The debate of Monday and Tuesday, on the method of
paying the expenses of the Afghan war, was comparatively a poor one. Many Members delivered speeches prepared for the previous debate, and many more seemed to think that the liability of India to pay de- pended on the wisdom of the war. The speeches most to the point against the Government proposal were those of Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Gladstone on Monday, and Dr. Playfair and Mr. Chil- ders on Tuesday. Mr. Fawcett argued that the war was Imperial, and should, therefore, be paid for out of Imperial revenues; that the increase of expenditure, already £1,500,000 a year, 15,000 men having been added to the Indian Army [a mistake, Mr. Fawcett calculating as if Sepoys were paid and fed like British soldiers], would be £3,000,000 a year, and that it must be met by increasing a taxation already oppres- sive. Mr. Gladstone contended that the vote would destroy the control of Parliament over the war and its expenses, and maintained, in a fine peroration, that those who made war should ray for war, and that the natives of India had not made it. Dr. Flayfair showed that the Indian surplus, £1,500,000, was pledged -for preventive measures against famine, and that in taking it for war we were breaking faith with the people ; and Mr. Childers repeated and justified that charge, which, if the war is paid for out of the surplus—an impossibility, we should say—is undonbt- -edly well-founded. All speakers denounced the way in which the 'Government were making themselves independent of Parliament, and this accusation was endorsed by that fine old Conservative, Mr. Newdegate, who cannot endure unfairness to anybody but Catholics.
Previous page
