Men of the greatest experience were entirely opposed to our taking possession of the defiles and passes of Afghanistan. But there was one rectification of Frontier which we might make without breach of faith and by keeping within our right. He alluded to the position of Quetta. He had never committed himself about the occupation of Quetta ; but he thought they must either put a stronger force than they had there, or withdraw it altogether. Inasmuch as we had already gone so far, and we had now the right to maintain a force at Quetta, the right thing to do would be to establish ourselves there, constructing a railway, and making the place a base of operations both in a political and a military sense. He would not recommend, as General Hamley recommended, the occupation of Candahar, which would be completely inconsistent with the maintenance of a great Afghan State. With regard to the attempt to impose European Residents on the Ameer, in India a European Resident in a Native State was always regarded not as an Ambassador, but as a man who overlooked and over-rode the Native State. That was the light in which the Ameer and the Afghan people viewed a European Resident, and they could not persuade them to the contrary. Moreover the absence of a European Resident did not imply, the absence of diplomatic communication altogether. We had had a regularly equipped Mission in Afghanistan, of which the members were Natives. The Afghans were ready to admit as many Native Missions as we liked; but it would always be a source of extreme embarrassment if we insisted on their receiving European Residents, whom they regarded as supervisors who were imposed on them. He thought the demand that they should receive them was uncalled for and unreasonable. With respect to Merv, it was separated from Herat by a great mountain chain. The real road was through the Meshed district in Persia. There was only one demand of that sort which we should make. We should ask permission to keep a Mission at Balkh. In conclusion he earnestly trusted that in any arrangements which might be made, the Government would be indulgent towards the Afghans and would remember the provocation which they had received, otherwise they would never have peace in that country. MR. J. G. HUBBARD wished to appeal to the Government to extricate him from what appeared to him to be a considerable difficulty. Anxious as he was to vote for Her Majesty's Government, he could not vote for the Resolution proposed by the Under Secretary of State for India. The hon. Gentleman would pledge himself only within a considerable margin, and had endeavoured to show that the words of his Resolution were merely a protection by Act of Parliament to the proceedings of the Indian Government, and were required to put the action of the Indian Government upon a Constitutional basis. It appeared to him that the words of the Resolution meant a great deal more. The words as they stood bound the House to consent to the Revenues of India being applied to defray the expenses of Military operations which now were, and could be, carried on beyond the external Frontier of Her Majesty's Indian territory. The words further imported that the whole of such expenditure was to be defrayed, and it must be paid by the persons who defrayed it. Therefore, the Indian Government was to be at the costs and expenses of the present expedition. That was the logical interpretation of the words as they stood. If that were not the correct interpretation, he would be glad if the Governwould say so. It had been said that the Indian Revenue showed a surplus; but that was no reason why this war expense should be put upon it. To judge whether the expense of sending an expedition into Afghanistan should be placed upon the Revenues of India it was requisite to keep two considerations in view. First, who made the expedition? and, secondly, who profited by it? He did not wish to trust to his own judgment on these questions, but would quote the opinions of Members of the Indian Council. A Paper was circulated on Saturday signed by five Members of the Indian Council, and they all concurred that the war in Afghanistan was a part of the Imperial policy of this country, and could only be ascribed to the action of our own Government. With regard to the particular point as to the incidence of the charge for the Army, there was a difference of opinion. Three Members of the Council-Sir Erskine Perry, Sir Robert Montgomery, and Sir Barrow Ellis-thought that none evening that it would have been possible to close this debate to-night; but I can entirely recognize the justice of the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, and I feel that the matter is one of such great importance to others, besides ourselves, that it would be undesirable that the debate should be, so to speak, huddled up; therefore, I will consent to the Adjournment to-night. I do not wish at the present moment to enter into any discussion of the arguments; but to prevent misunderstanding, it is as well that I should say, in answer to the question of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hubbard) as to the intention of the Government in this proposal, it is not intended that the whole of the expenditure of the military operations should necessarily be thrown on the Revenues of India. That will be a matter for consideration; and I think it will be undesirable to attempt to lay down any rigid principle as to the amount of aid which the Imperial Exchequer should give till we know a little more of what the war is likely to cost. I wish to explain that it is not intended that India should bear the whole of the expenditure. of the expenses should be borne by MR. LYON PLAYFAIR, remarking that several hon. Members on his side of the House wished to take part in the discussion, moved the Adjournment of the Debate. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(Mr. Lyon Playfair.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I had hoped earlier in the MR. CHILDERS wished to make a suggestion which he thought of some In the course of the debate that evening the Under Secretary of State for India had quoted part of a very important telegram in relation to the finances of India. Certain figures were given which had a very important bearing upon the present financial position of India, as compared with the Budget Statement. He wished to ask whether, under these circumstances, as this telegram had been referred to in debate, the Government could have it printed and placed in their hands by 4 o'clock the next day. Considering the extreme importance of knowing exactly what was the financial position of India, he hoped the Government would not make any objection to the production of the document. MR. BULWER observed, that he did not understand that the proposal of the Government was that either the whole cost of this war, or any definite portion of the Indian Revenues; but they only of it, should certainly be defrayed out asked at the present time that the decision as to what portion, if any, should be defrayed out of the Indian Revenues, and what portion out of the Imperial Exchequer should be left to them. He had listened with surprise to many speeches which had been delivered that evening, and many of them, it seemed to him, might very well have been delivered in the preceding week. He could not understand what the finances of India had to do with the question now before the House. It seemed to him that the decision of the amount to be paid by the Indian Revenues should, for the present, be left with the Government. The House had not before it the materials to decide that question, and were only asked now to settle the principle that the Indian Revenues should, if the Government deemed it necessary, contribute to the expenses of the war. Surely the House was not going to say that the whole expense must necessarily be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. MR. HERSCHELL said, that no doubt his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bulwer) would be quite content to take the decision of Her Majesty's Government upon the question of paying the sum out of the Indian Revenues, or upon any other question. But those sitting on that side of the House were not so willing to leave the matter in their control. Up to the present time the Government had not pledged itself that any portion of this expenditure should come out of the Imperial Revenues. According to the terms of this Resolution it would be in the power of the Government to throw every penny of the expenditure upon the Revenues of India. MR. NEWDEGATE said, that the real question was, whether the Government considered that, under the circumstances of this war, they had by law any right to apply the Revenues of India in payment of the expenditure incurred for it? He did not go into the question, because the debate was to be adjourned; but perhaps he might say that it appeared to him to be a very grave Constitutional question, whether, under the circumstances of this war, and considering its nature and character, the Government was justified in throwing the expenditure for it upon the Indian Revenues. SIR WILFRID LAWSON hoped that it would not be understood that hon. Members were debarred on this Motion, by any supposed understanding, from questioning the policy of Her Majesty's Government in undertaking the war. It appeared to him that the debate raised the question of the whole policy of the war. MR. E. STANHOPE observed, that he did not quote from any one particular telegram. The India Office had been in frequent communication with the Indian Government recently, and several telegrams had passed between them. If in any one of the telegrams there were facts which they could fairly put before the House, he had no doubt the Government would be able to assent to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) proposed. Having regard to the form of the telegrams, so far as he remembered there was nothing which could be laid upon the Table of the House. MR. CHILDERS asked, whether, if that was so, the Government had any objection to give the House the substance of the financial information which they had received? MR. FAWCETT rose upon a point of Order. The Under Secretary of State for India, in his opening remarks, had made certain statements with regard to Indian finances from private information derived from telegrams. He had always considered it to be the rule that Ministers were not allowed to quote from documents which were in their possession, and not in that of hon. Members, without producing such documents, in order that they might be compared with the statements made. It was absolutely impossible for them to arrive at any clear opinion on this matter, however anxious they might be with regard to the position of the Indian finances. The Secretary of State for India, on Monday last, made certain statements as to the Indian finances, and then the Under Secretary, without presuming to lay a single document on the Table, came down to that House and stated that he had received a series of telegrams, the effect of which, as he understood, was to reduce the anticipated surplus of Monday last from £2,100,000 to £1,500,000. He wished to ask, whether it was not the invariable practice that, in financial debates, Ministers should lay upon the Table of the House the documents from which they quoted? MR. SPEAKER: The practice of the House is, that if an official document is quoted by a Minister it shall be laid before the House. At the same time, if the public interest should be opposed to that proceeding, that would be accepted by the House as a reason for withholding the documents. MR. E. STANHOPE thought the hon. Member for Hackney was somewhat mistaken as to the effect of the telegrams referred to. They had received a good many telegrams on the subject, and there had been some difficulty in working out exact amounts, with the figures supplied from India in addition to those already known at the India Office; but the work had been done with the greatest possible industry and care. He did not wish to lay imperfect information before the House, and he felt that it would not be advisable to produce the confidential telegrams which had been received. MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, he hoped that the Government would be able to-morrow to state the grounds on which they based their estimate that the expenses of the war would amount to £1,200,000. No one who had listened to the debate, or who remembered their experience of the Abyssinian War, could believe that there was the slightest real ground for thinking that the expense would be limited to that amount. He objected to be led into a trap of that kind by such vague statements. He was bound to say that he thought the cost of the war would far exceed £1,200,000; and it was absolutely impossible that the necessary provisions made for many months in advance, in the arrangements made for commissariat and ammunition stores, could be met by anything like that amount. Under these circumstances he thought the country was entitled to know the grounds on which the Government made that con fident statement. SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN said, if there was any information which the Government thought contrary to the interests of the public service to produce they had every right to keep it back; but the position was quite a distinct one when they first quoted the information and then refused to give the document on which it was founded. A similar question was raised in the Denmark Debate of 1869, and, if his memory served him rightly, one of the things insisted on most strongly on that occasion by Gentlemen sitting on the front Bench opposite, was that Mr. Layard, then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, should produce the documents he referred to. If Sir Austen Layard was asked to produce those documents in the Denmark Debate, it seemed to him to be on all fours with the present position, when the Under Secretary of State for India used information which he might have kept back and then stated it was not in the public interest to produce the documents on which it was based. There might be statements in it which it would not be well to produce to the House, but, looking at it from a common-sense point of view, he could not see that, with the numerous and efficient Staff of the India Office, they were not in a position to give them almost immediately the information relied on by the Under Secretary of State to warrant the statement he had made to the House. MR. DILLWYN suggested that the Government might give substantially the information which was required. In whatever form they gave it, so long as it was substantially correct, it would be sufficient. MR. E. STANHOPE said, the Government did not desire in the least to keep back any information; they only desired that any information they gave should be in a form that would be satisfactory to the House, and that its publication should not be injurious to the public service. He would, therefore, look into the documents to-morrow morning and see if there was anything in them that could be given. In any case, the House might be assured that every satisfactory information should be given when it was received, and that there was no hesitation on the part of the Government in laying it before the House. MR. GOSCHEN said, that what had fallen from the Under Secretary of State clearly showed that there was no desire on the part of the Government to put the House into a false position. If the Government were not able to give more than had been stated that day, it would be satisfactory to have the figures before them in a printed form. Motion agreed to. Debate adjourned till To-morrow. DISQUALIFICATION BY MEDICAL RELIEF BILL.-[BILL 22.] (Mr. Rathbone, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Ritchie.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." (Mr. Rathbone.) MR. SERJEANT SPINKS said, that he did not wish to delay the progress of the Bill; but he thought it right to say that he had received communications that convinced him that before the House went into Committee upon it there ought to be a longer opportunity afforded the country for considering its provisions. He would therefore appeal to the hon. Member for Liverpool not to attempt to push the Bill through that night; he had already achieved a great success in getting his Bill to a second reading 80 soon in the Session; and, therefore, he did hope that he would be good enough not to press it through that night. so Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Mr. Serjeant Spinks.) various parts of the country differed. With no wish to delay the progress of the Bill, he yet hoped the promoter would be content with going into Committee pro forma. MR. RATHBONE would be very glad to meet the suggestion, if he were sure of obtaining an opportunity of taking the sense of the House on the question. It must, however, be in the knowledge of the House, that in the course of Business last Session, after a certain period of the Session had arrived, it was perfectly possible for one single Member to defeat the wishes of the House with regard to the Bill. Under those circumstances, he did hope that the opposition to the Bill going into Committee would not be pressed, though he should be perfectly willing to concur in any opinion of the House if against the Bill. He thought it would be better to go on now rather than to sit up night after night, with the chance of carrying the Bill being liable to be defeated by a single Member, as was the case last Session. Question put, and negatived. Original Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. BANKERS' BOOKS (EVIDENCE) BILL. amend the Law of Evidence with respect to MR. COURTNEY said, he had not the privilege of being present when the Bill was read a second time, but he understood that discussion of its principle had then been deferred, and the Government appeared still unwilling to say anything about it. He thought it would be much better for the Government to state its opinion of the Bill, rather than to wait until it went into Committee. It struck him as harmless; but as already indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, there might be some dif-lities ference of opinion entertained. He hoped it was not asking too much to request the Government then to state what opinion they entertained of the Bill. MR. SALT was of opinion that a general assent had been given to the principle of the Bill, and did not wish on behalf of the Government to oppose the Bill; but he thought that the object of the promoters of the Bill would be best carried out if they would consent to go into Committee pro forma, in order to give time for further consideration. The Bill touched some very important questions, upon which opinions, and Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.] DISPENSARIES (IRELAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. BRUEN, Bill to give facifor providing Dispensary houses and sary Districts in certain parts of Ireland, dwelling houses for Medical Officers of Dispenordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUEN, Mr. DOWNING, Mr. MULHOLLAND, and Dr. WARD. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 66.] KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS). pointed to control the arrangements of the |