Government were, on the whole, well kept, good accounts; but the policy of expenditure was what he complained about. The Indian Government should first find what revenue was available, and should then regulate the expenditure accordingly. With regard to railways, there was a general tendency to ask the right hon. gentleman to increase the expenditure on railways, and there again he hoped the noble lord would hold the balance firmly. There were many powerful interests in this country concerned in pushing the railways in India, such, for instance, as those who supplied the machinery, the rails and the stores. There was one direction in which large economies could be effected by the Government of India, without in the least degree affecting the efficiency of the administration, except, indeed, to improve it. He referred to the increasing employment of natives in the service of their own country. The natives were willing to accept smaller salaries than foreigners. It was, no doubt, true that there were certain appointments which must be held by Europeans in India, but he thought that the number might be limited. The proposal to decentralise and develope the system of provincial financial administration met with his most cordial approval, as he believed that that was a direction in which economy would be attained. It was quite evident that in a great country like India the form of taxation in one part was not suitable to another part. One of the most unfortunate results of the present financial difficulties was that the balances belonging to the different Provincial Governments had been swept into the Imperial Treasury. Those balances represented the economy of the different provinces, and it was a great disaster to local progress and development that they should be spent upon frontier expeditions. He suggested that if the salary of the Secretary of State for India were placed upon the British Estimates it would bring the interest of the House of Commons to bear on the

question of Indian expenditure. It was most important that the Secretary of State should know the opinion of the people of India, for whose interests, however, no member was responsible. He would ask the noble lord, therefore, to learn what the Indian opinion was, as he felt certain that the safety of the Empire would be better attained by increasing their contentment, and by lightening taxes, by giving money for purposes of education and sanitation, and the small improvements that the people required. The people of India had no wish that the Russians should come into India, and with a sympathetic administration the condition of the country would be enormously improved, and ultimately India might be made so prosperous that her trade with Great Britain would be larger than our trade with all the rest of the world. He concluded by moving, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the Question the words—“ But it is to be regretted that these accounts are inaccurate and misleading as regards the amount of public debt incurred."

Lord GEORGE HAMILTON. in reply to the question raised by the hon'ble member for Banffshire, said whether one agreed with the view of that hon. member or not, one could not doubt that in his conduct he was actuated by a sincere desire to improve the condition of the mass of the people of India (Hear, hear.) The hon. member, in his speech, dealt with a number of topics, but he spent most of his time in discoursing on the way in which certain accounts were presented to Parliament. The hon. gentleman was a member of the Royal Commission on the administration of the expenditure of India, and he would suggest to him that the question of the necessity of altering the form of these accounts on the lines indicated by the hon'ble baronet was one which could be much better dealt with inside that Commission. * * * If any better plan could be formulated the hon. member could bring it forward in the Commission of which we was a member. He would now pass

to the general questions which the hon. member had raised.

The Chairman observed that it would be out of order to discuss the general question until this particular amendment had been disposed of.

"Sir W. Wedderburn intimated that after what the noble lord had said as to the form of the accounts he did not wish to press his amendment. It appeared to be a matter as to which there was some doubt, and he hoped the experts would look into it. The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.

THE RETENTION OF CHITRAL.

"A GRIEVOUS BREACH OF NATIONAL GOOD FAITH." Sir W. Wedderburn moved, on 17th February 1896, as an

amendment to the Address, to add the following words at the end "But we humbly express our regret that the present Government, reversiny the policy of their predecessors, have decided not to withdraw from Chitral, thereby violating the pledge expressly given in the Viceroy's proclamation, dangerously adding to Government responsibilities beyond the NorthWest frontier of India and inevitably leading to an increase of the overgrown expenditure in the Indian Military Depart ment, and further our regret that the Treaty of 1893 with the Amir of Afghanistan has not been placed before Parliament."

The hon. baronet said that in the Queen's Speech reference had been made to Chitral in terms expressing approval of the permanent occupation of that territory. He could not allow that to pass without a protest and an appeal to the national conscience against a grievous breach of the national good faith. It might be objected that it was now too late for protest or appeal, but in certain matters it was never too late to mend-it was never too late to remove a blot from the good name of the nation. Some people seemed to think that it was never the right time for Parliament to exercise its duty of control over these frontier aggressions on our weaker neighbours. While the plans were being laid there was profound secrecy, and no one knew anything about them; when the explosion took place we were told it was a crisis, and we must not embarrass the Government; and when Naboth was killed and his vineyard permanently occupied, we were told that it was too late, and no use crying over split milk. That might be true; but at any rate, we should do our best to prevent other milk being

split in the same way. But, as a matter of fact, in the present case circumstances had changed since the decision was come to, and there were reasons to reconsider it. The reasons were contained in the Queen's Speech, which announced that the delimitation of the boundary with Russia had been agreed upon. He congratulated Her Majesty's Government on having accomplished this settlement of the spheres of influence. But this matter being settled in a friendly way, fussy activity on our side of the frontier was no longer called for. It was only likely to act as a challenge to Russia, and stimulate her to forward movements. It had repeatedly been alleged in the Anglo-Indian Press that the real object of the Chitral expedition was to show, with reference to the delimitation negotiations with Russia, that we exercised effective control over Chitral, so that it came within our sphere of influence. If so, these negotiations being now concluded, the retention of Chitral was no longer necessary. He also hoped his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India would explain in what sense the term "Indian Empire" was used in the Queen's Speech with regard to this delimitation. Did it mean. that the Government intended to incorporate all these vast mountainous regions, up to the Pamir boundary, in the Indian dominions vested in Her Majesty by the Government of India Act of 1858? This was a question of the greatest financial importance. If it was intended to annex these territories of India, the proper legal steps should be taken, and he desired to know what those steps would be. If the territories were not part of India, the cost of the Chitral expedition must be borne by the Imperial exchequer, unless the assent of both House of Parliament was obtained under section 55 of the Act. The grounds of his protest against the retention of Chitral were threefold: Ist. We had broken our pledges to the border tribes; 2nd. The retention was politically dangerous; and 3rd. The cost would be

Το

ruinous to the Indian people. In the Queen's Speech the border tribes were congratulated on the loyalty with which they had carried out their engagements. It was a great pity we had not shown a similar loyalty. It seemed a case of sic vos non vobis. We no doubt appreciated the advantage of other people keeping their promises to us. But if an ounce of example was better than a pound of precept, it was better than a hundred weight of commendation coming from those who were themselves defaulters. Had anyone any real doubt as to the meaning of Lord Elgin's proclamation? Was the declared object of the expedition to rescue Dr. Robertson and then retire? Or was it to seize a military post and remain there? The circumstances showed what the meaning was. Our people at Chitral were caught in a trap, 180 miles beyond our frontier. reach them we had to pass through a mountainous wilderness with rapid torrents, deep defiles, and snowy passes. Without the permission of the tribes we could not get through in time. Accordingly, the following Proclamation was issued: "The sole object of the Government of India is to put an end to the present and prevent any future unlawful aggression on Chitral territory, and as soon as this object has been attained the force will be withdrawn. The Government of India have no intention of permanently occupying any territory through which Umra Khan's misconduct may now force them to pass, or of interfering with the independence of the tribes." Mark the words, "sole object." Nothing is said about roads or valuable military posisitions. The clear meaning was that we would rescue our people, and then withdraw. He recognised no difference as regards moral principles in public and in private concerns. If he thought a thing wrong to do it alone, it would be wrong if he did it jointly with 30 others, or 30 millions of others. How should we view such a promise if given by an individual? Supposing