other man has read it. I have not read it. I plead guilty to it. I am responsible for this matter to the House; but I say frankly that, with the enormous amount of administrative work I have to do at the present moment, and not being quite so strong as I once was, I have found it quite impossible for me to read the evidence and Report so as to pronounce an opinion. And yet we are asked to-night, sitting as a final Court of Appeal, to decide a case of this importance when there is no man in the House who has examined the evidence. What was the origin of this Commission? The hon. Members told us that they voted against it. But the House, by a majority of 79, declared the Commission should issue. The House was dealing with a grave question in a grave spirit when, on the instigation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, it appointed the Commission. The points referred to the Commission for investigation were these:—

"I. Whether the growth of the poppy and the manufacture and sale of opium in British India should be prohibited except for medical purposes, and whether this prohibition could he extended to the native States.

"II. The nature of the existing arrangements with the native States in respect of the transit of opium through British territory; and on what terms, if any, those arrangements could be with justice terminated.

"III. The effect on the finances of India of the prohibition of the sale and export of opium, taking into consideration (a) the compensation payable; (b) the cost of the necessary preventive measures; (c) the loss of the revenue.

"IV. Whether any change short of total prohibition should be made in the system at present followed for regulating and restricting the opium traffic, and for raising a revenue therefrom.

"V. The consumption of opium by the different races and in the different districts in India, and the effect of such consumption on the moral and physical condition of the people.

"VI. The disposition of the people of India in regard to (a) the use of opium for non-medical purposes; and (b) their willingness to bear in whole or in part the cost of prohibitive measures."

I have seen in an organ of public opinion, which represents the views of my hon. Friends, that this Commission was packed by Indian officials. (Hear, hear) My hon. Friends cheer that. There was another criticism of the Commission published in another organ of my hon. Friends immediately after the Commission was formed, and written by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Caine), who, if he will allow me to say so, is always fair to his opponents and never indulges in personal attack. Let me read what my hon friend wrote of the Commission in the quarterly organ of the Anti-Opium Society.

It is not the organ of the Anti-Opium Society.

At all events, my hon. Friend wrote what I am now about to quote. It is said that the members of the Commission have been selected "with great care and deliberation;" that the president, Lord Brassey, is "a man of wide sympathies," and that both sides in the controversy might repose confidence in "his great impartiality, his sound judgment, and his rectitude." Well, I never heard a public man of impartiality, judgment, and rectitude attacked as Lord Brassey has been attacked to-night. Of the medical Member of the Commission, Sir William Roberts, is is said that no better qualified member of the medical profession could be selected.

Is there not something more about Sir William Roberts?

Well, that he is of "the old school," and that "his writings show a strong belief in alcohol." Mr. Mowbray, another member of the Commission, is described as the son of one of the most popular Members of the House of Commons, and "a young man of great promise in the Conservative party." As to Mr. Haridas Veharidas, the hon. Member says he does not know what that gentleman knows about opium, but he knows he will bring to the inquiry great knowledge and experience. My hon. Friend then speaks in the highest terms both of the hon. Member for Holmfirth and of Mr. Arthur Pease. He then refers to Sir James Lyall and Mr. Fanshawe, and they are the two who formed the official element—two out of nine. And that is a Commission packed with Indian officials. Sir James Lyall's career is one of the many most honourable careers to be found in the Indian Civil Service. He has been there 34 years, has risen to a high position in the Indian Civil Service, closing his career with the Lieutenant-Governorship of the Punjab. We are told that because he now receives a pension he is incapable of forming an independent judgment. Will anyone tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Sir Algernon West is unable to form an impartial judgment upon the question of the English revenue because he has retired on a pension? Mr. James Fanshawe, another of these distinguished servants of the Indian Government, has risen to a high position. Such is the Commission whose conclusions you are to treat with perfect contempt, and whose decisions you are to overrule, simply upon the ex parte statements of two honourable and able advocates who opposed the appointment of the Commission, who differ from its conclusions, and who remain perfectly unconvinced, nothwithstanding the overwhelming character of the evidence. No, it is too bad to impugn gentlemen like this. The discharge of these public duties involved a great amount of physical and mental labour. It is a thankless duty, but, after all, Englishmen are in the habit of treating public men who do a public duty with the greatest generosity, and with the greatest consideration. When we are told that because they were asked out to dinner they could not deal with this case impartially, I must protest against this mode of dealing with a Commission of this character. There is an end of Royal Commissions, which have hitherto been one of the most powerful and most convenient modes of inquiry, if gentlemen discharging the duties of Commissioners are to be treated as these men have been treated. These Commissioners arrived at a series of distinct conclusions. We all admit that the report of the Commission conflicts with many preconceived opinions. There is a new light thrown upon the whole of this case by the Report. I am not going to say that my hon. Friends are wrong, and the Commissioners are right; I will not say the eight are right and the hon. Member for Holmforth is wrong; but questions have been raised affecting the opium consumption, affecting the opinions of medical men, and I maintain that before the House of Commons gives a decision, the question must be argued out. Public opinion must be informed on the question; scientific opinion must be ascertained. My hon. Friend quoted the opinion of the Churches. There is a difference of opinion even there. The Church of England and the Church of Rome do not take the same view on this question that the overwhelming bulk of the Nonconformist Churches take. This question must be decided not by personal attacks upon the Commissioners, but by the weight and value of the evidence. Take Sir William Roberts. He has written a most able medical memorandum upon this question. That has to stand the test of medical examination in this country, and we cannot take the opinion of any one hon. Member as sufficient. The evidence on which Sir William Roberts has founded his statement and which has guided the opinions of the majority of the Commission is now before the medical world, and they will have to deal with it. I have a great many quotations from this Report, but I will abstain from reading them. I have said that there are strong differences of opinion on the missionary view. The Bishop of Calcutta and the Bishop of Lucknow with their clergy addressed two powerful memoranda to the Royal Commission expressing their views that—

"while there are evils in the abuse of opium, they are not sufficiently great to justify us in restricting the liberty which all men should be permitted to exercise in these matters, medical testimony seeming to show that opium, used in moderation, is in this country harmless, and under certain conditions of life distinctly beneficial."

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Calcutta said:—

"It has been urged by some that the use of opium is a serious obstacle to the success of missionary work. Looking back with an experience of more than 15 years of missionary life, and having consulted priests of longer standing in the country, I have been forced to the conclusion, as far as Catholic missions are concerned, that facts do not tally with this assertion."

I do not say that there is not strong evidence on the other side. But what I am pleading for is the investigation of that evidence, and not a decision hurriedly reached under such excitement as my hon. Friends'. If two Members of the House cannot agree on a simple statement which is in the Report, how can we accept a statement in the nature of indirect evidence? My hon. Friend says that the medical evidence was nearly equally divided. There were 146 medical witnesses examined, and of these only 20 were against the use of opium, and 126 were the other way. [Sir J. PEASE dissented.] My hon. Friend says "No." That proves my point, for the House must investigate this thing for itself. We cannot ask the House to come to a grave decision without such independent investigation. The House is the ultimate court of appeal, and its decision must be given on the evidence. If we are going to decide a question affecting the Government of India, its revenue, its administration, and its expenditure, I say that the Government of India have a right to be heard on the question before a decision is arrived at. You would not treat any Parish Council in the manner in which my hon. Friend proposes to treat the Government of 300 millions of people. I might leave this question, as Lord Beaconsfield said, "to the instinctive justice of the House.'' But I have to deal with the Motion which my hon. Friend has proposed. He asks us to declare that, after having had presented to it the Report of the Royal Commission, this House is of opinion that the system by which the Indian Opium Revenue is collected is morally indefensible; and to pass a Motion calling upon the Government of India to stop the cultivation of the poppy and sale of opium in British India, except to supply the legitimate demand for medical purposes, and at the same time to take measures to arrest the transit of Malwa opium through British territory. What would be the effect on the Indian Government of passing this resolution? I will quote what the late Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Midlothian, said:—

"The first duty in governing India, before we commit ourselves to a broad declaration, is to learn the mode in which we can carry that declaration into effect. Nothing could be more ruinous, and few things could be more discreditable, than for you to pass a vote which, on the one side, must remain an idle expression of opinion, without practical result, or else, if acted on, must simply have the effect of throwing the finances of India into confusion, and of greatly compromising the position, the welfare, and even the peace and security of that country."

Remember it is upon the terms of this motion that the House is going to vote to-night. It is not upon the question whether one witness was fairly cross-examined or not, or whether one police officer was judicious or injudicious. I know the cases to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I agree with much of what he said in reference to some of those cases. But as to the question of general unfairness in dealing with witnesses, that was investigated by the Commission; the Commission has given a distinct ruling on the question, and has acquitted the Government of India on every one of the charges brought against it. I am not at this moment arguing the question whether the sale of opium is morally defensible. Remember that it is a revenue arising from restriction and regulation, and a revenue which so affects the price, if opium is a most deadly stimulant, as to make the obtaining of that opium a much more difficult thing than it would otherwise be. The revenue raised from opium in British India is 180 per cent. over the cost price, and the duty raises the price of Malwa opium by 118 per cent. There is a long string of findings by the Commission in which they call attention to the various uses for which opium is raised. They admit that there is no doubt the excessive use of opium is a very great evil and a great vice. They point to the fact, which my hon. Friend has not discussed, that there is a very large moderate use of opium in India, and so far as medical exception is concerned—my hon. Friend makes that exception—they deal with it very clearly. They say in paragraph 177:—

"It must be borne in mind that the population of the British provinces is over 220 millions. The number of hospitals and dispensaries under European supervision in those provinces in 1893 was only 1,800, with an average daily attendance of patients numbering 94,000. European non-official practitioners are only found in the Presidency and provincial capitals. The supply of native medical men trained under the European system, though much increased of late years, is still confined to the larger towns or to the district headquarters."

Another witness stated that three-fourths of the deaths occur without the invocation of any professional advice of any sort. The Commission go on to show that the idea of medical exception is an absolute impossibility. Where are you to draw the line between medical consumption and general consumption and who are to be the men who are to lay down the rules to guide this exception? With reference to crime, I do not think my hon. Friend stated that crime was in any way promoted in India by the use of this drug. That is something to be said in its favour. With reference to the note of the Maharajah of Darbhanga, my hon. Friend quoted simply his objection to opium-smoking. I think, however, he rather left on the House the impression that a member of the Commission was in favour of the general restriction of opium. Now, what the Maharajah says in this memorandum just circulated is this:—

"To stop the use of opium in cases like these would not only be an unnecessary restriction on the freedom of the subject, but it would also lead to the increased consumption of alcohol."

And this view is expressed by a large number of witnesses. My hon. Friend says that it is morally indefensible to raise revenue from a stimulant the excessive use of which produces the terrible results which, in his view, flow from opium. I would like to know what my hon. Friend's answer would be to a very keen logical Hindoo who asked him whether, when we proposed to deprive the Indian Government of their opium revenue, we are prepared to adopt the same rule for ourselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford says "Certainly;" but I do not hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say "Certainly." The imaginary opponent of my hon. Friend on this ground of moral indefensibility might say to him,

"I hear from statements in your Legislature, from the statements of your Judges, medical men, and philanthropists, that crime, lunacy, pauperism, disease, desolated homes, and ruined lives in your country are all owing to the results of the excessive use of other stimulants, the excessive use of which one of your greatest Prime Ministers declared, amid the cheers of the House of Commons, inflicted on the nation more terrible evils than war, pestilence, and famine combined. Is it true, when you say it is morally indefensible to raise money from the restriction and regulation of the sale of a stimulant in India, that you are raising between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 a year revenue from a similar source?"

[A Voice—"Shameful."] "Shameful," says my hon. Friend. Well, then, stop it here first. Go to India with clean hands. You, the wealthy country with your £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 from the Drink Duty—deal with that before you ask India to plunge itself into financial embarrassment on account of the excessive use of a drug which not one of the witnesses before this Commission, no matter how strong his opinions, declared produced anything like the results which the excessive use of alcohol produce in this country. My hon. Friend proposes to stop the growth of the poppy. How is it to be done? It is easy to pass a Resolution of the House of Commons; but the references show that the average area under poppy is held by 1¼ million of cultivators under the licensing system, with an enormous proportion below a third of an acre. In the event of Prohibition, all this must come under inspection. I ask the House of Commons to conceive the stopping of the cultivation, carried on by a million or a million and a-half of people, of this plant, which has been grown by them for centuries, which is a chief source from which these poor peasants derive their income and pay their rent. Where is the array of inspectors to come from? Who is to pay the cost? Where is the limit to be put to the extortion, tyranny, and oppression that would arise from putting down this sort of cultivation? But this is a question which most seriously affects the finances of India. From 1887–8 to 1893–4 the average net revenue arising from it amounted to Rx. 6,965,000, in 1893–4 it was Rx. 5,746,000, and in 1894–5 it was Rx. 6,661,000. If the cultivation is stopped, where is the deficit to come from? The House of Commons is always practical, especially in matters of finance. The House of Commons never takes off a tax unless it is certain that there can be a corresponding reduction of expenditure. ["Hear, hear," from several Radical Members.] My hon. Friends say, "Hear, hear." Where are they going to get this reduction of expenditure?

Reduce the Army.

Apart from exchange, there has been no great increase in the Army expenditure in India for a number of years. The Army expenditure, excluding the loss on exchange, was in 1887 19 millions, in 1888 18¾ millions, in 1889 19 millions, in 1890 19½ millions, in 1891 20¾ millions, in 1892 20½ millions, and in 1893 considerably under 20 millions. There is, of course, an enormous increase in exchange, for, whereas in 1887 the loss on exchange cost the Government of India six millions, this year it is estimated to cost 15 millions. That is where the real increase of expenditure on the Army lies. It does not lie in increased military expenditure. We have appointed a Commission to inquire into the military expenditure, but it is nonsense to talk about reducing the military expenditure by five or six millions. There is, however, a still more serious difficulty than the financial difficulty. It is suggested that we should arrest the transit of Malwa opium across British India. Malwa opium is cultivated in Native States, and passes through our territory to reach the seaside, and we levy on it the enormous duty of Rx. 650 per chest. What would be the effect of stopping that? The effect would be to raise a serious question between ourselves and the native States. It would mean the stopping of the cultivation of the poppy to the extent of the present export; and it would entail consequent serious injury and loss on the people in these States. The average revenue in the Native States derived from opium is 27 per cent. of the whole revenue, and you cannot be prepared to go to the native rulers of those States and say to them—

"We will cut off more than a quarter of your revenue at one fell swoop, and will prevent you from sending out of your countries a staple article of your industry."

My hon. Friend quoted from the representative of one of the little States. Why did he not quote the great ones, who stated that they would regard such a measure as an act of hostility on the part of the British Government? He could not help quoting one of them:—

"In view of the relations existing between the paramount Power and my State, the former would not be justified in calling upon me to prohibit the cultivation of opium in my State."

There is another question to be considered. How are you going to prevent this opium passing the frontier? And, assuming you stop the transit, how are you going to guard the frontier from smuggling? Remember that this opium is easily concealed and would be a profitable commodity to get across the frontier. The duty is more than two-thirds of its cost. Some of my Friends opposite know a great deal more than I do as to the extent of the frontier line that would have to be guarded, but I am told by experts that it would be at least 5,000 miles. [Sir R. TEMPLE: "Hear, hear!"] Some put it even higher than that. You would have to establish a line of Custom-houses over that great length of territory. We once had a Custom line from the Indus to the north border of Madras, 2,500 miles—as long as from Moscow to Gibraltar—and it took 12,000 officers and men to guard that frontier; and when afterwards it was reduced to 1,500 miles it still took 8,000 men to guard it. Therefore, you would have to raise an enormous army of officials to be added to the already too numerous army that exists. And the cost of all this is to be paid by the people of India! I put this to my hon. Friend as one of the practical difficulties of the case so far as the native States are concerned. But there are political consequences also to be considered. Nobody who has any acquaintance with India can be unaware of the fact that there is a disloyal section of people in India—a small section I admit—who are ready to take every opportunity of holding up the British Government and the Indian Government also to the dislike of the people. I am not prepared, as the Minister for India, to do anything which may tend to reinforce that class by the alienation of the Native States. When my hon. Friend talks about army expenditure he can hardly realise what the policy he advocates would lead to; for by adopting it we should embark on a course which would make it necessary to increase rather than decrease the army of India. I must apologise to the House for the length of my speech, and I can only plead that I have left out three-fourths of what I meant and desired to say. Now, the Government object to this Motion of my hon. Friend because it is premature and because it is immature; because it involves a flagrant injustice on the one hand, and because it is impracticable on the other. We are asked as a Parliament to reject the deliberate judgment of a competent Commission appointed at the instance of this House, and we are asked to reject that judgment without the slightest opportunity of examining, much less testing, the evidence on which that judgment is founded. We are asked to deprive the Government of India of a large portion of its revenue without making any provision for the inevitable deficit which must follow, and thereby involving one of two things—either disabling the Indian Government from meeting its engagements, or necessitating the imposition of heavy extra taxation. Perhaps the House will allow me to say that all Governments, whether they be despotic or constitutional, have long ago learnt the lesson, and learnt it by bitter experience, that the most arduous, the most difficult task which any Government can undertake is to constantly interfere with the daily habits and daily customs of the masses of the people. This resolution pledges the House to make sweeping changes which would affect the social and the personal life of a very large number of her Majesty's Indian subjects, and you are asked to do this in the teeth of the opinion not only of a majority of the Commission, but in the teeth of the opinion of the two distinguished Natives who were put upon the Commission to represent native opinion, and in the teeth of what I do not hesitate to say is the overwhelming preponderance of native opinion. At the same time, while this resolution proposes to destroy the industry, the livelihood, of vast masses of the Indian people, it also menaces our relations with those native States with whom it is our duty and our interest to be on the most friendly terms. The resolution my hon. Friend has proposed is not a mere shadowy expression of opinion on some theoretical question totally outside the range of practical politics, but it sanctions a policy of such magnitude and of such far-reaching extent that the House of Commons must be satisfied upon the clearest evidence—satisfied beyond all doubt that that policy is necessary, is practicable, and is safe, before it attempts to impose it, and impose it by force, on our Indian Empire.

as a Member of the Commission, ventured to say that anybody who carefully studied the evidence would believe that the Report which they had given was a fair and impartial Report, and the only Report which they could possibly have published. His hon. Friend, the Member for the Rushcliffe Division was exceedingly polite to him personally with regard to his conduct, but he could only say that he did not wish, in the smallest degree, to separate himself from Sir James Lyall or Mr. Fanshawe, and he could not allow the language which had been used with regard to those two gentlemen to go uncontradicted in this House, because he was perfectly certain that not only could they not have got two more able representatives of the Indian officials, but he believed it would be impossible to have got two men who were more generously disposed and more kindhearted in everything they had to do in connection with the Commission. The Secretary of State had spoken with regard to Sir J. Lyall, and not more warmly than his public services deserved; but he should like to state that when the Commission were on tour in the Punjab, Sir J. Lyall, as an ex-Governor, was greeted by all classes of the community in the Punjab, not as an ex-Governor, but as a man who had been their personal friend and whom they were delighted to come and welcome. That fact at once demonstrated the kind of man Sir J. Lyall was. Nearly every point which had been raised was brought before the Commission by the hon. Member for Holmfirth, and the Commission came to the conclusions upon them embodied in the appendix and also in the Report. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had talked about the attitude of the Government of India towards witnesses, and said that he understood that all the evidence passed through the hands of the central Government. That did not agree with his own recollection of what happened. There were certain heads of evidence for the presentation of which to the Commission the Government of India held itself responsible, but the rest of the witnesses were selected by the local Governments because they were supposed to know best what persons were likely to give good evidence. The Government of India, instructing the local Governments as to the selection of the independent and non-official witnesses, said:—

"It is desirable that they should be gentlemen of some social standing, of independence of character, and of good general intelligence, and so completely in touch with public feeling in their respective provinces as to command the respect and confidence alike of the people of India and of the members of the Commission."

The local Governments, he believed, did their work honestly in that way, and he also believed that the witnesses who were examined supplied a fair representation of the views of the people of India. He had joined the Commission with a perfectly open mind. It was true that in 1891 he voted against the Resolution which was then carried in favour of the abolition of the Opium Trade, but his chief reason for so voting was that he did not feel disposed to revolutionise the finances of India after a Debate lasting three hours only. The evidence laid before the Commission in England, which dealt chiefly with the question as affecting China, was of very much stronger character than anything that they heard in India. Therefore when he landed in India he expected that an infinitely stronger case would be made out against opium in that country than was made out. As witness after witness came before the Commission, it became clearer and clearer to his mind that there was no case whatever against opium in India from a really national point of view. The witnesses on the anti-opium side seemed to him to be the representatives of local and sectional interests, of temperance and missionary societies, and similar associations. A man would come forward saying that he represented an association, and when he was asked who many members it comprised he would reply 20. Five people came from an association at Lucknow, and it appeared that there were only 175 members in the association out of a population of over 273,000. He had seen it suggested that the evidence had been garbled by the Government of India. On that he would like to say that the Government of India only undertook to suggest witnesses to the Commission at the request of the Commission itself, and they telegraphed to the Secretary of State that they would not be responsible for special searches for anti-opium evidence. Commenting on that, the hon. Member opposite said that, as anti-opium evidence was easily available without any special search, the official statement seemed to show that the officials were taking up a partisan attitude. All he could say was, that he condoled with his hon. Friend and his associates, because after considerable search very little evidence seemed to be available to them; and, as the Secretary ol State had said, in no single case did the Commissioners refuse the evidence of any witness put forward by the Anti-Opium Society. On the other hand they were obliged to put off numberless witnesses on the other side. The Appendices to the Report were full of abstracts of the evidence of witnesses who could not be examined from want of time. The result was that he felt that no numerical comparison between the number of witnesses on one side, and the other could be a fair test. The Commission could have had numbers of additional witnesses in favour of opium if they had had more time at their disposal; but on the other hand, and he thought this was a very material fact, not a single witness put forward by his hon Friend opposite and his associates was declined by the Commission. It was impossible to go into details as to these witnesses at that time of the night, though he would be glad to go through them. He would now only ask the House to accept the conclusion at which the Commission had arrived. There might be some slight difference of opinion displayed in some of the details of the reports of their native colleagues, but they were present when the conclusions, of the Commission were discussed at Bombay, they joined in those conclusions and signed the Report now before Parliament. He felt it was impossible to detain the House any longer, but he would ask the House to believe this, that the Commission had as good an opportunity of getting at the truth of this question as any body of men could have, and he believed they had done the best they could to lay the truth before the people of this country. It would have been a pleasanter and an easier task if they had been able to join with those people who claimed for themselves a monopoly in the cause of righteousness and to have made a milk-and-water Report which would have settled nothing; but the Commissioners did not think that if they had done that they would have been doing their duty to the country that sent them out. He certainly did hope, on behalf of the millions of people in India who were consumers of this drug, and still more on behalf of the millions of people who would have to pay additional taxation if this source of revenue were destroyed—he did hope on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the good faith of the English people, that this Motion would be rejected.

said, the House would recognise at once that it was not possible in the two minutes that remained to say anything material on this subject, but having listened with the utmost attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, he would venture to say that if opportunity offered there was scarcely one of the statements the right hon. Gentleman had made that could not be satisfactorily replied to.

claimed to move "That the question be now put."

withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Motion.

continuing, said, the one question he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether he was at least going to carry out the recommendations of the Commission with regard to smoking. The right hon. Gentleman had said a good deal about the native Members, but was he going to listen in this question to these men who knew the feeling of the people of India? If he would not go so far as that, would he at least listen to the recommendations in the Report of the majority on this question of opium-smoking?

claimed to move, "That the question be now put."