LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

LORD LYTTON'S BREACH OF F.AITII.

[To TER EDITOR OF TIM 5PEOTATOR.1

Sin,—In a lecture which I delivered on the 15th inst., at the Chelsea Vestry Hall, I took occasion to point out serious back- slidings in our government of India. I saw it was slipping into the familiar vices of despotism, and becoming secret, sus- picious, and arbitrary. To this opinion strong objection was taken by General Richard Strachey, and on the 16th inst. he wrote to the Times on the subject. He seems to think that I gave no reasons for my opinion, except such as were founded on dealings with Indian taxes. He is mistaken there, because I referred to their dealings with the Press, and with the posses- sion or use of weapons. Indeed, I should have thought that no one who had read newspapers for the last few months, would have failed to understand the grounds for saying that the Government of India was suspicious, and preferred secrecy. With regard to what I said about the taxes, he thinks that I have deliberately misrepresented the facts, and am therefore both disloyal and unpatriotic. My charges wore, that Indian taxes, meaning the cotton duties, had been manipulated for the benefit of Englishmen, and that good-faith had not been observed with respect to certain new taxes which may be called the Famine Insurance Fund.

General Strachey thinks that the first charge is disproved by assertions that the repeal of the cotton duties has been approved by the Government of India (meaning, of course, the Governor- General in Council), by the Council of India, and by votes of the House of Commons. The second charge he denies generally. I wrote t letter to the Times, on the 18th inst., pointing out that, whatever reasons there might be for thinking my opinion wrong, he had not given them. I should like, however, to make a much fuller statement of the controversy, in a paper more likely to be carefully read than the Times.

First, I will address myself to the charge of bad-faith. It is a very important matter, and has, I know, produced a very painful feeling throughout Indian society, native and European. It is not agreeable to me to speak of such things, but I am now compelled to speak publicly about Indian affairs, and. I shall not conceal my opinion about such important matters as this. I do not venture to apportion blame amongst individuals. I am thinking of the government of India by the English nation, under its present management. Bad government is bad government, whether it be by Prime Ministers, Secre- taries of State, Viceroys, or even majorities in the House of Commons. My case is that under our present policy there is bad government, which will give us trouble. The only remedy is to let the English people know it. As to the vices of despotism which I speak of, they seem to be only one part of the dangerous doctrine now openly preached by the supporters of Lord Beaconsfielc1,—the doctrine that in matters of policy, the ordinary laws of morals are not to pre- vail. You treated this subject with much force in your issue of the 20th inst. The Pall Hall Gazette is by no means the only offender. The Times is just as bad, at least when there is a question between us and. a weak neighbour. The other day somebody sent me a paper called the Bra/Zionist, from which I learned that Mr. Gladstone had disgusted the people of England by his attempts to introduce morality into politics. My very strongest objection to the present Government is that they have treated politics as something not subject to the ordinary moral law. The result is that persons who in private life are perfectly honourable, have in public matters done things which are- highly dishonourable in the eyes of those who refuse to apply different moral tests to public and private actions. I will now give the history of the Famine Insurance Fund.

On December 27th, 1877, Sir J. Strachey delivered the financial statement in Legislative Council. He proposed to create a sur- plus income of one and a half million, partly by new taxes, then. to be imposed, to the extent of 2800,000, partly by new taxes, imposed earlier in the year, to the extent of 2325,000, and partly by arrangements with Local Governments. This surplus was to be in addition to an ordinary working surplus of half a million, and was to be for the special purpose of meeting the expenses of future famines. Sir J. Strachey guarded himself from professing to speak of the effect of unfore- seen contingencies, and said that the Government did not contemplate the constitution of any separate fund, " as such a course would be attended with many useless and. in- convenient complications, without giving any real security." But unless experience should prove that less was required, "we- consider that the estimates of every year -ought to make pro- vision for religiously applying the sum I have mentioned to this sole purpose ; and I hope that no desire to carry out any adminis- trative improvement, however urgent, or any fiscal reforms, how- ever wise, will tempt the Government to neglect this sacred trust." After him, Lord Lytton spoke. He spoke of the one and a half million as a national insurance against famine, to be ap- plied (wholly or partially) in making railroads and irrigation works. "We are conscious of the reproach we should justly incur if, after such a declaration as I have now made, the prosecution of these necessary works were commenced, suspended, or relin- quished, according to the increased or relaxed pressure of annual circumstance, or the intermittent activity of spasmodic effort.' He then playfully bantered the failures of his predecessors, who. had promised much and performed nothing. He supposed an objector saying, "Promise is a good dog, but Performance is a better ; we have often heard the bow-wow of the first, we have yet to see the tail of the second." The present plan was to be of a quite different character. "We do not speak without having acted, and we promise nothing which we have not, after long and anxious consideration, provided ourselves with the means of per- forming." At subsequent meetings of the Council, Sir John Stra.- chey's assurances were reiterated. He could not give an exact reply to the question how the Insurance Fund would be spent ; but the great leading principle was, that local taxes were to be spent on local works ; the insurance was to be paid by this in-, Bused. But he declined to ear-mark the fund, the ground assigned being that, under many conceivable circumstances, t "it would be irrational to object to the temporary diversion of any necessary part of the revenue from this purpose, which might be no less urgently required than" in meeting famine.

All these assurances were given before the Bills passed, which was on February 9th, Nothing can be clearer than that the declared intention of the Government was to raise a fund, under a "sacred trust," to spend it on works adapted to prevent famines, unless prevented by some equally urgent necessity, which was not to be "any administrative improvement, or any fiscal reform."

On March 18th, 1878, there appeared in the Gazette a minute by Lord Lytton, which contained the following passages :— "The sole justification for the increased taxation which has just been imposed on the people of India is the pledge we have given that the sum of not less than one and a half million sterling shall be annually applied to insurance against famine. It was impossible to explain in detail the precise character of those administrative guarantees which the Government of India then bound itself to provide for the faithful redemption of the abovamentioned pledges. Owing to this impossibility, the manner in which the proceeds of the new taxation are to be

applied to the reduction of Debt is the only part of our financial programme as to which any mistrust of our sincerity has been indicated on the part of the community. For this reason, it is all the more binding on the honour of, the Government to redeem to the uttermost, without evasion or delay, the pledges for the adequate redemption of which the people of India have, and can have, no other guarantee than the good-faith of theb. rulers." He then goes on to discuss the modes of dealing with the Fund. On March 8th, 1879, a deputation of the British Indian Asso- ciation waited on Lord Lytton with an address, which began by stating their regret and alarm at the continued pressure from England for the repeal of the Indian import duty on cotton goods, and went on to assign their reasons why no revenue ought to be sacrificed in that quarter. Amongst other things, they referred to the fact that in a time of national tribu- lation the ' Government had put on new taxes to the amount of about one and a half million. Lord Lytton administered a sharp rebuke to such daring observa- tions. And as to the new taxes, he remarked, with "sur- prise and regret," that "you have entirely failed to recognise the fact that the sole purpose of the additional taxation you complain of [they had not complained of it], was the preserva- tion of the lives of the people of India from the effects of famine." Mid after protesting that the motives of the Govern- ment were pure, he added, "To insinuate the contrary [nobody had insinuated it] is to insinuate a calumny."

Now at this moment the financial statement of the Govern- ment of India must have been drafted, for it was published in the Gazette five days afterwards. In that document it is stated flatly that "the insurance provided against future famines has virtually ceased to exist."

Why, then, were cotton duties remitted to an amount esti- mated variously at from £150,000 to upwards of £200,000?

A large deficit is admitted, nearly £1,400,000. It is stated that the amount raised for the Famine Insurance Fund was about £971,000; and that if there had been no Afghan war, there would have been a surplus of 2605,000. Therefore I infer that if in addition the cotton duties had not been repealed, there would have been a surplus of about £800,000. Is it wrong to say that the Famine Insurance Fund was applied in payir , the expenses of an iniquitous war, and in enabling the repc...1 of the cotton duties; or that money raised ostensibly for one purpose was applied to another?

The reasons given for the repeal are partly that they are pro- tective, and partly the political pressure exerted by the English manufacturers. The statement attributes the deficit to loss by exchange, and treats the war very lightly. The war is not "any reason whatever for the postponement of a necessary fiscal reform." As to the exchange, the difficulties are great, "but they will not practically be aggravated to an appreciable extent by the loss of £200,000."

The broken pledges are not mentioned. On the contrary, "the propriety of the course followed by the Government last year in refusing to constitute any separate fund in connection with the famine arrangements has thus, it may be added, been justified by the event." And with this cynical observation vanishes away the "sacred trust" which was not to be violated under the temp- tation of "any fiscal reform., however wise."

Is this good-faith, or not P Lotus suppose that the" necessary fiscal reform" was not in the minds of those who proposed new taxation not to be applied to any fiscal reform. Good-faith re- quires not only sincerity at the moment of making a promise, but a resolute adherence to the promise, notwithstanding temptation to depart from it.

Charges of insincerity may be mistaken, or in the opinion of the charged person calumnious ; but they are certain to be made, if pledges are broken so very lightly. And when we find bodies like the Biitish Indian Association and the Madras and Bengal Chambers of Commerce making such charges, when we find members of the Viceroy's Council telling him that it is 'certain that the people of India will believe such charges, and not saying that they themselves disbelieve them, it is a very serious matter. As to the power which procured the repeal of the cotton duties, and the machinery by which the operation was effected, the question is, perhaps, even more important, but it requires fuller treatment than would suit your columns.—