and, if possible, to probe and solve, while there is time, remains grave, complicated, and imminent. I have been more bent on stating it than on attempting, here at least,2 to offer a solution. Its gravity and its complexity will be obvious as soon as it is fully realised. Its proximity will, I think, be plain to all who have watched and studied adequately the lessons which the very serious industrial distresses and conflicts of 1878 were suited to convey. These are not yet over, nor are their lessons yet laid to heart; and the warnings they are fitted to convey will be most adequately comprehended by those who realise at once the increasing influence of the operative classes in the political arena, and the warm sympathy which, in spite of their grievous misguidance and their perverse mistakes, their condition still commands among the thinking and stirring classes of the nation.

W. R. GREG.

? I cannot but think, however, that some useful suggestions to guide our consideration of this subject may be gleaned from two very interesting papers that have recently appeared in this Review. The first describes the system which prevails in France in dealing with the poor and destitute, from which we may gather how completely our neighbours across the Channel seem to evade the special difficulty I have pointed out in these pages as well as some others, by starting from a sounder principle. They have had, and still have no doubt, embarrassments of their own, some of them grave enough; but the particular question regarding relief to the families of workmen on strike seems never to have arisen, nor to be even contemplated as possible. The second article, on National Insurance,' pub. lished in the November number, though open to many objections and requiring to be carefully pondered, will, I believe, when thoroughly matured and cleared of some apparent omissions and defects, be found to contain the outlines of a scheme which may open a way out of many of our graver difficulties.

THE BANKRUPTCY OF INDIA.

FIVE months have passed since an attempt was made to show, in the October number of this Review, that if a large amount of official evidence and the testimony of facts and figures are deserving of credit, the people of India, as a whole, are getting poorer and poorer under our administration. Our public works, on which such enormous sums of money were expended, have been, and even still are, carried on at a dead loss to the population; and the unfortunate tax-payers are too frequently forced to borrow at usurious rates to pay the interest which the Government has guaranteed on these unprofitable investments. This by itself is a very serious matter where the bulk of the people are so miserably poor. Famines have proved conclusively that the gravest poverty exists in almost every district. During the past twenty years they have been very numerous, and the plan which is now adopted, of making the poorer classes of one province pay to keep alive the mass of the famine-stricken people in anotherthis process being reversed when the former suffer in turn-cannot fail in the end to bring about a terrible catastrophe. For there is grave reason to believe that the soil of India is undergoing steady deterioration in many districts, owing to a variety of causes. The liability to famine is therefore increasing whilst the power to support dearth is becoming less. Consequently droughts that formerly produced only a scarcity, now result in wholesale sacrifice of population and animals.

As to taxation, it has undoubtedly increased largely within the last twenty years, and in the opinion of men of unquestioned authority is now so heavy upon the great mass of the inhabitants, that any additions to the present burdens would not only be harmful to the people, but positively dangerous to the continuance of our rule. Above all, the constant drain from India due to a foreign administration, on account of the enormous home charges and excessive cost of European agency, renders the accumulation of capital almost out. of the question, and this-the gravest and, from some points of view, most hopeless feature in the whole story of our connection with the country-is growing at an increasingly rapid rate. Such, in brief, is a summary of the situation. A very poor people heavily taxed in proportion to their means, suffering constantly from scarcities which

the lack of savings converts into famine, a deteriorated soil, unprofitable public works, and over all a constant drain of tribute to a foreign state almost sufficient of itself to account for the growing impoverishment.

There have now been printed three official answers to the paper which contained these statements, and gave the evidence on which they were based. One of these, by Sir Erskine Perry, was published in the December number of this Review, another by Mr. John Morley, written upon materials furnished by Sir John Strachey and other leading Indian officials, appeared in the Fortnightly Review for the same month, and a third official statement was put forward anonymously in Fraser's Magazine, likewise in December. Now it is at least certain that we have in these three articles the full force of the official case. Sir Erskine Perry is a member of the Indian Council, and has been connected with India, in one capacity or another, for nearly forty years. Sir John Strachey is the present Finance Minister, and he has risen to that important office through all the different grades of the Indian Civil Service. 'D.' the writer in Fraser, is likewise an official. As, also, two full months elapsed, there was plenty of time to lay the India Office under contribution to prove conclusively that increasing prosperity which would completely overthrow the whole argument on the other side.

But whatever else has been shaken, certainly the general impoverishment of the people is admitted only too fully.

It is worthy of remark also that not one of these writers touches the origin and history of famines, save in the most perfunctory way. If, as I contend is the case, the last twenty years have been chiefly remarkable for the number and the severity of the famines in various parts of India-if, as is admitted by Sir John Strachey himself, the cost of providing against these recurrent misfortunes must be regarded as a permanent charge against Indian financeif they impoverish and weaken not only the population which they decimate, but those portions of the country which contribute to support the sufferers, surely it was the business of one at least o these official apologists to place on record his opinion as to the unprecedented frequency of these terrible events. What has Sir Erskine Perry to say to this? Not a word. What explanation does Mr. John Morley offer, in his forcible and lucid style, of so fatal an outcome of our system of government? The subject does not interest either himself or his official clientèle. At any rate, not two sentences are devoted to the matter. D.' is equally reticent, though he piles up figures on minor points with wearisome assiduity.

Surely then we have here a very significant and sinister omission. Consider this: Although eleven millions sterling are now put as the cost of the famine in Southern India; although the Government, when it appreciated the facts, strained every nerve

to save the people, yet, according to the calculations of the official statisticians themselves, 1,400,000 individuals perished of actual starvation in that great dearth. Other enumerations, made by men who had nothing whatever to gain by exceeding the truth, run the total up to at least 5,000,000 in Madras and Mysore alone. Nor should it be forgotten that this occurred under circumstances more than ordinarily favourable to the saving of life. There was no total loss of crop, except over a small area, and the means of communication were exceptionally good. To quote Lord Lytton: There are several railway lines in the south of India; a number of seaports are available on the east and west coasts; Madras possesses a better system of metalled and bridged roads than any part of India; much of the Bombay and Mysore country is also well supplied with roads. There was thus every facility for the free action of private trade.' But, all this notwithstanding, the result was that loss of life which we all deplore. Here, then, I say, are circumstances which absolutely demanded consideration at the hands of my critics. What better evidence of increasing poverty can be given than that hundreds of thousands or millions of men should die of starvation, with plenty of food to be had for those who could afford to buy it? What more deadly condemnation of our present system than that the unequalled exertions of the Government, seconded by the resources of private traders, could produce no better result? Take and read the famine reports, examine the arguments of the Madras Government against demanding arrears of revenue' from men who could barely keep body and soul together, and then again consider how it comes about that men of name and reputation, who are so fully satisfied with our existing administration that they can afford to strengthen their case with misstatement and ridicule, deliberately turn aside from such terrible blots as these.

6

Here, however, I would say, that I desire to reform not to destroy, to improve and not to uproot. A foreign Government always works at a great disadvantage, but under favourable conditions it may possibly confer benefits which outweigh its drawbacks. Our position in India is such that we cannot leave it now, consistently with fairness either to ourselves or to the native population; but we can at least lessen the burden which falls upon our fellow-subjects, and, by altering that which is proved to be objectionable in our management, render our connection with the country a gain to both parties. This, however, is no easy matter, and the vested interests, which day by day grow stronger, render the application of the only possible remedies more and more difficult.

I turn now to what has been urged against the general line of my argument. Before, however, dealing with such criticisms in detail, it may be well to note how far the official views are in accordance with those which I have expressed. I urge that the culti

vating class of India is excessively poor, that—owing chiefly to the want of capital-it is getting poorer, and that our attempts to improve matters have too often served but to aggravate the original evil. Now listen to Sir Erskine Perry: he has been in India many years, and has generally devoted his vacations to travelling all over the country mostly at a foot's pace.' Better evidence could not be. Here it is :

The dense population, amounting in its more fertile parts to six and seven hundred per square mile, is almost exclusively occupied in agricultural pursuits. But the land of India has been farmed from time immemorial by men entirely without capital. A farmer in this country has little chance of success unless he can supply a capital of 101. to 201. an acre. If English farms were cultivated by men as deficient in capital as the Indian ryots, they would all be thrown on the parish in a year or two. The founder of a Hindu village may, by the aid of his brethren and friends, have strength enough to break up the jungle, dig a well, and, with a few rupees in his pocket, he may purchase seed for the few acres he can bring under the plough. If a favourable harvest ensue, he has a large surplus, out of which he pays the jamma or rent to Government. But, on the first failure of the periodical rains, his withered crops disappear; he has no capital wherewith to meet the Government demand, to obtain food for his family and stock, or to purchase seed for the coming year. To meet all these wants he must have recourse to the village money-lender-[whence, by the way, did he get his capital ?]-who has always formed as indispensable a member of a Hindu agricultural community as the ploughman himself.

Surely, Sir Erskine Perry, a very 'sensational' statement this! No picture that I have painted of the poverty of the cultivator at all exceeds it in gloom. In what manner, however, have we set about improving the condition of these poverty-stricken people? Hear Sir Erskine again :

Every Englishman in office in India has great powers, and every Englishman-as the late Lord Lytton once observed to me-is in heart a reformer. His native energy will not enable him to sit still with his hands before him. He must be improving something. The tendency of the English official in India is to overreform, to introduce what he may deem improvements, but which turn out egregious failures, and this, be it observed, amongst the most conservative people of the world. Some of the most carefully devised schemes for native improvement have culminated in native deterioration.

Why, what have we here? A denunciation of our practice of continuous reformation irrespective of native habits and customs, and a distinct statement that many such schemes as have found favour with officials have but culminated in native deterioration.' But

once more:

Every ardent administrator desires improvements in his own department; roads, railways, canals, irrigation, improved courts of justice, more efficient police, all find earnest advocates in the higher places of government. But improved administration is always costly and requires additional taxation. I fear those in authority too often forget that the wisest rulers of a despotic government have always abstained.