Government at that time thought India should pay the whole. The English Government were put to very considerable cost, and we thought that India would be put to a small cost, and we thought she might very fairly pay the small cost of the troops sent to Suez. However, the operations became very extended, and it ended in the expedition from India becoming a large expedition. The whole cost was, I think, £1,700,000, and the ultimate arrangement made between the two Governments, the Government of India and the Government of England, was that India paid £1,200,000, and England paid £500,000. That was the arrangement that was made, and it was accepted by the Government of India, but it certainly was accepted unwillingly. The Government of India thought it had been very hardly treated in the matter, and I think that, looking at it now, I must say that it would have been perhaps better if we had charged India half, that India should have paid £850,000 and England should have paid £850,000. I do not want to press that, because I myself was in the Government at the time, therefore I cannot say that I considered it at the time to be an unfair arrangement.

14,127. [Soudan War.] Would you consider that if the original plan had been carried out, India was sufficiently interested in the expedition to justify her being called upon to contribute?

If you ask me my opinion, I should say, " No, certainly not." I do not think there was a substantial interest of India in any expedition to the Soudan, but my argument rests upon this, that when by a statute the revenues of the Government of India are not to be used excepting after addresses from both Houses of Parliament, it is essential that the terms of that statute should be strictly adhered to, and, in my opinion, the continued employment of the Indian troops at Suakim as a garrison was not covered by the address. It alone could authorise the expenditure of the money, that is my point. As regards

the force sent to Suakim last year, I say that certainly India should not have been charged.

14,165. Now you have gone through and brought before us the ground for the differences of opinion between the two Governments?

I should like to be allowed to sum it up before you go to the next question.

14,166. Yes, if you please.

To sum up what I have put before the Commission with respect to these cases of troops lent by India, I think certainly that, if the ordinary charges of that Abyssinian War were £600,000, that is a sum of money which India has; a fair and equitable ground to claim. The whole of the Perak ordinary charges ought certainly, I think, to be paid. I will take the Suakim charges to be about £200,000, I do not know exactly what they were, but whatever the charges for Suakim were, I think the whole of the garrison charges at Suakim ought to be refunded to India. My opinion is that, on equitable grounds, £350,000 ought to be given to India in respect of the Egyptian Expedition of 1882, so that the charges should be divided between the two Governments, and I think that those sums ought, either directly, or in some other equitable manner, to be allowed to India now. do not see any reason why it should be considered that because India has been inequitably treated, and in some cases, in my opinion, illegally treated, during many years, that that treatment should not be redressed by some action at the present time. That concludes all I have to say upon that matter.

LORD LANSDOWNE ON THE INDIAN ARMY.

I

15,996. Have you considered, Lord Lansdowne, from the point of view of India itself, whether, supposing she were isolated from the United Kingdom, it would be necessary to maintain a force such as is borrowed from

the United Kingdom, and in the Kingdom, and in the same degree of efficiency?

I should say certainly not. The Indian Army is organised with a view to the possibility of its employment upon operations which have nothing to do with the internal policy of the country or with the mere repression of tribal disorders upon the frontier.

15,997. Then would it be a fair suggestion that the difference in the cost of training that force so borrowed, between what would be necessary for Indian purposes and the standard which is kept up for Imperial and home purposes, should be borne by the home exchequer ?

It is very difficult to express these things precisely in terms of money; but your question seems to me to point to the principle which I was endeavouring in my answers to the Chairman to enforce.

15,998. That we, for home purposes, for Imperial purposes, are keeping the army at a higher standard of efficiency than India, taken by itself, would require, and that we should make that consideration an element in arriving at the settlement of charge between the two countries ?

Certainly an element.

15,999. That cannot be put into figures, but still it is an important element in the spirit in which we should approach this settlement?

That is my view.

SIR HENRY BRACKENBURY ON THE INDIAN ARMY.

14,782. It is not the amount that either the War Office or anybody else is proposing to charge India?

I perfectly understand that; but, as I understand it, the basis of these charges generally is, that India should repay to England what it can be proved that England would not pay but for the military requirements of India, subject to what, I think, is called some sort of rebate.

Well, my personal opinion is, that it is altogether wrong that there should be any such theory as that at all, and if I might be allowed to give my reasons for that opinion, in the first place, I would say that the army in India is largely in excess of the requirements for the preservation of internal order in India. The strength of the army in India is calculated to allow of a powerful field army being placed on or beyond the Indian frontier, in addition to the obligatory garrisons required for keeping order in India. The necessity for maintaining in India that powerful field army, in addition to the obligatory garrisons, is caused by the approach of a great Military Power into a position which enables her to threaten directly Afghanistan, to which we are under treaty obligations, and indirectly to threaten the security of India. The foreign policy of India is directed entirely from England by her Majesty's Government, and it is part of British foreign policy generally. The object of British foreign policy generally, I believe, is to secure British rule over the British Empire. If it were desired to maintain British rule in India only for India's sake, then I think it would be fair to make India pay to the utmost farthing everything that could be shown was due to Britain's rule over India; but I cannot but feel that Britain's interest in keeping India under British rule is enormous. India affords employment to thousands of Britons; India employs millions of British capital; and Indian commerce is of immense value to Great Britain. Therefore it seems to me that India, being held by Great Britain, not only for India's sake, but also for Great Britain's sake, Great Britain should pay a share of the expenditure for this purpose; and in estimating what that share should be, I think that England should behave generously, because, in the first place, England is a rich country, and India is a poor country. It is not altogether a fair basis of comparison of their comparative richness and poorness, but it is one that is worth bringing

to notice, and that is the income tax of India, as compared with the income tax of this country. In India you have an income tax of 2 per cent., about 6d. in the pound. I cannot lay my hand exactly on what that income tax produces, but I believe that the 6d. in the pound produces less than £1,000,000 sterling; in England every penny produces considerably over £2,000,000 sterling.

SIR AUCKLAND COLVIN ON THE VICEROY'S COUNCIL.

3216. May I ask you one or two questions which Sir Ralph Knox wished to ask you, and which I shall be glad to put you even in an imperfect way? They referred to the Constitution of the Council of the Viceroy. Am I not right in thinking that the number of the Council, the Executive Council, I think you call it, is eight?

Not so many as that.

3217. Seven ?

There are the Viceroy, the Commander-in-Chief, the Military Member, the Home Member, the Public Works Member, the Finance Member, and the Legal Member— seven. It varies; it is not necessarily the same; the Public Works Member is not always there.

3218. Out of that number we may say that all represent spending departments, except the Viceroy himself and the Financial Member?

I should not make that exception there; I should make no exception there. The Viceroy is in charge of the Foreign Department, which has a large political area beyond the Indus, which causes very considerable expenditure.

3219. Unless the Viceroy throws his weight on the side of economy, the Financial Member stands quite alone?

Yes.