amongst whom I have spent the greater | 68,000 Europeans in the whole of part of 30 years, may be taken as my India, and that of these no less than justification for endeavouring, with the 25,000 receive salaries from the Governkind permission of the House, to place ment of more than £100 a year, the them in possession of some most serious total amount of their salaries arriving facts, drawn from my own observation, at the enormous figure of £13,000,000 which will, I believe, incline the House yearly. Moreover, nearly one-third to the conclusion that the Government part of this vast sum, or £4,000,000, is of India cannot be safely carried on any paid in the shape of pensions, &c., to longer without the introduction into it Europeans living in this country. But, of the principle of popular representa- on the other hand, what is the case tion. Sir, on the very few occasions with regard to the natives of the when India gets a hearing at all in this country? There are no less than House, it is, I fear, far too much the 285,000,000 of the natives of India, and fashion for the House to accept the of these only 11,000 hold Government views of gentlemen who have held posts over £100 a year. Their total of official positions, and who invariably salaries, moreover, amounts to only give assurances that everything is going £2,250,000. Last year the Government on most admirably, and that the Go- kindly accepted a Motion which I made vernment of India is the best of all for a continuation of that Return up to possible Governments. Now, Sir, I the present time, and I have no doubt protest against the views of these gen- that when it is presented it will reveal tlemen, however personally worthy and a state of things still worse than that excellent men they may be, being which I have described. The fact is, accepted as authoritative in regard to Sir, that the whole policy of the Gothe real condition and wants of the vernment of India is' framed for the people of India; for my experience of purpose of supporting, and the natives them all, with only a few exceptions is, of India are ground down for the purthat they are much too apt to indulge pose of paying, the gigantic salaries of in optimist views, which, however, un- these 25,000 Europeans. And, Sir, it consciously to themselves, are really is because the Government of India nothing but the offspring of an easy- well know that to introduce an elective going hope that a state of things is element into its Councils would be to sound, from which they have reaped introduce a jarring element which comfort, honour, and substantial ad- would disturb the fine unanimity vantage. There are two main reasons hitherto displayed by these Councils in why the alien bureaucracy which we voting salaries for their own class, and call the Government of India are fairly taxing the people of India in order to frightened at the bare idea of the intro-pay for them, that the present proposal duction of the elective principle: In is vehemently opposed by the privileged the first place, they know that the class whose monopoly would thereby people's representatives, in so far as be threatened or broken down. But they were able to make their presence there is another and a still more serious felt at all, would feel bound to insist on reason why it is essential that the a reduction of the vast salaries and elective principle be introduced without appointments now held by Europeans, delay, and that is the enormous and whereby the natives are excluded from ever-increasing impoverishment of the all good offices in the Public Service of people, which is taking place under our their own country, and whereby the rule. It is solely by the device of abso revenues of their country are appropri-lutely excluding elected representaated and eaten away. Nine years ago tives from their Councils that our a Return was presented to this House, officials are now able to go about on the Motion of Mr. John Bright, crying "peace and prosperity," while which casts a grim light upon the cause all the time biting poverty and why the present Motion is so strenu- decadence of the most serious chaously opposed. That Return shows racter is going on under our rule that, other than the rank and file of the throughout the length and breadth of British Army, there are only about India from day to day, and from year to year. And, Sir, I venture to say | sary to ordain that for the default of a that this hiding away of the truth, single shilling for a single day the which could and would at once be de- entire holding of a cultivator, with his clared by the mouths of elected Repre- 30 years' lease, with his crops, plantasentatives of the people, constitutes the tions, cattle, implements, houses, and most serious possible danger for the improvements, would become forfeited future of our Empire in India. One of to Government, and the cultivator and the chief apostles of the official classes, his family evicted and thrown upon who are accustomed to soothe the the world absolutely without grace or Members of this House with bland notice? assurances as to the increasing wealth and prosperity of the Indian cultivator, is the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham. On the occasion of the Indian Budget Debate last Session he delivered to the Committee one of his usual optimist speeches as to the wonderful and increasing prosperity of the people and the lightness of their taxation. In reply I called attention to the more than Draconian Land Revenue Law, the passing of which was his last and chief act as Governor of Bombay, and I asked, why did he find such a law of unparalleled stringency necessary to extort the Land Revenue if the people were prosperous and lightly taxed? I asked, and I now ask, for example, why the hon. Baronet had taken away from the cultivator all appeal against the Revenue collector's claims? Why did he ordain that on default of a single instalment the entire Land Tax of the whole year should become due at once, with interest at a rate unnamed, together with a fine of an amount unspecified, and which can be increased from time to time at the discretion of the Government? Why did he ordain that instead of one-half only the Revenue collector may seize for an arrear the whole of the ryot's crop, leaving the ryot and his family literally starving? Why did he ordain that the lands of a whole village of solvent ryots should be attached for arrears due on a single holding? Worse still, why did he find it necessary to provide that all the solvent and wholly innocent villagers should be subjected to immediate distraint and sale of their property, movable and immovable aye and also subjected to personal arrest and imprisonment for no offence whatever, except for the default of a single one of their number? Lastly, why, in the face of all this prosperity, did he find it necesMr. Seymour Keay *MR. SPEAKER: I do not see the relevancy of the hon. Gentleman's observations. MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I was going to point out that such an inhuman law as this could not possibly have been passed without amendments had the Bombay Legislative Council possessed even a fair amount of Representatives elected by the people of India, and is it not most dangerous that the frightful impoverishment now caused in the Bombay Presidency by the administration of this inhuman law should go on? *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentlecondition of India on a Bill of this man is not entitled to review the whole kind. MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: My view is that the people are now ground down by the existing legislative enactments, and I wish to warn the Government of the consequences whilst there is yet time. Sir, I can conceive no stronger possible argument for requiring the recognition of the elective principle than the fact that under scientific engines of financial torture, such as the law which I have described, the Indian cultivator is now suffering absolute depletion in silence, because he has not so much as a single Representative by whom he could make his sufferings known to this House, or even to the Indian Government itself. Our Revenue system steeps the people in poverty, yet our officials, one and all, declare that they are rolling in wealth. system, but I will state broadly the result. *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must obey my ruling. MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I am endeavouring, Mr. Speaker, to obey your ruling most absolutely. Now, Sir, no assertion is more universal amongst our officials than that we only take from the cultivator one-half of the net produce of his holding, leaving him the other half to himself to revel in luxury, after paying for the costs of cultivation, including the support of his family. Sir, this fallacy is so dire that, unless speedily corrected by popular representation, it must of itself be fatal to the Indian Government. In order to show the real truth on this subject, I have myself had an industrial census taken of an average village in the Bombay Presidency; and, if I may venture to ask the further indulgence of the House, I will give a brief abstract of the result. The population of the village is 236 persons, including families. The land farmed is 1,400 acres, and the whole crop of the year valued only 2,900 rupees, because, from sheer poverty, not a vestige of manure is ever put into the soil. Now, if we allow only 10 rupees or 14s. a year for the sustenance of each person, and 8 rupees per year for the sustenance of each of the 58 pair of bullocks required for the cultivation, it appears that the real net produce of the village amounted to 76 rupees only. Nevertheless, the Land Tax and Local Cess extorted from these poor creatures last year amounted to no less than 1,100 rupees, or nearly 40 per cent. of the entire gross produce. How, then, it will be asked, was the assessment paid? The village accounts supply the answer. It was paid by application to the village usurer, who lent the money to the half-starved villagers at an interest of 24 per cent., and the balance which they owe him now amounts already to more than ten years' assessment. Whatever small sums they are able to pay to him, for either interest or principal, are earned not from the land at all, but entirely from the labour of the villagers at other callings in the adjacent town of Sholapore. Now, Sir, there is no question that this miserable state of things is only kept dark because there are no elected representatives of the people, and it is chiefly in order to hide these things away that popular representation is denied. Our Indian officials detest this Motion, because it would secure a representation under which these horrors would be exposed, and by which the Draconian Laws under which they exist would be repealed. Do our officials desire, or do they fear, to know the truth? If they so desire, why do they not welcome this Motion? Is it not a safeguard to any Government that the people should have a representative channel through which to let their wants be known? Why, then, do they fight so strenuously against opening such a channel? There is only one answer: Because the first thing that elected representatives would do would be to reveal such an appalling picture of poverty and heartrending sufferings of scores of millions of helpless human beings that the British nation would rise as one man and overturn their entire system. Sir, I repeat that it is only a selfish desire to retain lucrative posts which makes our European officials seek to persuade this House that the natives of India are unfit for representative Institutions. Such men carefully conceal that, before British Rule came to destroy it, there was little else in India except popular Government. I would venture to call attention to the facts on this subject which are given by the famous Sir Thomas Munro, who said "In all Indian villages there was a regularly constituted Municipality, by which its affairs, both of revenue and police, were administered, and which exercised to a very great extent magisterial and judicial authority.' To this the famous Sir John Malcolm, one of the highest possible authorities on the subject, adds his testimony as follows: India were competent, from the power given "The municipal and village institutions of them by the coin mon assent of all ranks, to maintain order and peace within their respecand privileges never were contested even by tive circles. In Central India their rights tyrants; while all just Princes founded their chief reputation and claim to popularity, on attention to them." Some years ago in the Legislative Council of Bombay, the Hon. Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik, a dis- fully expensive and impoverishing tinguished native reformer, afterwards system of government, biting adversity a member of the Governor General's is now fast turning the hearts of the Council, thus charged the British masses of the people against their system with having produced atrophy British masters. As the struggle for in the political intelligence of a people bare life becomes harder and harder a who had been accustomed from time deep and sullen sense of wrong is stealnmemorial to self-government- ing over the length and breadth of the "Those who assume incapacity on the part land. It is the result of no single inof the people for self-government betray a complete ignorance of the past history of India in general, and of Western and Southern India in particular. I am prepared to admit that the disuse of particular powers of mind and body may cause a partial atrophy of that portion of the organisation. cident. It is the voiceless and ever-increasing growth of gradually accumulating privations. It is not race antagonism of any kind whatever. It is the embitterment caused by the steady advance of pinching poverty; "The people of this country are perfectly when the daily toil becomes more incapable of administering their own local affairs. The municipal feeling is deeply cessant, and yet the out-turn of the rooted in them. The village communities, over-cropped field becomes less and less each of which is a little republic, are the most every year; when the little savings, abiding of Indian institutions. They main-horded perhaps for two generations, tained the framework of society while successive swarms of invaders swept over the country. In the cities also the people clustered in their wards, trade guilds, and punchayets, and showed much capacity for corporate action. answer to the "These facts supply an sceptics as to our aptitude for self-government. Those who say we are yet to have a trial in the matter appear to forget that they are speaking not of Kaffristan or the country of the Hottentots, but of the inhabitants of a country with a long history, reaching even beyond hoary antiquity, with definite forms of Government, with an extensive and varied literature, and with comprehensive systems of philosophy and ethics, of religion and morals, of natural science from mathematics up to astronomy, of architecture and engineering, as evidenced by splendid public works and monuments, and of the fine arts. Elective Government was not only not unknown, but so late as the Fourteenth Century a large tract of country on the coast of Western India was actually governed by a Council of four Senators, with a President elected by the people every three years." And yet this ancient nation, consisting of 285,000,000 of men, is at this day traduced and libelled by an interested bureaucracy, who shout loudly that they themselves possess a monopoly of political and moral virtue, while the natives possess a corresponding monopoly of vice. Sir, I am firmly convinced that no time should be lost in giving to the people an elective voice in expending their own revenues and declaring their own wants. I have no desire to speak as an alarmist, but I say that it is useless for any well-informed and impartial observer to deny that, under our frightMr. Seymour Keay have to be dug up from the floor of the mud hut and handed over to the Revenue officer; when the scanty meal becomes scantier; when the little condiment eaten with the rice has to It be intermitted; the bangle on the arm "The government of a people by itself has a meaning and a reality, but such a thing as government of one people by another does not and cannot exist. One people may keep another as a warren or preserve for its own use-a place to make money in, a human cattle farm, to work for its own profit." It remains to be seen whether this House to-day, by rejecting the principle of this Amendment, will decree that India should be retained for a further period as a human cattle farm, or whether by accepting the Amendment they will tell the Indian people that it is their firm intention, cautiously and carefully it may be, but still honestly and really, to develop representative Government among them. lishing in India some kind of local representative Government. There is every desire on the part of the people of this country to act in a manner which will best contribute to the welfare of the people of India; but, Sir, the Government of India is a bureaucracy, and in the nature of things a bureaucratic Government cannot be a perfect Government, and must of necessity generate certain vices. There was a time when it was impossible to govern India in any other way; but the time has now come when it is essential gradually to modify the system and methods of its government if we wish to retain the confidence of the people, and even to maintain our hold upon that country. I rejoiced to listen to-night to the noble speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. I do not think the Indian question has ever been raised to a higher level in this House, and in the generous sentiments But I fear that to some extent the right expressed all friends of India will agree. hon. Gentleman has read his own generous sentiments into the Bill, and I much doubt if it will be so interpreted by the ruling classes in India. All friends of India will welcome the suggestions of self-government put forward by the hon. Member for Evesham. But I share the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, as to whether any Governor General will have the courage to give effect to the elective principle in view of the official pressure all round him. We have only had one Governor General of recent years who has had the courage to set that opinion at defiance. We know that Lord Ripon introduced a system of Municipal Government into India-a most valuable instalment of Local Government-and we know also that he intended to give larger scope to the natives in the government of their own country. But there was never any Governor General more disliked by the official classes than Lord Ripon was; and I very much doubt if we shall again get a Governor General to act so disinterestedly for the good of the people of India. It was my fortune to travel through India soon after Lord Ripon left the country, and I was struck with the fact that the affection *(9.55.) MR. S. SMITH (Flintshire): Sir, I have been struck, as I think the House generally must have been struck, by the extraordinary contrast which is observable between the two last speeches to which we have listened (Sir Richard Temple and Mr. Seymour Keay). Each of those speeches was delivered by gentlemen of very long Indian experience, and their statements are so absolutely opposite that it is difficult, if not almost impossible, to believe that these two gentlemen could have lived in the same country. Sir, I am bound to say, from all I have been able to ascertain, that I agree more largely with the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Seymour Keay) than with the speech of that official optimist the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Richard Temple). I wish it was not So. It is exceedingly painful for an Assembly like this to listen to statements such as have just been made. I hope there may be in these statements some exaggeration. I believe, indeed, that they are somewhat exaggerated; but, at the same time, I believe and I am sorry to say it-that the statements of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down represent more truly the situation in India than the statements we are accustomed to hear from the hon. Baronet opposite. My honest conviction is-and I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the truththat many of the Indian people are suffering from extreme poverty and from an accumulation of grievances which prove the necessity of estab |