In

great noise; but I must be permitted to | China. I am also afraid that the ansay that if we keep Burmah there will nexation of Burmah will open up the be two classes who will benefit by it- question of Yunnan, and that we shall namely, the Anglo-Indian officials, who be told that as the people of Yunnan will receive pay and pension, and the are Mahommedans, and as we are the English merchants, who will find room largest Mahommedan Empire in the for further trade. But I am bound to world, we ought also to annex that say that the poor overtaxed Indian ryot, country. It may further be stated that who will have to pay for the annexa- we require Siam in order to keep the tion, will not benefit by it; and that French out of it. The ryots of India is the reason why I support the are strongly opposed to the annexation Amendment, and am of opinion that the of Burmah; that is the view expressed charge ought to be placed upon the by the Native Press. I do not see why Imperial Exchequer instead of the In- the Native opinion of India should not dian Revenues. In the first place, be considered as well as British opinion Burmah is not a portion of India. To- in connection with this question. I am night it has been assumed that Burmah sorry that the Prime Minister has so is a portion of India. Now, Burmah is changed his views since he made his no more a portion of India than China first speeches in Mid Lothian, and I or our Malay Provinces; and we might notice with regret how great a difference just as well annex China and Malay. there is between his speech to-night and The Burmese people are different in his addresses on the occasion of the Mid race, language, and customs, and every- Lothian Campaign. thing else. In fact, the Burmese are a very distinct people, and occupy a very high and promising position, especially when compared with India. The first thing which struck me on going to Burmah from India was the position which the women occupy there as compared with that which they occupy in India. In India they take no part in public life; but in Burmah the ladies take even a more prominent position than the men; and they are far more civilized. That being the case, and seeing that we have in Ceylon a Crown Colony very similar and near to India, and more associated with Indian interests than Burmah, why not make Burmah a Crown Colony, like Ceylon, allowing the costs to be defrayed from the Imperial Exchequer and paid back again? The people of Lower Burmah have been agitating this question for a number of years; and we have now a good opportunity, if we are going to take possession of Burmah, to make it a Crown Colony, and so prevent this Burmese question from interfering with and complicating the very difficult problem of India. At present it is not likely that Burmah will be able to pay its expenses. It is not as rich as Lower Burmah, and a great number of complicated questions will arise. For instance, the King of Burmah claims to be the Suzerain over the Shan States. The Suzerainty over those States is equally claimed by Burmah, Siam, and

Dr. Clark

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: rising to make a few remarks on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), I ask for the indulgence which this House always accords to a Member who addresses it for the first time. I should not have presumed, at this late hour, to make this claim but for the fact that the subject-matter of the Amendment before the House is one of special interest, not only to myself, but also to a large number of my constituents. I have passed a large portion of my life in India, which is the country more immediately concerned with the Amendment of the hon. Member; and, as an AngloIndian, I desire, most emphatically, to express my entire sympathy with the sentiment which I believe lies at the back of the Amendment of the hon. Member, and many of the speeches which have been made on both sides of the House to-night-namely, that in affairs of combined action between the Government of England and the Government of India there is always a certain amount of danger lest the interests of the weaker Government should be sometimes subordinated to the interests of the stronger. I remember, some time ago, that the Prime Minister illustrated the action of the two Governments, when working together, by the famous apologue of the giant and the dwarf; and the right hon. Gentleman told us that the dwarf -India-got all the kicks, while the

giant-England-got all the halfpence. ment, whether it is not the case, with

I confess I have a good deal of sympathy with that opinion, and I also sympathized with the hon. Member for Caithnessshire (Dr. Clark), when, just now, he deplored the change of opinion which has taken place on the part of the Prime Minister. I was most disappointed not to hear from the Prime Minister, in response to the speech of the hon. Member the Mover of the Amendment, some definite statement of a hard-and-fast rule by which we in Parliament could judge what sum should be paid by England, and what by India. We were told, it is true, that Indian Wars, broadly speaking, should be paid for by India. I think that was the expression of the Prime Minister. Now. I maintain that a much closer and more definite rule is required than that. A rule which, I think, is a very just one, was enunciated by the late Viceroy of India (the Marquess of Ripon) when he stated that wars which the Government of India has exercised the right of initiating, and in regard to which it has been able to control the initiation, the Indian Government should be compelled to pay for, but not for those over which it has had no control whatever-as, for instance, the case of the Egyptian Wars, when Indian troops were employed in Egypt and the Soudan. At that time the Indian Government had no control over the initiation of the Expedition; and, therefore, the Marquess of Ripon urged that the Indian Exchequer ought not be called upon to pay anything towards the cost of that war. With that I entirely agree, and hon. Members will remember that that was really the principle laid down by the Earl of Lytton at the time of the Afghan War. It was then stated by the Earl of Lytton that India should pay for the Afghan War because the Government of India had had full control over its commencement. Now, at that time some of the Leaders of the Party opposite wished that England should pay at least a portion of the expenses of the war. Well, the feeling of many Anglo-Indians, and of many Indians, was "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes; " and I venture to think that that fear has been realized in later wars. But now, looking at the circumstances of the present war, I would venture to put before the House, and to appeal to the Mover of the Amend

regard to this war, that the conditions of Lord Lytton and Lord Ripon have been fulfilled, and that the Government of India has had full control over the initiation of the war? Therefore, it can hardly be said that the Government of India can fairly put forward the same claim-put forward rightly, I think, at the time of the Egyptian War-to be excused from the payment of the cost. Still, I do hope that the result of the discussion to-night, and of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), will be that some Member of the Government will rise in his place, and will endorse that opinion of the Marquess of Ripon and the Earl of Lytton to which I have referred. I turn now to the question which was largely dealt with by the Mover of the Amendment and by other speakers as to the general policy of the war. It has been suggested that the war was a merchants' war. That is a statement which I entirely deny. I would join with any hon. Member of this House in denouncing a war that was initiated simply for the purpose of trade; but if there is one thing which has been brought out more clearly than another, in the Papers which have been laid before Parliament, it is this—that every Indian authority, from the Chief Commissioner of British Burmah to the Viceroy of British India and the Secretary of State, have all, with one accord, absolutely refused to listen to any recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce at Rangoon or anyone else who asked them to engage in a war with Burmah, or to annex Upper Burmah for any purpose of commerce. The hon. Member himself quoted, as a proof that the war was objectionable on some other ground, the very language of the Chief Commissioner of Burmah (Mr. Bernard) and of the Viceroy of India (the Earl of Dufferin), in which they distinctly refused to comply with the requisition of that great meeting of the Rangoon merchants which was referred to by the hon. Member. Now, these are the very authorities who, not much later, endorsed and carried out the principle of the policy of the attack upon Upper Burmah. What was it that had happened in the meantime to produce that change? Why, Sir, all the circumstances of the case had changed, and the change is

shown and exemplified in the letter of | before gaining admission to the Royal the Chief Commissioner of British Palace. That is true enough; but there Burmah to the Viceroy of India, dated were other indignities which I think the September 4, 1885. The House, I hon. Member ought to have discerned am sure, will see by comparing from reading the Blue Book, and which the letter of the Chief Commissioner, are certainly well known to anyone who written in the earlier part of the has any personal acquaintance with Buryear with his letter in September, 1885, mah. It will be remembered that when that in the meantime the events had so the Earl of Northbrook sent a Resident changed as to render an invasion of there, our Resident complained that on Upper Burmah absolutely necessary. coming into the Royal presence he was What has been the history of our rela- ordered to sit on the floor with his feet tions with Burmah from the earliest behind him. Now, Sir, if any hon. times? We have had the same difficulty Member will attempt to sit on the floor which cropped up last year from the with his feet behind him, I maintain earliest times to contend with-namely, that he will find the task a most difficult the arrogance and ignorance of the one, and one which, in the end, will prove Court of Burmah. Why, in point of most disastrous to him. Therefore, it is fact, did Lord Amherst annex Arakan not unreasonable, as the Earl of Northin 1826? Why, simply because, if he brook said, for our officers to protest; had not done so, the King of Ava would on the contrary, it was impossible for have annexed Assam and Cachar. Then, us to permit such a state of things again, in 1852, Lord Dalhousie found it to exist any longer. And rememnecessary to annex Pegu, a similar atti- ber that this was the Earl of Northtude of arrogance having forced that brook, than whom no more pacific step upon him. Coming down to later Viceroy has ever ruled in India. I pray times, even the pacific Administration of the House to listen to this one point. the Earl of Northbrook-and I wish to During last year there was a very heavy speak of that Administration in terms of accession of new causes of complaint, the most complete respect-that pacific which rendered some action on the part Administration was absolutely compelled of the Earl of Dufferin's Government by the arrogance and by the ignorance absolutely necessary. First of all, there of the Court of Ava to take military pre- were the actual massacres which have cautions against that country, and to not been spoken of much to-night, but send what was virtually an Ultimatum which were most important. At Manto the King of Ava. There was at that dalay in the preceding October the mastime habitual violations of the frontier, sacres in the gaol comprised a largo and injuries committed on British sub- number of British subjects from Chittajects which were loudly complained of gong. That was a point which did deby the Earl of Northbrook. Two hon. mand the interference of the Indian Members opposite, speaking of the diffi- Government. Further, there was a culties which have always occurred in spirit of lawlessness spread throughout our relations with Burmah, owing to the Burmah, and a considerable part of peculiar customs of that country in re- the country was no longer within the gard to the treatment of our Resident, control of the King himself. That lawhave omitted certain points with regard lessness spread into British territory, and to that matter. The Government of the Province of British Burmah would India have endeavoured for years to very soon have been in a similar state maintain a Resident peaceably there-a of lawlessness and disturbance if the most necessary measure for the trade of Earl of Dufferin had not interfered. Be India and of England, if trade is to be it remembered that the victims were carried on with Burmah at all, or if we employés of the Bombay and Burmah are to have any relations with that coun- Trading Company, and the rafts of that try in any way whatever. We obtained Company were actually fired upon by by Treaty in 1862 the right of sending a some of the Burmese soldiers, and that, Resident there. How was that Resi- again, constituted a direct casus belli. But, dent treated? The hon. Member has as has been mentioned to-night, the point told us that our Resident was obliged to that changed the whole aspect of affairs take off his sword before going into the most materially during the past year Royal presence, and to take off his boots was the intrigues of the French Consul,

Sir Roper Lethbridge

The House divided:-Ayes 297; Noes 82: Majority 215.

Acland, A. H. D.
Acland, C. T. D.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.
Allen, H. G.
Ainslie, W. G.
Ambrose, W.

AYES.

Coddington, W.

Cohen, L. L.
Collings, J.
Colman, J. J.

Commerell, Adml.SirJ.

Compton, Lord W. G.
Coote, T.

Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Amherst, W. A. T.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Ashton, T. G.
Baden-Powell, G. S.
Atherley-Jones, L.
Baggallay, E.
Baily, L. R.
Baird, J.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J. Curzon, Viscount
Baker, L. J.
Balfour, G. W.
Barbour, W. B.
Barnes, A.
Bartley, G. C. T.
Bass, Sir A.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.
Bates, Sir E.
Baumann, A. A.
Beach, right hon. Sir Duncan, D.

Crawford, D.

Crompton, C.

Cross, rt. hn. Sir R. A.
Crossley, E.

Crossman, Gen. Sir W.
Currie, Sir D.

M. E. Hicks-
Beadel, W. J.

Denison, E. W.
Denison, W. B.
De Worms, Baron H.
Dillon, J.

Dimsdale, Baron R.

Douglas, A. Akers-
Duff, R. W.
Duncan, Colonel F.

Duncombe, A.
Dyke, rt. hon. Sir W.
H.

M. Haas. They had reached such a point | fast rule by which such charges as this that the question was whether we should may be in future apportioned. entirely lose our paramount position on Question put. that side of India, or should maintain it by force of arms. There can be no question whatever as to the intrigues of the French Consul; and it is known to the House that the King of Burmah had steadfastly determined to do all he could to draw closer the bonds of friendship between himself and the French and Italians. He had sent out an Embassy for that purpose; and it was on that account, and on account of the various other provocations I have recited-it was these facts, I submit to the House, which induced Mr. Bernard, the Chief Commissioner at Rangoon, and the Earl of Dufferin, to say at last-"This can go on no longer, and we must interfere." I was very glad to hear, in the very lucid statement which was made by the Under Secretary of State for India, his remarks upon the successful operations that have been conducted there, and his praise of our troops. I rejoiced to hear the hon. Gentleman praise the bearing of the Native troops engaged in that Expedition. I feel, Sir, that that praise was entirely deserved, and that it will give real pleasure and satisfaction to our fellow-subjects throughout India. I hope that the Government will follow the speech of the Under Secretary of State by some statement to-night as to the rules by which, in future, the charges, as between the English and the Indian Exchequers, will be apportioned. One word in conclusion. The time for deciding formally the way in which these charges shall be apportioned is a very appropriate one, for, as has been noticed to-night, there is at present at the head of the Government in India a statesman belonging to the great Liberal Party, who, at the same time, commands the entire confidence of Member on this side of the House. The Earl of Dufferin is making a great reputation for himself in India; and he has, I am bound to say, been supported most heartily by the late Government, and the Party to which I belong on this side of the House. Therefore, I maintain that the present time is one in which Party questions with regard to India are fairly in abeyance, and when it would be most appropriate for the Government to lay down some hard-and

every

up

Beith, G.

Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.
Beresford, Lord C. W.
De la Poer
Bickersteth, R.
Bethell, Commander
Bickford-Smith, W.
Biddulph, M.
Bigwood, J.
Blaine, R. S.
Birkbeck, Sir E.

Edwardes-Moss, T. C.
Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Egerton, hn. A. J. F.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D.
Elliot, hon. H. F. H.
Evelyn, W. J.
Ewing, Sir A. O.
Fairbairn, Sir A.
Farquharson, H. R.
Farquharson, Dr. R.

Fergusson,rt. hn. Sir J.
Field, Captain E.
Finch, G. H.

Finch-Hatton, hon. M.
E. G.
Finlayson, J.
Fisher, W. H.

Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

Fletcher, B.

Flower, C.

Folkestone, Viscount

Blundell, Col. H. B. H. Feilden, Lt-Gen. R. J.
Bolton, J. C.
Bolton, T. H.
Bonsor, H. C. O.
Brand, hon. H. R.
Boyd-Kinnear, J.
Brassey, Sir T.
Brinton, J.
Bristowe, T. L.
Broadhurst, H.
Brookfield, A. M.
Brooks, J.
Brown, A. H.
Brunner, J. T.
Bryce, J.
Burghley, Lord
Campbell, J. A.
Campbell, Sir A.
Campbell- Bannerman,
right hon. H.
Cavendish, Lord E.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Charrington, S.
Chamberlain, R.
Clarke, E. G.

Forwood, A. B.

Fowler, Sir R. N.
Fowler, H. H.

Fraser, General C. C.
Fuller, G. P.

Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-
Gent-Davis, R.
Gill, T. P.
Gladstone, H. J.

Glyn, hon. P. C.

Goldsmid, Sir J.
Goldsworthy, Major-
General W. T.