necessary even to refer to those contentions in the statement he has just laid before the Committee. Another point to which I take strong exception in the right hon. gentleman's speech is his statement that land revenue in India is not a tax upon the people, but only a share of the rent. That is no doubt the theory, but the practice is very different. I would beg to commend to my right hon. friend the perusal of certain Minutes recorded in the India Council, which he will find at p. 134 of Appendix I. of the Famine Commission Report. These Minutes relate to a proposal of Lord Hobart to stop all enhancements of the land revenue in the Madras Presidency. It there appears that the instruction of Sir Charles Wood was that the land revenue should not exceed one half of the free rent. But it is admitted that

this was a "mere paper instruction." Sir Bartle Frere, than whom there was not a better practical authority on this point, stated that the State demand rarely if ever fulfilled the requirements of the India Office instruction, and that with the exception of a very few localities, infinitesimally small, a true land tax was practically unknown. As regards the Bombay Presidency, he said that the assessment came under three classes. First, a Land Tax fixed more or less arbitrarily; second, a full rent leaving nothing to the cultivator but the wages of his labour and the interest on his capital; and, third, a rent and something more trenching on the wages of labour or the profits of capital. To those three classes Sir Louis Mallet added yet another, where the land yielded no rent at all, and the assessment was taken wholly from that portion of the crop which represented the wages of labour. When my right hon. friend has leisure to read the Famine Commission Report, the Report of the Deccan Ryots Commission, and the Debates in Council regarding the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act, he will doubtless modify very materially his views regarding the Indian cultivator's burdens and condition.

The right hon. gentleman has said that the cultivator's improvements are not taxed. How does he account for the enhancements in the Panwel taluka, which have been brought to his notice by a question in the House? An instance has been given where a cultivator's assessment has been raised from 4 rupees to 45 rupees. Was the difference the increase in the value of the land apart from the cultivator's industry? I will give the right hon. gentleman a clue which he might follow up. Let him inquire what "Pot-Kharab" means in the Bombay Presidency, and he will find that these enhancements are upon reclamations and improvements within the cultivator's holdings which he was encouraged to make by the promise that they would not be taxed. The right hon. gentleman was very indignant because the member for Flintshire said that there was corruption among the Settlement officers, but if he will inquire he will find that one main excuse for these enhancements was the alleged frauds on the part of the officials who made the original settlements. The objection taken to the military expenditure is one of policy more than account. I, in agreement with the right hon. gentleman the member for the Forest of Dean, do not grudge money for the true defence and safety of India. But what I object to is the policy of aggression upon our weaker neighbours, a policy equally unjust and dangerous. India is surrounded by a frontier of sterile mountainous regions, inhabited by wild tribes. This constitutes a natural rampart, like a thorny hedge, and it is perfect folly either to penetrate into that hedge or to destroy it. This policy of aggression was foreseen and denounced in the Viceroy's Council by Mr. Ilbert and Sir Auckland Colvin when the first great addition of 30,000 men was made to our army with reference to the attack on Burma. These gentlemen said this increased force would be used for purposes of aggression and not of defence, and this prophecy has come true.

For purposes of defence in India, an efficient regular force was no doubt required, but the true safety of the country depended upon this force being backed by a full treasury and a contented people. Another important question is the fair distribution of the military burden between India and Great Britain. The conquest of Upper Burma was undertaken purely for supposed Imperial interests, and it is a burning shame that the whole expense, has been placed upon the Indian taxpayer, who was entirely opposed to the whole operation. During the past eight years a charge of some £12,500'000 has fallen upon India on account of Upper Burma, and it appears likely that this charge will continue at the rate of about £1,500,000 annually. With such treatment, is it to be wondered at that India is in financial difficulty? Among the remedies now required, one of the most important is a fair distribution of military expenditure between India and this country. Then there seems no good reason why the Military and Civil expenditure should not be brought to the figure it stood at in 1884-5 during the happy time of Lord Ripon. The compensation to the Services should be suspended until the finances can afford this indulgence. And as regards the future, care and economy would be insured if only £5 of the salary of the Secretary of State for India was put upon the Imperial Estimates. What did Mr. Disraeli say on this point? "Have the people of England ever cared one jot about Indian reform? No, they have not, and for this very simple reason-that the people of England do not pay for India; because so long as Indian finance is separated from English finance, and so long as the people of England do pay in consequence of misgovernment in India, so long, depend upon it, they will not care for Indian reform. This was a formidable indictment against our national honesty and unselfishness. I trust my right hon. friend will do his best to convince the people of India that their welfare is his first object.

FINANCIAL RELATION BETWEEN

ENGLAND AND INDIA.

MR. DADABHAI NAOROJI moved the following amendment to the Address in the House of Commons on the 12th February 1895. "And we humbly pray that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct your Majesty's Ministers to 80 adjust the financial relations between the United Kingdom and British India with regard to all the expenditures incurred in the employment of Europeans in the British Indian Services, Civil and Military, in this country and in India, that some fair and adequate portion of such expenditure should be borne by the British Exchequer in proportion to the pecuniary and political benefits accruing to the United Kingdom from your Gracious Majesty's sway over India: and that the British Treasury should sustain a fair and equitable portion of all expenditure incurred in all military and political operations beyond the boundaries of India in which both Indian and British interests are jointly concerned." Sir. William Wedderburn in seconding the amendment spoke as follows:

I beg to second the amendment of my hon. friend, and at the same time I must express my great regret in similar terms that no reference to India has been made in the course of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. The people of India are in a condition of extreme anxiety as to what the nature will be of the promised financial inquiry to which reference was made at the close of last Session. They are anxious to know whether that inquiry is really to go to the root of the matter; whether it will be a genuine attempt to learn the true causes of, and to apply a real remedy to, the disastrous financial condition of the country. (Hear, hear.) In this anxiety we may truly say many members of this House share. (Hear, hear.) I would particularly refer to those hon. gentlemen who represent Lancashire constituencies (hear, hear)-because they are deeply interested in Indian finance in relation to the imposition of duties upon Lan

cashire goods. It cannot be too distinctly understood that the imposition of these import duties is a direct result of the excessive expenditure-administrative expenditure in India. The imposition of this new tax is simply one incident in the downward course of Indian finance. It is one of the stages of the rake's career. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) We have had one or two other notable stages in that career. We have the closing of the mints which has convulsed exchanges all over the civilised world, and we have had the misappropriation of the Famine Fund which was designed to relieve the distress of the starving people. Therefore, I would ask the hon. members for Lancashire to say that this excessive expenditure should stop, and then the necessity for import duties whether on cotton or anything else, would cease. (Hear, hear.) I think other hon. members are also very much interested to know the terms of this reference. I think that members who are interested in India, and may perhaps be asked to take a part in this Select Committee would like to know whether this inquiry is to be one of real benefit to India and to this country. (Hear, hear.) I do not think that they will be very willing to give their time and their labour if it is to be a mere book-keeping enquiry. (Hear, hear.) If it is to be of no more value than these bogus audits of the Liberator type-(" Oh" and laughter)—I do not think that hon. members will be willing to give their labour to it. We do not want a mere bogus audit at all. We want to go into the whole facts of the case-to know what are the causes of the financial difficulty and what are the real remedies by which the finances of India can be put on a good and sound basis. (Hear, hear.) And in order to get at the real facts, we challenge inquiry upon certain points. We make four important propositions, and we invite my right hon. friend the Secretary of State to allow us to prove those propositions, or do our best to do so. These are the following. The first is that the condition