Messrs. Arbuthnot and Co. I say it was necessary that the greatest caution should be exercised before that lease was given to this firm, and I must say that a great deal of prejudice has been attached to the lease granted by the Government of India to Messrs. Streeter owing to the fact, as I am informed, of the correspondent of The Times in Burmah being the legal adviser of the firm of Messrs. Gillander, Arbuthnot and Co. If that is the case, as I am informed it is, a good deal of the information which has reached us on this subject is of course prejudiced evidence. I have been induced to bring this matter before the consideration of the Committee, simply and solely because I do not wish to see public faith broken in a matter of this kind. The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled no doubt to reconsider the whole matter; but I do contend that after a lease has been put out to open competition and a firm has offered twice the price which was originally tendered, when negotiations had been carried so far, and when the Viceroy in Council up to this day maintains that it would be the best policy to grant the lease to Messrs. Streeter, Her Majesty's Government are bound in honour to grant it to that firm if it is to be granted at all. We ought not to be frightened by questions asked in this House, or frightened by the idea that a job is contemplated, when, in point of fact by the arrangement in question a job was really prevented. I feel every confidence that when the Secretary of State takes the whole matter into his careful consideration, he will feel that something like a breach of faith will be perpetrated if Messrs. Streeter do not get the contract. I trust that the Government will not roughly and unnecessarily override the decision of the Viceroy of India, whose despatch shows clearly what is the view he takes of this matter. I trust that if he thinks that the lease which has been granted is a fair one and that the price is a fair price, he will not allow anything like a breach of faith, but will, after the firm have honestly tendered a fair price, see that that fair price is accepted and that the bargain is adhered to. GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine): Before I commence my remarke on the Indian Budget, I desire to call public attention to the manner in which the affairs of India are discussed in Parliament, as shown by its taking place in the last week of the Session, and by the small attendance of Members during this debate. There have seldom been more than 10 Members present, though there are now 12made up of eight on the Ministerial side and four on this side-Ministerial and Opposition Front Benches having been seldom occupied. [Here an hon. Member on the Opposition side called the Chairman's attention to the fact that there were not more than forty Members present, but the quorum was soon made up, before even the Chairman counted, and the hon. Member continued his remarks.] I am anxious now to offer my acknowledgments to the Indian Office and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) for the desire shown to furnish the House of Commons with Returns and Statements giving information regarding the finances of India. I particularly thank the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the explanatory statement he has laid before the House. I am glad that I got the promise from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that following the good example of the Army and Navy, the India Office would also follow suit. I do not wish to detract from the credit of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, but I hope he will excuse me for suggesting that, should he be in Office next year, he will endeavour to bring on the debate in the month of June instead of in the month of September, and that he will try and improve upon his explanatory statement by omitting details of the principal figures in the Indian accounts by furnishing that information in the form of Return which, for the two last years, has been separately laid before the House. I may also add that I fully hoped that the information which he has given us in his speech this evening regarding the increase and decrease of Income and Expenditure since the Revised and Budget Estimates were prepared should be all given in the explanatory statement. I found it impossible to take down the figures which have been so varied in their character, and so important in their amount, I can only make out that the balances against Income are larger than the Estimates show, and that in this year 1887-8 — what with the falling off of the Revenue in India | I have compiled, I make out that the and the cost of converting the Four per Expenditure for these three Services Cent Debt to Three and a-half per Cent amounted to, in 1875-6, £30,711,506; -the deficit will be exceedingly large. and in 1887-8 the total, according to In the 12 years past, from 1876 to the Budget, will be £37,929,900, being 1887-8, I find that in the differences an excess, in 13 years, of nearly between the ordinary Expenditure and £7,250,000. The increases in the ReRevenue there have been six years of venue do not, in my opinion, show any deficits; whilst between Revenue and great augmentation during the last few ordinary Expenditure there have been six years. The land revenue may be said years of surpluses. But the information to have been slightly increased; but given us this evening will now change the opium revenue has fallen off. I two of these surpluses into deficits, and am sorry to see that the salt revenue that the total deficits for 12 years exceed still remains depressed. During the considerably the amount of the sur- last 13 years the net revenue from salt pluses. One remarkable feature in the shows but little change; and, taking last two years is the omission of the into account the additional area with Famine Insurance Fund of £1,500,000. its population now supplied, and the If this had been spent as promised, a natural increase of population in these further deficit of £3,000,000 in these two 13 years, the consumption of salt must years would have added largely to the have fallen of; and, in accordance excesses of ordinary Expenditure over with my annual practice, I heartily Income. These excesses would be wish that the Government saw their largely swelled if the capital outlay on way to give up the whole Salt Duty. Public Works were added on. The No doubt, the sacrifice of £6,000,000 of exact amount of Debt created during the annual income would be a remarkable last 13 years cannot be clearly ascer- measure; but believing as I do that the tained owing to the manner in which the freedom of salt from taxation would obligations of various kinds are entered, bind the people of India to our Rule, but the Interest paid during that period and that they would prove faithful to will give some idea of the large increase their salt, I cannot but use my efforts in the amount of Debt. In 1875-6 the towards obtaining that end. I may the Interest is entered at £5,415,371, here call attention to the double Income and in 1887-8 the amount is entered at Tax levied in this country on the £8,368,409, thus showing a difference of holders of the Indian Debt Bonds. I nearly £3,000,000. This, however, is trust that the right hon. Gentleman not a true indication, because in these the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. 13 years the rate of Interest, on all Goschen) will see his way to the cessaDebts, has been greatly reduced. More- tion of this charge. India could easily over, the capital of the Civil and Mili- enforce its withdrawal-a mere threat to tary Funds-in all between £6,000,000 retaliate by re-imposing the taxes on -and £8,000,000 has been taken over the cotton manufactures of England by Government and used in diminution would at once force the English Governof the Debt. I must, however; add that ment to cease the Income Tax on the this interest now includes the loss by ex- interest of the Indian Debt. I thank change, and covers the amount of interest the hon. Gentleman the Under Secrefor the capital invested in Railway and tary for the information he has given. Irrigation Works. All these excesses regarding the military expenditure for may be easily accounted for by the large the occupation of Burmah; but I wish increase which has taken place under the accounts were so prepared as to three separate heads of Expenditure. enable us to take out the figures of that Under Salaries and Expenses of Civil expenditure. The India Office has the Departments the charge has increased information, and could, therefore, set it between 1875-6 and 1887-8 by forth in the accounts. Indeed, I doubt £2,000,000. The charge for Civil and whether the expenditure, as now Military Buildings and Roads, the ex- stated, is correct. It looks to me as penditure in 1887-8 is nearly £1,000,000 if the expenditure in excess of the more than in 1875-6, and between the peace outlay was alone given, and that same period the Army Services are nearly the pay and allowances of the troops £4,000,000 in excess. From the table are still chargeable on the revenues General Sir George Balfour mainly from Madras; and here I would accepting the position of civil engineers call attention to the great injustice done in Her Majesty's Department of Public to Madras-to the favouring of Bur- Works in India, and in it there are mah-in making the former bear the several notices of rates of payment whole military charges of Burmah, both which are to be made to these gentleordinary and war, and thus making men, and which are expressed as folBurmah appear to have a large surplus lows:-Rs1,300, £130; Rs2,000, £200; of revenue. I would also point out a Rs3,000, £300; and Rs4,000, £400. defect in the accounts, in not showing, Of course, this means that they were in a clear manner, the exceptional given to understand that their pay would charges on account of the North-West consist of monthly payments which Frontier of India. Here and there a the Government valued at Rs10 to few items, such as special defence works, the £1. The contract also stated that may be seen, but the large outlay on they would be entitled, after 30 years' account of the occupation of Quetta service or upwards, to pensions not exand the approaches thereto is not, if ceeding Rs5,000. When they entered at all, set forth. I close my remarks the Service there is no doubt that they with the hope that the Government of had the prospect of enjoying pensions India may continue to improve its of £200 a-year on their return to Engadministration for the well being of the land after their life-long service in India. people, and to add my conviction that if I believe this will not be considered a very the improvements continue to as great extravagant pension for men who have an extent which have taken place spent so long a time in work, which, in during the 60 years since I landed in many instances, is certainly not healthy; India, the people of that country will and I do not think anyone can contend be as well governed as any in the world. that there was any intention on the part COLONEL HILL (Bristol, S.): I rise of the Government to convey any other to call attention to what I consider to impression than I have stated to their be a very great hardship and grievance minds. The Government, of course, had experienced by the civil engineers in the no knowledge whatever that there Department of Public Works in India. would be this enormous decrease in the On the 17th of June last I put a Ques- value of the rupee; but the fact remains tion to my hon. Friend the Under that their pensions, at the present GoSecretary of State for India (Sir John vernment rate of payment, would be reGorst) respecting the mode of payment duced to £375. There is even a prosof the pensions of these gentlemen, and pect, as I am informed, of a continued gave Notice at the time that in conse- depreciation, and some think that the quence of the answer which I received value will be reduced to 1s., in which I should take this opportunity of bring- case, instead of receiving a pension of ing the matter before the House. The £500 a-year, these gentlemen would question of the grievances of certain only receive £250 a year. I ask the civil servants in India has been brought Committee to reflect that the reduction of before the House on more than one 50 per cent on so small a sum as £500 occasion, and I do not propose to go is a very great hardship. To show what into the general question now; I only was the Government idea of the value desire to bring one specific Question of a rupee, I may mention that, in 1870, under the consideration of the Com- there was a certain resolution passed, mittee; and I base my contention that which, in 1873, was published, which the engineers in the Department of contained a note stating that the sterWorks are undergoing a hard measure ling equivalent of a rupee was 2s., of injustice on two points. First, the which would be the rate of exchange. mode of paying their pensions is not That note appeared in the publicathat which they were led to expecttion until as late as 1886, and then under the contract which I hold in my hand; and, in the second place, they were promised that their position should be assimilated to that of Her Majesty's engineers engaged in similar work in India. The document I have here is a form of contract signed by gentlemen it was discovered that it ought not to have been there-that it did not form any part of the resolution. That is one part of my case on which I baso tho allegation of hardship and injustice to these officers. My next point is that they have been, on more than one occa sion, distinctly told that they would be placed on the same footing as the Royal Engineers selected for continuous service in India, and I can give various extracts from letters of Governors General and Ministers of State to this effect. I will not go into those now, but I say that these officers ought to receive their pensions, which they were entitled to at the end of 30 years, in sterling, in the same way as, under the same circumstances, the Royal Engineers receive their pensions. The answer which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India gave me was that no increase had been made in the pay of the Royal Engineers in India; but I think he has overlooked the Royal Warrant of 1886, which made those officers eligible for the Indian staff pension, which, after 32 years' service, amounts to £700. That was in answer to paragraph 6 of my Question; and, in answer to another paragraph, he asserted that the Government did not give any assurance that these officers would receive their pay in sterling; but I again say that I think the Circular most distinctly led them to believe that they were to receive their pensions in sterling, and that they ought in justice so to receive them. In my own view a pension is simply deferred pay, and where you give an officer so much pay and so much pension, you are actually keeping back from him part of his pay. It is, in my opinion, manifestly unfair to take advantage of the lowest point of value reached by the rupee to pay the pensions in question, and I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to conceive some mode of giving redress to this valuable class of officers, who are considered to do their work in an excellent manner, and whose services have been, on more than one occasion, thoroughly acknowledged. MR. GOURLEY (Sunderland): It is, I think, a subject for regret that, as far as my memory serves me, it is impossible, no matter at what period of the Session, to get anything like an audience in this House when the question under discussion relates to India. I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India (Sir John Gorst) both on the lucid document relating to Indian finance which he placed in the hands of hon. Members a short time ago, and also upon the able and clear statement which he has made this evening. But although the hon. Gentleman has laid before us this statement with regard to the finances of India and also of Burmah, I am bound to say that he has told us nothing with regard to the policy of Her Majesty Government in Burmah, and on the North-West Frontier of Afghanistan. I take a great interest in the boundary arrangements which have been going on; but I am not able to place much faith in them, because when such arrangements are made between civilized and semicivilized governments there is very little chance of their being observed. In my opinion this question of frontier is one which will involve this country in very serious responsibilities, inasmuch as these frontier delimitations must always leave the continuance of peace between Afghan and Russia a matter of doubt, and any breach of the peace between those countries would endanger the peace of India, and therefore that between England and Russia. During the last 10 years we have had two polices in Afghanistan. We have had the forward policy of the Conservative Government of 1874-80 with regard to the North-West Frontier, the result of which was, as the country knows, to increase the charge upon the Revenues of India by £20,000,000, and if that policy had been continued we should have required for the purpose of maintaining it an army of 60,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) reversed that policy. But it was a case of "Out of the frying-pan into the fire," because the policy of the right hon. Gentleman involved this country in responsibilities in connection with the North-West Frontier of Afghanistan over which we have no control whatever. It is true we have a Representative at Cabul; but he is a Native of India, and being a Mahommedan, is amenable to influences from which a European is exempt. Instead, therefore, of hampering this country and India with the responsibility which I have referred to, we ought to have embraced the opportunity we had of freeing ourselves from all responsibility whatever with regard to Afghanistan. I am anxious to obtain from Her Majesty's Government a clear declaration of their policy with regard to the future government of Afghanistan. Lord Salisbury at the Mansion House system of pensions and furloughs. In made a statement, in the course of which | order to bring about a reform in the having congratulated the country on the conclusion of the delimitation of the frontiers of Afghanistan and Russia, said there was room enough in Central Asia for both countries. That is a policy which may mean anything or nothing. It may mean that Lord Salisbury intends to reverse the policy of the Conservative Government, or it may mean that he intends to reverse the policy of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and withdraw from the responsibility under which the country now labours with regard to Afghanistan. If that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government I need not say that it will receive the support of a very large number of Liberals and Conservatives. Hitherto we have found that, having accepted responsibilities over which we have no control, we have always had to make some concession, in order to get out of them. This irresistible tendency on the part of successive Governments to do something on the Frontiers of India has led to enormous expenditure already, and the probable expenditure next year will be £17,000,000. We were told by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), when the present Government entered on the conquest of Burmah, that the trade of the country would largely re-posed to be spent is only £199,000, and duce the cost; but the result has been we are actually going to spend £4,000 a deficit of something like £3,000,000, less than in previous years. When I and to-night we have been told nothing was in India some years ago, a gentleabout any prospective increase of income. man perfectly competent to speak on Then I should like to be informed what the subject said to me, "The one blot is the policy of Her Majesty's Govern- on your Government of India is neglect ment in Burmah? Have they any policy of education." As we neglected educaby which they intend to recoup the Go- tion in England at one time, so we are vernment of India the deficit which they now neglecting it in India, where for a have created by the class of responsibili- long time all the education given has been ties under which we now labour with by British missionaries and the missionregard to that country? I shall be glad aries of foreign countries. I consider also to hear what their proposals are for that our policy in this great matter is developing the commerce of Burmah. unworthy of a country like Great Britain. With regard to the large charge for I should like to say a few words as to pensions and furloughs, I point out that the mode in which some of the India this is all being spent for the benefit of Revenue are spent, and I point as an Anglo-Europeans in England who re- instance to the Forest Revenues. These turn to this country after enjoying large amount to £1,100,000 per annum, and salaries in India-return to this country the cost of collecting that sum is at a comparatively early age and take £650,000, while reckoning the money their ease on handsome allowances. To paid for pensions and allowances to my mind this is a matter which requires those formerly engaged in the Service, revision. I hope the Under Secretary the total cost is not far short of for India will turn his attention to it in £750,000. This is clearly a matter |