But

greatly to his credit. The right hon. [ing, therefore, to his showing and to that Baronet had, so far as he could judge, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member taken the right steps in the matter, more for South Lancashire, it is the British and especially in placing at the head of the ex- not the Indian taxpayer who has cause to pedition a military man of such high re- complain. The point is one which, in my putation as Sir Robert Napier. He had opinion, requires to be more narrowly had the pleasure of serving with Sir Robert looked into than the House of Commons Napier in the Council of India, and a bet- seem prepared to look into it at the present ter man for the post which he now occu- moment. The right hon. Gentleman the pied could not, he believed, have been se- Secretary of State for India made a claim. lected. As a soldier, he had won the He said that since the Chinese War we greatest distinction. The services which have taken the whole charge of the Indian he had rendered in hunting down Tantia navy off the hands of the people of India; Topee, and as second in command in the that since the time of that war they had Chinese expedition, were too well known not paid a shilling for it. If that be the to be recapitulated, while as regarded his case we are legislating directly against the political qualifications for his present po- interest of the British taxpayer, and we sition, they were deserving of all confi- are letting off the taxpayers of India a dence. He was not a man who was likely great deal too lightly. This is a question to involve the country in any political com- which requires consideration. But what plications which could be avoided, but a says the hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. simple, straightforward soldier, resolved Laing) in the extraordinary speech he has to do his duty in accordance with his in- just made-and it is not the first extrastructions, and not disposed to enter into ordinary speech that I have heard from political controversies on his own account. him. He made several appeals, and, lastly, The Government therefore had, in his he made an appeal to Providence. opinion, done quite right in placing the what is his idea of Providence? Why, sole authority in his hands, and having as well as I can make out, he seemed to done so, had acted wisely in being guided think it was decreed by Providence that the by his judgment as to the number of men British taxpayer ought to pay £3,500,000 of which the expedition should consist and in order to do-what? To keep the Bomthe course generally which should be taken bay army in wind. He said he would not rather than, resolving themselves into an make war for an idea. I do not think Aulic Council, to prescribe the conduct of he is the man to do anything of the kind; the campaign, for so far as he could learn but I am astonished that the great finanfrom experience, Aulic Councils were not cial Reformer of the age-the representaapt to win battles. tive of the British taxpayer-should come MR. OSBORNE : I will not stand long down here to tell the House of Combetween the House and the noble Lord mons that in order to give the young (Viscount Cranborne), to whom there is blood of India occupation, and to keep the nobody who would listen with greater plea- Bombay army in wind, we should vote sure than myself when dealing with a sub- £3,500,000. I say, Sir, that if the ject on which he is peculiarly well informed. House is to be persuaded out of its senses I find it, however, almost impossible, sitting into voting money for keeping up our as I do in the vicinity of the hon. Gentle- Indian prestige on the one side and keepman who has just spoken-who may repre- ing the Bombay army in wind on the sent an Aulic Council, but scarcely, I think, other, we are abrogating our duties as a British constituency-to remain silent. Members of Parliament and guardians of I listened at the outset of this discussion the public purse. I now understand what to the speech made by the right hon. Gen- was meant by the Secretary of State for tleman the Secretary for India with great India when he talked of the enthusiasm of interest. It was a large speech-indeed, the Bombay officers. I now understand it seems to me to have heen almost too the whole thing thoroughly. It appears great in its proportions, because if it means to me that this war has been got up by a anything it proves too much. It goes to clique of officers in Bombay who are disthis that England is about to pay more tracted with ennui, and are anxious for than her just share of the cost of this ex-action-as all military men are. I think pedition, and that India, instead of being called upon to pay only £300,000, ought at least to defray half the expense. Accord

we ought not to let this thing go on without some discussion. We all know that the blue book gives us very little information. The

right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford North- | book, I am afraid there has been a monscote) has acknowledged to-night, with ad- trous waste, and I fear monstrous waste is mirable frankness, that we have nothing occurring elsewhere. But, at all events, I but a cartload of rubbish before us. Now, hope the House will henceforward set its Sir, I do not advise the hon. Member for face against going to war for prestige, and Cambridge-["No; Brighton"]-well, the above all against going to war for the purhon. Professor from Cambridge-I say I pose of keeping the Bombay army in wind. do not advise him to go to a division. The VISCOUNT CRANBORNÉ: Sir, I expe sum is a small one-, -£300,000; but the rience that difficulty in which a Member of principle is a great one; and I confess this House often finds himself when another that I cannot consent even after what I hon. Gentleman steps forward before him have heard from three such eminent finan- in debate. I desired to comment on almost cial authorities-the Secretary of State precisely the same points as those so for India, my right hon. Friend the Member humorously and forcibly dwelt on by my for South Lancashire, and the great finan- hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham cial Reformer who spoke last-to spend (Mr. Osborne). I wish to protest against the money of the taxpayers of this coun- the motives for this war which have been try on mere wind. After what I have assigned in this debate. When my hon. heard from these great financiers, I am not Friend (Mr. Laing) spoke of it as a war satisfied that India should not contribute for keeping the Bombay army in wind, I more to this war; and therefore, in the suppose he meant that as a joke more than face of their declarations, I shall not be anything else; but we have heard from the able, as I had intended, to give my support beginning of this evening until now a great to the hon. Member for Brighton. But, deal about keeping up our credit and presSir, I advise him to move for a Committee tige, and of the effect of this expedition on on this subject next Session. Before con- the Nizam of this place and the Natives of cluding, I must say that I think my right that-as if the sole object for which we hon. Friend the Member for South Lanca- were going to war with so much reluctance shire was rather unfortunate in one allusion and at so much cost was to produce some which he made to-night. If I understood impression on the imagination of other him rightly, he said that the real parallel people. I think my right hon. Friend the to this expedition was the Persian War Secretary for India, in his eagerness to in 1857. Did I understand him cor- convince us that India had a great interectly? rest in this war, went so far as to say that if we had no Indian possessions he should doubt whether we ought to have gone to war to rescue the Abyssinian captives or not. I confess it appears to me that if the motives which the Government have assigned for this war are the real ones, or anything like them, it is one of the most wicked wars ever undertaken. I believe that the nation generally consents to go

MR. GLADSTONE: I said that the Persian expedition came nearer to this than any other affair of the kind.

MR. OSBORNE: Will my right hon. Friend carry on the parallel? When that Persian War had been undertaken the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) came down here and moved a direct Vote of Censure on the Government for having engaged in it without the sanc-into this war on this very clear and distinct tion of Parliament. What happened on principle-that a person employed on bethat occasion? The strongest speech made half of England to go on a service of on the side of the minority of 38 who voted danger has while on that service been malfor that censure was delivered by the right treated and imprisoned, and that, therefore, hon. Gentleman the Member for South on every consideration of honour, it is the Lancashire. Sir, I do not say that I would duty of England to relieve him from his go as far as that on this occasion. In position. Well, when there is a principle respect of this miserable war in Abyssinia, of honour in the case, and when, repreit may be said on each side, Brother, senting our honourable nation, we desire to brother, we are both in the wrong; but, carry that principle into effect, it seems to Sir, having said this, I hope this House will me to be a degrading course of proceedkeep a strict watch on the money, becauseing to parade before Europe and the world I am afraid it is already being wasted. It strikes me that there has been a moustrous waste in the purchase of those mules. [Laughter.] Yes, looking throngh this blue

66

all those wretched considerations, such as the effect the expedition may have on the minds of populations in this or that part of the East, or what it may do in main

taining for us that mysterious something | raise them in a moment. It is not any which we call "prestige." I heard no present danger I fear as resulting from the part of the speech of my hon. Friend the present step; but, having regard to the Member for Nottingham with more plea- future, I do not like India, to be looked sure than that in which he made an attack upon as an English barrack in the Oriental on that time-honoured phrase, and I wish seas from which we may draw any number that by common consent we could banish of troops without paying for them. It is from the Parliamentary vocabulary a word bad for England, because it is always bad which has so unpleasant an etymological for us not to have that check upon the connection with deceit. When we say temptation to engage in little wars which that India has a great interest in this war can only be controlled by the necessity of even upon this low ground of the impres- paying for them. But it is bad very sion it will produce on other people, let us bad-for India, because if there were a in justice to the populations of India remem- weak, or a timid, or too facile a Governor ber this-that if we did not rescue English General in that country at the time of any Ambassadors or English agents from the similar operation, you might have India hands of barbarous or half-civilized Courts, seriously denuded of troops in order to suit the effect would be very unfortunate for the Imperial interests, while there would ourselves. It, no doubt, would be fruitful be this precedent to prevent you from cenof evil; but I do not call it an Indian in- suring any officer who pursued such a terest. It is as much an Imperial interest course. I think that the precedent of the as anything that could be named. At all Persian war, which has been mentioned in events, the special injustice of the course this discussion, is applicable in more renow about to be pursued consists in this spects than one; because, if I am not mis-that when we employ English troops on taken, at the time the mutiny broke out an Indian duty-as in the case of the part of troops which should have been mutiny-they are paid for out of the guarding India were absent on that war. Indian revenues from the moment they Now, that is a warning which we ought to land in that country; but when we employ lay to heart. If this garrison which we Indian troops on an Imperial duty, we say keep in India is, as all Indian authorities that India must pay for them. I am not, assure us, necessary for maintaining that however, disposed to differ much on this country in security and peace, that garrison matter from the conclusion of the hon. ought not to be rashly diminished. If, on Member for Nottingham--that the amount the other hand, it is too large, and India can we are asked for is small, and it is not for any length of time conveniently spare worth while calling for a division. If these troops, then the Indian population evil there be in the course taken by ought not to be so unnecessarily taxed. My the Government it is in essence an evil right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) more from the point of view of England says that these troops are only to be withthan of India. It is perfectly true that drawn for a short time. Well, he is a India will not be much the poorer for what man of sanguine mind and great prophetic we are calling upon her to do; but if she powers; but when once the troops get will not be much less rich I think she will into Abyssinia, no one can say when they be less secure. She will have a smaller will return. I have thought it right to garrison during the time this war is going make this protest in order to prevent such on. Well, what is your guarantee that a step as the present passing too much this want of security shall not pass into without notice, or rather, I should say, any real danger? Your guarantee is just with too much of concurrence-taking into this as I understand it. Granted that the consideration the concurrence of such emiGovernor General will have power to raise nent authorities as the present Government any troops which he may think necessary and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. and charge them to the English Exche- Gladstone). But still, I concur with the quer; but it depends on the character of hon. Member for Nottingham in expressing the Governor General whether that course a hope that the hon. Member for Brighton be one of danger or one of safety. I have (Mr. Fawcett) will not divide the Comsuch confidence in the stern mould in mittee; for whatever criticism we may which the character of Sir John Lawrence pass upon the subordinate measures of the has been formed as to feel certain that, re- Government, there should not seem to be gardless of the smiles or of the frowns of any want of unanimity in the heartiness any Ministry, if he should think that India with which we support the Crown in the needed the raising of more troops he would' action it has taken. We all of us—or at

Clause 1 (Amendment of Section 6, of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 134).

was

SIR GEORGE BOWYER, on behalf of the costermongers who had not votes, and were therefore the less likely to find supporters in that House than the shopkeepers who had, contended that these people ought to be left out of the Bill altogether. The Bill, however, would still leave them subject to the arbitrary jurisdiction of Sir Richard Mayne out of the City, and Colonel Fraser within it. With all respect to these officers, they would act upon police views rather than free trade principles. He knew there keepers and the costermongers; because arr antagonism between the shopthe costermongers competed with and perhaps undersold shopkeepers. But he supported the principle of free trade in its largest sense, and if the costermongers could sell for a less profit than the shopkeepers, that was public advantage; and itinerant traders, numbering 50,000, exclusive of their families, ought not to be subjected to the discretion of the police. By ruining an humble class of street vendors not only was there the certainty of entailing upon the poor rates heavy additional burdens, but there was also the risk of adding to the numbers of the criminal class. He believed that no legislation on this subject was really needed; the common law gave sufficient powers of deal

MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he had considered the objections to the Bill raised by some hon. Members on the second reading, and whether he could not so far meet them as to prevent the Bill operating unfairly. It appeared to him that if the last proviso of the 6th clause of the Act of lasting with obstructions of the thoroughfare. Session-that making any space over which the public have the right of way between the footpath and the carriage-way part of the footway-were repealed, and the question of open spaces left to the ordinary law of the country, that would attain the object in view. There would then be no legislation with respect to that particular portion of a street. At the same time, by the discretion he proposed to give to the Commissioner of Police to frame regulations with respect to costermongers, hawkers, and other itinerant traders, they would be fairly protected in their occupation. He hoped the Committee would assent to that mode of dealing with the question. To accomplish it he proposed to add to the clause under consideration words to the effect that so much of the 6th section of the Act of last year as related to the surface of the space intervening between the footway and the carriage-way be repealed. It would then be left open to the Metropolitan Board of Works and others interested to contest, if they thought proper, the question whether the spaces between the footway and the carriage-way should be part of either or not.

It was one thing to prevent obstructions to the thoroughfare, and it was quite a different thing to prevent thoroughfares from being used for all legitimate purposes. The Amendment proposed by the Secretary of State dealt only with one portion of the subject-namely, the space between the footpath and the carriage road, and did not touch the case of the costermongers and other itinerant dealers perambulating the streets, who were left entirely at the mercy of the arbitrary and uncontrolled influence of the Commissioner of Police. Being unable, therefore, to acquiesce in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he should certainly divide the House upon the Amendment of which he had given notice, which had for its object to repeal the 6th clause of the Traffic Act of last Session, and thereby to leave the question open for further consideration and for further legislation.

to the

Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out from the word "prohibiting end of the Clause, in order to add the words "shall be and is hereby repealed.” -(Sir George Bowyer.)