his house was on fire, and one of his family was in danger of being burnt; and supposing he could not reach this child except by passing through the house of a neighbour, a suspicious man who kept his doors bolted and barred. What would be the thought of the man who got permission to pass through his neighbour's house by the promise that he would go back at once, who rescued his child, and then told his neighbour that he meant to stay there, because his prestige, his sense of honour, made it impossible for him to retire when he had once come there? The case was on all fours with that of Chitral. If there was any doubt about the meaning of the Proclamation, let it be submitted to the arbitration of any impartial authority. The right hon. the leader of the House had recommended general arbitration. It was easy to accept arbitration with strong opponents, but it would be more meritorious to accept it with the weak and helpless. Secondly, the permanent occupation of Chitral was dangerous and inexpedient. It was folly to pierce the natural ramparts by which the NorthWestern frontier was defended, to kill the brave defenders, and to pave the way for a Russian invasion. Also the sheet anchor of our power in India was trust in our good faith, and this trust had now received a grievous blow. Thirdly, the ultimate cost to the people of India would be ruinous. The people of India were miserably poor, and already much over-taxed. No doubt the noble lord would assure the House that the cost would not be great. Such official assurances were made in the Afghan war, which was estimated to cost 1 millions, but which cost 21 millions; and in the Abyssinian war which was estimated at 3 millions, and cost 10. He warned the noble lord that in permanently occupying such territories the first steps were the easiest and the cheapest-afterwards came the dangers, the difficulties and the heavy expenditure. He reminded him how Lord Roberts had estimated the fighting popula

tion of these mountain regions at a quarter of a million
of men, mostly well armed, brave, and with an uncon-
querable love of independence. These men still occu-
pied the wild regions along the Peshawar-Chitral road,
and much money would be needed to coerce or bribe
them to accept our presence in their country. As re-
gards the Treaty with the Amir he was glad to hear
that the noble lord was willing to lay the text on the
Table of the House, but it had not yet been produced.
So far as they knew about, it provided two things: first,
to increase by 60 lakhs a year the subsidy paid to the
Amir by the unfortunate people of India, and second,
to hand over Kafristan to the Amir. If the subsidy
were used to improve the condition of the people of
Afghanistan, there would be something to show for it,
but he believed that it was chiefly employed to provide
arms of precision, and the British nation incurred a res-
ponsibility as regarded the use of these arms.
At pre-
sent it was alleged that they were being employed in
crushing the Kaffirs, a brave and interesting race, and
in reviving a local slave trade in the most odious form.
This forward frontier policy, this system of aggression
on our weaker neighbours, involved the country in
dangerous and discreditable transactions, and was abso-
lutely opposed to the policy laid down by Her Gracious
Majesty when she assumed direct charge of India, and
in her Proclamation of 1858 declared, "We desire no
extension of our present territorial possession and while
we will permit no aggression upon our dominions or our
rights to be attempted with impunity we shall sanction
no encroachment on those of others."

Question put, "That these words be there added."
The House Divided: Ayes 79 Noes 193.

THE COTTON DUTIES AND THE INDIAN POOR.

Immediately at the close of questions,

Sir W. Wedderburn asked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a matter of definite and urgent public importance-viz., "The effect of the Indian ctton duties as recently re-arranged, which are causing grave dissatisfaction in India by increasing the burden of taxation imposed upon the poorest classes of the consumers.”

The Speaker asked whether the hon. gentleman was supported by forty members, as required by the rules, whereupon nearly all the members of the Opposition, save those on the front bench, rose in their places.

Leave was therefore given, but

Mr. W. E. M. Tomlinson inquired whether the hon. member was

entitled to move the adjournnment, inasmuch as he had only a few minutes ago given verbal notice of his intention to bring the question forward on an early day.

The Speaker said that in absolute strictness the hon. member

might seem to have disentitled himsel! to move the adjournment by giving his notice, but if the hon. member told him that in so doing he only referred to the motion he now proposed to make he would not prevent the hon. gentleman from proceeding.

Sir W. Wedderburn signified his assent, and then said that very grave dissatisfaction existed in India because a new and uncalled for tax had been placed upon the necessaries of the poorest classes of the Indian consumers. The House was aware that the poorer classes in India already bore more than their fair share of taxation. (Hear, hear) The great problem was to make the well-to-do bear a little larger share of taxation, and almost the only way to do that was to tax the finer classes of cloth, which were only worn by the richer people. The import duties upon the finer cloth was approved of by public opinion in India, but it appeared to be a

very inopportune time to put a new tax of 10 lakhs of rupees upon the poorer classes when the taxes which fell upon the richer classes were being reduced by 50 lakhs. The sting of the thing to the people of India was that the new tax was quite unnecessary, and, in their opinion, was only imposed in order to give satisfaction to the Lancashire people. The people in India had been advised not to use Lancashire-made goods at all. Surely, from a political point of view, such a state of feeling as the giving of such advice exhibited ought not to be allowed to exist another day. There was no need of fresh legislation, because the noble lord could, in his Executive capacity, by a stroke of the pen remove the grievance which was being felt throughout India. This motion was in no sense a party one. He made no attack upon the Government, and far less did he wish to make an attack upou the noble lord, who he was convinced had given great attention to the subject and decided it in the way that appeared to him to be the best all round. But the noble lord laboured under the great disadvantage that he had never been in India, and therefore could not appreciate the strength of the feeling which existed in that country on this question. All classes were united upon this matter, rich and poor, official and unofficial, Indian and Anglo-Indian. The noble lord should not take comfort from thinking that the agitation had ceased. He would refer to the letter given from a leading Maharaja, which Lord Roberts read with approval in another place. That letter said. that when the people of India protested openly against any measure it was a compliment to the British nation, because it showed they hoped to get justice. The Maharaja added: "If we had no faith in England and Englishmen all agitation would have ceased, and there would have been a death-like calmness, not perhaps a very desirable thing in the political world of India." The fact was that, if open agitation in this matter ceased

in India, it was not because the people had become indifferent, but rather because the grievance complained of had sunk deeply in their minds because they had become hopeless of receiving justice. It was not unfrequently the case that when outer symptoms of discontent were suppressed real danger began. He therefore begged the noble lord to look into the real merits of the case and not to be deceived by mere outward appearances. The whole point of this controversy had reference to the question of protection. When in 1895 Sir Henry James moved the adjournment of the House on the question of the cotton duties, the ground on which he did so was that Lancashire complained that the duties were protective in their nature—that on the finer counts the protection was partial, but that on the coarser counts, owing to the tariff of 1894, it was absolute. Under that tariff all cotton goods imported were made liable to an ad valorem duty of 5 per cent., and by way of countervailing duty the excise was placed on yarns above 20's. The argument of Lancashire was that this gave partial protection to the Indian mills as regarded the finer counts, because Lancashire paid upon the manufactured article, whereas the Indian millowners only paid upon the raw material—namely, the yarns. Lancashire further argued that absolute protection was given with regard to the coarser goods of 20's and under, because there was no excise on the yarns of those counts. The right hon. member for Wolverhampton, who was Secretary for India at that time, did not admit the plea of protection, but he said that he was willing to make further enquiries, and that, if it was shown that protection existed, he should be prepared to take measures to remove the injustice. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred in that view, and therefore the only question really at issue was the point of protection, and this was confirmed by the present Secretary for India, who at the time of the last Indian Budget promised to

m