he quoted the Government returns, which made out that in Bombay 260,000 lives had been lost; in Madras, 690,000; and in Mysore 400,000; in all, 1,350,000 lives. The famine, however, had not been without its lessons; and the Government of India, acknowledging the periodicity of these calamities, admitted that in every ten years a sum of 15,000,000l., or 1,500,000l. a year, ought to be raised in order to meet the certain famine charges without incurring debt. This famine insurance fund could not be provided by reduction of expenditure, and additional taxation became necessary. Some 400,000l. had been produced by the decentralisation schemes of Lord Mayo, and for the remainder a licence tax and additional taxation on land had been imposed. Other changes also had been made, and in touching on these Mr. Stanhope described the measures which have been taken for the abolition of the local Customs line, the equalisation of the salt duties, the abolition of the transit duties on sugar, and the reduction of the Tariff. With regard to the first, he said it was removed on the 1st of this month, and an uniform salt duty of 2 rupees 8 annas has been established, the gross product to the revenue being almost the same. There have been removed from the Tariff twenty-seven articles, among which materials for railways and fruit and vegetables are the chief, and the coarser fabrics have been removed from the cotton import duties. Passing then to the figures of the coming year, 1878-79, he estimated the revenue at 63,195,000l., and the expenditure at 61,039,000l., showing a surplus of 2,156,000l., or, taking into account the loss on the salt duties, in round numbers 2,000,000l. This is exclusive of other expenditure on reproductive Public Works of 4,533,000l., and the revenue arising therefrom. The result is an improvement of 5,500,000l. on last year, and, excluding from the account all the items relating to the famine, the increase in the revenue was 4,500,000l., and in the expenditure 3,750,000l. Enlarging on the details of the changes effected, he showed that the new licence tax would produce 675,000l., and the new land tax 450,000l., and the increased salt duty is taken at 95,000l. On the other hand, there is a remission in the sugar duties of 155,000l., and the reforms in the tariff stand for 77,000l. The excess in the Land revenues is 1,968,000l.; the excise shows an increase of 248,000l. The Opium revenue has fallen by 480,000l., and the Mint revenues by 269,000l. On the other hand, the guaranteed railways show an increase of 869,000l. In regard to the expenditure, there is a decrease of 632,000l. in the Army charges; but the loss on the Exchanges this year amounts to 3,000,000l. Touching next on the Conversion of the Debt and the satisfactory progress of the guaranteed railways, Mr. Stanhope then gave some interesting statistics as to the trade of India, which he said had more than doubled within the last twenty years, and the increase he expected would become permanent, by reason of the opening of the Suez Canal and the reforms in the Tariff. During the last year the wheat exports had

increased 13 per cent. in amount, and 46 per cent. in value. The absolute value was 2,857,000l., of which four-fifths had come to this country; and, taking a general survey of the circumstances of India, he held that the prospect for the future was of the most satisfactory character.

Mr. Fawcett, after the customary complaint of the lateness of the period at which the Budget was brought on, proceeded to contend that Mr. Stanhope's statistics were fallacious. So far from the general picture which he drew being correct, he maintained at great length that the Revenue was continually falling off and the Expenditure increasing; that the people of India were so poor that it was impossible to obtain an increased revenue without resorting to taxes which would produce so much discontent as gravely to imperil our position in India; and that circumstances had happened recently which must lead to a large increase of Expenditure. Under this last head, Mr. Fawcett referred to the movement of troops from India to Malta, and concluded by moving a resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Dillwyn, declaring that the House regarded with apprehension the present position of Indian finance, and that in view of the power claimed by the Crown to employ any number of Indian troops in all parts of her Majesty's dominions, there is no sufficient security against the military expenditure of India being unduly increased. In the desultory discussion which followed, Mr. Hubbard criticised the form of the Indian accounts, and made some observations on the new loan.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to some complaints of the state of the House, which was attributed to the Budget being fixed upon the same day as the Naval Review, interposed to protest against the suggestion that a thin attendance on these occasions meant a lack of interest in Indian affairs or diminished the usefulness of the discussion. Mr. Jacob Bright next insisted on the possibility of a reduction of taxation. Mr. Hayter attacked the large military expenditure. Mr. Charley and Sir G. Bowyer also made some remarks, and Sir G. Campbell discussed the various points of the Budget at length, admitting that additional taxation was unavoidable, and that a reduction of expenditure was not possible, except by abandoning some of our most civilising departments, and by conducting the Government in a rough and ready way. Mr. E. Stanhope replied generally, and on a division Mr. Fawcett's resolution was negatived by 59 to 20. The House then went into Committee on the Indian Accounts, and the Budget was agreed to.

The Indian Budget was the last chapter of the Session, which, allowing for the uncertainty cast on the opinion of the country at large by the results of some of the bye-elections, seemed to leave Lord Beaconsfield more securely in his seat than ever. It is the longest in modern Parliamentary history, having lasted seven months to a day. The nearest recent approach was in 1855, when Parlia

ment was called together on the 23rd of January. In their novel manipulation of the Houses, for good or for evil, the Government of Lord Beaconsfield initiated a revolution. "He called Parliament together," said Sir Wilfrid Lawson, "not to consult, but to insult it." The leading newspapers, however, chorussed approval, and at this time a general immigration to Cyprus seemed the least thing to be expected. The more quiet of the Liberal statesmen and Liberal journals, however, held their own.

Unquestionably," said the Spectator, "this is the chief feature of the Session which has just passed away, that for the first time for a hundred years, at a very great crisis of English history, Parliament has been treated, as Napoleon III. used to treat his Senate and Corps Législatif, as a mere supplement to the Crown and the Administration, instead of as the keystone of the Constitution. As Andrew Johnstone treated Congress, when hẹ termed it a body hovering on the skirts of the Constitution,' so Lord Beaconsfield has treated Parliament; and Parliament by a vast majority has declared that it rather prefers the lower rank to the higher, that it has far more confidence in her Majesty's Government than in itself. A more significant feature than this in our political history can hardly be imagined. Especially when it occurs in a day of diminished attention to Parliamentary debates, when the newspapers are avowing that the full reporting of Parliamentary discussions does not pay them, and that their daily increasing number of readers prefer graphic accounts of races or reviews to the best speeches of statesmen and orators,-when, too, as a consequence of this change in the taste of the masses, Members train themselves with far less care than they did for the work of effective political exposition,-such a slur cast on Parliament, and such a humble attitude in the Parliament which receives that slur, becomes a critical matter. It is not so much the freak of Lord Beaconsfield, but the causes which co-operate to make a freak of Lord Beaconsfield's important, that we have to fear. And we cannot deny that there is a method in Lord Beaconsfield's freaks. He discovered the inertia,-inertia which will always lend itself to the passive support of prejudice and the glorification of political fireworks, in great Democratic constituencies; and he saw his way to use it so as to enhance the importance of the Crown, and to increase, while he gratified, the levity of the people. Mr. Grant Duff, in the brilliant speech which he made the other day at Bath, put this dangerous side of Lord Beaconsfield's policy pithily enough. 'Lord Beaconsfield,' wrote a friend of mine recently, has taken John Bull to Cremorne, and the old fellow rather likes it, but there will be a to-morrow to the debauch.' It is not only John Bull, but Parliament, which appears rather to like' the visit to Cremorne, and which applauds Lord Beaconsfield all the more because the bill which is already come in, is a long bill, in both senses of the term, a bill which need not be cashed for three years. Now, when causes like these, which tend intrinsically to

depreciate the intellectual calibre and importance of Parliament, coincide with such an Administration as Lord Beaconsfield's, the danger is really great. Lord Beaconsfield himself cannot influence the British Constitution much longer. He must go where glitter will not pass for gold; but he will leave behind him many to study his lessons and rehearse his arts. This it is that makes us anxious for the future of the Constitution. The same causes which made France for twenty years endure, if she did not prefer, a Sovereign who kept representative institutions at a very low ebb, yet made much of the people, and studied carefully their least noble instincts and tastes, may bring upon England a régime of Parliamentary inertia and decay, in which Ministerial authority will greatly outgrow the authority of the representatives of the people, and the Crown be led to suppose that a return to the policy of the Tudors, if not to the policy of the Plantagenets, may be possible, in an epoch in which neither Tudors nor Plantagenets are to be found."

One episode of political interest occurred outside Parliament. as the Session closed. Many Liberal leaders had been long urging on their party the adoption of some system of organisation, to prevent the multiplicity of candidates which threw so many seats into the hands of their opponents. The Bradford Liberal Association was now one of the first of the recognised bodies organised for this purpose, consisting of three hundred representative members, elected upon the plan followed by Birmingham, Leeds, and other large towns. Among their rules the 15th ran as follows:"It shall be required of the proposer of any intending candidate for the representation of the borough in Parliament that he shall, at the time of making such proposal (having previously obtained the consent of such intending candidate), give an assurance to the General Representative Committee that the candidate he proposes shall abide by the decision of the Association."

Mr. Illingworth, the chairman of the Association, had with other leading Liberals of the borough of Bradford opposed the return of Mr. Forster, in 1874, on the ground of some of the features of his education policy; and had resented his return by a mixed Liberal and Conservative vote. Now, however, he wrote to Mr. Forster to offer to be his proposer in the Executive Committee of the Three Hundred, subject to the provision of Rule 15. By that rule Mr. Forster answered that he would not be bound, in a correspondence which was published by the Observer :

"I am sorry," he wrote, "that I cannot give the assurance, and I think that my reason for declining to do so can hardly be misunderstood.

"I am perfectly aware that my name, proposed by you, and supported, not only by those who have always voted for me, but also by those who act with you, would, as you say, in all probability be accepted by the committee. But I cannot bind myself to a rule which, even theoretically, enables any association to stand between me and the constituency I have so long represented.

"Do not suppose that I forget the necessity of organisation, or underrate the importance of the Liberal Association, or that I question its right to exercise that influence over the representation of the borough which is due to the number as well as to the individual earnestness and sincerity of its members; nor need I say that I should give any resolution to which the committee might come my most respectful consideration. But I cannot forget that I am a member for the borough, and I cannot think it right to make myself the nominee or delegate of any organisation within the constituency, however important that organisation, or however I may agree with it in political opinion."

And in another letter he added

"With regard to this Rule 15, I cannot but think that you lose sight of the difference between a new candidate and a sitting member. It appears to me that until a sitting member gives notice that it is his intention to withdraw from the representation he has a right to consider himself, and his constituents have a right to consider him, a candidate for re-election; but this rule demands that he should bind himself beforehand to withdraw at the bidding of a majority, however narrow, of a committee. Surely this is not a reasonable demand. It might be that the committee might be mistaken in the grounds of their decision. It is possible that the member might be able to persuade, not merely the majority of the constituency, but the majority of his party, that he is right, and yet the condition to which this rule would have bound him would prevent him from appealing to his constituents or to his party, or even to the second thoughts of the committee.

"I say nothing of my own personal position, and pass over any claim I may have for long service; but I cannot but think that compliance with such a condition would be intolerable to the selfrespect of any politician who rightly regards political duty, and that if such a rule became general, it would greatly injure the political life of the country."

CHAPTER V.

Speeches in the Country-Prospects in the East-Matters in Cyprus-Sickness of the Troops-Accounts of the Island-Afghanistan-Sir Neville Chamberlain's Mission-Mutterings before the Storm-Advance of the Mission-Reported Insult to Major Cavagnari-Opinions at Home and Abroad-Retrospect of the relations between England and the Ameer- Letter of Lord Lawrence to the Times-Newspaper Views-Sketch of Afghanistan--Letter of Earl GreyPreparations in India-Letter of Sir James Stephen-Minute (1874) of Sir Bartle Frere, published-Sir John Adye-Lord Lawrence again-Telegrams from India-Contradiction of the reported "Insult "-Visit of Mr. Smith and Colonel Stanley to Cyprus-Sir Stafford Northcote in the Midland Counties. No sooner had Parliament adjourned than the "extra Parliamentary utterances," as the newspapers call them, began with fresh vigour. But there was as yet nothing new in the text; for

K