out the remedy, so as to ensure a satisfactory cure. Even if the patient asks for the wrong remedy, it would not be given to him, but at least he must describe what he feels, and it is on that information that the doctor acts. It is in the same way highly advantageous that the British Government should have an opportunity of knowing through the Indian National Congress the real feelings of the people. (Hear, hear.) I would only say it will be with the deepest regret that I shall learn that Mr. Stansfeld has not, as his friends have asked him to do, reconsidered his determination to retire from Parliament. But, whether he remains in the House of Commons or whether he enjoys more leisure outside the House, I do trust that he will continue to give his kindly regard to Indian affairs, and to support us with his wise counsels and with the valuable personal influence he will always carry with him (Cheers.)

CIVIL AND MILITARY EXPENDITURE IN INDIA.

In connexion with the National Reform Union, a meeting was held on 1st May 1895 in the Gentlemens' Concert Hall in Manchester, to consider the civil and military expenditure in India. The chair was occupied by the Hon Phillip Stanhope, M. P., who was supported by Sir William Wedderburn, Bart., M. P., Mr. Naoroji, M. P., Mr. R. Barlow, Mr. G. C. Mandleberg, Mr. J. Petrocockino, Mr. George Rhodes, Mr. T. C. Abbott, Mr. R. Ramsbottom, Mr. T. Eggington, Mr. G. W. B Sanderson, Mr. A. C. Yates, Mr. Gordon Hewart, and Mr. A. G. Symonds (Secretary).

Sir William Wedderburn, M.P., said he was glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words at Manchester bearing on the question of the cotton duties. The two points he proposed to discuss were practical ones, and they were these:-1. How comes it that the cotton duties have been imposed? 2. What had we better to do in order to get rid of those duties? People in this country, he thought, were beginning to understand that the excessive and ever-increasing Indian expenditure was not only a question for the Indian taxpayer, but was also a question for the British taxpayer, and if it were a question for the British taxpayer generally, much more was it a question for those who supported the industries of Lancashire. Because there could be no doubt it was this excessive expenditure. which had produced a deficit in Indian finance, which in turn had caused the cotton duties to be imposed. If the duties had been rendered necessary by useful expenditure for the safety of the Empire, or in developing the resources of India and trade, it would have been difficult to quarrel with such expenditure, but he could show that the deficit had been caused by extravagance

in civil and military establishments. Vast sums had been spent in little wars beyond the frontier, wars of adventure and of aggression on our neighbours, and he held that such expenditure, instead of being necessary and beneficial, was purely mischievous. It was doing harm to our position, and endangering the safety of our Empire, because it was upsetting the good old traditional policy known as the policy of Lord Lawrencethe policy of keeping within our own bounds, cultivating friendly relations with our neighbours, keeping full treasury, and producing contentment among the whole population of India. (Cheers.) The expenditure of which they complained showed no signs of decrease, nor even of being stationary. On the contrary, it was constantly increasing. In ten years it had gone up by no less a sum than twelve millions of tens of rupees. Even from a military point of view the policy which rendered such expenditure necessary appeared to be a mistake; for every general officer of experience who wrote to the newspapers in support of this policy four or five wrote to repudiate it. And from a political point of view, such a policy of aggression and restlessness in India was most dangerous and mischievous, because the want of consideration for the rights of our weaker neighbours naturally alarmed the Native States of India and made them suspicious of all our intentions. This policy was in that way undermining our position throughout India. Then there was the question of heavy taxation in India. He had observed that in all the schemes of Russian generals for the invasion of India the one great hope they had was that while the British army stood face to face with them along the frontier there might be a rising amongst the people of India against their oppressors. The real safety of our position in India was to make that impossible by having no fiscal oppression in India and by spending money on the useful development of the country. In that way the people of India, instead

of being a danger, a sort of powder magazine behind us, would be as a tower of strength to defend us against all comers. He had spent a quarter of a century of his life in the service of the Government of India, and when he retired was Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay in the Political Department. He could therefore claim to speak as an expert, and as one who had seen Indian affairs from the inside, and he was most firmly convinced, not only that the policy of aggression was not necessary, but that it was wholly mischievous, and he was prepared, therefore, to go with them heartily in any effort to get that great expenditure stopped in the interests of the millions both of this country and of India. (Cheers.)

THE CHITRAL QUESTION.

In connection with the debate on the Chitral Question which took place in the House of Commons on 3rd September 1895. Sir William Wedderburn delivered the following speech :—

He regretted that the papers relating to Chitral had not been published earlier. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton complanied that the Blue-book did not contain all the necessary Papers, but the late Government had had it in their power to publish all the Papers and Documents at an earlier stage, and that he thought would have been a right and proper course to take. If the case had been put before the public, the late Government would have received a great deal of support in the decision at which they ultimately arrived. As regarded that decision, he entirely concurred in the views that the late Government took. He thanked the right hon. gentleman for the way in which he had sought to raise this question from one of mere temporary expediency, or financial consideration, to a higher level. He should be prepared to vote with his hon. friend the Member for Cardiff upon the Amendment, because it covered the ground occupied by the Chitral question, as well as many other similar questions. The hon. member for Bethnal Green had seconded the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cardiff, but he regretted that the hon. member's reasons were, as he stated them, opposed to the whole educated opinion of India. He was sorry that Mr. Naoroji had not been returned to the House, as he could speak more authoritatively on behalf of the Indian people. In that discussion the opinion of the people of India was a very important element. He trusted the public opinion of this country would insist that the question should be looked at from a broader and higher point of view, and that they would consider this aggression upon our weaker neighbours in India-this forward policy, as it was called